Safe Speed Forums

Link

Speed cameras 'cost more than they made in fines'
Mar 15 2007
By Hannah Webster


SPEED cameras cost more than they made in fines in the first year of the Surrey Safety Camera Partnership.

According to its first annual report, the partnership spent about £1.69 million in its first year of operation, while collecting approximately £1.44 million in fixed penalty notices for speeding and red-light offences.

This means a £250,000 shortfall, despite the report's claim that "the fines paid by motoring offenders, rather than taxpayers, met the first-year running costs of the part-nership",

Duncan Knox, project manager for the partnership, said the shortfall was compensated for by the Department for Transport (DFT).

He said: "It is still covered by the rest of the country.We are a bit unusual because a lot of other Safety Camera Partnerships have been running for a few years and we had initial costs.

"We said to the DFT it was clear we would not be able to break even in the first year and we would spend a few months recruiting staff.

"We need to break even over a 22-month period.

"If you want to know if it's worth it, it definitely is. If you think of the total number of collisions, the cost to society of trying to deal with the aftermath of crashes and of the person, it is far greater than the amount of money it costs to run the Safety Camera Partnership.Who can put a cost on a life?"

The report publishes statistics as to the specific expenditure across Surrey.

The Partnership spent £709,601 capital, including £337,935 for camera equipment and site costs and £185,660 for refurbishments.

It also spent £977,082 revenue, including £691,142 for staff costs and £99,710 for accommodation.

When asked how many police hours are spent manning the Mickleham bends,next to the fixed speed camera on the A24, Mr Knox refused to answer.

He said: "We have five cameras that are moved around our 18 housings throughout Surrey, and we prioritise at the sites that have the worst road safety record.

"If information concerning specific site data is released it could give the impression that the chances of being recorded speeding in particular locations was low, which may encourage higher speeds and hence casualties at those locations.

"An analogy to this could be the release of information to burglars as to how frequently certain areas are patrolled by police. This is obviously not a good idea."

To be honest, Surrey doesn't have many cameras and even then they are highly visible. They are also kind enough to make their vans easily recognisable from a distance.

But I wonder if that'll all change after hearing this news.

Well, hypothecation ends at the end of March, so they won't any longer have a direct interest in maximising the amount of revenue.

I've not driven there much for twenty years, but isn't Surrey known nowadays for having some of the most unreasonably low speed limits in the country?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Yep, there are some flat out rediculous limits. Where I live at the moment, I now have to travel many miles before finding a major single-carriageway road with a NSL. Plus there are lots of roads where villages are now "joined up" by 30 limits extended well into completely rural environments.

The end result is that speed limits (both silly and sensible ones) are often completely ignored.

Lots of NSL class roads with 30 and 40 limits and 1 or two motorway class roads with 50 limits. Most duals now have 40 or 50 limit.

It was a great surprise when the A320 between Chertsey and Thorpe Park had its' limit returned to NSL 70 after a few years as a 50. I'm willing to be corrected but, AFAIK, it's still the only 70 in Surrey that isn't on a motorway or the A3.

For Surrey as a whole, speed limits have been gutted since 1990 with, as has been said upthread, with virtually all of the former NSLs being reduced to 30s, 40s and 50s.

Padstow, I'm so impressed at the amount of time between you registering and first posting! 2 1/2 years!

Erm, , I guess!

This is the only example of a limit being increased that I have ever heard of!

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Funny that cos they already did so by telling us each death was worth 1 million in costs to the nhs, so a lifes worth about a million pounds......what an idiot.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Interesting we haven't seen the surrey scamera partnership gloating about 2006 stats. I guess even they can't switch from KSI to fatalities to suit the figures.

Surrey has systematically lowered every NSL to 30,40 and rarely 50. At the same time we have some of the most poorly maintained roads in the country

and the net effect

1994 68
1995 73
1996 68
1997 76
1998 57
1999 73
2000 73
2001 53
2002 66
2003 63
2005 64
2006 52

hardly any difference when you look at the long term trends

A35 Sea Road South. Was until it became part of the Bridport Bypass at which point the speed limit was dropped to for a while . After a year or two it became and so has remained.

Hope this link works

It's a pretty rare occurrence. The only other ones I've heard of are this 30 -> 40 at Easington in the NE (the murderscamps kept enforcing the lower limit until the day it was actually changed) and this 50 -> 60 at the accursed M4 bus lane (which is pointed out by our very own PeterE in the comments at the bottom of the page).

So, that's 4 increases so far, and about 4 million reductions (or so it seems). Amazing how the "maximum safe speed" keeps getting lower for so many roads despite nothing else changing. It's almost as if they're enforcing speed limits for some reason other than safety. Thank heavens we can trust them not to be so deceitful.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)