Safe Speed Forums

If
(1) it is a criminal offence to exceed the speed limit, and
(2) speed cameras "pay for themselves" after just 500 flashes (500 x 60 = 30000 quid), and
(3) 90% (my figure based on gut feeling) of driving population speed at least once a month
Then
why don't they install MILLIONS of speed camera on the road network?
Surely this would greatly reduce criminality at no cost to the law-abiding citizen?

My cynical answer:
Speed Camera Partnerships are biotrophic parasites.
Their goal is to SURVIVE, hopefully comfortably, and maintain their select club under the pretence of "road safety" and "reducing criminality".
But they cannot kill the host (the motoring public) that they live off, so enforcement has to be "measured".


Acknowledgements: this train of thought was inspired by jamie duff in a nearby post in "General chat".

So by that rationale, they'd be dead against ISA (Inteligent Speed Adaption?) because that'd be the end of their revenue stream.

Not necessarily, their role could change come the end of hypothecation




I think the limited coverage is more to do with them gaining benefit from the illusion of RTTM. Full national coverage will conclusively show just how useless they really are, so they instead stack it in their favour by fudging the policy such that cameras are only installed where the accident rate is likely to fall significantly below the previous short term level, hence ensuring they are seen to get a good result.

Isn't hypothecation being abolished from the end of this year anyway?

I quite agree with supertramp's point, though. In theory, by the widespread use of covert cameras, the partnerships could pretty much issue as many tickets as they want to. However, there is a limit to this in terms of political acceptability and also in maintaining their revenue stream. A banned driver can't pay any fixed penalties (and neither can one in an unregistered vehicle).

_________________
"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

or maybe they will thrive and starve like foxes and rabbits

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code