It used to be called hypothecation. Basically, it’s in the interests of councils or camera partnerships to increase detection and conviction as it becomes a self inflating cycle. More they catch, more they can claim. The real beneficiaries are those very people, and of course those who supply and maintain the equipment. The actual money is peanuts, so to criticise speeding fines as cash raising is inaccurate-a £5 rise in VED would exceed the money raised from these fines times over, without all the buggering about installing and operating cameras, and issuing the tickets. It seems to me to not really be about changing driver behaviour, as success would be measured by a diminishing need for cameras etc, and a lowering of conviction rates.
If the whole country didn’t speed for a defined amount of time I wonder if the shortfall in revenue would put people of of jobs and camera vans, cameras etc would disappear.
Also I thought the level of fine for someone caught speeding was dictated by the amount above the limit once a fixed penalty cannot be issued, the weather and how much someone earns, which then suggests it is very lucrative catching people speeding.
Sliding towards? We are in it now. They’ve just put up a traffic camera at the top of our street. I’m pretty certain they can monitor me walking out of my house and all the way into town these days. Add that to all the private door bell cameras and motorists cameras and I think my entire life outside the house could be filmed if someone was that bored…
It still took the ambulance over half an hour to get to a motorcycle accident outside the house a few weeks back and the police didn’t arrive for another 15 to 20 mins after that. Still it’s an improvement over a few years back when another bike had an accident outside and it took the ambulance 45mins to arrive. In both cases the bikers were lying in the middle of the road all the time. So they can see it but they can’t respond.