Private Speed Cameras...Some Good News

cyrusdvirus

Looks like we don't need to worry about some neighbourhood busy biody hiding behind a speed limit sign anymore...

The Irish Times wrote:

High costs hit speed cameras
Tim O'Brien

Ministerial reply suggests plans for 600 privatised speed cameras announced in 2006 has been shelved over cost concerns.

The Minister for Justice Brian Lenihan has given the clearest indication yet that the Government's tender for the installation of private sector speed cameras at up to 600 locations across the State, has been abandoned.

In a written parliamentary reply to Kerry North TD Jimmy Deenihan, Mr Lenihan praised the existing enforcement efforts of the Garda, and noted that the number of traffic corps officers would rise to 1,200 this year.

He also pointed out that the speed detection vehicle fleet was due to be replaced this year. But he said the speed camera tender had indicated "substantially higher" costs than "had been previously estimated for the Government".

Mr Lenihan concluded that he would bring proposals before Government shortly "taking into account issues of value for money" and "the enhanced activity" by gardaí.

The Minister's reply is the most comprehensive public comment to emanate from Government on the camera tender, which was published on the Government's e-tendering website in 2006.

The Irish Times understands that in the past week the six companies which responded to the tender each received a letter from the Department of Justice outlining a review of priorities.

Well-placed sources said the companies involved were taking it that the contract for privatised speed cameras had been abandoned.

The Minister's comments confirm reports in this newspaper that delays with the contract were related to cost. The Garda estimated the costs in March 2007 at €25 million annually.

However, based on the specification of the Working Group on Speed Cameras, published in 2005, the industry said the cost would be closer to €50 million - still within the €70 million a year in revenue the working group estimated the speed cameras would raise.

News of the Minister's stance will come as a major disappointment to the Road Safety Authority (RSA), successor to the National Safety Council - the final two chief executives of which resigned, citing a lack of Government support for successive road safety strategies.

The authority chairman Gay Byrne, who last week accused the Government of passing the buck between departments, while members of the RSA grew more anxious, yesterday referred questions to the authority.

The chief executive of the RSA Noel Brett said yesterday he had not seen the text of the Minister's letter, and wanted to withhold comment until he did so.

However, he said he had written to the Government expressing anxiety over the issue as recently as last week.

Mr Brett has previously commented that the speed cameras were to provide up to 6,000 hours of detection per month. This was to be in addition to the enhanced Garda activity, increased numbers of gardaí and ongoing replacement of equipment.

The State-wide deployment of speed cameras was first promised a decade ago, at the launch of a five-year road safety strategy The Road to Safety, by the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, and then minister for the environment Noel Dempsey. Mr Dempsey, as current Minister for Transport, is understood to be supportive of the speed camera plan.

The ambition that the cameras would be privatised was subsequently incorporated in a road safety strategy in 2006.

Commenting on the situation, Mr Deenihan said he believed the Government had decided the strategy would be unpopular in the run up to the local elections next year.

maidhc

yay!

Commenting on the situation, Mr Deenihan said he believed the Government had decided the strategy would be unpopular in the run up to the local elections next year.

I get a kind of warm fuzzy feeling when I see that the government obeys the people rather than Gay Byrne.

Tails142

They estimate it will generate revenue of €70 million

70 million at 80 euro a fine - that's 875,000 fines. In a population of roughly5,000,000 drivers. Just assuming that people only get caught once in the year, that's 20% of the population with two points in just one year. Their figures seem a bit optimistic.

Mr Magnolia

\0/

Yay. Not that I speed or anything >_>

endplate

Great that means every half kilometer or dual carraigeway or motorway won't be littered with these pesky toys. (I don't speed but most people slam on the brakes when the see one as a reaction whether they are above the speed limit or not which I think is bloody dangerous). Bet Gay Byrne is rushing in his resigination now or probably not:D.

ballooba

Tails142 wrote: »

They estimate it will generate revenue of €70 million

70 million at 80 euro a fine - that's 875,000 fines. In a population of roughly5,000,000 drivers. Just assuming that people only get caught once in the year, that's 20% of the population with two points in just one year. Their figures seem a bit optimistic.

5 Million drivers? The total population of Ireland is 4.3 Million.:eek:

E92

Sense at last. thought I'd never see such news, but delighted obviously. Full marks to whoever thought of this wonderful idea.

Proves what anyone who is opposed to speed cameras has said though really, nothing to do with road safety but everything to do with making the Government money.


And obviously, anywhere I know that there are speed cameras, I wouldn't even dream of speeding. No way do our completely incompetant Government deserve a single extra cent more from me than is absolutely necessary.

Rovi

ballooba wrote: »

Tails142 wrote: »

They estimate it will generate revenue of €70 million

70 million at 80 euro a fine - that's 875,000 fines. In a population of roughly5,000,000 drivers. Just assuming that people only get caught once in the year, that's 20% of the population with two points in just one year. Their figures seem a bit optimistic.

5 Million drivers? The total population of Ireland is 4.3 Million.:eek:

According to the most recent figures I can find, there were 2,352,540 Irish driving licences of all types in 2005.
Bump that up to 2.5 million or thereabouts now, divide that by the 875,000 fines, and you get 2.86 fines/licence holder/year. :eek: indeed.

DOH!
2.5 million licence holders and 875,000 fines = 35% of the driving population (or at least, that part of it with an Irish driving licence) getting caught at least once a year, assuming each one gets caught only once.
Still :eek:

edited to add:
WOOT! 2000th post!

edited again:
Can we all say 'idiot'? :rolleyes:

Fey!

How would it cost €25M to set up 600 cameras? That's €41,666 per camera. I thought that the cost of these was around €10,000 each, which would be €6M. Add to that salaries for 6 people to service and look after the machines, and 4 people in an office issuing fines, and that's another half a million. Another euro per fine sent out (paper, envelope, ink, and stamp) for 875,000 fines, which is €875,000, and another million for replacement cameras for the vandalised ones. Another €200,000 for 8 vans assuming purchase rather than hire), about €10,000 for insurance, and €500,000 for "miscellaneous", which would include office rent, computers, printers, fax, phone, etc.

That's €9,085,000 including the €6.2M for initial equipment, which has a running cost of €2,885,000 per annum. With an income of €80 per fine, and 875,000, that's €70M income. Operating company take 20%, that gives them €14M, running a pre tax profit of €11,115,000, and leaving the state with €56M. At 20% to the private company, they'd need 180,312.5 speeders per annum just to cover costs (not including the €6.2M initial capital investment), giving the state €11,540,000 per annum.

Does any of that make sense; I've just confused myself...

blastman

It just shows you how these people pull figures out of their ass (not you, Fey )

D_murph

im delighted to hear this. if these extra fixed cameras had been mounted all around the country as planned, im sure i can guess where they would end up.

on the biggest roads with the lowest speed limits as usual despite whatever they were saying. easy money and that 70 million euros wasnt going to come in if they were put anywhere else.

all about safety, yeah right. they already had the profits planned out before figuring out how many actual lives might have been saved.

typical :rolleyes:!!!!!!!!!

Lord Nikon

Fey! wrote: »

How would it cost €25M to set up 600 cameras? That's €41,666 per camera. I thought that the cost of these was around €10,000 each, which would be €6M. Add to that salaries for 6 people to service and look after the machines, and 4 people in an office issuing fines, and that's another half a million. Another euro per fine sent out (paper, envelope, ink, and stamp) for 875,000 fines, which is €875,000, and another million for replacement cameras for the vandalised ones. Another €200,000 for 8 vans assuming purchase rather than hire), about €10,000 for insurance, and €500,000 for "miscellaneous", which would include office rent, computers, printers, fax, phone, etc.

That's €9,085,000 including the €6.2M for initial equipment, which has a running cost of €2,885,000 per annum. With an income of €80 per fine, and 875,000, that's €70M income. Operating company take 20%, that gives them €14M, running a pre tax profit of €11,115,000, and leaving the state with €56M. At 20% to the private company, they'd need 180,312.5 speeders per annum just to cover costs (not including the €6.2M initial capital investment), giving the state €11,540,000 per annum.

Does any of that make sense; I've just confused myself...

I need an accountant, your hired Fey.

cashmni1

Fey! wrote: »

How would it cost €25M to set up 600 cameras? That's €41,666 per camera. I thought that the cost of these was around €10,000 each, which would be €6M. Add to that salaries for 6 people to service and look after the machines, and 4 people in an office issuing fines, and that's another half a million. Another euro per fine sent out (paper, envelope, ink, and stamp) for 875,000 fines, which is €875,000, and another million for replacement cameras for the vandalised ones. Another €200,000 for 8 vans assuming purchase rather than hire), about €10,000 for insurance, and €500,000 for "miscellaneous", which would include office rent, computers, printers, fax, phone, etc.

That's €9,085,000 including the €6.2M for initial equipment, which has a running cost of €2,885,000 per annum. With an income of €80 per fine, and 875,000, that's €70M income. Operating company take 20%, that gives them €14M, running a pre tax profit of €11,115,000, and leaving the state with €56M. At 20% to the private company, they'd need 180,312.5 speeders per annum just to cover costs (not including the €6.2M initial capital investment), giving the state €11,540,000 per annum.

Does any of that make sense; I've just confused myself...

The other "big" cost is cabling the cameras. Running a cable or Fiber optic between the cameras and a centeral location that is on the Network. So you can get "live" feed and record accidents where they are actual cameras (like traffic ones) and just to network the remaining cameras together.

afatbollix

thats cctv cameras these are speed cameras with a film camera in the big gray box!!

maidhc

Fey! wrote: »

Does any of that make sense; I've just confused myself...

Either way it looks like it was going to cost more than it was going to earn, be wildly unpopular and make the roads no safer. Good riddance.

Btw I don't think you could run 600 speed cameras for €3m a year, or even close to it.

Steve

Looks like a BIG admission that speed cameras don't work.

If they expected to take in 70m (or even 20m) in fines, they are just saying that they expect drivers to keep on speeding and paying fines!!

If they believed the cameras actually stopped speeding then they'd have to project a very low revenue from them.

About as much use as motorbike ashtrays - the lot of 'em.

yayamark

This is bad news a lot of lives could have been saved with these cameras.

Now people are not going to slow down which means more accidents and unnecessary road deaths.

Oh no surprise really with this government.

Niall1234

Just as I was stock up on

- Black hoodies
- Explosives
- Gallons of petrol

Good riddance. All they do is generate € for governments. For once the Government is listening to the people and/or common sense.

Police bad driving better, not just excessive speed.

daRobot

neuromancer wrote: »

I need an accountant, your hired Fey.

I need a proofreader, you're fired neuromancer

_Kaiser_

yayamark wrote: »

This is bad news a lot of lives could have been saved with these cameras.

Now people are not going to slow down which means more accidents and unnecessary road deaths.

Oh no surprise really with this government.

There's always one :rolleyes:

The statement today clearly indicates that this plan was all about generating extra revenue, and NOTHING to do with inproving road safety - if it were, the cost would be secondary to saving lives and any revenue generated an afterthought.

On the plus side, maybe Gay Byrne might actually resign as he threatened to do, although I think this unlikely as he's far too fond of the spotlight to do so. After all, hadn't he supposedly retired years ago? Expect lots of indignant soundbites though!

All in all then a good day for motorists

_Kaiser_

Niall1234 wrote: »

For once the Government is listening to the people and/or common sense.

I'm afraid the people, or common sense have nothing to do with it:

Commenting on the situation, Mr Deenihan said he believed the Government had decided the strategy would be unpopular in the run up to the local elections next year.

worded

Great news.

eringobragh

Well my day just got better, excellent news.

Someone get Gay Byrne a tampon quick!!

D_murph

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

There's always one :rolleyes:

The statement today clearly indicates that this plan was all about generating extra revenue, and NOTHING to do with inproving road safety - if it were, the cost would be secondary to saving lives and any revenue generated an afterthought.

All in all then a good day for motorists

yep theres always one and its a fair bet that this one doesnt drive either, like the rest of em :mad:.

i agree also on the revenue bit. i did not see any mention in that statement about how many lives would be saved but i did read a lot about estimates of running costs etc being compared to the revenue that might be brought in.

i guess saving lives costs too much . just shows how sincere they really are about road safety :rolleyes:.

nothing new really to me or anyone who sees where the favourite spots for the local speed traps usually are. on big well lit roads with a lower than natural speed limit where there has never been an accident. guaranteed jackpot

i know there are exceptions but the most are for revenue when you look where they put them.

i guess they didnt make enough after all, beware all there'll be payback for sure.

a very good day for motorists all right

Stark

A network of speed cameras in accident blackspots would have been nice.

Good riddance to the Government's revenue generation plan though.

ballooba

D_murph wrote: »

i guess saving lives costs too much . just shows how sincere they really are about road safety :rolleyes:.

You know that the only reason road safety is an issue is because it costs so much? It's not because of the loss of the actual people. It's because it's an expensive way to die.

meathstevie

Great.

Now take a little cut out of that 70 million and hire a few extra ladies and gents for the Traffic Corps and start weeding out dangerous and stupid driving.

D_murph

ballooba wrote: »

You know that the only reason road safety is an issue is because it costs so much? It's not because of the loss of the actual people. It's because it's an expensive way to die.

i didnt think of that actually but it makes sense too unfortunately.

i reckon it looks bad politically as well so i guess saving lives comes third :rolleyes:

worded

meathstevie wrote: »

Great.

Now take a little cut out of that 70 million and hire a few extra ladies and gents for the Traffic Corps and start weeding out dangerous and stupid driving.

Completely agree the above


Road safety - Will someone please put a complete cycle lane on the widest capitals main Street in Europe - O'Connell St. How much does a few litres of yellow paint cost?

mick.fr

Fey! wrote: »

How would it cost €25M to set up 600 cameras? That's €41,666 per camera.

Yeah that is like the WIFI projet in Dublin, estimated to cost 25M euro to set up...I don't know who is calculating all of these, probably the same guy that add the sign panels after or in the exit on the motorways :-)

worded

mick.fr wrote: »

probably the same guy that add the sign panels after or in the exit on the motorways :-)

That would save a few accidents for sure.

Or the drunk person nailing the temp cats eyes all over the place on the motor way!

Is there any way that a www site could be made and people could log complaints / suggestions about dangerous road / motorway related issues and then actioned by the road authorities on merit? Start treating us "customers" with some respect instead of trying to take photos of us doing bad?

Seth Brundle

Hang on!
70million per annum @ €80 per fine = 875,000 fines
Presumably most speeding instances will still go unnoticed.
So, to me, the current policy is this: "lets install 600 speed cameras in the full knowledge that they will not work"
Is there actually a belief then that this will have a positive impact?

niceirishfella

From the release; Well-placed sources said the companies involved were taking it that the contract for privatised speed cameras had been abandoned.


I'd say these companies we mightely pissed off to get this news. They probably saw it like this -

* buy a high roof lwb tranny,stick the camera in the back, pay some muppet to man or woman it all day long clicking away and shooting fish in a barrel on the motorways of Ireland where shag all road traffic incidents take place and email in the pics to the pigs and whack out the nice juicy invoices and be sure to get paid prompty from the state cofferrs*

It was going to be money for old fooking rope!
It seems there is a god after all.

D_murph

niceirishfella wrote: »

From the release; Well-placed sources said the companies involved were taking it that the contract for privatised speed cameras had been abandoned.


I'd say these companies we mightely pissed off to get this news. They probably saw it like this -

* buy a high roof lwb tranny,stick the camera in the back, pay some muppet to man or woman it all day long clicking away and shooting fish in a barrel on the motorways of Ireland where shag all road traffic incidents take place and email in the pics to the pigs and whack out the nice juicy invoices and be sure to get paid prompty from the state cofferrs*

It was going to be money for old fooking rope!
It seems there is a god after all.

im sure theyre gutted now that the dream is over :rolleyes:

my heart bleeds for them, now theyll have to go away and get a real job instead

Niall1234

This is just one example where the motor lobby has to be more prominent in Ireland.

I don't know anyone who is pro speed cameras. Yet the government were thinking of installing them.

Aren't the government supposed to represent the peoples views ?

galwaytt

TFFT - camera's have no benefit to road safety - they just encourage 'accordian' driving - just ask the dutch.

They don't do anything for fatalaties, either - ask the UK. Speaking of which, now that the Home Office no longer allows the local authorities to keep a % of the camera fine income - guess what? - no more new cameras ! Woo Hoo. Just goes to show......it's all about the money.

If they were honest about it, they'd just invest in proper traffic Garda, and I don't mean covert, either. The more over the better, and not necessarily hanging around dual carriageways/N roads/motorways, either.........

Camera's don't detect drunk driving, dangerous driving, uninsured driving, and just plain goddamn awful driving. Those groups are where the accidents and fatalaities are............

And I still wouldn't trust any govt dept when in comes to scheme pricing. Multiply any budget by at least.........10? then you'll be closer to the real figure. PPars, eVoting machines, Blood Transfusion Board software..........the list goes on.........

jimmycrackcorm

Fey! wrote: »

How would it cost €25M to set up 600 cameras? That's €41,666 per camera. I thought that the cost of these was around €10,000 each, which would be €6M. Add to that salaries for 6 people to service and look after the machines, and 4 people in an office issuing fines, and that's another half a million. Another euro per fine sent out (paper, envelope, ink, and stamp) for 875,000 fines, which is €875,000, and another million for replacement cameras for the vandalised ones. Another €200,000 for 8 vans assuming purchase rather than hire), about €10,000 for insurance, and €500,000 for "miscellaneous", which would include office rent, computers, printers, fax, phone, etc.

That's €9,085,000 including the €6.2M for initial equipment, which has a running cost of €2,885,000 per annum. With an income of €80 per fine, and 875,000, that's €70M income. Operating company take 20%, that gives them €14M, running a pre tax profit of €11,115,000, and leaving the state with €56M. At 20% to the private company, they'd need 180,312.5 speeders per annum just to cover costs (not including the €6.2M initial capital investment), giving the state €11,540,000 per annum.

Does any of that make sense; I've just confused myself...

A fair proportion of the 600 cameras were due to be mobile units requireing staff, vehicles and running costs.

ballooba

D_murph wrote: »

i didnt think of that actually but it makes sense too unfortunately.

i reckon it looks bad politically as well so i guess saving lives comes third :rolleyes:

The only reason it looks bad politically is because the government puts so much focus on it. There are far more people dying from suicide than on our roads. Nobody shouts about that though.

A more likely secondary motivation is that businesses give huge money to the road safety lobby to campaign for better infrastructure. I would be willing to bet that the AA gets the bulk of it's money from corporate members.

Panda Moanium

galwaytt wrote: »

TFFT - camera's have no benefit to road safety - they just encourage 'accordian' driving - just ask the dutch.

They don't do anything for fatalaties, either - ask the UK. Speaking of which, now that the Home Office no longer allows the local authorities to keep a % of the camera fine income - guess what? - no more new cameras ! Woo Hoo. Just goes to show......it's all about the money.

If they were honest about it, they'd just invest in proper traffic Garda, and I don't mean covert, either. The more over the better, and not necessarily hanging around dual carriageways/N roads/motorways, either.........

Camera's don't detect drunk driving, dangerous driving, uninsured driving, and just plain goddamn awful driving. Those groups are where the accidents and fatalaities are............

And I still wouldn't trust any govt dept when in comes to scheme pricing. Multiply any budget by at least.........10? then you'll be closer to the real figure. PPars, eVoting machines, Blood Transfusion Board software..........the list goes on.........

Well said. The problem with speed cameras is that they can't apply any logic to a situation. Either you are speeding or you are not. No consideration of any other factors come into it.

One recent example, I was driving on a motorway at the speed-limit, cruise control on. I had pulled out to the overtaking lane to overtake another vehicle when, as I was almost alongside, I noticed that he in turn was catching up rapidly on a slower car in front of him. Rather than keep at my current speed and force him to brake I accelerated momentarily to get past so that he could move out to the outside lane. In doing so I probably was doing about 140 kmh for a couple of seconds before I returned to the speed limit. Now the thing was just as all this was happening we passed a parked Garda patrol car. Nothing happened, he would have seen the situation for what it was, no problems. If however, that Garda car had been a speed camera.....well I'd have two points on my licence by now....

_Kaiser_

ballooba wrote: »

You know that the only reason road safety is an issue is because it costs so much? It's not because of the loss of the actual people. It's because it's an expensive way to die.

That's it exactly. I was listening to the discussion on this last night on Newstalk, and they reckon that it costs the state around €2m per fatality - as mentioned already by myself an others, the only thing that is being considered here is the cost/revenue angle and of course, how it'll impact the upcoming local elections.

De Hipster

ballooba wrote: »

The only reason it looks bad politically is because the government puts so much focus on it. There are far more people dying from suicide than on our roads. Nobody shouts about that though.

It wouldn't surprise me to imagine the current government having paid a firm of consultants to survey how it might be possible to generate additional TAX revenue from suicide or potential suicide canditates...:rolleyes:

Fey!

Did anyone hear the FG politician on the radio last night claiming that 1 in 4 road deaths were directly attributable to speeding? And insisting that the speed camera should go ahead. He also seemed to be saying that the government hadn't scrapped the scheme; that they had just pushed it back a bit again.

ballooba

Fey! wrote: »

Did anyone hear the FG politician on the radio last night claiming that 1 in 4 road deaths were directly attributable to speeding? And insisting that the speed camera should go ahead. He also seemed to be saying that the government hadn't scrapped the scheme; that they had just pushed it back a bit again.

Which politician was this? Which program? I'm not denying it btw.

The official government line is that it's 'shelved' not 'scrapped'. Just like the eVoting machines stored around the country.;)

E92

What eejit in Fine Gael said that?

maidhc

E92 wrote: »

What eejit in Fine Gael said that?

Does it matter. You may as well ask which lunatic in the asylum...

Fey!

Unfortunately I wasn't paying enough attention to get the guys name, and it may have been an IRN report; I was channel hopping at the time. Sorry. The only reason it stuck in my head was the 1 in 4 comment; I wondered where he got his facts and figures.

Rovi

E92 wrote: »

What eejit in Fine Gael said that?

Probably Shane McEntee (LINKY):

13
Feb 2008
Govt inaction on speed cameras costing lives- McEntee

Fine Gael National Press Office Press Release

..................................................................

Leinster House Contact:Shane McEntee TD Dublin 2 Kerry Graye Road Safety Ireland 01-6183379

Wednesday 13th February 2008

Govt inaction on speed cameras costing lives- McEntee

Contract must be signed for speed cameras

Fine Gael's Spokesman on Road Safety, Shane McEntee TD said today (Wednesday) that Government inaction on life saving speed cameras is costing many lives. The tendering process for the roll out of speed cameras has been completed but the Government refuses to sign contracts.

"The cameras would cost in the region of €50 million, but they would bring in an estimated €70 million in revenue. The Government has no problem wasting taxpayers' money on the continued storage of e-voting machines, the PPARS fiasco and bloated bureaucracy in the health service, but for some reason, refuses to move on this vitally important issue.

"The Road Safety Authority, in its report 'Collision Facts 2006' stated that speeding was a main contributory factor in 26% of single vehicle fatal collisions.

"International experience has shown the positive effect that speed cameras have made in reducing road deaths. The French Government estimated that 75% of the reduction of road deaths there was attributed to the introduction of speed cameras. Sweden reported a 21% drop in fatal crashes, while in Denmark a 24% drop was recorded.

"Speed cameras have been proven as a significant deterrent to dangerous speeding. But despite numerous promises spanning ten years, they are still not in place in Ireland.

- They were first promised in 1998 (as part of the 1998 to 2002 Road Safety Strategy) and were supposed to be in place by 2000;
- In 2003 the National Roads Authority commissioned a study on speed cameras but no subsequent action was taken;
- In 2004, Fianna Fáil and the PDs again promised to prioritise speed cameras in the 2004-2006 road safety strategy, with a deadline for the end of 2006;
- In 2005 the Government published another report on speed cameras but again no action was taken;
- In 2007, having missed the 2006 deadline, then Transport Minister Martin Cullen announced they would be in place by summer 2007;
- 2008 - still no date for their implementation;

"The death toll on our roads this year stands at 38 which is higher than this time last year. Speeding is still widespread and is one of the most common reasons for accruing penalty points. Over 450,000 penalty point notices had been issued for speeding up to the end of last December.

"I'm astonished the Government refuses to move on this issue, when lives are at stake. This initiative has been on the starting blocks for ten years. Why are the road users of Ireland still waiting?"

ballooba

maidhc wrote: »

Does it matter. You may as well ask which lunatic in the asylum...

By asylum you mean the Dail I presume. Not Fine Gael.;)

Donie came out with a few howlers last week for Fianna Fail.

While I don't agree with Shane's policies on this issue, his statistic with regard to Single Vehicle Collisions are accurate. I would be of the opinion that it is misleading to present this statistic in isolation because the overall figure is much lower.

Fey!

I think that the use of point-to-point cameras (don't know the correct name for them) is the way forward.

you pass the first camera as you enter a stretch of road, and it records the time and your reg number. A couple of miles down the road you pass a second camera, which also records the time and your reg number. A computer then calculates the time it took you to drive down this known length stretch of road, and from that calculates your average speed. If it's above the limit for the road, then you get a fine in the post.

Unlike traditional speed cameras, these can be used on bad stretches of roads (handheld speed guns can't be used on very twisty stretches of roads).

Rovi

Fey! wrote: »

I think that the use of point-to-point cameras (don't know the correct name for them) is the way forward.

SPECS Speed Cameras?

Fey! wrote: »

you pass the first camera as you enter a stretch of road, and it records the time and your reg number. A couple of miles down the road you pass a second camera, which also records the time and your reg number. A computer then calculates the time it took you to drive down this known length stretch of road, and from that calculates your average speed. If it's above the limit for the road, then you get a fine in the post.

Unlike traditional speed cameras, these can be used on bad stretches of roads (handheld speed guns can't be used on very twisty stretches of roads).

That's all fine and dandy on roads with sensible speed limits, but I'd be of the opinion that they'd have little or no work to do on much of our regional road network with its current 80Km/h limit.
Trying to hold an average speed of over 80Km/h on many of the back roads around here would very quickly lead to tears.

Marcus.Aurelius

Great news, delighted to hear it. Greedy FF bastards just wanted to up the statistics for fines issued, nothing at all to do with road safety.

Fantastic bit of news for the overtaxed motorists!