Speed camera mega-thread ***Read first post before posting***

-Chris-

jimmynokia wrote: »

thats not answering my question,given the current status of our finances do you think its right to put money into the go safe operation if figures drop substantially and its deemed a loss making company.

It's exactly answering your question - if a project or service is deemed to have a social good, it doesn't have to cover its costs.

jimmynokia

-Chris- wrote: »

It's exactly answering your question - if a project or service is deemed to have a social good, it doesn't have to cover its costs.

so who pays? us! a 1 million deficit per anum is not something viable really is it

-Chris-

jimmynokia wrote: »

so who pays? us! a 1 million deficit per anum is not something viable really is it

Of course we pay, I don't understand what you're arguing about.

If the Gardai turn up to your house because you've had a break-in, they don't issue you with an invoice.
If you attended a public primary or secondary school, your parents didn't have to pay the entire cost of the schooling directly to the school.

Our taxes pay for services that are of benefit to society. Those services are not expected to cover their own costs or post a profit.

Simples!

jimmynokia

-Chris- wrote: »

Of course we pay, I don't understand what you're arguing about.

If the Gardai turn up to your house because you've had a break-in, they don't issue you with an invoice.
If you attended a public primary or secondary school, your parents didn't have to pay the entire cost of the schooling directly to the school.

Our taxes pay for services that are of benefit to society. Those services are not expected to cover their own costs or post a profit.

Simples!

Im arguing the fact that there is 1 million going to waste when we already have enough issues going on,and yes im a parent and have to pay for everything for my child to go to school.the gardai dont issue an invoice,nothing to do with topic insurance covers that the gardai verify break in.
So if you owned a business thats loss making would you continue to operate,hence figures that are visible now drivers hopefully will wake up and what happens when this operation becomes unsustainable.
Already it is loss making at our expense when the gardai caught more drives in the same time frame is there really a need?

would it not be cheaper to get proper fixed unmanned cameras with a monthly service for example.

Sundy

jimmynokia wrote: »

Im arguing the fact that there is 1 million going to waste when we already have enough issues going on,and yes im a parent and have to pay for everything for my child to go to school.the gardai dont issue an invoice,nothing to do with topic insurance covers that the gardai verify break in.
So if you owned a business thats loss making would you continue to operate,hence figures that are visible now drivers hopefully will wake up and what happens when this operation becomes unsustainable.
Already it is loss making at our expense when the gardai caught more drives in the same time frame is there really a need?

would it not be cheaper to get proper fixed unmanned cameras with a monthly service for example.

Why do you send you kid to a private fee paying school then?

You could say the same about traffic lights, they make us absolutely no money so we should get rid of them

1m is nothing in the greater scheme of things anyway.

-Chris-

jimmynokia wrote: »

Im arguing the fact that there is 1 million going to waste when we already have enough issues going on,and yes im a parent and have to pay for everything for my child to go to school.the gardai dont issue an invoice,nothing to do with topic insurance covers that the gardai verify break in.
So if you owned a business thats loss making would you continue to operate,hence figures that are visible now drivers hopefully will wake up and what happens when this operation becomes unsustainable.
Already it is loss making at our expense when the gardai caught more drives in the same time frame is there really a need?

would it not be cheaper to get proper fixed unmanned cameras with a monthly service for example.

Again, private businesses and public services are different things with different motives.

If I had a private company that was losing €1m a year and I had no way of fixing that, of course I'd close it.

If the government has a speed camera network that only costs them €1m a year but helps to drop the road death toll significantly, frees up Garda resources for other duties, and creates direct savings by having less people being injured in RTCs and requiring state-funded ambulances, hospitals, doctors etc, I'm sure they consider that a relative bargain.

jimmynokia

-Chris- wrote: »

Again, private businesses and public services are different things with different motives.

If I had a private company that was losing €1m a year and I had no way of fixing that, of course I'd close it.

If the government has a speed camera network that only costs them €1m a year but helps to drop the road death toll significantly, frees up Garda resources for other duties, and creates direct savings by having less people being injured in RTCs and requiring state-funded ambulances, hospitals, doctors etc, I'm sure they consider that a relative bargain.

A 1 MILLION LOSS BARGAIN super stuff!
ok thats that anymore super bargains around?

jimmynokia

Sundy wrote: »

Why do you send you kid to a private fee paying school then?

You could say the same about traffic lights, they make us absolutely no money so we should get rid of them

1m is nothing in the greater scheme of things anyway.

traffic lights lol! is that your argument?

what about indicators on your car?

-Chris-

jimmynokia wrote: »

A 1 MILLION LOSS BARGAIN super stuff!
ok thats that anymore super bargains around?

I dunno what else to say!

Public Services aren't expected to cover their costs due to their benefits to society.

That's all.

It BeeMee

jimmynokia wrote: »

A 1 MILLION LOSS BARGAIN super stuff!
ok thats that anymore super bargains around?

Given the cost of one fatal accident is estimated at over €2m, they only have to save one life every 2 years to pay for themselves.

Surely that IS a bargain?

Our man in Havana

That is propaganda.

cast_iron

Our man in Havana wrote: »

That is propaganda.

Perhaps, but it doesn't take from the facts, even if the actual cost is much lower.

cyclopath2001

Our man in Havana wrote: »

That is propaganda.

The association of British Drivers think there is some truth to the estimate

Serious accidents devastate lives, impose a burden on society and put up insurance premiums. You might find these facts discomforting but it' not propaganda.

Our man in Havana

I couldn't give a fig.

ironclaw

Hang on, maybe I'm missing something, but since February, GoSafe have caught 100,000 people at €80 (Minimum each) which is € 8,000,000. So breaking that down, its roughly €1221 an hour (24/7) or 30k a day.

Adding to that the money they received as part of the tender, there is no way in hell they are loss making. Even without the tender, I can't see how it could be a loss making venture. What I'd really want to see are GoSafe's end of year figures (I note they're aren't on the CRO)?

savagecabbages

ironclaw wrote: »

Hang on, maybe I'm missing something, but since February, GoSafe have caught 100,000 people at €80 (Minimum each) which is € 8,000,000. So breaking that down, its roughly €1221 an hour (24/7) or 30k a day.

Adding to that the money they received as part of the tender, there is no way in hell they are loss making. Even without the tender, I can't see how it could be a loss making venture. What I'd really want to see are GoSafe's end of year figures (I note they're aren't on the CRO)?

Unless the cost of all the vans & setup of the depots is being factored into these first few reports... I can't figure this out myself either

jimmynokia

Interesting!

Eric Cartman

savagecabbages wrote: »

Unless the cost of all the vans & setup of the depots is being factored into these first few reports... I can't figure this out myself either

to be fair , even if the vans cost 100k a piece to buy and keep on the road for 1 year (anyone know what one of these costs ?) id say the vans and all were paid for within 6 months

-Chris-

I thought the deal was that GoSafe were paid a set amount per monitoring hour, rather than being paid per "catch".

Has that been changed?

If it hasn't, then surely the way it's working is that the gov't are paying GoSafe €13m for monitoring, and this year GoSafe have collected €12m or so that they will return to the gov't.
So all the discussion of set up costs etc. is really pretty moot, as you'd have to presume GoSafe's finance director has crunched the numbers far better than we can, and worked out that they can turn a profit based on the amount they're charging per monitoring hour...

cast_iron

-Chris- wrote: »

If it hasn't, then surely the way it's working is that the gov't are paying GoSafe €13m for monitoring, and this year GoSafe have collected €12m or so that they will return to the gov't.
So all the discussion of set up costs etc. is really pretty moot, as you'd have to presume GoSafe's finance director has crunched the numbers far better than we can, and worked out that they can turn a profit based on the amount they're charging per monitoring hour...

Exactly. Go Safe's operating costs are irrelevant. They get paid a fixed amount either way. The fines taken in offset Go Safe's fee, and any profit or loss is picked up by the government.

Iwannahurl

ironclaw wrote: »

Having spent the previous 3 and the next 2 years in Degree / Masters Engineering, I don't need an internet troll quoting me physic's.

Alexander Pope was right.

Whatever about recent academic qualifications in Engineering and alleged knowledge of "physic's", holding a driving licence (in your case for a tad under three years) clearly does not confer a high degree of 'road sense'.

This is why I disagree with those who prefer to emphasise driver education over traffic law enforcement. Speed cameras, speeding fines, penalty points and other enforcement measures have a way of concentrating minds, raising awareness and changing attitudes that 'theory' apparently doesn't.

SeanW

-Chris- wrote: »

But I thought it was about speed detection and safety, not revenue generation?

What this says to me is the penalties are perfectly set, but they need more vans or more survey hours to increase the numbers of people "dissuaded from exceeding the speedlimit".

Getting the system to be profitable, and increasing fines to cover costs, is surely completely against the whole Safety agenda that the defenders of this system believe in.

Surely the measure of success is not how much money it raises, or the absolute number of drivers who are caught, rather how many lives are saved on our roads (what do the statistics look like this year anyway?).

It nearly sounds like you want these cameras to generate more revenue, rather than increase safety...

Don't feed the lunatic extremist troll. I was debating the issue of speed limits with this clown some time ago and I got the impression that as far as he was concerned:

1. There's no such thing as a speed limit that is too low. Ever.
2. There is no measure that could be considered excessive when it comes to speed limit enforcement.

For example, from Ennis town to the M/N18, the N85 is a Type 1 Dual carriageway the whole way. It's also 50kph speed limt, for its entirity.
See here.
But Yet, if you dare to drive on it at 55 or 60kph :eek: you're one of the 85% or whatever of evil law breaking scumbag motorists and nothing is too severe - at minimum including GPS monitoring of all cars, to track you down and punish you, harshly, you scumbag P.O.S.


Maybe if we just ignore him, he will just go away.

JamesBond2010

-Chris- wrote: »

Link?

sorry thats was doing by mobile & i was reading of a paper paper:D:D

JamesBond2010

jimmynokia wrote: »

licence to print money in other words

tnx jimmy this was the exact one i was reading.


sorry was just reading the previous pages...
The limerick tunnel is supposed to be nearly loss making now they are not getting the money/traffic they expected. they are going raising the toll in January... so we are paying for it now:D:D:D

JamesBond2010

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The association of British Drivers think there is some truth to the estimate

Serious accidents devastate lives, impose a burden on society and put up insurance premiums. You might find these facts discomforting but it' not propaganda.

that is over 8 yrs old we have been through a boom and in a recession now, & as u said to me before that is something from the uk & not ireland.so it would be different.

cyclopath2001

JamesBond2010 wrote: »

that is over 8 yrs old we have been through a boom and in a recession now, & as u said to me before that is something from the uk & not ireland.so it would be different.

The concept that deaths and injuries on the road have a cost to society is valid.

Self-regulation by drivers is not an option.

JamesBond2010

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The concept that deaths and injuries on the road have a cost to society is valid.

Self-regulation by drivers is not an option.

i was on about financial cost, ur on about the other cost are u ??

It BeeMee

ironclaw wrote: »

Hang on, maybe I'm missing something, but since February, GoSafe have caught 100,000 people at €80 (Minimum each) which is € 8,000,000. So breaking that down, its roughly €1221 an hour (24/7) or 30k a day.

Adding to that the money they received as part of the tender, there is no way in hell they are loss making. Even without the tender, I can't see how it could be a loss making venture. What I'd really want to see are GoSafe's end of year figures (I note they're aren't on the CRO)?

I doubt GoSafe themselves are loss making. It's the fact they generate 12m income for the government against a 13m expenditure that seems to be the problem.

But consider this before condemning the "waste of money". The contract has, what two more years to run? You can be sure the contract has a sweet get out clause for GoSafe that will guarantee them a hefty pay-off in the event of the contract being terminated - look at the toll roads contracts as an example.

So if the government pull the plug as the scheme is "loss making", they will probably have to pay at least 50% of the money over without any possibility of an income return. In reality, that's a non runner.

That leaves two options: take the million a year hit as an acceptable cost for the drop in road fatalities (whether directly linked or not)

The second option is to increase the revenue generated by GoSafe. That means lowering the tolerance so instead of, say, only ticketing anyone that's over 108% of the limit, ticket anyone driving more than 105% of the limit. IF that doesn't work, drop to 104%, 103% and so on.

So be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

cyclopath2001

It BeeMee wrote: »

The second option is to increase the revenue generated by GoSafe. That means lowering the tolerance so instead of, say, only ticketing anyone that's over 108% of the limit, ticket anyone driving more than 105% of the limit. IF that doesn't work, drop to 104%, 103% and so on.

While this might work in the short term, it would be self-defeating as eventually drivers would rack up enough points to lose their licenses and would no longer be 'customers' for the cameras.

The socially desirable goal of speed cameras should be to put themselves out of business.

Going Forward

http://www.rsa.ie/Global/Presentations/Supt%20Con%20O'Donohue's%20presentation.pdf

"Payment is on the basis of monitoring / survey hours
(not detections)"