Speed cameras 'not self-financing'

Capri

Chicken or egg ? Of course the chiefs were told by the makers they'd be 'self financing' but now that they're not, a new strategy will have to be found to raise revenue whilst pretending 'it's not about raising revenue'

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/speed-cameras-not-selffinancing-30422285.html

Speed cameras 'not self-financing'

Speed cameras around the country's roads are so effective that they cannot pay for themselves, the Garda chief has claimed

The privately-operated GoSafe mobile camera vans will cost the taxpayer 12 million euro more than expected this year, a parliamentary watchdog has been told.

Quizzed about how Garda bosses got their figures so wrong, acting force chief Noirin O'Sullivan said the road safety cameras were so good at deterring motorists from speeding that the number of fines are a lot lower than forecast.

It was planned that the money raised from fixed penalties resulting from detections would pay for the system, introduced in 2009.

"In terms of value for money, certainly in terms of saving lives, it is very difficult to speak about any loss of life or serious injury in monetary terms," said Ms O'Sullivan.

"Nevertheless one of the reasons the receipts are down is that the GoSafe cameras and the safety cameras are actually achieving their objective of increasing compliant behaviour."

She added: "The objective was always to reduce speed related collisions and as a consequence to ensure less lives were lost."

More than 500 locations targeted by the mobile cameras are published on the Garda website.

GoSafe won the 80 million euro five-year contact to operate them, which is coming to an end towards the end of this year.

Most recently reported accounts show the firm making almost 50,000 euro a week profits on the speed camera operation.

When Garda chiefs negotiated the deal, they were working on the assumption of only half of all motorists complying with speed limits at the designated spots on the nation's road network.

This was based on international comparisons, according to the force.

However, between 86% and 99% of drivers are complying with the law in Ireland at the speed camera locations, identified because of high numbers of serious accidents.

Superintendent Con O'Donohue, of the Garda National Traffic Bureau, said the controversial mobile speed camera operation was the first of its type in any jurisdiction.

The force was "moving into the unknown" in estimating costs, he told the parliamentary committee.

"It was difficult to bring in an estimate because of it was unique," he said.

Supt O'Donohue added that when the contract is up for renewal in a few months time everything will be "back on the table" in terms of its value for money.

Earlier this year, a judge described the failure of GoSafe to successfully prosecute alleged speeding motorists as "a complete waste of public money".

Judge Patrick Durcan was referring to several failed prosecutions involving the private company.

However, Ms O'Sullivan said the safety cameras had prevented 23 deaths of the roads.

pa990

The renewed contact may well take advantage of the anpr capabilities of the GoSafe vans, and incorporate motor tax checks.
This would need a change in legislation, but do able all the same.

That or go covert.

kub

pa990 wrote: »

The renewed contact may well take advantage of the anpr capabilities of the GoSafe vans, and incorporate motor tax checks.
This would need a change in legislation, but do able all the same.

That or go covert.

Both I would say, I wonder are the figures for the Garda unmarked camera vans similar to the Go Safe ones?

Bang Bang

I am not one for knocking road safety tactics but we are led to believe the privately operated cameras are positioned where road deaths have occurred?

One stretch of road in my working location has a Go Safe van parked regularly in one spot and in the years I've been working that location I know of no accidents occurring on that stretch of road, let alone fatal accidents. I asked a local Garda who has served that area for many years and they too had no available statistics to show any accidents.

So why is it parked there, is it because there is a by-pass running behind that stretch and the off ramp/slip road leads down to where the Go Safe van is regularly parked? The by-pass is 100kph limit whilst the bottom of the slip road is a 60kph. One would think that this was the classic shooting fish in a barrel whilst hiking up your profits catching motorists slowing down but have not yet lowered their speed to 60kph or less...

Sierra Oscar

Bang Bang wrote: »

One stretch of road in my working location has a Go Safe van parked regularly in one spot and in the years I've been working that location I know of no accidents occurring on that stretch of road, let alone fatal accidents. I asked a local Garda who has served that area for many years and they too had no available statistics to show any accidents.

I know for one of the locations near where I grew up the single traffic accident occurred over twenty years ago, I can remember it myself. No one can remember a serious accident on that particular stretch of road since though.

mikeecho

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcXMhwF4EtQ

kub

You are all aware what Go Safe stands for aren't you?

Go Sit And Fleece Everyone

Victor

The real saving is in the reduction in the number of collisions and casualties. The country's drainage system doesn't make much money, but we are happy that we don't have outbreaks of cholera and typhoid.

kub wrote: »

Both I would say, I wonder are the figures for the Garda unmarked camera vans similar to the Go Safe ones?

Garda-operated check points show a much higher rate of speeding.

Bang Bang wrote: »

ISo why is it parked there, is it because there is a by-pass running behind that stretch and the off ramp/slip road leads down to where the Go Safe van is regularly parked? The by-pass is 100kph limit whilst the bottom of the slip road is a 60kph. One would think that this was the classic shooting fish in a barrel whilst hiking up your profits catching motorists slowing down but have not yet lowered their speed to 60kph or less...

Sometimes there are problems ignoring the signs and failing to change behaviour after coming off a main road. Once you reach the sign, you are meant to be below the speed on the sign - that's the law.

Bang Bang

Victor wrote: »

Sometimes there are problems ignoring the signs and failing to change behaviour after coming off a main road. Once you reach the sign, you are meant to be below the speed on the sign - that's the law.

I'm not disputing the law and I don't need it pointed out to me as I made no reference to the law. If you read my post again you should take from it that we are being sold, and at a very high price, a package that states the private operators are being positioned on stretches of road where lives have been lost, when in actual fact this is clearly not the case, as clearly pointed out in my example of which there are many others throughout the country.

Thoie

How have they determined that the cameras have saved 23 lives?

Zambia

The cameras will pay for themselves in time. As much as I don't like them they do work.

The basic fact is if people don't exceed the speed limit they won't get fined.

If people don't speed logic dictates there will be less collisions or at least less serious ones.

The state could make millions in fines and reduce the road toll if it pulled its head from its rear.

The clip below shows how the state uses cameras here.

A closer look at the "covert" speed cameras

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL4DfBi1bCw