Speed camera vans, cost to run V income generated?

Banjo String

Have to admit, I was completely surprised at this one.

It appears that it costs the tax payers €17m per annum to pay the operational costs of the private speed camera vans around the country.

The firm that operates the network of speed camera vans for the Gardaí received monthly payments of €1.43m last year.

The €17.23m paid to the GoSafe consortium in 2014 was confirmed yesterday by Gardaí, who also confirmed the current contract expires in November.

Have a guess how much revenue they have generated since 2010?

According to figures provided by the Minister for Justice, Frances Fitzgerald, GoSafe’s Fixed Charge Penalties from speeding fine detections have generated €18.9m in income between November 2010 to the end of June 2014.

Fcuking hell.

I'd like to know how the contract for this little earner was won.

Full story here. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/17m-for-speed-camera-firm-in-2014-314222.html

ectoraige

You'd almost think it was a road-safety exercise rather than just another tax on motorists and water charges ra ra ra

Generic Dreadhead

Slow news day? Gotta find something to be outraged about I guess.

astrofool

Banjo String wrote: »

Have to admit, I was completely surprised at this one.

It appears that it costs the tax payers €17m per annum to pay the operational costs of the private speed camera vans around the country.
Have a guess how much revenue they have generated since 2010?



Fcuking hell.

I'd like to know how the contract for this little earner was won.

Full story here. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/17m-for-speed-camera-firm-in-2014-314222.html

It's not meant to be an earner for the state, the target is around reducing the number of road accidents, not in taking in money.

This bit:
“Since its introduction in November 2010, the safety camera project has, in a targeted, systematic and transparent way, led to a reduction in fatal collisions and improved speed limit compliance rates in the safety camera zones,” she said.

“For example, in the five years prior to their introduction, approximately 30% of fatal collisions annually were occurring in particular zones.

“In 2014, there was a 50% reduction in fatal collisions in those zones and this was a saving of 29 lives.”

Menas

Ah, but these are not supposed to be money earners. They are supposed to be 'for public safety'.
A small price worth paying surely?

(Gets coat, runs).

Copa Mundial

And as long as the decent, kind-hearted drivers travelling in the opposite direction keep flashing the lights, they'll never prove profitable.

Muchos gracias.

Banjo String

ectoraige wrote: »

You'd almost think it was a road-safety exercise rather than just another tax on motorists and water charges ra ra ra

I'm all for road safety issues, and I'd half believe that this was their main purpose if they didn't constantly deploy them in areas where they're merely shooting fish in a barrel.

Leaving Dublin airport, and the N4 just passing Liffey Valley outbound as an example.

TheChizler

Wasn't there a thread started here last week on how they were purely a revenue generator and money spinner?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057380453

Post 11 is interesting...

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm all for road safety issues, and I'd half believe that this was their main purpose if they didn't constantly deploy them in areas where they're merely shooting fish in a barrel.

Leaving Dublin airport, and the N4 just passing Liffey Valley outbound as an example.

If they were shooting fish in a barrel then they'd take in more revenues.

Banjo String

TheChizler wrote: »

Wasn't there a thread started here last week on how they were purely a revenue generator and money spinner?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057380453

Post 11 is interesting...

Had to lol myself there.

Hey, I'm consistent with the airport and Liffey Valley point anyway.

floggg

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm all for road safety issues, and I'd half believe that this was their main purpose if they didn't constantly deploy them in areas where they're merely shooting fish in a barrel.

Leaving Dublin airport, and the N4 just passing Liffey Valley outbound as an example.

If they to be "shooting fish in a barrel", it would suggest that there is a lot of people speeding in those spots for them to catch.

In which case, surely that's exactly where the speed cameras should be, no? Little point in them setting up in places where everybody already adheres to the speed limit.

Banjo String

Braxton Muscular Dime wrote: »

If they were shooting fish in a barrel then they'd take in more revenues.

Or this might have something to do with it.....

The firm’s operation has come under scrutiny in recent months, with district court judges in Clare and Monaghan throwing out en masse GoSafe speeding prosecutions.

listermint

TheChizler wrote: »

Wasn't there a thread started here last week on how they were purely a revenue generator and money spinner?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057380453

Post 11 is interesting...

I would be more interested in how the hell we are spending 17M per year on this. How in the hell can that many vehicles cost 17M per year to the state to run. Its madness. You could emply the operators and lease the vans yourself for 1/10th of that.


And personally i think they try to shoot fish in a barrel. They chose the roads specifically for this purpose not doubt to close the gap on this crazy fee we are handing over every year.

It problem is there are not enough fish to shoot.

If anyone really thinks it road safety initiative then why do the chose the locations that they chose ?

im presently more concerned about the 17M and who gets this little money spinner next.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

listermint wrote: »

I would be more interested in how the hell we are spending 17M per year on this. How in the hell can that many vehicles cost 17M per year to the state to run. Its madness. You could emply the operators and lease the vans yourself for 1/10th of that.


And personally i think they try to shoot fish in a barrel. They chose the roads specifically for this purpose not doubt to close the gap on this crazy fee we are handing over every year.

It problem is there are not enough fish to shoot.

If anyone really thinks it road safety initiative then why do the chose the locations that they chose ?

im presently more concerned about the 17M and who gets this little money spinner next.

A tenth? Come off it!. 1.7million would go nowhere in payroll costs alone. When you take salary, employers prsi etc in to account you could employ less than 50 people, including administration staff, for that money. Add in employee and public liability costs, accommodation, vehicles, and all the myriad of other business costs to that as well.

stimpson

astrofool wrote: »

It's not meant to be an earner for the state, the target is around reducing the number of road accidents, not in taking in money.

This bit:
“Since its introduction in November 2010, the safety camera project has, in a targeted, systematic and transparent way, led to a reduction in fatal collisions and improved speed limit compliance rates in the safety camera zones,” she said.

“For example, in the five years prior to their introduction, approximately 30% of fatal collisions annually were occurring in particular zones.

“In 2014, there was a 50% reduction in fatal collisions in those zones and this was a saving of 29 lives.”

Year on year road deaths were up in 2013 and 2014. I therefore suggest that GoSafe cameras cause road deaths.

listermint

Braxton Muscular Dime wrote: »

A tenth? Come off it!. 1.7million would go nowhere in payroll costs alone. When you take salary, employers prsi etc in to account you could employ less than 50 people, including administration staff, for that money. Add in employee and public liability costs, accommodation, vehicles, and all the myriad of other business costs to that as well.

Are there more than 50 working for them? I wouldn't imagine there are.

kneemos

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm all for road safety issues, and I'd half believe that this was their main purpose if they didn't constantly deploy them in areas where they're merely shooting fish in a barrel.

Leaving Dublin airport, and the N4 just passing Liffey Valley outbound as an example.

Didn't Mythbusters shoot fish in a barrel.
Quite difficult if I remember right.

anncoates

So when the revenue generation angle appears to be debunked, it's now about it being a waste of money.

Guy:Incognito

stimpson wrote: »

Year on year road deaths were up in 2013 and 2014. I therefore suggest that GoSafe cameras cause road deaths.

If they are up every year speed cameras are in operation then it might go some way to backing up such a sill statement.

gctest50

A bit like speed-ramps, they're a poor effort at a stopgap ,

new cameras can nose at brakes and tyres :


http://img.ie/image/2RZ




cold hub = no brakes on that wheel

stimpson

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If they are up every year speed cameras are in operation then it might go some way to backing up such a sill statement.

For example, in the five years prior to their introduction, approximately 30% of fatal collisions annually were occurring in particular zones.

“In 2014, there was a 50% reduction in fatal collisions in those zones and this was a saving of 29 lives.”

Patting themselves on the back for saving lives when more people died on the roads. Perhaps people are now choosing to speed in different areas now because of the GoSafe vans and this is leading to the increase.

BoatMad

anncoates wrote: »

So when the revenue generation angle appears to be debunked, it's now about it being a waste of money.

bitchers bitch

Guy:Incognito

stimpson wrote: »

Patting themselves on the back for saving lives when more people died on the roads. Perhaps people are now choosing to speed in different areas now because of the GoSafe vans and this is leading to the increase.

Well unless they put a van on every road in the country, they cant monitor everyone.

listermint

anncoates wrote: »

So when the revenue generation angle appears to be debunked, it's now about it being a waste of money.

Yeah that's it.

Sure all public expenditure is great. More money for third parties let's fund everyone.


Applauds.....

mikom

Isle of Man

BoatMad

stimpson wrote: »

Patting themselves on the back for saving lives when more people died on the roads. Perhaps people are now choosing to speed in different areas now because of the GoSafe vans and this is leading to the increase.

I suspect we have reached the floor as regard road deaths and we will see increases and decreases

the next step is to engineer out remaining road issues

Guy:Incognito

listermint wrote: »

Yeah that's it.

Sure all public expenditure is great. More money for third parties let's fund everyone.


Applauds.....

So should they make no effort at all?

stimpson

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well unless they put a van on every road in the country, they cant monitor everyone.

So why spend millions of euros to move accidents from one place to another?

Desolation Of Smug

kneemos wrote: »

Didn't Mythbusters shoot fish in a barrel.
Quite difficult if I remember right.

Depends how tightly you pack in the fish.

Grays Sports Almanac

I drive so fast they never catch me.

BoatMad

Hollis Hurlbut wrote: »

I drive so fast they never catch me.

your car goes faster then light - goodness me. ( i know , then you wake up and your actually in bed with your teddy bear )

Grays Sports Almanac

BoatMad wrote: »

your car goes faster then light - goodness me. ( i know , then you wake up and your actually in bed with your teddy bear )

Only explanation. Flying around the place I am. Still no points.

BoatMad

Hollis Hurlbut wrote: »

Only explanation. Flying around the place I am. Still no points.

The suffix " yet" needs to be added.

goose2005

astrofool wrote: »

It's not meant to be an earner for the state, the target is around reducing the number of road accidents, not in taking in money.

This bit:
“Since its introduction in November 2010, the safety camera project has, in a targeted, systematic and transparent way, led to a reduction in fatal collisions and improved speed limit compliance rates in the safety camera zones,” she said.

“For example, in the five years prior to their introduction, approximately 30% of fatal collisions annually were occurring in particular zones.

“In 2014, there was a 50% reduction in fatal collisions in those zones and this was a saving of 29 lives.”

However, that could just be case of regression to the mean