When this was introduced the vast majority of fixed speed cameras disappeared more or less overnight: Councils could not afford to run them without a revenue stream. Their budgets had been cut ~50% by that same government.
The government justifies this by saying “the war on the motorist is over”.
But it’s a funny kind of war. The fatalities are overwhelmingly caused by motorists.
@immibis@sooper_dooper_roofer@mondoman712 Why not? Elected local governments should be able to fund the maintenance of fixed speed cameras out of the fines received.
They can’t, which means, given enormous cuts in their budget largely the result of central government decisions, they could no longer afford to maintain speed cameras.
As a result, more motorists drive at unsafe speeds, and people die.
More speed cameras is a *GOOD* thing.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with enforcement paying for itself in this case.
My biggest issue with speed camera’s is the middleman corruption that follows them, and perverse incentives they create. Do cities make money on traffic lights? Are they removing them because they can’t make money on them? Why is it different for Speed Cameras?
@PowerCrazy They are removing them because they *LOSE* money on them.
They are, in the UK at least, not allowed to keep any of the money generated.
But they have to pay for the costs of running them.
And they can’t afford to because their budgets have been cut so far over the last 13 years of tory misrule that in many cases they can no longer provide basic services that they are legally obliged to provide.
Back when they could cover their costs, there were lots of speed cameras. Now there are very few. Because evil politicians, usually tories, have always sacrificed lives for political convenience.
Surely Building/Maintaining roads and traffic signals isn’t free? The council has to pay the costs of running those?
Why not remove/shut-down roads so they can avoid paying maintenance for them?
@PowerCrazy You’re saying we shouldn’t have buses, bicycles and ambulances either?
I believe we can reduce the number of cars by maybe 70 to 80% over the next few decades.
But there’s a lot to do to get to that point. We can’t flip a switch overnight to eliminate *all* cars without dealing with accessibility, housing, prejudice, new rail lines, a whole bunch of problems, some of which will take some time to fix.
On the other hand we *can* make significant progress by investing in public transport, especially buses, combined with some mildly coercive measures such as LTNs, reduced parking, lower speed limits, bike lanes, bus lanes, etc.
I’m just trying to follow the logic of removing the speed cameras because they couldn’t “fund them”. Why remove speed camera’s but not stop lights? Ultimately Infrastructure costs the government money, that is one of the fundamental things that government collects taxes for. So why a distinction between speed camera’s and traffic lights?
Are traffic warden fine being sent to the central treasury as well? Have they decided to fire all the traffic wardens, after all traffic wardens surely must be more expensive then speed camera’s.
@PowerCrazy Because they have a bunch of things that they’re legally required to do and not enough money to do them all.
Some of them are easier to downgrade, ration, or scrap, than others.
Central funding was largely eliminated, while local government can no longer increase its own taxes beyond a certain threshold (requiring a referendum), thanks to laws passed by central government.
So they have to cut something.
Speed cameras save lives. It’s politically easier to get rid of the speed cameras than to get rid of the roads. Mostly because our cities remain car dependent, and even buses depend on roads. Local government cannot get rid of cars for free; that will take a sustained national effort with considerable funding and political will.
Would you rather they cut the already very limited funding for helping old people who can’t afford their own care needs?
Of course it’s a political decision. But the cuts, the restrictions on raising taxes, and turning speed cameras from something that saves lives, enforces the law, and generates revenue, into a cost, are all carefully calculated to restrict local government’s choices and blame them for the central government’s cuts.
How can you be anti-car and still anti-speed-cameras?
And yes, the rule that the national treasury keeps the fines did not apply to traffic wardens. Central government specifically set out to cripple one of the main tools for reducing road deaths, to make a populist political point.
Though whether they make a profit on traffic wardens is less clear. A fair bit of enforcement is actually by the police, which is of course a different budget.
@immibis @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 In the UK, local councils pay for fixed speed cameras.
Central government confiscates the fines.
When this was introduced the vast majority of fixed speed cameras disappeared more or less overnight: Councils could not afford to run them without a revenue stream. Their budgets had been cut ~50% by that same government.
The government justifies this by saying “the war on the motorist is over”.
But it’s a funny kind of war. The fatalities are overwhelmingly caused by motorists.
@matthewtoad43 @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 I think the same thing still applies. Do you really want speed cameras to make profits? You don’t want to go down that road.
@immibis @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 Why not? Elected local governments should be able to fund the maintenance of fixed speed cameras out of the fines received.
They can’t, which means, given enormous cuts in their budget largely the result of central government decisions, they could no longer afford to maintain speed cameras.
As a result, more motorists drive at unsafe speeds, and people die.
More speed cameras is a *GOOD* thing.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with enforcement paying for itself in this case.
My biggest issue with speed camera’s is the middleman corruption that follows them, and perverse incentives they create. Do cities make money on traffic lights? Are they removing them because they can’t make money on them? Why is it different for Speed Cameras?
@PowerCrazy They are removing them because they *LOSE* money on them.
They are, in the UK at least, not allowed to keep any of the money generated.
But they have to pay for the costs of running them.
And they can’t afford to because their budgets have been cut so far over the last 13 years of tory misrule that in many cases they can no longer provide basic services that they are legally obliged to provide.
Back when they could cover their costs, there were lots of speed cameras. Now there are very few. Because evil politicians, usually tories, have always sacrificed lives for political convenience.
Surely Building/Maintaining roads and traffic signals isn’t free? The council has to pay the costs of running those? Why not remove/shut-down roads so they can avoid paying maintenance for them?
@PowerCrazy You’re saying we shouldn’t have buses, bicycles and ambulances either?
I believe we can reduce the number of cars by maybe 70 to 80% over the next few decades.
But there’s a lot to do to get to that point. We can’t flip a switch overnight to eliminate *all* cars without dealing with accessibility, housing, prejudice, new rail lines, a whole bunch of problems, some of which will take some time to fix.
On the other hand we *can* make significant progress by investing in public transport, especially buses, combined with some mildly coercive measures such as LTNs, reduced parking, lower speed limits, bike lanes, bus lanes, etc.
I’m just trying to follow the logic of removing the speed cameras because they couldn’t “fund them”. Why remove speed camera’s but not stop lights? Ultimately Infrastructure costs the government money, that is one of the fundamental things that government collects taxes for. So why a distinction between speed camera’s and traffic lights?
Are traffic warden fine being sent to the central treasury as well? Have they decided to fire all the traffic wardens, after all traffic wardens surely must be more expensive then speed camera’s.
@PowerCrazy Because they have a bunch of things that they’re legally required to do and not enough money to do them all.
Some of them are easier to downgrade, ration, or scrap, than others.
Central funding was largely eliminated, while local government can no longer increase its own taxes beyond a certain threshold (requiring a referendum), thanks to laws passed by central government.
So they have to cut something.
Speed cameras save lives. It’s politically easier to get rid of the speed cameras than to get rid of the roads. Mostly because our cities remain car dependent, and even buses depend on roads. Local government cannot get rid of cars for free; that will take a sustained national effort with considerable funding and political will.
Would you rather they cut the already very limited funding for helping old people who can’t afford their own care needs?
Of course it’s a political decision. But the cuts, the restrictions on raising taxes, and turning speed cameras from something that saves lives, enforces the law, and generates revenue, into a cost, are all carefully calculated to restrict local government’s choices and blame them for the central government’s cuts.
How can you be anti-car and still anti-speed-cameras?
And yes, the rule that the national treasury keeps the fines did not apply to traffic wardens. Central government specifically set out to cripple one of the main tools for reducing road deaths, to make a populist political point.
Though whether they make a profit on traffic wardens is less clear. A fair bit of enforcement is actually by the police, which is of course a different budget.
@matthewtoad43 @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 You know, they tried paying people to arrest people in the past, and it ended up with lots of false arrests and no accountability for them.