Use camera fines to fund more road policing?



E

ed_o_brain

Guest
I didn't agree with the road pricing petition that has recently
dominated the media, however it did inspire me to create one of my
own.

Tired of people moaning about speed cameras and how they have replaced
traffic police, it occurred to me why not use a proportion of the
revenue raised in fines from road safety cameras to fund highways
policing and better training of highways officers?

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roadpolicing
 
M

Matt B

Guest
ed_o_brain wrote:
> I didn't agree with the road pricing petition that has recently
> dominated the media, however it did inspire me to create one of my
> own.
>
> Tired of people moaning about speed cameras and how they have replaced
> traffic police, it occurred to me why not use a proportion of the
> revenue raised in fines from road safety cameras to fund highways
> policing and better training of highways officers?


Given that the money currently raised from speed cameras is spent on the
NHS, education, etc., would you expect other taxes to be raised to
compensate for the transference of extra revenue to the Police, or would
you expect more speed cameras do be deployed on a revenue raising basis?

--
Matt B
 
E

ed_o_brain

Guest
On 21 Mar, 14:46, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> ed_o_brain wrote:
> > I didn't agree with the road pricing petition that has recently
> > dominated the media, however it did inspire me to create one of my
> > own.

>
> > Tired of people moaning about speed cameras and how they have replaced
> > traffic police, it occurred to me why not use a proportion of the
> > revenue raised in fines from road safety cameras to fund highways
> > policing and better training of highways officers?

>
> Given that the money currently raised from speed cameras is spent on the
> NHS, education, etc., would you expect other taxes to be raised to
> compensate for the transference of extra revenue to the Police, or would
> you expect more speed cameras do be deployed on a revenue raising basis?
>
> --
> Matt B


Using revenue raised from speed cameras to fund the NHS, education
(except crime prevention) etc. seems morally wrong. Proceeds of crime
should be spent on reducing and preventing crime, not on propping up
services funded out of general taxation. After all, fines are not a
form taxation! And the whole argument presupposes that the revenue
raised from fines will remain the same or not drop significantly and
that sounds like an admission that measures to reduce crime will not
be effective or not intendeded to be effective?

I would also suspect the revenue raised from road safety cameras is
quite insignicant when compared with the overall size of NHS and
education budgets.

It would be interesting to find some figures on this, and also look at
how much the consequences of crime cost major Government Services.
 
E

ed_o_brain

Guest
On 21 Mar, 15:46, "ed_o_brain" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 21 Mar, 14:46, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ed_o_brain wrote:
> > > I didn't agree with the road pricing petition that has recently
> > > dominated the media, however it did inspire me to create one of my
> > > own.

>
> > > Tired of people moaning about speed cameras and how they have replaced
> > > traffic police, it occurred to me why not use a proportion of the
> > > revenue raised in fines from road safety cameras to fund highways
> > > policing and better training of highways officers?

>
> > Given that the money currently raised from speed cameras is spent on the
> > NHS, education, etc., would you expect other taxes to be raised to
> > compensate for the transference of extra revenue to the Police, or would
> > you expect more speed cameras do be deployed on a revenue raising basis?

>
> > --
> > Matt B

>
> Using revenue raised from speed cameras to fund the NHS, education
> (except crime prevention) etc. seems morally wrong. Proceeds of crime
> should be spent on reducing and preventing crime, not on propping up
> services funded out of general taxation. After all, fines are not a
> form taxation! And the whole argument presupposes that the revenue
> raised from fines will remain the same or not drop significantly and
> that sounds like an admission that measures to reduce crime will not
> be effective or not intendeded to be effective?
>
> I would also suspect the revenue raised from road safety cameras is
> quite insignicant when compared with the overall size of NHS and
> education budgets.
>
> It would be interesting to find some figures on this, and also look at
> how much the consequences of crime cost major Government Services.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Further more, looking at 2005/06 review for the local partnership,
they issued £2.8 million in pentalties set against an operating cost
of £2.4 million.

The way that road safety camera partnerships are run is set to change
in any case, from April 1st.

The other way of looking at this, is that any reduction in KSIs will
reduce NHS costs. (Either by preventing them in the first place, given
the number of uninsured drivers using our roads and by decreasing the
liklehood of drivers trying to dodge the system and drive without
insurance).
 
A

Alistair Gunn

Guest
ed_o_brain twisted the electrons to say:
> Using revenue raised from speed cameras to fund the NHS, education
> (except crime prevention) etc. seems morally wrong.


There's something to that, but see my comment below, and as you say it
does seem to suppose that the revenue from the fines won't drop. OTOH,
given the standard of driving commonly seen on the UK's roads I suspect
the government are onto a winner here ... <grins>

My only comment is wrt using money from the cameras to help fund the NHS
which actually seems reasonable to me. If you allow for excessive speed
causing/exacerbating accidents, and that the cameras do have some effect
on reducing this then using the money from the cameras to assist the NHS
pay for it's A&E departments seems okay to me ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
 
M

Matt B

Guest
ed_o_brain wrote:
> On 21 Mar, 14:46, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> ed_o_brain wrote:
>>> I didn't agree with the road pricing petition that has recently
>>> dominated the media, however it did inspire me to create one of my
>>> own.
>>> Tired of people moaning about speed cameras and how they have replaced
>>> traffic police, it occurred to me why not use a proportion of the
>>> revenue raised in fines from road safety cameras to fund highways
>>> policing and better training of highways officers?

>> Given that the money currently raised from speed cameras is spent on the
>> NHS, education, etc., would you expect other taxes to be raised to
>> compensate for the transference of extra revenue to the Police, or would
>> you expect more speed cameras do be deployed on a revenue raising basis?

>
> Using revenue raised from speed cameras to fund the NHS, education
> (except crime prevention) etc. seems morally wrong. Proceeds of crime
> should be spent on reducing and preventing crime, not on propping up
> services funded out of general taxation.


You would, of course, need to increase other taxes to replace the
revenue from fines. Which taxes would you increase?

> After all, fines are not a
> form taxation!


But the proceeds do go into the same pot.

> And the whole argument presupposes that the revenue
> raised from fines will remain the same or not drop significantly and
> that sounds like an admission that measures to reduce crime will not
> be effective or not intendeded to be effective?


They are strong a revenue stream, the flow can be increased by
automating the enforcement and collection, it is difficult to argue
against them because it is only the law-breakers who pay.

> I would also suspect the revenue raised from road safety cameras is
> quite insignicant when compared with the overall size of NHS and
> education budgets.


Yes, but would still need to be replaced.

> It would be interesting to find some figures on this, and also look at
> how much the consequences of crime cost major Government Services.


About 28% of the pot goes on "social protection", 17% goes on health,
13% goes on education.

In 2003/04 about £22 million went into the treasury from speed camera fines.

--
Matt B
 
M

Matt B

Guest
ed_o_brain wrote:
> ed_o_brain wrote:
>> Matt B wrote:
>>> ed_o_brain wrote:
>>>> I didn't agree with the road pricing petition that has recently
>>>> dominated the media, however it did inspire me to create one of my
>>>> own.
>>>> Tired of people moaning about speed cameras and how they have replaced
>>>> traffic police, it occurred to me why not use a proportion of the
>>>> revenue raised in fines from road safety cameras to fund highways
>>>> policing and better training of highways officers?
>>> Given that the money currently raised from speed cameras is spent on the
>>> NHS, education, etc., would you expect other taxes to be raised to
>>> compensate for the transference of extra revenue to the Police, or would
>>> you expect more speed cameras do be deployed on a revenue raising basis?
>>> --

>> Using revenue raised from speed cameras to fund the NHS, education
>> (except crime prevention) etc. seems morally wrong. Proceeds of crime
>> should be spent on reducing and preventing crime, not on propping up
>> services funded out of general taxation. After all, fines are not a
>> form taxation! And the whole argument presupposes that the revenue
>> raised from fines will remain the same or not drop significantly and
>> that sounds like an admission that measures to reduce crime will not
>> be effective or not intendeded to be effective?
>>
>> I would also suspect the revenue raised from road safety cameras is
>> quite insignicant when compared with the overall size of NHS and
>> education budgets.
>>
>> It would be interesting to find some figures on this, and also look at
>> how much the consequences of crime cost major Government Services.- Hide quoted text -

>
> Further more, looking at 2005/06 review for the local partnership,
> they issued £2.8 million in pentalties set against an operating cost
> of £2.4 million.


A single partnership? They all produced £22 million "profit" in 2003/04.

> The way that road safety camera partnerships are run is set to change
> in any case, from April 1st.


Yes. /All/ the proceeds will go into the pot (that would have been £114
million in 2003/04).

> The other way of looking at this, is that any reduction in KSIs will
> reduce NHS costs.


Not by as much as you may imagine. That is because since 1999 the NHS
has been compelled to reclaim the costs of treating road casualties from
liable drivers' insurance companies.

> (Either by preventing them in the first place, given
> the number of uninsured drivers using our roads and by decreasing the
> liklehood of drivers trying to dodge the system and drive without
> insurance).


The cost of treating victims of liable /uninsured/ drivers is paid by
the insurance industry, through the MIB scheme, funded, unbelievably,
from the premiums of /legally/ insured motorists!

--
Matt B
 
E

ed_o_brain

Guest
On Mar 21, 4:49 pm, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> ed_o_brain wrote:
> > ed_o_brain wrote:
> >> Matt B wrote:
> >>> ed_o_brain wrote:
> >>>> I didn't agree with the road pricing petition that has recently
> >>>> dominated the media, however it did inspire me to create one of my
> >>>> own.
> >>>> Tired of people moaning about speed cameras and how they have replaced
> >>>> traffic police, it occurred to me why not use a proportion of the
> >>>> revenue raised in fines from road safety cameras to fund highways
> >>>> policing and better training of highways officers?
> >>> Given that the money currently raised from speed cameras is spent on the
> >>> NHS, education, etc., would you expect other taxes to be raised to
> >>> compensate for the transference of extra revenue to the Police, or would
> >>> you expect more speed cameras do be deployed on a revenue raising basis?
> >>> --
> >> Using revenue raised from speed cameras to fund the NHS, education
> >> (except crime prevention) etc. seems morally wrong. Proceeds of crime
> >> should be spent on reducing and preventing crime, not on propping up
> >> services funded out of general taxation. After all, fines are not a
> >> form taxation! And the whole argument presupposes that the revenue
> >> raised from fines will remain the same or not drop significantly and
> >> that sounds like an admission that measures to reduce crime will not
> >> be effective or not intendeded to be effective?

>
> >> I would also suspect the revenue raised from road safety cameras is
> >> quite insignicant when compared with the overall size of NHS and
> >> education budgets.

>
> >> It would be interesting to find some figures on this, and also look at
> >> how much the consequences of crime cost major Government Services.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > Further more, looking at 2005/06 review for the local partnership,
> > they issued £2.8 million in pentalties set against an operating cost
> > of £2.4 million.

>
> A single partnership? They all produced £22 million "profit" in 2003/04.
>
> > The way that road safety camera partnerships are run is set to change
> > in any case, from April 1st.

>
> Yes. /All/ the proceeds will go into the pot (that would have been £114
> million in 2003/04).
>
> > The other way of looking at this, is that any reduction in KSIs will
> > reduce NHS costs.

>
> Not by as much as you may imagine. That is because since 1999 the NHS
> has been compelled to reclaim the costs of treating road casualties from
> liable drivers' insurance companies.
>
> > (Either by preventing them in the first place, given
> > the number of uninsured drivers using our roads and by decreasing the
> > liklehood of drivers trying to dodge the system and drive without
> > insurance).

>
> The cost of treating victims of liable /uninsured/ drivers is paid by
> the insurance industry, through the MIB scheme, funded, unbelievably,
> from the premiums of /legally/ insured motorists!
>
> --
> Matt B- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Matt,

Given the nature of your posting history, I don't want to get into a
long drawn out debate with you.

As far as I can make out, MIB may reimburse certain NHS medical costs
and compensate victims etc. but I can't find any evidence of it being
used to reimburse the provision made my traffic police, highways
agencies, fire service etc. after an accident.

I don't know what makes you think that the full £114 million issued in
penalties (quoting your figure) will go into the pot - well actually
it will as currently because it is down to the partnerships to reclaim
their costs in arrears - they don't take a 'cut'. However the
partnerships or whatever replaces them are going to have to continue
claim there costs from somewhere otherwise they will disappear into
thin air. If anything, the government want to see their scope
broadened to concern safety as a whole, not just road safety cameras.
I can't see the existing road safety camera infrastructure being left
to languish and gather dust because the funding as all of a sudden
dried up.

At the end of the day this is about making our roads safer, and using
funds raised from those who get caught by road safety cameras to
further that cause. Making our roads safer is an exceelent investment
in our infrastructure that we are sure to see a return on both in
terms of KSI reductions but also in a real financial sense.
 
M

Matt B

Guest
ed_o_brain wrote:
> On Mar 21, 4:49 pm, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> ed_o_brain wrote:
>>> ed_o_brain wrote:
>>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>>> ed_o_brain wrote:
>>>>>> I didn't agree with the road pricing petition that has recently
>>>>>> dominated the media, however it did inspire me to create one of my
>>>>>> own.
>>>>>> Tired of people moaning about speed cameras and how they have replaced
>>>>>> traffic police, it occurred to me why not use a proportion of the
>>>>>> revenue raised in fines from road safety cameras to fund highways
>>>>>> policing and better training of highways officers?
>>>>> Given that the money currently raised from speed cameras is spent on the
>>>>> NHS, education, etc., would you expect other taxes to be raised to
>>>>> compensate for the transference of extra revenue to the Police, or would
>>>>> you expect more speed cameras do be deployed on a revenue raising basis?
>>>>> --
>>>> Using revenue raised from speed cameras to fund the NHS, education
>>>> (except crime prevention) etc. seems morally wrong. Proceeds of crime
>>>> should be spent on reducing and preventing crime, not on propping up
>>>> services funded out of general taxation. After all, fines are not a
>>>> form taxation! And the whole argument presupposes that the revenue
>>>> raised from fines will remain the same or not drop significantly and
>>>> that sounds like an admission that measures to reduce crime will not
>>>> be effective or not intendeded to be effective?
>>>> I would also suspect the revenue raised from road safety cameras is
>>>> quite insignicant when compared with the overall size of NHS and
>>>> education budgets.
>>>> It would be interesting to find some figures on this, and also look at
>>>> how much the consequences of crime cost major Government Services.- Hide quoted text -
>>> Further more, looking at 2005/06 review for the local partnership,
>>> they issued £2.8 million in pentalties set against an operating cost
>>> of £2.4 million.

>> A single partnership? They all produced £22 million "profit" in 2003/04.
>>
>>> The way that road safety camera partnerships are run is set to change
>>> in any case, from April 1st.

>> Yes. /All/ the proceeds will go into the pot (that would have been £114
>> million in 2003/04).
>>
>>> The other way of looking at this, is that any reduction in KSIs will
>>> reduce NHS costs.

>> Not by as much as you may imagine. That is because since 1999 the NHS
>> has been compelled to reclaim the costs of treating road casualties from
>> liable drivers' insurance companies.
>>
>>> (Either by preventing them in the first place, given
>>> the number of uninsured drivers using our roads and by decreasing the
>>> liklehood of drivers trying to dodge the system and drive without
>>> insurance).

>> The cost of treating victims of liable /uninsured/ drivers is paid by
>> the insurance industry, through the MIB scheme, funded, unbelievably,
>> from the premiums of /legally/ insured motorists!

>
> Given the nature of your posting history, I don't want to get into a
> long drawn out debate with you.


Your choice. I was just making sure you were aware that any money
raised (profit) from cameras is already spent. As it goes into the
central pot it is spent proportionately as the pot is spent. If more is
to go to police then less has to go elsewhere, or more has to be raised
from somewhere.

> As far as I can make out, MIB may reimburse certain NHS medical costs
> and compensate victims etc. but I can't find any evidence of it being
> used to reimburse the provision made my traffic police, highways
> agencies, fire service etc. after an accident.


It was the health service cost I was commenting on. AIUI the fire
service can also claim from liable motorists.

> I don't know what makes you think that the full £114 million issued in
> penalties (quoting your figure) will go into the pot - well actually
> it will


Exactly.

> as currently because it is down to the partnerships to reclaim
> their costs in arrears - they don't take a 'cut'.


So will be funded from the pot as all else is.

> However the
> partnerships or whatever replaces them are going to have to continue
> claim there costs from somewhere otherwise they will disappear into
> thin air.


They'll be paid centrally.

> If anything, the government want to see their scope
> broadened to concern safety as a whole, not just road safety cameras.
> I can't see the existing road safety camera infrastructure being left
> to languish and gather dust because the funding as all of a sudden
> dried up.


Let's hope more is spent on sensible and sustainable road design.

> At the end of the day this is about making our roads safer,


Couldn't agree more.

> and using
> funds raised from those who get caught by road safety cameras to
> further that cause.


But withdrawing it from the uses it's already put to.

> Making our roads safer is an exceelent investment
> in our infrastructure that we are sure to see a return on both in
> terms of KSI reductions but also in a real financial sense.


Yes, it's a pity so much time and money has been wasted so far.

--
Matt B