Sippo
Living in the 80s
 Offline
Posts: 15616
I ain't gettin on no plane fool
|
 |
« on: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 07:16:08 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit...
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
Offline
Posts: 57831
|
|
« Reply #1 on: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 08:02:10 » |
|
[pedant]
Swindon isn't a county.
[/pedant]
As I understand it the issue is really about how much cash the council is getting back from fines v how much it costs to install and maintain the cameras that generate it.
I think the implication was that the Government creams off some of the fine money, which surprised me as I always thought 100% of that came back.
Anywho, even if the council withdraw funding to the partnership their is no guarantee that they won't be funded from other sources.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
@MacPhlea
Offline
Posts: 2325
|
|
« Reply #2 on: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 08:34:48 » |
|
The way it works is the governement get the council to declare how much they 'think' will take from speed cameras and as a result that is how much they get to keep - anything more and the governement get to keep the surplus anything less and the council has to pay the difference back to the government- hence why it is considered a stealth tax rather than a road safety initiative.
As you can imgine most councils under estimate how much they will earn from fines because they don't want to end up giving money back - in reality, they always make more... and so either way the governement get most of the cash...
I think this is one of the few times I think the council has actually made a positive stance and been sensible - they are looking to spend cash on interactive warning signs as they are now deemed more effective
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 08:38:02 by triseros »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Leggett
Offline
Posts: 7868
|
|
« Reply #3 on: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 10:16:48 » |
|
i was loving the bit in that adver yesterday, labour hanging around the cash machine/speed camera on queens drive, saying drivers use it as a race track and there's no crossing for kids. only one slight problem with that. you can just make out the crossing behind them. kinda gutting that, i guess...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Fuck you Leggett, fuck you.
|
|
|
Arriba
Offline
Posts: 21305
|
|
« Reply #4 on: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 10:49:39 » |
|
i've noticed higher speeds and more bad driving on queens drive since the camera was covered up.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
michael
The Dude Abides
Offline
Posts: 3237
|
|
« Reply #5 on: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 11:00:34 » |
|
The Queen's Drive camera was in a horrible spot: It's essentially a dual carriageway, yet there is a right turning into Lawns so lots of slow drivers in the over-taking lane, and sometimes even queues there. What a shit bit of road planning that was!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Sippo
Living in the 80s
Offline
Posts: 15616
I ain't gettin on no plane fool
|
|
« Reply #6 on: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 11:05:37 » |
|
They're talking about it on radio 2 if anyones interested.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit...
|
|
|
|
