• MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      @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@climatejustice.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          @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.

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

            • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              @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.

              • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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?

                • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  @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.

                  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.