Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Aug 25, 2019 16:51

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Council Committee
PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2004 11:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
I learned today that the camera partnership stuff was dealt with by "The Resources Committee". Here are the minutes of the meeting held on 18th February 2004.

http://www.highland.gov.uk/minutes/head ... 180204.htm

Here's the relavent section:

22. NORTHERN SAFETY CAMERA PARTNERSHIP

There had been circulated Report No. RES21/04 dated 6th February 2004 by the Director of Corporate Services which described a proposal to develop a Northern Safety Camera Partnership and recommended that powers be delegated to the Director of Corporate Services, in consultation with the Chairman, to support the Council?s involvement in the scheme provided the Business Case showed the scheme to be viable.

It was reported that the Northern Police Constabulary was seeking to form this partnership to promote a mobile safety camera scheme in the Highlands. The scheme operated on a basis of a partnership involving a number of bodies. The main objective of the partnership was to reduce the number of people killed or injured on Scottish roads by encouraging lower speeds at known accident areas and change long-term driver behaviour. This supported the Scottish Executive?s targets for casualty reduction on Scottish roads by 2010. It was proposed that dedicated mobile speed camera units would be established in the Highlands. The units would cover the 50 sites which had been identified as meeting the speed/accident criteria set out in the guidelines for the scheme. The role of The Highland Council, including the District Court, was very significant and without its involvement the scheme was unlikely to go ahead.

In order to establish whether a mobile safety camera scheme was viable work was currently ongoing to collect traffic and speed data. Once this data had been collected the potential income from fines could be estimated. Provided the scheme was successful and generated sufficient income through fines, there were no resource implications as the costs incurred by the Council would be covered through the scheme. The main risk for the Council was that the income generated from the fines failed to cover the cost of running the scheme, and there was no budget for such a loss.

In discussion, those Members opposed to the system were of the view that it would do little for road safety and that the Council would have to bear the financial risk of operating the scheme. They also felt that other measures could be used to improve road safety, including engineering roads to slow people down at known blackspots and also speed activated signing.

Those in favour of establishing a business case for the mobile safety camera were reluctant to rule out any system which might reduce accidents. Therefore they felt there was merit in exploring the viability of mobile safety cameras on a trial basis.

Following further discussion, Mrs A L Magee, seconded by Mr D W Briggs moved to support the Council?s involvement in the Northern Safety Camera Partnership Scheme on a trial basis with a report back on the outcome, provided the business case demonstrated the scheme to be viable. In the event that the scheme was shown not to be viable the Council would withdraw support.

As an Amendment, Mr D C M Flear, seconded by Mr W J Smith moved for a report back to Committee following a comprehensive investigation into road safety measures for Highland, such as the use of speed activated signing, in order to determine where and how money could be invested to improve road safety.

On a vote being taken, the outcome was as follows:

For the Motion For the Amendment

Mr D M Mackay Mr DCM Flear

Mr T C Jackson Mr W N Fernie

Mrs A L Magee Mr A Torrance

Mr D W Briggs Mr J R Connell

Mrs I McCallum Mr J Ford

Dr D Alston Mr W J Smith

Mr I MacDonald Mrs G McCreath

Mrs E MacRae Mr A Gordon

Mrs J N Home Mr F D S Black

Mrs K G Matheson Mr B J Murphy

Mr J N Matheson

Mr A R McFarlane-Slack

The Motion was carried by 12 votes to 10.

Decision

It was therefore AGREED to delegate powers to the Director of Corporate Services, in consultation with the Chairman, to support the Council?s involvement in the Northern Safety Camera Partnership Scheme on a trial basis with a report back on the outcome, provided the business case demonstrated the scheme to be viable. In the event that the scheme was shown not to be viable the Council would withdraw support.

========================================

It is not presently clear if a partnership can commence without a further vote. I'm investigating.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2004 12:47 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 01:47
Posts: 379
Location: Cumbria / Oxford
It seems, from a brief read, that the council voted in favour of the partnership as opposed to research conducted into where road safety could best be invested in.

I find this bit particularly worrying:

Quote:
provided the business case demonstrated the scheme to be viable


Is it just me, or is 'road safety' now about making as much money as possible.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2004 13:01 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 15:07
Posts: 71
Quote:
...Provided the scheme was successful and generated sufficient income through fines, there were no resource implications as the costs incurred by the Council would be covered through the scheme. The main risk for the Council was that the income generated from the fines failed to cover the cost of running the scheme, and there was no budget for such a loss...

Therefore, for the pratnership to succeed, it has to fail in their stated aim of reducing speeds; 'cause if everyone slows down there will be no fines.

Why can't pratnership supporters see the paradox? :?


Of course, if they fail to generate enough fines, they'll simply lower the speed limits. :(


Kaz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2004 22:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
Quote:
Therefore they felt there was merit in exploring the viability of mobile safety cameras on a trial basis.
Alternatively they could have a look at the shambles south of the border, but then that wouldn't generate revenue would it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Council Committee
PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2004 20:18 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
SafeSpeed wrote:
The main risk for the Council was that the income generated from the fines failed to cover the cost of running the scheme,


Nice to see they have their priorities right. Never mind road deaths, think of the council tax!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2004 14:10 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 13:13
Posts: 116
Homer has it right.. Deaths dont matter, as long as its self funding.. Prior to speed cams, the reduction in deaths was due to pressure on the car producer to improve designs, and so on.

The council can not help but make a loss.. This get rich kwik scheme can be likened to a pyramid scheme, the last in pick up the pieces. The proposers of the scheme supported with information provided by flash machines, are only interested in getting the scheme started. Once started if by chance there is a reduction in kills, they will claim that reduction as their work, and nothing to do with the steady progress made by the motor industry.
I dont believe for one moment, a scottsman , with his eye on his sporan or his purse will allow the scam cams to take £60.00 out from under his nose. :lol: They will all drive slowly past and this will be a white elephant. Another potentail area for loss, is those that somehow ignore the tickets. It would seem in Essex, we have 160,000 tickets being issued, (some say 210,000) and only 100,000 being paid. WOW what will that do to the so called biz niz case for the highlands..

The councellors, if they were in England, would be/ could be liable for surcharging if they entered into a biz niz without care . If having been warned , the council then lost money because of all of those careful scotts, maybe Just maybe, someone would stick the loss on the councellors, and it's a personal charge, not one the council can pick up the tab for. don't say it can't happen, NEVER say never.

finally despite all those tickets being issued in essex, numbers of both killed and seriously injured are the same as ten years ago, AND higher than when it all started. In the meantime, something aproaching £25 milllion has been paid away in fines. Surely its better to increase the council tax by two quid a head and do something usefull with the money?
This is such a squalid waste of money it's unreal.


good luck

rgds
Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.414s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]