Jump to content


Private Speed Cameras


 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4144 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

It has the feeling that this threat will become a reality. With 'safety' camera partnerships becoming a casualty of government cuts, PRIVATE speed camera companies may be permitted to take over the installations and pursue motorists using the pictures obtained in a business model Similar to that used by PPCs, with Council's taking a commission from those motorists who pay up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about this one Buzby.

It's for the police to issue NIP's & Section 172 notices.

Are you suggesting that this could be outsourced to private companies?!!!

 

STOP PRESS - Just read the Daily Express link on another thread relating to this issue.

Worrying proposals. Why not go the whole hog & privatise the police including ACPO.

Edited by B & T
Additional paragraph
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. It will be decriminalized, and then outsourced to private companies to operate and maintain, and of course profit from. At least this will nail the lie that it has anything to do with safety, simply revenue collection and profitability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. It will be decriminalized, and then outsourced to private companies to operate and maintain

 

buzby; I am unable to locate any reference to proposals for the offence of 'speeding' to be actually decriminalized.

Are you certain about this? Can you post-up any links etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No way will speeding be decriminalised IMO.

 

Nobody said it would be. It is the private enforcement cameras and their ability to charge motorists a financial disincentive that can be backed with civil recovery that will be. Police speeding enforcement would continue unchanged. It was mentioned in the Telegraph recently. The issue is they are looking for ways for the private sector to fund a system they can no longer afford. this is no different to the much derided PFI schemes of the last government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with posts #6 & #7, & also return to my earlier point concerning NIP & S.172 notices.

Or is it now proposed that the RK will ultimately be held responsible (as in decriminalised parking) for a speeding offence & also have his/her licence endorsed for a matter in which they may have no involvement. Somehow I don't think so.

These appear to be knee-jerk, ill thought out proposals. Speeding is speeding whether detected by fixed camera, mobile camera or police patrrols. I fail to see how in practice you can take the police & Mags Courts out of the loop for this offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're giving the proposals too much credit, whereby you are attempting to transplant the current system and point out why it wouldn't work. There won't be any endorsements - thesecprivate enterprise cameras will be used to chase motorists financially, and operate in the same way as PPCs do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They've not said, but probably not. How could you be liable under contract for driving past a camera you might not see? Brings to mind T&Cs on the back of the GATSO, and a queue of cars with drivers reading the small print.... :)

 

Incidentally, Scottish Councils are now being given the right to erect Bus Lane Enforcement cameras for the first time (they've never been enforced this way up here). Strange this is happenong now, when actual Speed Cameras harer proving costly and ineffiicient...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Private Companies do run speed cameras in other countries e.g. the USA

But the tickets are still dealt with through the criminal court system. (the way the USA does - google 'Marc Stevens' for the low down on that)

 

They are just proposing outsourcing. It will create jobs for the displaced SCP staff and give ACPO someone else to send their bills to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can just see the problems we are going to have with this, at the moment we are exempt when attending an emergency, can you imagine our appeal to the PPC running the speed cameras, 'but we were going to a fire with people trapped inside', APPEAL REFUSED.

regards

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a few people have not grasped the meaning of the term 'outsourced'! No one has said it will be decriminalised, no one has said the judicial system will be privatised, no one has said there will no longer be points on the licence. All that has been suggested is that a private company will be responsible for running the cameras and sending out the notices in a similar way to that which sees NSL. APCOA issue PCNs for local authorities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the cameras are allegedly too costly to run because the council pay the running costs but central government receive the fine, how do they suddenly become cost effective when you involve a private company without increasing the cost of the fine to include an "admin"** cost?

 

** for admin read "profit"

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the cameras are allegedly too costly to run because the council pay the running costs but central government receive the fine, how do they suddenly become cost effective when you involve a private company without increasing the cost of the fine to include an "admin"** cost?

 

** for admin read "profit"

 

Its not rocket science is it? The company gets paid for running the service out of the funds generated by fines. They are currently cost effective but the funding provided by the partnerships is not refunded which is why they would rather build more speed humps instead and save money out of their budget. It would be like the Councils paying for CEOs whilst the govt gets the fine, it would probably break even but the Councils would be out of pocket hence reluctant to enforce parking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a few people have not grasped the meaning of the term 'outsourced'! No one has said it will be decriminalised, no one has said the judicial system will be privatised, no one has said there will no longer be points on the licence. All that has been suggested is that a private company will be responsible for running the cameras and sending out the notices in a similar way to that which sees NSL. APCOA issue PCNs for local authorities.

 

PCNs are decriminalised.

 

Speeding is criminalised and NIPs are sent out by the police.

 

How can NSL send out NIPs?

 

We get outsourcing, but I can't think of anything that is criminalised that is dealt with by a private company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about this one Buzby.

It's for the police to issue NIP's & Section 172 notices.

Are you suggesting that this could be outsourced to private companies?!!!

 

STOP PRESS - Just read the Daily Express link on another thread relating to this issue.

Worrying proposals. Why not go the whole hog & privatise the police including ACPO.

 

ACPO is privatized so we are part way there ...... ........ and maybe like parking they'er going to decriminlize speeding also ......... I wish

Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposed outsourcing would work if it amounted to a takeover of what were the old SCP/SRP back office operation with a token police officer (on secondment presumably - much like those to NHS Trusts if you think that officers are not seconded to outside bodies) over whose desk the NIP's will have to pass. Everything else will essentially remain the same except the quality of staff will inevitably drop (if that's possible).

 

Given their's (and their ex-colleagues) continuing interest in speed enforcement I, for one, wouldn't be too surprised to see ACPO seeking to take over the operations after all their are a private company. Their wouldn't be any issue regarding the validity of Sec 172 requirements would there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be like the Councils paying for CEOs whilst the govt gets the fine, it would probably break even but the Councils would be out of pocket hence reluctant to enforce parking.
And that would be a bad thing? :)

 

At least we'd get away from the some of the sordid enforcement that goes on now and make councils less reliant on funding from the motorist.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And that would be a bad thing? :)

 

At least we'd get away from the some of the sordid enforcement that goes on now and make councils less reliant on funding from the motorist.

 

 

Of course it would be a bad thing because your Council tax would go up to fund enforcement and the money raised would just go to pay for another daft war or to prop up another bank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

It's all public money - whether it's collected and wasted by the councils directly - or by Central Government.

 

In any case it can never be a "bad thing" in the interests of justice to give the "penalty" for any transgression to a different body from that deciding if the transgression actually occured - or deciding how much resource to put into catching such transgressors, and how much to fine them.

 

Speed cameras should be used as a road safety measure only - not as a revenue generator. Fines are the obvious sanctions to employ - but the money needs to go to an "arms length" body or department in the interests of transparency of justice.

£50k saved and £7k charges refunded:

MBNA & A&L 35% F&F direct - saved £23k. Birmingham Midshires £1700 charges refunded

Abbey Loan/BCW 50% - saved £2k. Barclaycard/CSL 40% - saved £6k

Monument/DCA 35% - saved £1k. LTSB/Wescot 50% - saved £4k

HBOS Visa £5k charges refund via Blair Oliver Scott

RBS Direct Line/(genuine) solicitors June 2010 40% - saved £3k

Morgan Stanley/Aktiv Kapital £11k SB Nov 2010

Over £40k balance write off and charges refunds to fight for:

HBOS O/d Charges £5k. Egg Loan/Aktiv Kapital CCA Dispute £8k

Egg Card/Fredrickson taking £5 monthly but CCA & Charges Dispute £4k

Goldfish/1st Credit DN/TN Dispute £9k. Capital One/CSL charges claim £4k

Barclaycard/CSL taking £5 monthly on £10k debt

 

I hope I have helped - if I have please hit my star - and recognise the others who have helped too.

Bigdebtor

Link to post
Share on other sites

The crucial question is whether the abandonment of the traditional cornerstones of our justice system will be allowed to continue or not. The historical principle behind a "fine" was that the transgressor in making good his wrong either to the aggrieved party or to the community was also punished by paying out his money. The only party to "gain" was either the loser (perhaps) who was merely compensated for his loss or the community who could put the funds to the common good in settlement of the debt in transgression.

 

Although a proportion of any speeding fines applied through a "privatised"/outsourced speed camera set-up would undoubtedly reach central coffers the chunk (probably quite substantial) retained for admin costs would also see a number of the company directors being considerably enriched. How could this be argued as settling a debt in transgression to the community?

 

This already applies with regard to decriminalised parking enforcement and went through with the merest whisper of dissent. I'd guarantee that a privatised/outsourced model is being worked on as we speak and anyone who believes that the issuing of s. 172/NIP's is going to provide a stumbling block is almost certainly deluding themselves. All that will happen is that an officer (suitably empowered to issue notices by his Chief Constable) will be seconded to the reformed Safety Camera Unit (if its outsourced) in much the same way as they have been until now or to NCP/NSL/APCOA or whoever's Speed Camera Unit (if its privatised) and they're in business.

 

Rest assured there's too much to be made potentially from speed cameras for them to be allowed to whither on the vine. Outsourcing/privatisation is so plainly the way to go. I'd be very surprised to find that ACPO and its cohorts isn't beavering away as we speak to produce a working model after all, there are an awful lot of ex-ACPO level police officers who need to be employed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...