The cost of physical redesign traffic calming measures is significantly cheaper to install than the cameras, whose cost is justified by councils because of the income they bring in thereafter.
The insistence on replacing it instead of doing something else is being justified internally because even with these attacks they consider it to be making more than it's costing them.
Poor people aren't getting screwed over by this because poor people can't afford to drive,
Mate fuck right off. This statement just screams that you've never actually done any organising or volunteering with the poor in the UK. Please volunteer at a food bank for once in your fucking life and learn what kinds of people the 3million people in this country attending them are like. It will surprise you, expand your view of society a bit, and you'll be doing an actually-good useful thing.
The poorest people own the fewest cars, and are the most affected by things like air pollution, and if they do have to own cars they're the ones most at hurt by car dependency (which is perpetuated by road violence caused by things like speeding).
If you say utterly stupid ass things like poor people don't own cars I will absolutely assume you don't interact with the people struggling to survive in this country in any capacity. It's a bloody stupid thing to say mate.
I mean what I said, go and volunteer and see for yourself.
I'm sorry I didn't think I needed to spell it out that much to you. Obviously I don't think all poor people don't drive. But the poorest don't, and statistically poorer people drive a lot less and are more impacted by things like this.
I don't agree that speeding is ok if poor people do it, and I don't think the removal of the speed cameras is a step to the better alternative, unless it's part of removing cars from the road in question entirely.
Ok so what do you expect to happen when you rock up to the council and say "Hi, I want to replace this speed camera making tens of thousands in profit per year with this other solution that makes no money at all" ?
Please tell me what you think the pathway to the alternative better solution is.
I wouldn't replace it. Some people will still speed even with traffic calming so the camera is still useful.
If you want to reduce the council's income from speed cameras, the first thing would be to elect a central government that will properly fund local councils so they have the budget to make decisions like that.
You physically can't speed with traffic calming, they will just crash and fuck up their vehicles.
This conversation is silly. Right from the start if you were committed to this fuck the poor nonsense you should have just been honest and admitted it so neither of our times would have been wasted on this ridiculous farce.
Not really that surprised, typical liberal bullshit. Gonna vote Starmer too yeah?
Croydon council responded to FOI request stating it costs £2.5-£3.5k to install traffic islands. The cost of a speed camera installation on the other hand is £85,000 according to Bedford Council, with a £5000 annual upkeep cost.
Croydon cites average cost for roughly such an action at 2,5k - 3,5k in a denial of the FOI request which means there's pretty much no way to know how much it actually costs depending on what they calculate the average on and if you have any idea about the cost of public works that number should strike you as very, very oddly low.
Wiltshire government here cites about 45.000k for a traffic island narrowing a road to one lane, all in all.
The source you cite for the cameras, however, puts those costs for 2 cameras, so 42,500 a pop / 2500 upkeep annual, albeit with returns via fines obviously.
It literally says in this article that one of the cameras mentioned has clocked 17,000 people. Of course they have money to do it. Croydon council responded to FOI request stating it costs £2.5-£3.5k to install traffic islands. The cost of a speed camera installation on the other hand is £85,000 according to Bedford Council, with a £5000 annual upkeep cost.
The cost of physical redesign traffic calming measures is significantly cheaper to install than the cameras, whose cost is justified by councils because of the income they bring in thereafter.
The insistence on replacing it instead of doing something else is being justified internally because even with these attacks they consider it to be making more than it's costing them.
Mate fuck right off. This statement just screams that you've never actually done any organising or volunteering with the poor in the UK. Please volunteer at a food bank for once in your fucking life and learn what kinds of people the 3million people in this country attending them are like. It will surprise you, expand your view of society a bit, and you'll be doing an actually-good useful thing.
The poorest people own the fewest cars, and are the most affected by things like air pollution, and if they do have to own cars they're the ones most at hurt by car dependency (which is perpetuated by road violence caused by things like speeding).
And please don't pretend like you know my life.
If you say utterly stupid ass things like poor people don't own cars I will absolutely assume you don't interact with the people struggling to survive in this country in any capacity. It's a bloody stupid thing to say mate.
I mean what I said, go and volunteer and see for yourself.
I'm sorry I didn't think I needed to spell it out that much to you. Obviously I don't think all poor people don't drive. But the poorest don't, and statistically poorer people drive a lot less and are more impacted by things like this.
Ok so you finally agree that some poor people suffer because of this and that there is an alternative that exists where no poor people suffer at all?
Doing the alternative is good and taking action that leads to the alternative is good.
I don't agree that speeding is ok if poor people do it, and I don't think the removal of the speed cameras is a step to the better alternative, unless it's part of removing cars from the road in question entirely.
Ok so what do you expect to happen when you rock up to the council and say "Hi, I want to replace this speed camera making tens of thousands in profit per year with this other solution that makes no money at all" ?
Please tell me what you think the pathway to the alternative better solution is.
I wouldn't replace it. Some people will still speed even with traffic calming so the camera is still useful.
If you want to reduce the council's income from speed cameras, the first thing would be to elect a central government that will properly fund local councils so they have the budget to make decisions like that.
You physically can't speed with traffic calming, they will just crash and fuck up their vehicles.
This conversation is silly. Right from the start if you were committed to this fuck the poor nonsense you should have just been honest and admitted it so neither of our times would have been wasted on this ridiculous farce.
Not really that surprised, typical liberal bullshit. Gonna vote Starmer too yeah?
Croydon cites average cost for roughly such an action at 2,5k - 3,5k in a denial of the FOI request which means there's pretty much no way to know how much it actually costs depending on what they calculate the average on and if you have any idea about the cost of public works that number should strike you as very, very oddly low.
Wiltshire government here cites about 45.000k for a traffic island narrowing a road to one lane, all in all.
The source you cite for the cameras, however, puts those costs for 2 cameras, so 42,500 a pop / 2500 upkeep annual, albeit with returns via fines obviously.