Oxfordshire council deliberately deceives drivers

With the politicians on holiday and tasty news stories thin on the ground, BBC Breakfast returned to an old favourite this morning, choosing to discuss whether speeding had become "socially acceptable".

The kicker they used was a clever little experiment conducted by Oxfordshire Council who told everyone a couple of their speed cameras had been turned off but actually...they hadn't.

Oh what pranksters!

But hold on; the council is bandying around the figures for the number of people they caught speeding, who's to say the photographs weren't taken or the numberplates logged? How many other councils forced into turning off their money-making machines due to 'budget constraints' have actually been merrily snapping away?

The deception is dubious, but I personally found the inversion from the way CCTV operates (everyone thinks it's on, but it's regularly off) particularly poignant. 

By Dylan Sharpe

Comments

[Paul Coombes]

I can't comment on the BBC Breakdfast report as I am at work and not allowed to watch streaming video. However, this was reported on Radio Berkshire last week. The interview was with somebody from some partnership who told us of his surprise that the number of people breaking the speed limit had increased by 80% above the number that they would normally expect for that period. He then went on to say that speed means more serious accidents. Astutely, the interviewer asked if there had been an increase in injuries during the period following the apparent switch-off. Partnership-man replied that it was too early to tell. "How long will it be before you can tell?" was the next question. "Two to three years" was the response.
So, less than two weeks is OK when the statistics support your point of view but not when they don't.

[Peter Green]

What I can't figure out is that if the camera's are money makers, how does switching them off save money?

[Jonathan Miller]

...and today (in the Oxford Times) it is revealed that the figures for second camera mentioned in the report were untrue.

Peter Green: Money is given by central government to local government to pay for speed cameras. Revenue from fines goes to central government.
When central government cuts the budget for 'road safety' (includes speed camera operation) and passes the cut on to local government, local government stops paying for speed camera enforcement.

Therefore, local councils save money, and central government loses revenue from the fines. QED