SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
More than 1,000 motorists a week are being caught speeding on the UK's smart motorways, police figures suggest.
Last year, 52,516 fixed penalties were issued on 11 smart sections, including on stretches of the M1, M25 and M6.
This compared to 2,023 on the same stretches in 2010-11, before they were upgraded to smart motorways - which use the hard shoulder and variable speed limits to control traffic flow.
The government says they are used to improve capacity, not generate revenue.
Smart motorways are operated by Highways England, which uses overhead gantries - also containing speed cameras - to direct traffic into open lanes and change speed limits depending on the volume of traffic.
Ticket revenue has increased tenfold over 5 years. Have British drivers experienced the "improved capacity" that the government uses to justify the smart highways?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07 2016, @11:06PM
When it comes to the automated traffic enforcement systems, there is always the phrase "officials say that it is for XXX, not revenue generation." But I guarantee that it is always first and foremost about revenue generation with the added possible benefit of XXX.
Take speed cameras in the Washington DC area. Every major roadway out of the city has a speed camera. If it is so important for public safety (or whatever the claim is), why are they targeting those leaving the area?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 07 2016, @11:20PM
52,000 citations at £150 apiece is just shy of 8 million, which isn't chump change, but that barely covers the cost of a single mile of smart motorway... it will be many years before the 11 sections initial cost is repaid by the increase in fines.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Unixnut on Monday November 07 2016, @11:54PM
Depends on how the money is allocated.
So if I remember correctly, in the UK the cost of building out the smart motorways is paid for out of the general taxation purse, however revenue from fines is collected by the local council and police department.
So it can both be a) a profit generating stream of income, and b) not able to pay off the initial costs of installation. Welcome to government :-)
After all, the initial costs were paid by taxpayers. So we paid to have this installed so that we can be fined. When you think about it that way, it makes more sense. The government does not actually generate any income on its own, that isn't its purpose, so it isn't looking for a profitable return on investment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2016, @12:05PM
Sounds like a redistribution of funds from the central coffers to the local.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Wednesday November 09 2016, @10:48AM
It pretty much is, in fact the revenue goes first to the police force, they skim off a share as "operating costs", then pass it to the council, who use it as they see fit.
There are a lot of fingers in the pie, siphoning money off the income stream, and none of them want to see it go. Hence we are stuck with it for the foreseeable future, and I suspect it will only get worse as the economy slows, the money tap dries up, and the councils need to find more and more "alternative income" to sustain not only graft, but to fill in budgetary holes elsewhere and throw money at previous stupid mistakes to prevent them blowing up.