On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:46:30 +0000, Alex Heney wrote
On paper it may appear so, but think about how it actually works.
Suppose a council has applications in for two schemes (we'll keep it simple). One is for some 'road safety' improvements, the other is to improve the local park. Which do you think is likely to win the vote ? Think, the pro 'road safety' campainers will roll out the "poor little Johnny having to share the road with all those bad homicidal drivers" emotional blackmail - not mentioning that of course, little Johnny's parents are both drivers.
Now, along comes someone with a fantastic idea. Lets get one of those cash points, err sorry, speed cameras, err no, safety cameras in. We have a nice spot where it's safe to do 40, but if we lower the limit to 30 we can get loads of people, and the rules will just about allow it because some stupid chav in his blinged up Nova crashed doing 70 last year - never mind that he was totally ignoring all limits then, if we lower the limit it will stop others like him from crashing.
So what is the result ? Speed camera goes in and nets loads of cash that can only be spent on road safety, so it's spent on teh road safety scheme that would have gone ahead anyway. But now, the council hasn't spent their own money on that scheme and can do the park instead.
So the income from the scamera has allowed the park to be improved - and of course, they only spent the income on road safety !
