I have recently been involved in a few tender submissions for new speed camera violation systems. I think the traffic departments have got it all wrong. The underlying philosophy is based on catching enough people violating traffic ordinances in order to make the budget for the year.
Let's imagine that police services adopted the same philosophy. Resources would be deployed in order to catch sufficient people committing all sorts of offences so that the funds collected through fines and bail would meet the budget requirements. Ridiculous? Sure. But this is exactly how most traffic departments work.
The approach must be to deploy resources and technology as a deterrent to violations that would result in safer roads, fewer accidents, fewer mortalities, less repairs, etc. If that could be realized, then the solution in place is effective and achieving the objectives that I think are appropriate.
In addition, the service is to be outsourced. This arrngement will result in a fee that can be levied for every paid fine. It is then most suitable for the service provider to catch people rather and deter people. Otherwise they don't make money. If one of the objectives is to alter drivers behaviour, then fewer violations will take place and put the outsourced service provider out of business. Bit of a catch 22!
We have also included the ability to, real-time, assess traffic volumes, determine speed over distance (average speed), "wanted" vehicles and notify when these vehicles are spotted. Great services.
I am certain that I am not the only one that thinks this way. Or am I?
