Literal for profit cameras?

[Hads]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/89756614/police-looking-to-outsource-management-of-growing-speed-camera-network

Saw that article today, I imagine if it was run by a corporate, they would have lots of cameras just after or before where the speed changes from 100 to 50 to get maximum profit.

[EJK]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/89756614/police-looking-to-outsource-management-of-growing-speed-camera-network

Saw that article today, I imagine it it was run by a corporate, they would have lots of cameras just after or before where the speed changes from 100 to 50 to get maximum profit.

Even better, make it a public company.

Invest.
Speed.
Get dividend.

Free speeding!

[Mike.Gayner]

A private company should be paid on the basis of real KPI's - not number of tickets issued but annual fatalities due to excessive speed or similar. Let's see how many private companies are interested in such an arrangement - government has such confidence in its message that speed kills, I wonder if profit-motivated businesses agree.

[Dadpole]

Even better, make it a public company.

Invest.
Speed.
Get dividend.

Free speeding!

Bugger off. The current mantra is private/public setups. Public gets the costs and private gets the profit Ala Serco.

[george formby]

Bugger off. The current mantra is private/public setups. Public gets the costs and private gets the profit Ala Serco.

I have not got as far as the article but just 3 posts made me think of Serco. Pttuuuu.

[TheDemonLord]

Guess it's time to setup and Register "Demon Lord's Speed Camera Administration Inc."

[Zedder]

Bugger off. The current mantra is private/public setups. Public gets the costs and private gets the profit Ala Serco.


True, and then the Gubbermint still got $8 million in costs plus fines when they had to step in and sort things out.

[Akzle]

vote up, crackers .

[Hads]

A private company should be paid on the basis of real KPI's - not number of tickets issued but annual fatalities due to excessive speed or similar. Let's see how many private companies are interested in such an arrangement - government has such confidence in its message that speed kills, I wonder if profit-motivated businesses agree.

But for the government that is too hard, they will go with the easiest option which will be the government gets royalties on all tickets given. Imagine the fun if they got to set their own ticket prices too. Also imagine the reports on how they plan to increase profits year on year.

[Swoop]

Did anyone notice this...

The briefing document noted the review provided an opportunity to explore how the safety network could be integrated into intelligent transport systems, such as those used on the Wellington Smart Motorway and Auckland's Waterview Tunnel.

[Grumph]

Did anyone notice this...

The briefing document noted the review provided an opportunity to explore how the safety network could be integrated into intelligent transport systems, such as those used on the Wellington Smart Motorway and Auckland's Waterview Tunnel.

Change that to "revenue network" and you have the truth.

[Zedder]

Did anyone notice this...

The briefing document noted the review provided an opportunity to explore how the safety network could be integrated into intelligent transport systems, such as those used on the Wellington Smart Motorway and Auckland's Waterview Tunnel.


And of course the AA are onboard with it.

[R650R]

Well this raises some interesting issues....

Safety of the camera operator... even tho at the moment cameras are operated by some civilians, the perception is that mostly they are cops doing overtime and if a nutter were to vent their frustration the repercussions for the offender would be swift and heavy. But if its some spotty McDonalds style worker on minimum wage they will get endless abuse. This will affect the areas in which the operators are willing to park....

Testimony in court for higher recorded speeds will be less reputable than that of a police officer. The plus for bikers though is in the instance when you get ticketed going other way by them manually reecording your plate you wont get demerits as not an officer issuing the offence.
And there must be legal issues of sorts that would need sorting....

Kinfa for it tho, makes sense to have experienced cops off doing 'real police work' as we all like to call it, catching burglars and bike thieves etc.......

Would they operate onn stat holidays? they are not an essential service....

[swbarnett]

makes sense to have experienced cops off doing 'real police work' as we all like to call it, catching burglars and bike thieves etc.......
Not necessarily:

These included the fact that the level of resources required to run the network diverted resources away from other road policing priorities.




Would they operate onn stat holidays? they are not an essential service....
Depends who's defining "essential". They are to the political vote buying machine.

[Akzle]

Testimony in court for higher recorded speeds will be less reputable than that of a police officer.
while i accept there is a huge stack of dickheads out there, i find it sad that either you so-little trust your brother man, and/or how you idolise "the police"


not an officer issuing the offence.
a) do you even know how many sworn officers there are vs, the rest of the bob?
b) any cunt, can issue any cunt any notice, of any shit.


Kinfa for it tho, makes sense to have experienced cops off doing 'real police work' as we all like to call it, catching burglars and bike thieves etc.......

a method proven to work since/// white, what?

[Drew]

I was under the impression the camera vans have always been operated by contractors.

[R650R]

i find it sad that either you so-little trust your brother man, and/or how you idolise "the police"


what?

Say what just one more time......

Your over thinking it, all im saying is they are introducing problems for themselves. Get off that green herb the jews tricked you into smoking, its making you paranoid.... I don't idolise the police.
I rank them equal with other professional entertainment service providors.... infact I disagree with there being specific charges like 'assault on police' as if they are more valuable than the people they are protecting but that's another thread of its own......

Privatising speed enforcement is a can of worms in a country that ranks it as quite serious offence at higher speeds. We don't have the better judges and courts like UK where they wont let you be done for 'dangerous' speed if the circumsatnces are relatively safe. However get done for 160k plus here and it s rubber stamp dangerous driving charge.....

[pritch]

Well this raises some interesting issues....

Safety of the camera operator... even tho at the moment cameras are operated by some civilians, the perception is that mostly they are cops doing overtime and if a nutter were to vent their frustration the repercussions for the offender would be swift and heavy. But if its some spotty McDonalds style worker on minimum wage they will get endless abuse. This will affect the areas in which the operators are willing to park....

Testimony in court for higher recorded speeds will be less reputable than that of a police officer. The plus for bikers though is in the instance when you get ticketed going other way by them manually reecording your plate you wont get demerits as not an officer issuing the offence.
And there must be legal issues of sorts that would need sorting....

Kinfa for it tho, makes sense to have experienced cops off doing 'real police work' as we all like to call it, catching burglars and bike thieves etc.......

Would they operate onn stat holidays? they are not an essential service....

No, you are waay overthinking it. Originally the operators were Police. The Police said they had to be because they had first aid training blah blah blah. I understand all that is out the window now because it's cheaper to have low waged civilians sitting in a car doing nothing.

Testimony schmestimony. The photo is the evidence, there is rarely an point in arguing. If there is a point worth arguing you should win without it going to court.

Camera operators writing down number plates? Probably an urban legend, most of them are asleep.

Stat holidays are peak work hours for the camera cars, always have been.

[pete376403]

Have there even been any occurrences of aggrieved drivers assaulting/attacking a camera operator? Or setting fire to the van, with or without the operator inside? One or two events like that could reduce the enthusiasm of having these things spread around.

[onearmedbandit]

Just imagine a company like Wilson Parking getting that contract...

[mossy1200]

Have there even been any occurrences of aggrieved drivers assaulting/attacking a camera operator? Or setting fire to the van, with or without the operator inside? One or two events like that could reduce the enthusiasm of having these things spread around.

Early on someone destroyed one with a baseball bat (van camera with open back door) Think it cost him 80k.
A lot got painted screens on the post mounted fixed ones in the first year but that died down.

I remember when they first came out you needed be speeding and in the top 15% above average traffic flow speed to get a ticket. You could get flashed and never receive ticket back then. Must have been around 1999.

[Woodman]

The NZTA or whoever could put up for tender different stretches of road, the price being how valuable they are to the contractor. They could even be sold on the open market like shares. You could even buy a stretch of road for fuck all, then do nothing until it gets known as a non policed road and then one day start policing it real hard and increasing its value then sell it and make a tidy profit.

Where do I sign up?

[Zedder]

Just imagine a company like Wilson Parking getting that contract...


Not a happy thought at all. Those ratbags would charge for parking during gridlock if they could.

[Akzle]

Not a happy thought at all. Those ratbags would charge for parking during gridlock if they could.

boom. rbgiafp .

[Moi]

This falls into the "privately run prisons" ideology as far as I'm concerned.

If the Crown decides, through one of its entities, to penalise one of its citizens then the Crown must be responsible for the entire process. It should not hand over some of the process to a private business for that private business to make a profit.

The police, acting as the Crown's agent, is charged with road safety and the Crown decides that speed is an issue the Crown wishes to address, then the Crown through its agent, the police, has to take full responsibility for that process. At present, if my understanding is correct, the camera van operators are paid from the police budget and so the Crown, through the police, is taking full responsibility for the enforcement of the law and, consequently, the penalties it enforces. If that evidence gathering stage is handed over to a private entity then, in my opinion, the Crown has abrogated its responsibilities to the citizens.

[Akzle]

This falls into the "privately run prisons" ideology as far as I'm concerned.

If the Crown decides, through one of its entities, to penalise one of its citizens then the Crown must be responsible for the entire process. It should not hand over some of the process to a private business for that private business to make a profit.

The police, acting as the Crown's agent, is charged with road safety and the Crown decides that speed is an issue the Crown wishes to address, then the Crown through its agent, the police, has to take full responsibility for that process. At present, if my understanding is correct, the camera van operators are paid from the police budget and so the Crown, through the police, is taking full responsibility for the enforcement of the law and, consequently, the penalties it enforces. If that evidence gathering stage is handed over to a private entity then, in my opinion, the Crown has abrogated its responsibilities to the citizens.

you mean "the crown"? or "her majesty the crown in right of new zealand inc"? cos i suspect you think you know what you're on about.

[Moi]

you mean "the crown"? or "her majesty the crown in right of new zealand inc"? cos i suspect you think you know what you're on about.

The Crown as in the New Zealand Government...

[Hads]

What may happen with a private operator adding their profit margin will be that fines will get so high the number of speeders going past the cameras will drop substantially and they could go out of business.

There will always be speeders, at least until self drive cars are the only vehicles.

They can get creative, e.g. putting cameras on passing lanes.

[Akzle]

The Crown as in the New Zealand Government...

Two different things eh

[Moi]

Two different things eh

True... but interconnected...

Parliament = Governor-General representing the Sovereign + House of Representatives
Government = those members of the House of Representatives who have been appointed as Ministers of the Crown by the Governor-General - can also be called the Executive
Judiciary = they interpret the law that the government administers which has been made by Parliament


Crown is the whole, whereas parliament, government and judiciary are parts of the whole.

I'd suggest that many would say "state" rather than crown.

[Akzle]

True... but interconnected...

Parliament = Governor-General representing the Sovereign + House of Representatives
Government = those members of the House of Representatives who have been appointed as Ministers of the Crown by the Governor-General - call also be called the Executive
Judiciary = they interpret the law that the government administers which has been made by Parliament


Crown is the whole, whereas parliament, government and judiciary are parts of the whole.

I'd suggest that many would say "state" rather than crown.

kinda. but not really.
i'm sovereign like a mofo, and no cunt represents me.

[Moi]

kinda. but not really.
i'm sovereign like a mofo, and no cunt represents me.

You're perfectly entitled to be there...


outside the tent trying to piss in...

[Scuba_Steve]

But hey you know, it's all about that "$afety" not the profit; & we all know big private comanies are happy to take a hit on profit, it's not like they're there to make money or anything :rolleyes:

[awayatc]

It's not about revenue...
It's about safety

[jasonu]

Be ready for more scungy bastards hiding behind billboards and more setting cheesy open road speed traps at the end of passing lanes etc where there is no real safety issue.

[Akzle]

Be ready for more scungy bastards hiding behind billboards and more setting cheesy open road speed traps at the end of passing lanes etc where there is no real safety issue.

have you ever noticed how people DONT FUCKEN MERGE. there arguably is a safety issue. but it isn't the velocirator.

[Drew]

I doubt it will be set up with the company running the cameras being paid per fine.

[Moi]

The way many of you are going on, you'd think it was fait accompli...

Stop discussing how to make it work, start discussing why it is wrong...

[trufflebutter]

have you ever noticed how people DONT FUCKEN MERGE. there arguably is a safety issue. but it isn't the velocirator.

Merge like a zip, not a Cunt?

[Drew]

But that would be the best way of ensuring the performance expectation is met or exceeded. There is a story that cops can lose their jobs if they dont ticket a certain percentage of motorists each day.
No it wouldn't, quite the opposite. Fewer tickets would indicate it's working.

The way many of you are going on, you'd think it was fait accompli...

Stop discussing how to make it work, start discussing why it is wrong...Why is it wrong? Why can't the government contract out the job?

[TheDemonLord]

No it wouldn't, quite the opposite. Fewer tickets would indicate it's working.
Why is it wrong? Why can't the government contract out the job?

IMO it violates part of the social contract between citizens and the government. We accept that if we fall afoul of certain rules, then we can expect that the full tyranny of the state is able to raise, be levelled against us.

That this is done without ulterior motive and with respect only to those rules is key in that arrangement. It is also subject directly (in theory) to the will of the majority.

A Private company has, as it's primary motivation, the requirement to make a profit. This is in conflict with the principle above. It is also in conflict with the Populace having direct control over the entity that is doing the enforcement (the Tyranny of the state)

I accept a level of inefficiency due to Govt beurocracy and red tape as an acceptable cost to maintain a clear demarcation

[FJRider]

No it wouldn't, quite the opposite. Fewer tickets would indicate it's working.

Getting close ... but no cigar. Fewer tickets does (would) mean the safety programs are working ... and funding for the LTSA from Central Government would be reduced.

But the good news is ... with all the improvements to upper/lower north island roads ... more revenue gained from these areas ensures more policing in those areas. Leaving more areas in the south not so heavily policed.


Why is it wrong? Why can't the government contract out the job?

All good in principal ... but they tried that with staffing prisons. That didn't work out well ....

[FJRider]

A Private company has, as it's primary motivation, the requirement to make a profit. This is in conflict with the principle above. It is also in conflict with the Populace having direct control over the entity that is doing the enforcement (the Tyranny of the state)

The contract tenders usually accepted are the (usually) lowest. Just standard business contract practice.

In the case of speed camera operations ... the contractor takes the photos and sends them in for processing. They have no control over what happens then. Employees are un-sworn so no confidentiality issues need arise as they have no access to police data bases. They do not enforce ... just take pictures. The enforcement notice comes from LTSA. NOT the contractor.




I accept a level of inefficiency due to Govt beurocracy and red tape as an acceptable cost to maintain a clear demarcation

That's good of you ... you voted Labour probably ...

[Drew]

Are you lot fucken retarded?

The profit is in the contract. The money the government pays them to do a job for them. Income from that job goes back to government.

[swbarnett]

Fewer tickets does (would) mean the safety programs are working ...
No, it means one of two things; either more of the populace is within the law or the populace had gotten smarter.

Either way, fewer tickets is in no way an indicator of increased safety.

[FJRider]

No, it means one of two things; either more of the populace is within the law or the populace had gotten smarter.

Either way, fewer tickets is in no way an indicator of increased safety.

My bad ... I should have put "would be seen as the safety message is working" to the bean counters anyway. The death rate on the roads would need to back it up though ...

[Moi]

... Why is it wrong? Why can't the government contract out the job?

I'd suggest this from TheDemonLord is a good starting point for that discussion:


IMO it violates part of the social contract between citizens and the government. We accept that if we fall afoul of certain rules, then we can expect that the full tyranny of the state is able to raise, be leveled against us.

That this is done without ulterior motive and with respect only to those rules is key in that arrangement. It is also subject directly (in theory) to the will of the majority.

A Private company has, as it's primary motivation, the requirement to make a profit. This is in conflict with the principle above. It is also in conflict with the Populace having direct control over the entity that is doing the enforcement (the Tyranny of the state)

I accept a level of inefficiency due to Govt bureaucracy and red tape as an acceptable cost to maintain a clear demarcation

And as I said earlier:


This falls into the "privately run prisons" ideology as far as I'm concerned.

If the Crown decides, through one of its entities, to penalise one of its citizens then the Crown must be responsible for the entire process. It should not hand over some of the process to a private business for that private business to make a profit.

The police, acting as the Crown's agent, is charged with road safety and the Crown decides that speed is an issue the Crown wishes to address, then the Crown through its agent, the police, has to take full responsibility for that process. At present, if my understanding is correct, the camera van operators are paid from the police budget and so the Crown, through the police, is taking full responsibility for the enforcement of the law and, consequently, the penalties it enforces. If that evidence gathering stage is handed over to a private entity then, in my opinion, the Crown has abrogated its responsibilities to the citizens.

This part explains what "Crown" means:



Parliament = Governor-General representing the Sovereign + House of Representatives
Government = those members of the House of Representatives who have been appointed as Ministers of the Crown by the Governor-General - can also be called the Executive
Judiciary = they interpret the law that the government administers which has been made by Parliament


Crown is the whole, whereas parliament, government and judiciary are parts of the whole.

I'd suggest that many would say "state" rather than crown.

[swbarnett]

My bad ... I should have put "would be seen as the safety message is working" to the bean counters anyway. The death rate on the roads would need to back it up though ...
Ah, makes sense. I thought that was a bit out of character.

[Zedder]

The way many of you are going on, you'd think it was fait accompli...

Stop discussing how to make it work, start discussing why it is wrong...


In terms of wrong, the Corrections Department contract with Serco was seen as wrong by many but happened regardless.

Ever since the State Owned Enterprises Act of 1986, the New Zealand Government has gone quite a way down the corporatisation and privatisation route and the Serco debacle is only one of many actions.

Regarding the NZ Police, following a indepth review of management and administration in 1998, nearly 400 positions were no longer needed and a further 300 staff were affected by outsourcing.

Additionally in 2008, Authorised Officers (police employees with limited powers) were introduced to replace "temporary constables". These people receive only two weeks training and obviously less pay to work in non frontline duties. However, it is worth noting under the Policing Act 2008 they can be ordered to carry out other roles on a case-by-case basis but do not have powers of arrest. To date there are over 100 Authorised Officers in New Zealand with more on the way.

Given the bid for more cost savings, it's highly likely more privatisation and remodeling is in the pipeline.

[Akzle]

However, it is worth noting under the Policing Act 2008 they can be ordered to carry out other roles on a case-by-case basis but do not have powers of arrest. To date there are over 100 Authorised Officers in New Zealand with more on the way.
actually, any cunt, can be told by any cunt (with higher authority :laugh: ) to do any shit. cops, parameds, fire cunts, can all rope you in and tell you to act like you know what you're doing.


Given the bid for more cost savings, it's highly likely more privatisation and remodeling is in the pipeline.

vote your socks off everyone!

[TheDemonLord]

The contract tenders usually accepted are the (usually) lowest. Just standard business contract practice.

That isn't my issue per se - although just because someone can do something cheaper, doesn't mean they are doing it better.


In the case of speed camera operations ... the contractor takes the photos and sends them in for processing. They have no control over what happens then. Employees are un-sworn so no confidentiality issues need arise as they have no access to police data bases. They do not enforce ... just take pictures. The enforcement notice comes from LTSA. NOT the contractor.

Does the LTSA do any form of additional checking on each ticket? What form of oversight do they have? What safeguards do they have to ensure sufficient control over the Company? I know I'm going to channel the spirit of Katman here - but what barriers are there to stop a company fudging the figures in order to maximise profit? Whilst you might say that the same barriers exist within the a Governmental department to stop that department from doing the same - there is a level of access that a 3rd party (appointed by the Govt) would have to an internal department that they may not have with a private company.

My issue then becomes that the situation becomes the LTSA assumes a ticket is valid, without the current internal oversight that the LTSA and Police ultimately end up with the same reporting lines.

And when the Tyranny of a Government is brought to bear WITHOUT that safeguard, it is an area where we must tread very carefully indeed.


That's good of you ... you voted Labour probably ...

Well, that shows how little you understand my position and perspective.

[TheDemonLord]

Are you lot fucken retarded?

The profit is in the contract. The money the government pays them to do a job for them. Income from that job goes back to government.

A Contract that most likely would have one or a combination of the following:

1: a Fixed component with no regard to the number of tickets written - this would likely see a decrease in the number of tickets written as there is no financial incentive for going above and beyond

2: a fixed component with a minimum number of tickets required (and a financial penalty for meeting that number) - all well and good unless they are getting to the end of the month and need to make up the numbers

3: a fixed component with a per ticket bonus - this would financially incentivize the company to over-issue tickets - especially in the knowledge that few people fight speeding tickets so they are unlikely to be found out

4: a pure per-ticket model - same issue as above

There are other models they could adopt - but all lead back to the same fundamental issue - any financial reward or pressure that is directly tied to the performance of the company (where the most likely metric used will be number of tickets issued) will open up the likely hood of dodgy practices.

[FJRider]

That isn't my issue per se - although just because someone can do something cheaper, doesn't mean they are doing it better.

No ... it certainly does not. But that is how the tender contract system works. The Company awarding the contract has the responsibility to award it to a capable company that can do the required job. And it is up to the company awarded the contract do do it under budget ... (or pay the excess if they don't) but they also must fulfill the contract to the standards and requirements laid down in the original contract ... or be subject to the penalty's also stated in the contract.(You knew about the penalty bit didn't you ... ???)


Does the LTSA do any form of additional checking on each ticket? What form of oversight do they have? What safeguards do they have to ensure sufficient control over the Company? I know I'm going to channel the spirit of Katman here - but what barriers are there to stop a company fudging the figures in order to maximise profit? Whilst you might say that the same barriers exist within the a Governmental department to stop that department from doing the same - there is a level of access that a 3rd party (appointed by the Govt) would have to an internal department that they may not have with a private company.

Read the bit above. You obviously do not know the conditions that would be required to be filled to fill the contract. You can bet LTSA will not allow (possibility of) ANY falsification of the record keeping or access to ANY information not required to do the job.


My issue then becomes that the situation becomes the LTSA assumes a ticket is valid, without the current internal oversight that the LTSA and Police ultimately end up with the same reporting lines.

The contract is to operate a speed camera ... not issue tickets ..... :lol:


And when the Tyranny of a Government is brought to bear WITHOUT that safeguard, it is an area where we must tread very carefully indeed.

The idiocy of the general populace is of more concern to me ... ;)




Well, that shows how little you understand my position and perspective.

If you voted Labour ... your position would be usually sitting on your ass ... and your perspective is a shade tilted ...

[pete376403]

No ... it certainly does not. But that is how the tender contract system works. The Company awarding the contract has the responsibility to award it to a capable company that can do the required job. And it is up to the company awarded the contract do do it under budget ... (or pay the excess if they don't) but they also must fulfill the contract to the standards and requirements laid down in the original contract ... or be subject to the penalty's also stated in the contract.(You knew about the penalty bit didn't you ... ???)
do Government contracts work that way? Didn't seem to be that way when Talent2 did the Novapay fuckup? I recall the Govt (ie you and me) paid for the fixes, even though it was T2 who made the cockups

[Berries]

You obviously do not know the conditions that would be required to be filled to fill the contract. You can bet LTSA will not allow (possibility of) ANY falsification of the record keeping or access to ANY information not required to do the job.
Just for reference, the LTSA ceased to exist over ten years ago. NZTA contracts these days are a whole different kettle of bananas.

[TheDemonLord]

No ... it certainly does not. But that is how the tender contract system works. The Company awarding the contract has the responsibility to award it to a capable company that can do the required job. And it is up to the company awarded the contract do do it under budget ... (or pay the excess if they don't) but they also must fulfill the contract to the standards and requirements laid down in the original contract ... or be subject to the penalty's also stated in the contract.(You knew about the penalty bit didn't you ... ???)

Do you consider it possible to meet all the requirements of a Contact and still do a Shit job?


Read the bit above. You obviously do not know the conditions that would be required to be filled to fill the contract. You can bet LTSA will not allow (possibility of) ANY falsification of the record keeping or access to ANY information not required to do the job.

I agree that it will be clearly stipulated, however without full, open access to ALL of the private companies data by the NZTA, there remains the possibility of things being fudged.

I'm thinking along the lines of the VW emissions saga.


The contract is to operate a speed camera ... not issue tickets ..... :lol:

One has a direct causal relationship to the other....


The idiocy of the general populace is of more concern to me ... ;)

Well yes, I just wish we'd stop making it harder for themselves to remove their stupidity from the Gene pool...

but in seriousness, once the part of the State's ability to enforce something onto a citizen is delegated or contracted out - full control (in terms of the government being mandated by the will of the people) is lost.

There are some situations where this may be acceptable - but it requires very careful thought, discussion and debate. This current situation is not one that IMO meets the extremely high burden of necessity to warrant that delegation.


If you voted Labour ... your position would be usually sitting on your ass ... and your perspective is a shade tilted ...

Whilst I laffed at that - no, I didn't vote Labour - hence my point about you not understanding.

[Akzle]

Do you consider it possible to meet all the requirements of a Contact and still do a Shit job?

the comstabulary / ministry of works no longer put down roads, y'know...

[TheDemonLord]

the comstabulary / ministry of works no longer put down roads, y'know...

Case in point....

[Moi]

... but in seriousness, once the part of the State's ability to enforce something onto a citizen is delegated or contracted out - full control (in terms of the government being mandated by the will of the people) is lost.

There are some situations where this may be acceptable - but it requires very careful thought, discussion and debate. This current situation is not one that IMO meets the extremely high burden of necessity to warrant that delegation...

+1

I'd suggest that John Stuart Mill would have said much the same...

[Moi]

the comstabulary / ministry of works no longer put down roads, y'know...


Case in point....

Do contractors build better roads than what the Ministry of Works built?

Yes the technology has improved, so why do so many major roads have the seal peeling off?

[Zedder]

+1

I'd suggest that John Stuart Mill would have said much the same...


He probably said many such things while at the same time still involved with the British East India Company as it plundered India and South East Asia. His support of despotism as a legitimate mode of government is well known.

[Akzle]

Yes the technology has improved, so why do so many major roads have the seal peeling off?

jews .

[Moi]

He probably said many such things while at the same time still involved with the British East India Company as it plundered India and South East Asia. His support of despotism as a legitimate mode of government is well known.

True, but he saw it as "benevolent despotism"...

and he was not an advocate of India being governed by Britain rather than a private company... [put it round the wrong before - mustn't rely on memory :Oops: originally: and he also had a "road to Damascus" experience when he saw the benefit of India being governed by Britain rather than a private company...]

[Zedder]

True, and he also had a "road to Damascus" experience when he saw the benefit of India being governed by Britain rather than a private company...



If so, it only took him 35 years of working for the company to figure that out...

[Zedder]

True, but he saw it as "benevolent despotism"...

and he was not an advocate of India being governed by Britain rather than a private company... [put it round the wrong before - mustn't rely on memory :Oops: originally: and he also had a "road to Damascus" experience when he saw the benefit of India being governed by Britain rather than a private company...]


So, it looks like he would be the type of person to support speed cameras being privatised then...

[Moi]

So, it looks like he would be the type of person to support speed cameras being privatised then...

Not necessarily...

If I remember correctly, he opposed government that ruled with no concern for the people and promoted government that ruled while taking into account the people's wishes and which did no harm to either party and that either party had responsibility to ensure their actions were of benefit to society and did no harm to others...

I'd suggest, in this case, he'd see the government as having speed cameras as a way of protecting the many from the actions of a few whose actions could bring harm to the many and that the government is responsible for ensuring that those cameras are operated in a manner which brings no harm to the many and so the government is responsible for the entire operation of those cameras...

[swbarnett]

speed cameras as a way of protecting the many from the actions of a few whose actions could bring harm to the many
The problem is that speed cameras do nothing of the sort. It appears to me that the vast majority of speed related tickets are given under circumstances whereby the speed at which the driver was travelling is doing no harm to anyone.

[FJRider]

Do you consider it possible to meet all the requirements of a Contact and still do a Shit job?

They wont be asked to tar seal a road ... so we're safe there .. ;)

But are you actually aware HOW the information from camera vans process the information gathered during their time "Parked" ... is then converted to due process of law with infringement notices issued ... you can not have an intelligent argument on (possibility of) falsification of work hours or any other required data.


I agree that it will be clearly stipulated, however without full, open access to ALL of the private companies data by the NZTA, there remains the possibility of things being fudged.

I'm thinking along the lines of the VW emissions saga.

1. The contractor will be using LTSA supplied and certified equipment.

2. The contractor will be trained to a certified level to meet a standard that would meet court criteria.

3. The information gathered by the certified "Camera" machine is sealed and (usually) downloaded into LTSA computers at the end of their work day. NO direct interference/alteration to that information (or machine programing) is possible.

5. VW supplied information on their own systems ... using their own programs. Programs designed to withhold relevant information ... giving a false result to data gathered.

4. The contracting out of Speed Camera operation in nothing new. They've been doing it since day one of speed camera operations. They were never (seriously) questioned during those times.


One has a direct causal relationship to the other....

NO. It does not. As I have stated ... it is not possible.


Well yes, I just wish we'd stop making it harder for themselves to remove their stupidity from the Gene pool...

You do make it hard for yourself ... ;)


but in seriousness, once the part of the State's ability to enforce something onto a citizen is delegated or contracted out - full control (in terms of the government being mandated by the will of the people) is lost.

Speed camera operators enforce NOTHING. They merely provide the information and proof for the LTSA to enforce legislation. And in the past ... such contractors have done a bloody good job of doing that. You probably got a ticket through a contractors efforts.

I hope you thanked him ...


There are some situations where this may be acceptable - but it requires very careful thought, discussion and debate. This current situation is not one that IMO meets the extremely high burden of necessity to warrant that delegation.

IMO you are talking shit ... and it's starting to smell.


Whilst I laffed at that - no, I didn't vote Labour - hence my point about you not understanding.

Good news is .. I've stopped trying to understand you. Now I'm just poking fun at you whenever I can ... and most has gone over your head.

Are you short or did you duck ... :lol:

[FJRider]

do Government contracts work that way? Didn't seem to be that way when Talent2 did the Novapay fuckup? I recall the Govt (ie you and me) paid for the fixes, even though it was T2 who made the cockups

Perhaps ... "SOMEBODY" might have learned from that debacle ... we live in hope.

[Zedder]

I'd suggest, in this case, he'd see the government as having speed cameras as a way of protecting the many from the actions of a few whose actions could bring harm to the many and that the government is responsible for ensuring that those cameras are operated in a manner which brings no harm to the many and so the government is responsible for the entire operation of those cameras...


That would contravene his view on liberty i.e. that the individual ought to be free to do as he wishes unless he harms others. Note that it's not about the potential for harming others.

[Moi]

The problem is that speed cameras do nothing of the sort. It appears to me that the vast majority of speed related tickets are given under circumstances whereby the speed at which the driver was travelling is doing no harm to anyone.

Whether speed cameras do reduce harm or whether they are revenue gathering devices is a red herring - the question is whether the government should hand over to private enterprise the gathering of evidence that could be used to apply a penalty against a citizen? IMO, the government shouldn't, it should retain that responsibility.



That would contravene his view on liberty i.e. that the individual ought to be free to do as he wishes unless he harms others. Note that it's not about the potential for harming others.

OK, I thought he did speak of potential harm, as in the potential harm to some by the majority... As I'm relying on memory I could be wrong...

But as I said above: I believe that the government, under the concept of social contract, should be totally responsible for gathering evidence through speed cameras.

[FJRider]

The problem is that speed cameras do nothing of the sort. It appears to me that the vast majority of speed related tickets are given under circumstances whereby the speed at which the driver was travelling is doing no harm to anyone.

If I was to break into your house and steal your tv .. that would be ok with you ... because I wasn't doing you any actual harm ... right .. ???

But ... Fines for infringement of Land Transport Legislation ... is not based on the "Harm" one is doing to another. They are there in an attempt to simply reduce the injury and damage should an road accident occur.

However ... as many can afford to pay all their speed camera fines ... and knowing full well ... their license isn't at stake due to excessive demerit points.

Include demerit points with these fines would reduce the amount being collected from speed camera fines.

[FJRider]

That would contravene his view on liberty i.e. that the individual ought to be free to do as he wishes unless he harms others. Note that it's not about the potential for harming others.

What about endangering others through your actions on the road ... ???

[FJRider]

the question is whether the government should hand over to private enterprise the gathering of evidence that could be used to apply a penalty against a citizen? IMO, the government shouldn't, it should retain that responsibility.


They have been doing it since almost immediately after the first introduction of speed cameras ... why could/should it now be an issue ...???

[Moi]

They have been doing it since almost immediately after the first introduction of speed cameras ... why could/should it now be an issue ...???

The news report states: speed camera network could soon be privately managed as police look to re-deploy their resources to other areas which implies that at present the speed camera network is manned by people who are paid out of the police budget.

[Zedder]

What about endangering others through your actions on the road ... ???


Refer to your own post #74 for answer regarding harm.

[TheDemonLord]

They wont be asked to tar seal a road ... so we're safe there .. ;)

But are you actually aware HOW the information from camera vans process the information gathered during their time "Parked" ... is then converted to due process of law with infringement notices issued ... you can not have an intelligent argument on (possibility of) falsification of work hours or any other required data.

More or less - Who said anything about Work hours? I can think of a few ways that the Data could be manipulated either by Malice or Malpractice.


1. The contractor will be using LTSA supplied and certified equipment.

So does the NZTA also handle all the maintenance? Or the more likely scenario that this will be done in-house or using a 3rd party (approved) contractor. Now granted - the procedure will probably require some form of Certified testing method - but consider this:

The NZ Police use a tuned fork that oscillates at a known frequency to test their Radar equipment - this is recorded at the start of the day in a log book in handwriting with the Officers signature.

How hard is it to tick the box, fill in the paperwork without either doing the test or recording the accurate result?


2. The contractor will be trained to a certified level to meet a standard that would meet court criteria.

Yes - but the requirement to maintain that standard now sits outside the purview of the Government. I've trained IT staff on certain products and applications - I can assure you, not all of them would be considered competent enough to use said application with Admin rights without supervision.

3. The information gathered by the certified "Camera" machine is sealed and (usually) downloaded into LTSA computers at the end of their work day. NO direct interference/alteration to that information (or machine programing) is possible.[/quote]

As someone who works in IT:

Bull.
Shit.

In order to download the data - there must be a way to 'interfere' and 'alter' the data - be it over a network connection, cable connection or custom interface - any method that the NZTA can use to access the data has the possibility of being replicated.

There are certainly ways this can be minimised - but to say it's not possible is, quite frankly, Retarded.


5. VW supplied information on their own systems ... using their own programs. Programs designed to withhold relevant information ... giving a false result to data gathered.

Try again.

VW wrote engine management software to detect when an emissions test (carried out by a 3rd party) was being done and adjust the fuel map accordingly - My point being that even with a 3rd party organization doing verification of standards - it is possible to game the system.


4. The contracting out of Speed Camera operation in nothing new. They've been doing it since day one of speed camera operations. They were never (seriously) questioned during those times.

I'd be interested to read the exact details of this prior contracting out - I suspect it would be private contractors under the direct control of a Government agency which is NOT the same as a Private company contracting to a government agency - different lines of reporting, no direct access.


NO. It does not. As I have stated ... it is not possible.

Okay then - without the contractor taking a reading and a picture - how does the system generate a Ticket?

Oh? It doesn't? Sounds like a Causal relationship to me....

The entire system then hinges on an accurate reading and a picture which is then passed on. This isn't like the UK double-picture system where the Radar reading is backed up by the distance travelled by the car - the system is entirely dependent on accurate data from a single source.

And if that single source is inaccurate... (https://www.motormag.com.au/news/1702/victorian-motorist-busts-speed-camera-with-dashcam)



You do make it hard for yourself ... ;)

Well, I bought one of the fastest machines I could find....


Speed camera operators enforce NOTHING. They merely provide the information and proof for the LTSA to enforce legislation. And in the past ... such contractors have done a bloody good job of doing that. You probably got a ticket through a contractors efforts.

I hope you thanked him ...

That is semantics and you know it - Without the camera operator there is nothing for the NZTA to enforce ON. Thus the entire system (as above) is dependent on this lynch pin - remove it and no tickets get issued.


IMO you are talking shit ... and it's starting to smell.


Okay then - see the above Article about the Peninsula link Speed Camera - this is in Aus and for Months Citizens have been protesting that the camera was inaccurate - The investigation into the camera is still ongoing (this is just with a Government Dept running the show)

Now add a private company who likely gets either a commission or bonus that is tied to the number of tickets - you've added an extra layer of red tape and more importantly one that may have a vested interest in delaying/obfuscating as much as possible in order to protect a revenue stream.



Good news is .. I've stopped trying to understand you.

So many Snarky comments, so little time.



Now I'm just poking fun at you whenever I can ... and most has gone over your head.

Are you short or did you duck ... :lol:

It's a matter of perspective, when you are a long way off the point, I can see why you might be confused.

[swbarnett]

If I was to break into your house and steal your tv .. that would be ok with you ... because I wasn't doing you any actual harm ... right .. ???
WTF? You don't consider depriving me of my lawful possessions to be harmful?

Simply breaking the speed limit does no harm to anyone.


But ... Fines for infringement of Land Transport Legislation ... is not based on the "Harm" one is doing to another. They are there in an attempt to simply reduce the injury and damage should an road accident occur.
That's the current buzz phrase. They started out saying that simply by speeding you were increasing your chances of having an accident; I don't hear that as much any more so maybe the contrary has finally been accepted by TPTB.

Reducing the speed of the overall population is like making all the cooks knives blunt; yes, less harm is done when you cut yourself but you're more likely to cut yourself in the first place.

[Drew]

Do contractors build better roads than what the Ministry of Works built?

Yes the technology has improved, so why do so many major roads have the seal peeling off?

Because traffic levels have gone up in weight and numbers. The technology of tar hasn't charneed much.

[Swoop]

Ever since the State Owned Enterprises Act of 1986, the New Zealand Government has gone quite a way down the corporatisation and privatisation route and the Serco debacle is only one of many actions.

Given the bid for more cost savings, it's highly likely more privatisation and remodeling is in the pipeline.
The move away from the State being involved, started with "State Owned Enterprises" being carved off to (potentially) make a few dollars. In reality it was a buffer for the politicians in Wellytown who were sick and tired of being found wanting when it came to performance of their specific portfolios.

The best case in point came from massive stupidity in the health sector and the Minister of Health being found responsible for things happening in local hospitals. Result: The "District Health Board" was invented to simply take the heat off of the Minister.


All that really caught on. Politicians became aware of having someone else to blame, was really good! The idea spread...

Added to this was the fact that the government didn't need to employ hordes of stroppy staff who went on strike regularly (railway unions, etc ...).




Do contractors build better roads than what the Ministry of Works built?

Yes the technology has improved, so why do so many major roads have the seal peeling off?

As per above, still made to a price but the contractor can be blamed for shoddy workmanship.

[Scuba_Steve]

They wont be asked to tar seal a road ... so we're safe there .. ;)

But are you actually aware HOW the information from camera vans process the information gathered during their time "Parked" ... is then converted to due process of law with infringement notices issued ... you can not have an intelligent argument on (possibility of) falsification of work hours or any other required data.



1. The contractor will be using LTSA supplied and certified equipment.

2. The contractor will be trained to a certified level to meet a standard that would meet court criteria.

3. The information gathered by the certified "Camera" machine is sealed and (usually) downloaded into LTSA computers at the end of their work day. NO direct interference/alteration to that information (or machine programing) is possible.

5. VW supplied information on their own systems ... using their own programs. Programs designed to withhold relevant information ... giving a false result to data gathered.

4. The contracting out of Speed Camera operation in nothing new. They've been doing it since day one of speed camera operations. They were never (seriously) questioned during those times.



NO. It does not. As I have stated ... it is not possible.



You do make it hard for yourself ... ;)



Speed camera operators enforce NOTHING. They merely provide the information and proof for the LTSA to enforce legislation. And in the past ... such contractors have done a bloody good job of doing that. You probably got a ticket through a contractors efforts.

I hope you thanked him ...



IMO you are talking shit ... and it's starting to smell.



Good news is .. I've stopped trying to understand you. Now I'm just poking fun at you whenever I can ... and most has gone over your head.

Are you short or did you duck ... :lol:
:wacko: Holy shit you are delusional!
Some advise - "Don't get high off your own supply"


Because traffic levels have gone up in weight and numbers. The technology of tar hasn't charneed much.
Doesn't really explain how they can rip up a road in "meh" condition that's been there the past 2 decades, lay a new one down & have it fail to a condition much worse than the road they ripped up within a month or 2 tho does it

[Drew]

:wacko: Holy shit you are delusional!
Some advise - "Don't get high off your own supplyFuck you're full of shit.

Doesn't really explain how they can rip up a road in "meh" condition that's been there the past 2 decades, lay a new one down & have it fail to a condition much worse than the road they ripped up within a month or 2 tho does it
And that is the norm rather than the exception is it?

[Zedder]

The move away from the State being involved, started with "State Owned Enterprises" being carved off to (potentially) make a few dollars. .


The 1986 State Owned Enterprises Act was the precursor to all that, the process wouldn't have happened without it.

[Zedder]

Because traffic levels have gone up in weight and numbers. The technology of tar hasn't charneed much.


Yes. The most common form of shear instability of basecourses is due to traffic densification. This then leads to moisture ingress which accelerates road pavement failure.