Photo radar has been used in Australia for around 7-8 years, and in 1993, the New Zealand police decided to follow the Australians lead (as they slavishly do in all policy matters) and introduce it into New Zealand. They bought around 30 of Autopatrol PR100 cameras, which are a mobile Ka band unit. These are usually mounted in the back of a Toyota Camery station wagon, but can also be mounted on a tripod, away from the vehicle. At the same time, they bought 16 (?) fixed pole mounted cameras, which they move between various sites, so you can't tell if the box on the pole is loaded or not.
New Zealand is a small country at the bottom of the Pacific (head for Australia {the West Island), turn right and down a bit and there it is). Population of 3.5 million people, and 60 million sheep, although sometimes it is hard to tell them apart. We have around 1 - 1.5 million vehicles on the road. Around 2/3's of the population lives in the northern quarter. Land area is roughly the same as the UK, and cars are the main means of transport throughout most of the country.
The cost of buying the cameras and setting them up was $NZ17 million (around $US10 million) and in the first year of operation, they brought in $NZ23 million ( $US16 million) - a return on investment the mafia would be proud of. Each year since, they have averaged $23-25 million each year, with running costs of around $NZ10 million ($US 6 million). I am not 100% sure of the running costs figure, but I believe it is correct. I don't believe it would be any higher.
There are a few interesting points:
when they were introduced, the police and politicians said that it was not to be a money making venture, rather it was to increase road safety. To this end, one must ask why all the funds collected go into the consolidated fund, rather than driver safety and education? Despite election promises to the contrary, this has not changed, and has been quietly forgotten about.
In order to ease the introduction, it was stated policy that the cameras would not be hidden, but must be visible from 50m away. This is not as generous as it sounds, since it takes your picture at a 22.5 degree angle across the road, or around 25m away from the car. This gives you just enough time to put on a big smile as the robot says "cheese". It has also been observed in the breach in many occasions, as cars are hidden by trees, etc. As is typical of politicians promises, this has now been broken. They are "trialling" hidden camera deployment, with the aim of making it nationwide. Currently there are demerit points on your license for each ticket issued by an ordinary cop, but not with camera tickets. I am willing to wager that this will change within the next 2 years. Similarly, they are (supposed) to be used only in areas designated as speed camera zones, with signs to war motorists. Again, this has often not been the case (but the ticket is still valid, with or without the sign) and there are moves to remove this condition as well.
At the time of introduction, a law was passed through Parliament saying that the registered owner of the vehicle was responsible for all tickets issued to the vehicle. Yup, if the police say you are guilty, then it must be so, unless you can point to someone else. Can't do that? To bad, pay the Man on the way out. Where were the cries of civil liberties groups, who are usually so vocal in cases of "guilty until proven innocent"? They were astonishingly quiet, possibly do to the "crime" becoming not politically correct thanks to a multi million dollar ad campaign supporting the introduction of speed cameras at the time. Proving yourself innocent is impossible, as there is no officer to put on the witness stand to cross examine, and unless you can name the driver, you end up wearing it anyway. Although the cameras are smart, they are not infallible, e.g. they require setting up so that the beam angle runs across the line of traffic at 22.5 degrees. If this is not done, then the resulting speed reading will be wrong. Try proving that it wasn't done correctly, 3 weeks after the fact... Other issues include (from the RADAR page on the subject
- doubts about the legality of issuing traffic citations through the
mail;
- the inability of drivers to prepare an effective defense;
- the presumption that a vehicle owner is guilty unless the person can prove
his or her innocence;
- the loss of personal contact and discretion on the part of police;
- the temptation for municipalities to use this technology as a money-making
machine;
- the probability that many drunk and otherwise dangerous drivers will go
undetected.
In NZ, we got around these issues by making the machines inffliable, as well as the postal service (!)
And the NZ drivers associations? Well there aren't any, unless you count the AA, who are an insurance company masquerading as a drivers association. At best they are extremely toothless, and in this case, change their tune to whatever the official line is at the time. Before the introduction of speed cameras, IIRC, the AA supported them so long as they were not used on motorways, and only in areas with a proven accident record. Neither of these conditions were met, but the AA didn't say a word. Like all insurance companies, they benefit greatly from camera tickets, as you have to declare any within the last 5 years when applying for insurance, thu