I posted it a week or so ago . The timeline is starting to look accurate though . But it’s a valid question asked above , when everyone is compliant car wise then where does the money come from?
The same issue applies to smoking and drinking.
The government is taxing tobacco and alcohol because they want to reduce consumption. But if everyone stopped smoking and drinking... the treasury will have a gapping hole in its finances.
So, I'll tell you a story... a friend of mine owns a small plot of land nearby, that is used as an off-street pay-and-display car park (fitting about 10 cars). The site is fully set-up as a public car park, complete with marked bays, posted notices, a ticket machine and CCTV camera.
My friend said that the site is operated by a parking management firm, who gives him 100% of the parking fees collected by the ticket machine. In return, the parking company gets to keep all the fines that it collects from drivers who park in breach of the posted contract.
This may sound like a very poor business model on the part of the parking company, but in fact they know their business... and their model is based on human behaviour. No matter how big and clear the signs are, or how prominent is the camera, there will always be drivers who will either park without paying, or exceed the permitted parking duration.
The same applies to all traffic enforcement systems. In theory, traffic wardens who issue no tickets at all are the most effective, because the more parking tickets they issue, the less effective their job is in preventing illegal parking. Speed cameras that do not catch any speeding drivers are 100% effective is preventing speeding, while those who catch a lot of rivers are clearly useless at achieving what they are meant to achieve. It's a spin-off from the 'survivor bias'.
The short answer, is that if you take a large enough group of people, they will never all be 100% compliant, and that's how the scheme will be paid for.
