How far can safety camera vans see

[nick mercedes]

Raising? Erm, no. ANPR is an extremely expensive, but effective, resource. The only "Income" that I can see is fines from offences such as having no insurance. This goes to central Government. Think of the average ANPR operation dishing out, say, 20 tickets at £100 a piece. Taking into account non-payment the net income is well under £2000. Which is hardly going to cover the costs involved!

To suggest that the motivation is revenue is wrong. It is an intelligence-led policing tool, used proactively in response to local demand.

It's difficult to justify ANPR when so much of everyday reported crime is ignored by the police.

While uninsured drivers are a pain, I'd rather they were left alone and some effort was made to tackle real crime...

And how come it always seems to be used on bypasses and motorways?

From what I can see they only use the ANPR vans in locations where it's hard for people to get away from, ie the M1.

 

[nick mercedes]

I Still not clear where you think the nation has to wake up to ANPR as being a revenue raiser though?

Speeding is not a "detected crime" quoted anywhere so far as I know?

The only people I know of who have a real problem with ANPR are those who suffer as a direct result of it - and they, pretty universally, are criminals...

I was talking about cameras generally.

We all suffer as a result of being monitered going about our business.

Effectivly we are all being treated as criminals.

 

[Howard]

' Hand-held devices are capable of measuring vehicle speeds from a minimum range of 50 feet to a maximum of 2,000 feet and recording speeds from a minimum of 5mph to a maximum of 155mph. '

I think I can see an answer to this ..... make sure you are doing more than 155 mph at all times

 

[Swiss Toni]

I was talking about cameras generally.

We all suffer as a result of being monitered going about our business.

Effectivly we are all being treated as criminals.

Thats the flaw in your arguement - you don't differentiate between Speed enforcement and ANPR (are yo uable to differentiate between them?).

You may feel that you are being treated as a criminal, I don't, but then I know how they work, so it doesn't worry me.


Of course if you feel you have a better answer..... (recycled now usually points out that it is not his job to come up with a better answer, that is the job of the state - which, of course, is right )

I'm sure we've run this thread before.

 

[nick mercedes]

Thats the flaw in your arguement - you don't differentiate between Speed enforcement and ANPR (are yo uable to differentiate between them?).

You may feel that you are being treated as a criminal, I don't, but then I know how they work, so it doesn't worry me.

As far as I'm aware they record the number plates of all passing cars and send the information (date time place etc) to a central database?

According to this article said data is kept for 5 years.

"The police are to expand a car surveillance operation that will allow them to record and store details of millions of daily journeys for up to five years"

"The director of Privacy International, Simon Davies, said last night the database would give police "extraordinary powers of surveillance". "This would never be allowed in any other democratic country,"

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/15/civilliberties.police)

Is it only me who thinks that there's something Stazi like about a government monitering the movements of all the population and keeping records of these for 5 years on some database somewhere?

Is keeping records of movement of all the UK's population not treating everyone as criminals?

 

[st4]

I am back from work and had the pleasure of reading this thread and its developments.

I would have been at a significant angle to the camera can, roughly 20 degrees and at least 1 mile away, but I spotted it on its usual bridge and braked fairly promptly on seeing what I suspsected to be the van. Given the various posts I think I probably have had a lucky escape, as I was so far away when I spotted it, and reduced my speed in all liklihood before the point where it would lock on to me and the angle of the camera lens to me, would take my speed down to below 100mph.

Biscuit has complained about my likening raod surveillence to being treated like a peofile. I need to explain this a bit more and justify my example to him as he has complained.

Look at a regi plate as a unique vehicle identifier that can be read by various monitoring cameras electonically and it automaticaly brings up your details. This is comparible to what a child molestor (or any other electronically tagged criminal) has. This tag is a unique identifier than can determine their whereabouts at any one time. The camera van in my case could have done this, the SPECS cameras ANPR etc etc.

I also use this example to compare GPS based road pricing and pay as you drive insurance to electronic tagging (which they do to child molestors) and as such I feel that (in all liklihood these schemes will happen) I when I drive will be treated like the scum of the earth. I compare these electronic tagging spy boxes to being treated like a peado for a) maximum effect so some folk may think a bit deeper about it b) its the same thing.

 

[st4]

Of course it would be much fairer if the money from fines only went into paying for the cost of detection, enforcement and administration of the offenders who commit the offences, but if there was no money, then I'd be paying more in tax to pay for the folks who commit the offences!!!

So in otherwords traffic law enforcement is about money

Mr Saunders says he wouldn't want to live anywhere where there isn't regulation. Neither would I, but perhaps there is a tad too much regulation, surveillence (like speed traps) etc out there on the roads. Minus the cameras how bad would things really get? 20 years ago they weren't there and there are plenty of people alive to tell the tale so I don't buy the safety argument. I however think its to do with revenue, and quite frankly I resent that. In my case less so due to the excessiveness of my speed, but an A210's 2mph breach and guccis box junction fine. C'mon rules are rules and all that, but its just being pedantic to raise money. Its the jobsworth mentality.

 

[robert.saunders]

plenty of folk willing to exercise their right foot and keep the coffers flowing with income it seems!

oh, and call me Rob, everybody does

 

[st4]

plenty of folk willing to exercise their right foot and keep the coffers flowing with income it seems!

Ironic as I don't often travel at speed. I had a much faster car but it was wasted on me as I never really used its full performance.

oh, and call me Rob, everybody does

will do

 

[Corrado]

I am back from work and had the pleasure of reading this thread and its developments.

I would have been at a significant angle to the camera can, roughly 20 degrees and at least 1 mile away, but I spotted it on its usual bridge and braked fairly promptly on seeing what I suspsected to be the van. Given the various posts I think I probably have had a lucky escape, as I was so far away when I spotted it, and reduced my speed in all liklihood before the point where it would lock on to me and the angle of the camera lens to me, would take my speed down to below 100mph.

Biscuit has complained about my likening raod surveillence to being treated like a peofile. I need to explain this a bit more and justify my example to him as he has complained.

Look at a regi plate as a unique vehicle identifier that can be read by various monitoring cameras electonically and it automaticaly brings up your details. This is comparible to what a child molestor (or any other electronically tagged criminal) has. This tag is a unique identifier than can determine their whereabouts at any one time. The camera van in my case could have done this, the SPECS cameras ANPR etc etc.

I also use this example to compare GPS based road pricing and pay as you drive insurance to electronic tagging (which they do to child molestors) and as such I feel that (in all liklihood these schemes will happen) I when I drive will be treated like the scum of the earth. I compare these electronic tagging spy boxes to being treated like a peado for a) maximum effect so some folk may think a bit deeper about it b) its the same thing.

This one again .

I make it easy for the authorities. I carry my own trackable device almost everywhere I go and use it to send and receive calls and texts. Do you?

 

[st4]

This one again .

I make it easy for the authorities. I carry my own trackable device almost everywhere I go and use it to send and receive calls and texts. Do you?

I usually switch it off - I detest the things for so many reasons. They give out radiation IIRC and if kept in a trouser pocket thats uncomfortably close to a part of my body I'd rather not have trouble with.

 

[st13phil]

Clearly the steadiness of sighting of the hand-held device affects operating range, but does not affect accuracy.

I know that quote was taken from somewhere on t'internet (I'm guessing from the wording that it was a (s)camera partnership site), but it does show how much bs surrounds these devices.

In any case the device will not display any speed reading unless a proper 'lock-on' has occurred.

And the salient point regarding that statment is "lock-on" to what? If the beam spread and potential alignment issues at very long range are taken into account then it's clear the the device in question may display something with a misleading degree of precision, but it certainly isn't accurate.

Anyone who has shot a rifle at 1000yds will know quite how difficult it is to aim at something and hit what you're aiming at. It takes a damn good shot to reliably hit stationary things at that distance, yet some bloke in a van (which is on suspension and therefore subject to movement)...

I was caught over 900 metres away.

can reliably target a moving vehicle at 900m? Yeah, right...

 

[Dieselman]

This one again .

The wonders of copy and paste...saves hours of typing.

 

[scumbag]

oh, and call me Rob, everybody does

Ok Bob!

 

[robert.saunders]

Ok Bob!

er, not Bob

 

[brandwooddixon]

Back to the original post.

Laser speed cameras are calibrated up to 1000m for the UK. I have personally been nabbed at 675m (its printed on the photo if you ask for it).

SPECS speed averaging (ANPR cameras) will capture cars travelling up to 169mph.

 

[Carrotchomper]

Back to the original post.

Laser speed cameras are calibrated up to 1000m for the UK. I have personally been nabbed at 675m (its printed on the photo if you ask for it).

SPECS speed averaging (ANPR cameras) will capture cars travelling up to 169mph.

This is EXACTLY the reason that I try to keep above an indicated 175mph on such sections of road.

 

[flango]

Back to the original post.

Laser speed cameras are calibrated up to 1000m for the UK. I have personally been nabbed at 675m (its printed on the photo if you ask for it).

SPECS speed averaging (ANPR cameras) will capture cars travelling up to 169mph.

Just out of interest does anyone know the maximum operational speed of Gatso's and Truvelo's ?

 

[crockers]

This is EXACTLY the reason that I try to keep above an indicated 175mph on such sections of road.

Stop dawdling in second gear ....

 

[SilverSaloon]

Naughty Naughty Steven

Are you going to bring a pushbike to the Scottish Meet from now on?

hehe, i jest - i am sure you will be fine from that distance. Fingers crossed. We all drive a bit enthusiastic at times and the people who dont agree to that are kidding themselves.