cameras on lamp-posts?

[DerbyBorn]

Near me are a couple of lamp-posts on opposite sides of the road (busy
estate) which have some sort of camera device aiming at the oncoming
traffic. There are no additional boxes on the posts.

The cameras are about 1.5" high; 7" wide and about 8" deep. I think they
have 3 windows on the front.

I haven't seen any others so I have discounted traffic flow monitoring. Any
ideas?

[Andy Burns]

DerbyBorn wrote:

> Near me are a couple of lamp-posts on opposite sides of the road (busy
> estate) which have some sort of camera device aiming at the oncoming

> traffic. . Any ideas?

ANPR?

[Tim+]

Yes. A photo would be a huge help. ;-)

[dennis@home]

ANPR.

[johnje...@gmail.com]

Orwellian present?

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article <XJ-dnSzI7rUMK1XL...@brightview.co.uk>,

Sounds like it - the 3 windows are 2 for infrared LEDs, and one for
the camera lense. There are thousands of these, and it was their
roll-out which enabled the tax disc to be ditched.

Another new camera type being rolled out over last couple of years
is the new type of average speed camera. They point at a picture
frame painted on the road, and illuminated by a dedicated streetlamp
or LED spotlights. They raised £100,000 in fines on the A40 and
A406 North Circular Road in the first month of operation before the
signs were erected. They are being rolled out on many main roads in
London this year, and the Gatsos are being removed.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

[hgww]

"Andrew Gabriel" <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:naaqdi$i0c$1...@dont-email.me...

> In article <XJ-dnSzI7rUMK1XL...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Andy Burns <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> writes:
>> DerbyBorn wrote:
>>
>>> Near me are a couple of lamp-posts on opposite sides of the road (busy
>>> estate) which have some sort of camera device aiming at the oncoming
>>> traffic. . Any ideas?
>>
>> ANPR?
>
> Sounds like it - the 3 windows are 2 for infrared LEDs, and one for
> the camera lense. There are thousands of these, and it was their
> roll-out which enabled the tax disc to be ditched.

We don't have those and ditched our equivalent of the tax disc anyway.

The cop cars have what allowed the equivalent of
the tax disc to be ditched and allows the cops to
fuck the driver of the car that fails the check over.

> Another new camera type being rolled out over last couple of years
> is the new type of average speed camera. They point at a picture
> frame painted on the road, and illuminated by a dedicated streetlamp

> or LED spotlights. They raised Ł100,000 in fines on the A40 and

[johnje...@gmail.com]

I'm reliably informed Jay Leno commented to JC about remote automatic speed cameras or similar "we wouldn't have a problem with these in America, we'd just shoot them out". Wonder how protected they are against an airgun or a crossbow?

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 22:47:14 -0000 (UTC), Andrew Gabriel wrote:

> They raised £100,000 in fines on the A40 and A406 North Circular Road in
> the first month of operation before the signs were erected.

Shirely, before the signs are in place and correct size, location,
colours etc, the "offences" recorded by the cameras are not
enforceable? Or did people just cough up without checking the
"evidence".

--
Cheers
Dave.

[dennis@home]

As long as the speed limit signs are OK there is no requirement to make
speed traps visible. The signs are just to encourage you to drive
according to the law.

[Andy Burns]

dennis@home wrote:

> As long as the speed limit signs are OK there is no requirement to make
> speed traps visible. The signs are just to encourage you to drive
> according to the law.

There is (was?) a requirement to make them hi-viz if they wanted the
fine "income" to stay local, rather than get whisked off to central
government coffers ...

[Tricky Dicky]

I think the hi-viz rule only applied to speed cameras, ANPR cameras are not speed cameras. Also plenty of unmarked police cars are fitted with ANPR don't see them being repainted dayglo yellow any time soon.

Richard

[Andy Burns]

Tricky Dicky wrote:

> I think the hi-viz rule only applied to speed cameras, ANPR cameras are not speed cameras.

The discussion turned to the new type of average speed camera mentioned
by Andrew Gabriel ...

[dennis@home]

I don't think any of the fines stay local any more.
The police used to run hidden cameras when the "safety cameras" were in
full swing.

[Stuart Noble]

A friend's wife asked why they were using average speed cameras.Couldn't
they afford good ones?
Oh dear

[Andy Burns]

dennis@home wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> There is (was?) a requirement to make them hi-viz if they wanted the
>> fine "income" to stay local
>

> I don't think any of the fines stay local any more.

They probably keep the money local by selling speed awareness courses
rather than issuing fines whenever possible

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 21/02/16 19:00, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <NcednRxPL7JflVfL...@brightview.co.uk>, Andy

> Any attempt to make the fines local should be resisted as hard as
> possible. Once they are local, there is incentive - as happens in the
> US - for the cops to start indulging in legalised banditry.
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_wLVCLPx0M

:-)

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 16:04:18 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

>>> They raised £100,000 in fines on the A40 and A406 North Circular
Road
>>> in the first month of operation before the signs were erected.
>>
>> Shirely, before the signs are in place and correct size, location,
>> colours etc, the "offences" recorded by the cameras are not
>> enforceable? Or did people just cough up without checking the
>> "evidence".
>
> As long as the speed limit signs are OK there is no requirement to make
> speed traps visible.

Unless they have changed the rules again single camera "gatso" type
devices or temporary/mobile cameras have to have speed camera signage
before them at specificed distances/sizes etc dependant on road and
camera sign and speed limit sign as well. The cameras themselves are
also supposed to be visible, which means the front and back have had
hi-viz stuck on them.

This is a new form of speed camera measuring average speed. Works
fine on motorway and or similar roads with no junctions, traffic
lights etc. People just pop cruise on at the specified speed and bowl
along.

But in a section of road with a nominal 40 mph limit and a set of
traffic lights that hold you up. If your average speed across those
lights and section of road is 40 mph you *must* have been exceeding
the speed limit. But they can't prove by how much (was it 2 mph over
all the way or 20 mph over for 50yds, the penalties are very
different), when (only sometime between your entry and exit times of
the road section or where (only the road section).

There must be more to this than meets the eye, some new offence?

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Chris B]

According to

http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/vector.htm

Did you know? Vectors cameras that are NOT yellow are normal ANPR
cameras. Only the yellow ones are used for speed enforcement.

They also say that other uses of Vector cameras include

Bus lane enforcement
‣Level crossings
‣Red light enforcement
‣Yellow box violations
‣Tolling
‣Access control
‣Congestion charging
‣Parking management


--
Chris B News

[dennis@home]

On 22/02/2016 00:12, Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 16:04:18 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>
>>>> They raised £100,000 in fines on the A40 and A406 North Circular
> Road
>>>> in the first month of operation before the signs were erected.
>>>
>>> Shirely, before the signs are in place and correct size, location,
>>> colours etc, the "offences" recorded by the cameras are not
>>> enforceable? Or did people just cough up without checking the
>>> "evidence".
>>
>> As long as the speed limit signs are OK there is no requirement to make
>> speed traps visible.
>
> Unless they have changed the rules again single camera "gatso" type
> devices or temporary/mobile cameras have to have speed camera signage
> before them at specificed distances/sizes etc dependant on road and
> camera sign and speed limit sign as well. The cameras themselves are
> also supposed to be visible, which means the front and back have had
> hi-viz stuck on them.

That has never been true.
The police have always been able to operate hidden speed traps,
including cameras. Even when the bright yellow ones were compulsory for
the safety cameras the police could set a hidden one a couple of hundred
yards down the road.

The signs are there to get more drivers to obey the speed limits as are
the high vis cameras.

>
> This is a new form of speed camera measuring average speed. Works
> fine on motorway and or similar roads with no junctions, traffic
> lights etc. People just pop cruise on at the specified speed and bowl
> along.
>
> But in a section of road with a nominal 40 mph limit and a set of
> traffic lights that hold you up. If your average speed across those
> lights and section of road is 40 mph you *must* have been exceeding
> the speed limit. But they can't prove by how much (was it 2 mph over
> all the way or 20 mph over for 50yds, the penalties are very
> different), when (only sometime between your entry and exit times of
> the road section or where (only the road section).
>
> There must be more to this than meets the eye, some new offence?
>

They don't need a new offence, if you take less than a certain time to
cross the zone you are speeding, its very simple. They can have multiple
entry and exit cameras if they want. It doesn't make much sense to time
people across the lights but they can put cameras on lights. If you look
at traffic lights some of them now have boxes on sticks. These are
aerials in the main but I have seen some with cameras.
These are not the same as the sensors for traffic which you also get on
some lights where they have stopped slitting the road and putting in
wire sensors.

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article <NcednRxPL7JflVfL...@brightview.co.uk>,

Exactly. Befordshire police said that's why they now run the speed
cameras on the M1 all the time, not just when the limit is reduced
below 70 as had been the case. The income pays for 5 extra officers.

[Andy Burns]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

> Befordshire police [...] now run the speed cameras on the M1 all the

> time, not just when the limit is reduced below 70 as had been the
> case. The income pays for 5 extra officers.

I must remember that when I go South. There's talk of them doing
similar on the Nottinghamshire HADECS2 section.

[barno...@gmail.com]

It's a speedspike camera.

[dennis@home]

On 02/09/2016 21:28, barno...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's a speedspike camera.
>

There are several types of cameras on lamp posts..

council run CCTV
Police run CCTV
ANPR run by the DVLA
ANPR run by the counter terrorism unit
Police run speed traps (they can be hidden).
there used to be council run speed traps but they haven't got any
revenue from them for years so they have gone.
Council run parking cameras.
Council run bus lane cameras.
Lots of other organisations can also put cameras on lamp posts and other
poles including the AA and RAC.

[F]

They've been checking 70+ at all times on the M62 in Yorkshire since
they were switched on.

--
F

[Andy Burns]

Tim Streater wrote:

> Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>
>> Befordshire police [...] now run the speed cameras on the M1 all the
>> time, not just when the limit is reduced below 70 as had been the
>> case. The income pays for 5 extra officers.
>

> How does that work?

It's an idea from their Police & Crime Commissioner, which was still
being talked of as "a proposal" in June.