Cloned Car Plates
Judith
A friend has received a speeding ticket - he was 200 miles away at the
time.
He has contacted the police and they say he has to take photos of the
rear and front of his car and take them in to the local police
station.
Surely if the police want to prove that it was his car - then it is
they who need to photograph the car?
Should he just write and tell them it cannot have been his car and
leave it at that?
Dr Zoidberg
"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6vrgj6ds2q8jkav35...@4ax.com...
exercising his legal rights, knowing that it will end up causing him far
more trouble.
You are entirely correct that he is under no obligation to take a photo, and
if he doesn't the police will carry on with the prosecution and he'll end up
in court where he can show *them* a photo of his car to prove it's not the
same as the one in the photo that the police have.
Or he could take the picture now and it will be compared to the one from the
speed camera at which point they will (hopefully) see that it's a different
vehicle and that will be the end of it.
--
Alex
Judith
<AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:6vrgj6ds2q8jkav35...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> A friend has received a speeding ticket - he was 200 miles away at the
>> time.
>>
>> He has contacted the police and they say he has to take photos of the
>> rear and front of his car and take them in to the local police
>> station.
>>
>> Surely if the police want to prove that it was his car - then it is
>> they who need to photograph the car?
>>
>> Should he just write and tell them it cannot have been his car and
>> leave it at that?
>>
>That depends on whether he wants to be bloody minded and insist on
>exercising his legal rights, knowing that it will end up causing him far
>more trouble.
>
>You are entirely correct that he is under no obligation to take a photo, and
>if he doesn't the police will carry on with the prosecution and he'll end up
>in court where he can show *them* a photo of his car to prove it's not the
>same as the one in the photo that the police have.
And there was me thinking it was up to the police to prove guilt
rather than the accused to prove innocence.
>Or he could take the picture now and it will be compared to the one from the
>speed camera at which point they will (hopefully) see that it's a different
>vehicle and that will be the end of it.
I did not say he should just ignore things.
I said he could write to the police and obviously explain the
circumstances: perhaps where he was at the time - who was with him -
those sorts of things.
I would have thought that if someone had cloned plates then the police
would be interested in solving that crime - rather than the minor
speeding offence.
Perhaps you are right and they would not be interested - I guess it is
a sort of "mentality" thing.
It sounds like you think that if he wrote and told them it could not
be his car it would still be in the public interest to pursue the
speeding case to court rather than investigate a more serious offence.
I guess also it would be much to difficult for the police to take his
word for it - put an ANPR alert in the location where the fake plates
were spotted and pursue it that way.
(PS - I was unsure of why you used the word "hopefully" above - if
it's any help - I am not lying nor was my friend)
John Briggs
The police have only to look on the DVLA database to see that it is a
different vehicle.
--
John Briggs
Saxman
I have been a victim of cloned plates twice with the same registration
twice. I sent the local police station (some 70 miles away) a formal
letter explaining that it could not possibly have be me and that was the
end of it.
Surely it's the job of the police to prove a victim guilty beyond doubt
rather than the reverse.
Cloned plates are not your problem, it's a police problem?
The cloned driver is likely to ignore the law and makes life
inconvenient of the true owner of a registration.
TTman
colour...
Probably easier to prove he was elsewhere at the time. Phone records, petrol
bill etc...
Adrian
they were saying:
>>> A friend has received a speeding ticket - he was 200 miles away at the
>>> time.
>>>
>>> He has contacted the police and they say he has to take photos of the
>>> rear and front of his car and take them in to the local police
>>> station.
>>>
>>> Surely if the police want to prove that it was his car - then it is
>>> they who need to photograph the car?
>>>
>>> Should he just write and tell them it cannot have been his car and
>>> leave it at that?
>>That depends on whether he wants to be bloody minded and insist on
>>exercising his legal rights, knowing that it will end up causing him far
>>more trouble.
>>
>>You are entirely correct that he is under no obligation to take a photo,
>>and if he doesn't the police will carry on with the prosecution and
>>he'll end up in court where he can show *them* a photo of his car to
>>prove it's not the same as the one in the photo that the police have.
> And there was me thinking it was up to the police to prove guilt rather
> than the accused to prove innocence.
They have photographic proof showing that a car bearing the plates
allocated to the accused was speeding. Since it's a legal requirement for
the registered keeper to name the driver, or face prosecution for failing
to do so, unless he has a reasonable excuse for not knowing, it's up to
the keeper to demonstrate that he does indeed have that reasonable excuse
- that it wasn't his car.
Anyway - don't forget that, at the FPN stage, it's not a prosecution.
It's an opportunity to AVOID being prosecuted by admitting guilt. You're
more than welcome to say "I'm not guilty", and potentially face a court
case according to all the usual rules of evidence and proof.
The fact they're also offering another extra opportunity - a nice easy
way to knock it on the head early - is just icing on the cake.
Adrian
were saying:
> Cloned cars are usually just that. A Clone. Same make, same model, same
> colour...
There are very frequently small differences that make it easy to tell two
<say> green Focus estates apart, even from a photo.
Nightjar <"cpb"@
> On 20/01/2011 19:20, Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>> Or he could take the picture now and it will be compared to the one from
>> the speed camera at which point they will (hopefully) see that it's a
>> different vehicle and that will be the end of it.
>
> The police have only to look on the DVLA database to see that it is a
> different vehicle.
How, given that a common method of cloning is to drive to a different
town, look for a vehicle of the same make, model and colour and use that
number?
Colin Bignell
Alex Heney
wrote:
He will then probably have to attend court to defend himself.
Yes, they have to prove it was him in order to win in court, but they
can take him to court without having to prove anything (the whole
point of the court appearance being to prove the case).
And in court, he would have ton provide some sort of evidence that the
car being photographed was not his - whether evidence of the
appearance of his car, or evidence that his car was elsewhere.
Otherwise, photographs showing a car with his registration number
would be considered sufficient evidence to convict.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:20:02 +0000, "Dr Zoidberg"
><AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:6vrgj6ds2q8jkav35...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> A friend has received a speeding ticket - he was 200 miles away at the
>>> time.
>>>
>>> He has contacted the police and they say he has to take photos of the
>>> rear and front of his car and take them in to the local police
>>> station.
>>>
>>> Surely if the police want to prove that it was his car - then it is
>>> they who need to photograph the car?
>>>
>>> Should he just write and tell them it cannot have been his car and
>>> leave it at that?
>>>
>>That depends on whether he wants to be bloody minded and insist on
>>exercising his legal rights, knowing that it will end up causing him far
>>more trouble.
>>
>>You are entirely correct that he is under no obligation to take a photo, and
>>if he doesn't the police will carry on with the prosecution and he'll end up
>>in court where he can show *them* a photo of his car to prove it's not the
>>same as the one in the photo that the police have.
>
>And there was me thinking it was up to the police to prove guilt
>rather than the accused to prove innocence.
>
A photograph of a car with his registration number will be plenty to
prove the guilt, unless he can introduce "reasonable doubt!" about
whether it was actually his car.
>
>>Or he could take the picture now and it will be compared to the one from the
>>speed camera at which point they will (hopefully) see that it's a different
>>vehicle and that will be the end of it.
>
<snip>
>
>(PS - I was unsure of why you used the word "hopefully" above - if
>it's any help - I am not lying nor was my friend)
The car carrying the cloned plates will very probably be a similar
model, and if it is a common colour, even that could well match.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Laughter: The shortest distance between two people.
Alex Heney
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>>
>> That depends on whether he wants to be bloody minded and insist on
>> exercising his legal rights, knowing that it will end up causing him far
>> more trouble.
>>
>> You are entirely correct that he is under no obligation to take a photo,
>> and if he doesn't the police will carry on with the prosecution and
>> he'll end up in court where he can show *them* a photo of his car to
>> prove it's not the same as the one in the photo that the police have.
>>
>> Or he could take the picture now and it will be compared to the one from
>> the speed camera at which point they will (hopefully) see that it's a
>> different vehicle and that will be the end of it.
>
>The police have only to look on the DVLA database to see that it is a
>different vehicle.
Huh?
how will the DVLA database tell them that?
Even if the DVLA database shows the car as being a different colour,
it could always have been resprayed.
It will almost certainly be the same model, as anybody with access to
the facilities to make illegal number plates will also know how to
look up registration numbers to find the make and model.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I tried to daydream, but my mind kept wandering.
R. Mark Clayton
> time.
Where was his car?
>
> He has contacted the police and they say he has to take photos of the
> rear and front of his car and take them in to the local police
> station.
Get an email address or mobile number from them and send one from the phone.
>
> Surely if the police want to prove that it was his car - then it is
> they who need to photograph the car?
>
> Should he just write and tell them it cannot have been his car and
> leave it at that?
>
More likely some numpty in the ticket department has misread the number.
You probably won't get costs if you don't co-operate.
Steve Firth
> The fact they're also offering another extra opportunity - a nice easy
> way to knock it on the head early - is just icing on the cake.
Since cloners usually put the cloned plate on a car that matches the
desription of the one they took the plate from, one wonders what the
photos that were requested will prove.
Speed camera shows R-reg Metro[1] doing 70mph along the A4.
J's friend takes picture of their R-reg Metro[1] with the same plate,
same car colour.
How does plod, or the court, determine that these are not the same
vehicle?
[1] For example.
Dr Zoidberg
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:20:02 +0000, "Dr Zoidberg"
> <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:6vrgj6ds2q8jkav35...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> A friend has received a speeding ticket - he was 200 miles away at the
>>> time.
>>>
>>> He has contacted the police and they say he has to take photos of the
>>> rear and front of his car and take them in to the local police
>>> station.
>>>
>>> Surely if the police want to prove that it was his car - then it is
>>> they who need to photograph the car?
>>>
>>> Should he just write and tell them it cannot have been his car and
>>> leave it at that?
>>>
>>That depends on whether he wants to be bloody minded and insist on
>>exercising his legal rights, knowing that it will end up causing him far
>>more trouble.
>>
>>You are entirely correct that he is under no obligation to take a photo,
>>and
>>if he doesn't the police will carry on with the prosecution and he'll end
>>up
>>in court where he can show *them* a photo of his car to prove it's not the
>>same as the one in the photo that the police have.
>
> And there was me thinking it was up to the police to prove guilt
> rather than the accused to prove innocence.
The photo of the car speeding is what they will use to do this.
>
>>Or he could take the picture now and it will be compared to the one from
>>the
>>speed camera at which point they will (hopefully) see that it's a
>>different
>>vehicle and that will be the end of it.
>
>
> I did not say he should just ignore things.
>
> I said he could write to the police and obviously explain the
> circumstances: perhaps where he was at the time - who was with him -
> those sorts of things.
>
> I would have thought that if someone had cloned plates then the police
> would be interested in solving that crime - rather than the minor
> speeding offence.
>
> Perhaps you are right and they would not be interested - I guess it is
> a sort of "mentality" thing.
>
> It sounds like you think that if he wrote and told them it could not
> be his car it would still be in the public interest to pursue the
> speeding case to court rather than investigate a more serious offence.
Of course it is.
If every time someone said "wasn't me, my car must have been cloned" the
police took it at face value and did no more then everyone would do it.
Providing a photo of the car helps to prove that the car has been cloned so
that they *can* investigate the other offence.
>
> I guess also it would be much to difficult for the police to take his
> word for it - put an ANPR alert in the location where the fake plates
> were spotted and pursue it that way.
>
> (PS - I was unsure of why you used the word "hopefully" above - if
> it's any help - I am not lying nor was my friend)
>
Because if I was going to put dodgy number plates on my blue bravo I'd copy
the ones from another blue bravo.
If the offender has done that then a photo of the original car may not be
any different.
Hopefully there will be some differences to prove their innocence.
--
Alex
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>Speed camera shows R-reg Metro[1] doing 70mph along the A4.
>J's friend takes picture of their R-reg Metro[1] with the same plate,
>same car colour.
>
>How does plod, or the court, determine that these are not the same
>vehicle?
This happened to a friend of mine. It depends on the detail in the
picture. There may be slight differences (as there were in my friend's
case) or variations. It may be a slightly different model or there
may be damage.
If there are differences this is the easiest way of sorting the matter
out and I'll agree though, it does rather seem like one is being
asked to prove ones innocence but as in all matters concerning the
police it may be better to take the pragmatic view...
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
Owen Dunn
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:20:02 +0000, "Dr Zoidberg"
> <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>> You are entirely correct that he is under no obligation to take a
>> photo, and if he doesn't the police will carry on with the
>> prosecution and he'll end up in court where he can show *them* a
>> photo of his car to prove it's not the same as the one in the photo
>> that the police have.
>
> And there was me thinking it was up to the police to prove guilt
> rather than the accused to prove innocence.
Well, it's up to the prosecution in a court case. But unless your
friend is desperate for his day in court, it's in his own (and the
police's) best interests to be as helpful as possible in showing that
he wasn't there at the time.
Being deliberately obstructive, even if it's on a point of principle,
seems to me an unwise course of action when you're accused of a crime.
(S)
Flop
Anomalies?
Tax disc, dents, wheels, numberplate details, rear window distributor
sticker.
Most of these are unlikely or implausible options.
I think that the OP should concentrate on trying to find proof that she
was where she claimed to be.
Witnesses, till receipts, CC receipts, telephone records.
A large discrepancy in locations will open a wider window - 100miles
away at midday will mean that if she shows where she was at any time
between 10am and 2pm, it will help.
Nothing is going to be absolute - unless she was arrested in that window
- but bits of evidence will rapidly raise the threshold for reasonable
doubt.
Flop
ARWadsworth
news:1jvfp4o.4cadp44j7wu8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
Is a speed camera photo of good enought quaility to to identify the markings
that show who made the number plate?
--
Adam
Theo Markettos
> Because if I was going to put dodgy number plates on my blue bravo I'd
> copy the ones from another blue bravo. If the offender has done that then
> a photo of the original car may not be any different. Hopefully there will
> be some differences to prove their innocence.
And if the offender has a photo of your car (either snapped on the street,
or from a website) they can try to minimise these differences.
(eg I just searched eBay for 'bravo blue' and got 69 blue-ish cars, most
with the reg showing. If I'm diligent I could find one with the same shade,
age, style and trim level. I could even move around things like tax disc
holders to match)
So unless the police photo includes the occupants, proving you were
elsewhere as well as supplying the photo might be a good plan.
Theo
Mike Scott
...
> I think that the OP should concentrate on trying to find proof that she
> was where she claimed to be.
Which doesn't help. It's where the /car/ was - otherwise the question
'who was driving the car?' would still be presented to the RK.
Maybe car-park CCTV, or street CCTV would show the car was elsewhere
when the offence occurred. Or reliable witnesses of course.
--
Mike Scott (unet2 <at> [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex England
Roland Perry
Fri, 21 Jan 2011, Mike Scott <usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid>
remarked:
>> I think that the OP should concentrate on trying to find proof that she
>> was where she claimed to be.
>
>Which doesn't help. It's where the /car/ was - otherwise the question
>'who was driving the car?' would still be presented to the RK.
>
>Maybe car-park CCTV, or street CCTV would show the car was elsewhere
>when the offence occurred. Or reliable witnesses of course.
I think we are missing the obvious here. The streets are littered with
ANPR cameras - the police probably already know that the OP's car was
hundreds of miles away (if they bother to look it up), and even if they
don't routinely correlate the ANPR data from different areas they can
now take a look at this particular plate and see that it's been spotted
in many far apart places simultaneously.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
>Whilst a photo from a distance might not be ultra accurate, I bet it's not
>without possibility one could spot a slight change in position..either left
>or right, up or down... even the angle of the disc in the holder..
>The number plate on ones vehicle 'might' have a makers name also - probably
>not for a cloned vehicle.....and if it did, almost certain to be a different
>name..
That's one of the reasons why plates are supposed to have the maker's name
on them.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Mark Goodge
typed:
>Is a speed camera photo of good enought quaility to to identify the markings
>that show who made the number plate?
With image enhancement, yes.
Judith
wrote:
Exactly.
Unfortunately that will mean the police doing their job, rather than
them expecting someone else doing it in order to prove their own
innocence.
Judith
"deliberately obstructive"?
Someone has done nothing wrong.
Why should they have to prove their innocence - just because plod
cannot be arsed to use their own resources?
If police are going to use ANPR cameras all over the country - then
they can probably see for themselves that there was a similar vehicle
with the same number plates driving about in an area five miles away
from the registered keepers address.
I wonder which they would conclude was the real keeper's car?
GP Hardy
news:04mjj656vo49e6iqk...@news.markshouse.net...
> That's one of the reasons why plates are supposed to have the maker's name
> on them.
Are GATSO images of sufficient resolution to be able to read such small
writing?
Sending a photo proves nothing. Let's say I'd been speeding, and lied that
my car must have been cloned, all I'd need to do is take the wheel covers
off, put a "My other car is a Porsche" sticker in the back window, and move
my tax disc to the top corner of the window. Then take the photo, as
requested.
GP Hardy
> It will almost certainly be the same model, as anybody with access to the
> facilities to make illegal number plates will also know how to look up
> registration numbers to find the make and model.
It doesn't work that way round, though: Anyone can find out the model and
colour of a car when they only know the registration number. The bad guys
need to find a registration when they already have the model and colour,
which isn't possible without seeing the model and colour when out and about,
and noting the registration.
Judith
wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:30:12 +0000, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>A friend has received a speeding ticket - he was 200 miles away at the
>>time.
>>
>>He has contacted the police and they say he has to take photos of the
>>rear and front of his car and take them in to the local police
>>station.
>>
>>Surely if the police want to prove that it was his car - then it is
>>they who need to photograph the car?
>>
>>Should he just write and tell them it cannot have been his car and
>>leave it at that?
>
>He will then probably have to attend court to defend himself.
>
>Yes, they have to prove it was him in order to win in court, but they
>can take him to court without having to prove anything (the whole
>point of the court appearance being to prove the case).
>And in court, he would have ton provide some sort of evidence that the
>car being photographed was not his - whether evidence of the
>appearance of his car, or evidence that his car was elsewhere.
>
>Otherwise, photographs showing a car with his registration number
>would be considered sufficient evidence to convict.
Not true - if there was conflicting evidence.
It does not have to go to court - and the police would be wasting the
courts time if they take him to court without investigating the
original offence - and the secondary offence of cloning.
If he writes and tells them that it was not his car - that he was with
other people at the date and time and they can vouch that that is the
case.
Also he should suggest that the police check their ANPR records (in
case they cannot think of that for themselves).
Colin Jackson
"Theo Markettos" <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:MHt*Qg...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
As far as I am aware the photo is of the rear of the car
so there is no pic of the windscreen, tax disc position,
furry dice or occupants!
Colin
John Briggs
Because if it is the same make, model and colour, the police are not
going to accept your photographs, are they?
--
John Briggs
Alex Heney
That depends on what type of camera it was.
Fixed Gatso cameras indeed take a photo of the rear of the vehicle.
Truvelo cameras, and All (AFAIK) mobile cameras take the photo from
the front.
But the one time I have asked to see such a photo, the quality was
such that it was very difficult to be sure of whether it was me or my
wife driving - and I have a beard!.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.
Alex Heney
wrote:
<snip>
>
>
>"deliberately obstructive"?
>
>Someone has done nothing wrong.
>
>Why should they have to prove their innocence - just because plod
>cannot be arsed to use their own resources?
>
And just what "resources" exactly, do you believe the police might
have that could help in this situation?
The only "resource"" the police have is a photo of a car, and access
to the DVLA data telling them who the car with those plates is
registered to.
It would be a ridiculous waste of police resources to do anything but
prosecute that person, unless somebody can show it wasn't that person,
before the case gets to court.
>If police are going to use ANPR cameras all over the country - then
>they can probably see for themselves that there was a similar vehicle
>with the same number plates driving about in an area five miles away
>from the registered keepers address.
>
IF the police did "use ANPR cameras all over the country" to such an
extent, then it might just be possible to tell that there were two
different vehicles with the same plates.
But they don't. so your "If" becomes somewhat irrelevant.
>I wonder which they would conclude was the real keeper's car?
It is likely to be many years before the police have routine access to
a sufficient list of whereabouts of vehicles for that to be a
realistic possibility.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
God is real, unless declared integer.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 23:15:02 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:30:12 +0000, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>And in court, he would have ton provide some sort of evidence that the
>>car being photographed was not his - whether evidence of the
>>appearance of his car, or evidence that his car was elsewhere.
>>
>>Otherwise, photographs showing a car with his registration number
>>would be considered sufficient evidence to convict.
>
>Not true - if there was conflicting evidence.
>
It is impossible for your statement to be valid, since it claims that
mine is not true unless it is true.
>It does not have to go to court
It does if he follows what you suggest.
>- and the police would be wasting the
>courts time if they take him to court without investigating the
>original offence - and the secondary offence of cloning.
>
If they "investigated" every case where somebody just told them,
without any corroborating evidence, that it was not their car, then
they would waste hell of a lot more resources than they would by just
carrying on and prosecuting anybody who refused to help provide any
corroborating evidence.
>If he writes and tells them that it was not his car - that he was with
>other people at the date and time and they can vouch that that is the
>case.
>
Which is, of course, exactly what you are saying above he should not
have to do.
>Also he should suggest that the police check their ANPR records (in
>case they cannot think of that for themselves).
The police are not so utterly stupid as to "think" of that for
themselves.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm so broke, I can't even pay attention.
Theo Markettos
> It doesn't work that way round, though: Anyone can find out the model and
> colour of a car when they only know the registration number. The bad guys
> need to find a registration when they already have the model and colour,
> which isn't possible without seeing the model and colour when out and
> about, and noting the registration.
eBay and Google Images are your (miscreant's) friend. Indeed I've used this
to find pictures of particular cars to find (eg) the difference in petrol
flap between a 1985 model and a 1986 model (pictures of which aren't exactly
replete on the internet).
Theo
Theo Markettos
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:15:01 +0000, ARWadsworth put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
> >Is a speed camera photo of good enought quaility to to identify the markings
> >that show who made the number plate?
>
> With image enhancement, yes.
Is that the Hollywood algorithm for image enhancement?
Theo
a...@b.invalid
> on them.
If I were making false plates, I certainly wouldn't put my name on them,
I'd probably use a legitimate maker's name instead.
Roland Perry
2011, "a...@b.invalid" <a...@b.invalid> remarked:
But you won't necessarily pick the same legitimate name as on the
original plates; that's all that matters here.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:15:01 +0000, ARWadsworth put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>
>> >Is a speed camera photo of good enought quaility to to identify the markings
>> >that show who made the number plate?
>>
>> With image enhancement, yes.
>
>Is that the Hollywood algorithm for image enhancement?
No, surprisingly not. Although it can be defeated by dirt, obviously, the
resolution of speed camera photos is high enough for ancillary marks, such
as the maker's details, to be determined under normal circumstances.
Owen Dunn
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:40:03 +0000, Owen Dunn
> <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Being deliberately obstructive, even if it's on a point of principle,
>>seems to me an unwise course of action when you're accused of a crime.
>
> "deliberately obstructive"?
Well, at the moment the police have what they think is good evidence
against him. I don't think it's _constructive_ for him to refuse to
provide evidence which might exonerate him. It's like telling the
police `I have an alibi, but you'll have to guess what it is.'
> Someone has done nothing wrong.
>
> Why should they have to prove their innocence - just because plod
> cannot be arsed to use their own resources?
I don't think they are obliged to prove their innocence. However, it
may be in their best interests to try.
(S)
Judith
wrote:
<snip>
>>If he writes and tells them that it was not his car - that he was with
>>other people at the date and time and they can vouch that that is the
>>case.
>>
>
>Which is, of course, exactly what you are saying above he should not
>have to do.
Feel free to point out exactly where I said that - the only thing I
said he should not do is go to the bother of taking a photo and
sending it to them. I did say that he should explain in writing.
"Should he just write and tell them it cannot have been his car and
leave it at that?" - does not preclude him explaining why - and indeed
a sensible person would do so.
>
>>Also he should suggest that the police check their ANPR records (in
>>case they cannot think of that for themselves).
>
>The police are not so utterly stupid as to "think" of that for
>themselves.
And how do you know that all ANPR information from police cameras is
not collated and stored centrally?
I think you will find that it is
How do you know that it is not possible to input a car registration
and for all locations that that car has been logged at over a
specified period to be identified?
I think you will find that it is
How do you know that the location of the car which was caught speeding
was not in a main city with well publicised ANPR cameras on every main
road in to and out of the city?
It was
How do you know that the location of the car which my friend owns was
not in a different main city with well publicised ANPR cameras on
every main road in to and out of the city?
It was.
Have a look at what the NPIA do.
Have a look at what the NADC is.
"At the end of March 2010, the NADC was receiving approximately 10
million reads per day, with over 7 billion vehicle sightings stored.
This body of information on vehicle movements is key to the value of
ANPR."
Lordgnome
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2mvjj69ku8jem7gf2...@4ax.com...
> It is likely to be many years before the police have routine access to
> a sufficient list of whereabouts of vehicles for that to be a
> realistic possibility.
Well, that IS a relief. Far too much snooping as it is.
Les.
Steve Firth
> I think we are missing the obvious here. The streets are littered with
> ANPR cameras - the police probably already know that the OP's car was
> hundreds of miles away (if they bother to look it up),
You are crediting the ANPR systems with super-cow powers that they do
not have.
Steve Firth
> > Tax disc, dents, wheels, numberplate details, rear window distributor
> > sticker.
> > Most of these are unlikely or implausible options.
>
>
> You know, that's a very good point about the tax disc....
\Well it would be, except that the majority of speed camera photos are
taken from the rear. For the same reason the wheels are unlikely to be
of much help and my experience with cars is that dents tend mainly to be
to the side and to the front of the car (stone ship damage and SMIDSYs).
Only very careless or unfortunate drivers seem to attract damage to the
rear of the car.
Steve Firth
> No, surprisingly not. Although it can be defeated by dirt, obviously, the
> resolution of speed camera photos is high enough for ancillary marks, such
> as the maker's details, to be determined under normal circumstances.
Not much hope for someone I know who owns a Mercedes, silver, which is
identical to a whole batch of silver Mercedes cars all sold in the same
week from the same dealer. The only thing distinguishing any of the cars
is the change of a single digit in the number plate. If one of the
owners were to clone another owner's plate I doubt that anyone would be
able to detect the subterfuge.
Dr Zoidberg
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0q5lj61u10spvq9d7...@news.markshouse.net...
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:50:01 +0000, Theo Markettos put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:15:01 +0000, ARWadsworth put finger to keyboard
>>> and
>>> typed:
>>>
>>> >Is a speed camera photo of good enought quaility to to identify the
>>> >markings
>>> >that show who made the number plate?
>>>
>>> With image enhancement, yes.
>>
>>Is that the Hollywood algorithm for image enhancement?
>
> No, surprisingly not. Although it can be defeated by dirt, obviously, the
> resolution of speed camera photos is high enough for ancillary marks, such
> as the maker's details, to be determined under normal circumstances.
>
that the wording is different
--
Alex
Roland Perry
Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked:
>> I think we are missing the obvious here. The streets are littered with
>> ANPR cameras - the police probably already know that the OP's car was
>> hundreds of miles away (if they bother to look it up),
>
>You are crediting the ANPR systems with super-cow powers that they do
>not have.
All they have to do is read numberplates, and for the log to be
available to the police. If they can't trace terrorists' cars with them,
what's the point - and it's the same information that's needed for
cloners.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>Only very careless or unfortunate drivers seem to attract damage to the
>rear of the car.
But a lot of cars have a sticker in the rear window saying who supplied
the car. I doubt the cloners replicate those.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Notwithstanding the parameters of cloned cars hundreds of miles apart,
that's a scenario which has some legs. Indeed, I once drove a brand new
[company] Ford with the "wrong plates" on it between delivery and the
car's first service (at 1,000 miles) because someone had fixed the wrong
plates to two identical vehicles on delivery day. If it had been my car
I might have checked that the plates matched the tax disk, log book and
the service book.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
22 Jan 2011, Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> Why should they have to prove their innocence - just because plod
>> cannot be arsed to use their own resources?
>
>I don't think they are obliged to prove their innocence. However, it
>may be in their best interests to try.
And isn't that what everyone relying upon an alibi has to do?
--
Roland Perry
Dr Zoidberg
"mark" <not...@nopub.com> wrote in message
news:wLqdnVj3joctKKTQ...@bt.com...
> X-No-Archive:Yes
>
>
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ihbcbq$au0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:hr3hj6pro4r4i17jn...@4ax.com...
>
>>> It sounds like you think that if he wrote and told them it could not
>>> be his car it would still be in the public interest to pursue the
>>> speeding case to court rather than investigate a more serious offence.
>>
>> Of course it is.
>> If every time someone said "wasn't me, my car must have been cloned" the
>> police took it at face value and did no more then everyone would do it.
>> Providing a photo of the car helps to prove that the car has been cloned
>> so that they *can* investigate the other offence.
>
>>> I guess also it would be much to difficult for the police to take his
>>> word for it - put an ANPR alert in the location where the fake plates
>>> were spotted and pursue it that way.
>>>
>>> (PS - I was unsure of why you used the word "hopefully" above - if
>>> it's any help - I am not lying nor was my friend)
>
>
>> Because if I was going to put dodgy number plates on my blue bravo I'd
>> copy the ones from another blue bravo.
>> If the offender has done that then a photo of the original car may not be
>> any different.
>> Hopefully there will be some differences to prove their innocence.
>
> Very small differences might well be visible.
>
> The OP *might* for example have a couple of furry dice cubes in the
> windscreen...!!
> ;0)
>
Mine for example has a few distinctive stickers in the windows that a cloner
is unlikely to match exactly.
--
Alex
John Briggs
There won't be enough computer power on the planet to process this
amount of information.
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
I think you are misunderstanding the situation - the "investigation"
which they haven't done is to check the DVLA database to see if the car
is the same make/model/colour. It is perfectly feasible to check this
for everyone who says that it was not their car.
--
John Briggs
Roland Perry
Jan 2011, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>> "At the end of March 2010, the NADC was receiving approximately 10
>> million reads per day, with over 7 billion vehicle sightings stored.
>> This body of information on vehicle movements is key to the value of
>> ANPR."
>
>There won't be enough computer power on the planet to process this
>amount of information.
Google is processing links to around a trillion web pages, and can
search them. Maybe they should be given the job of doing a simple search
of those 7 billion records looking for occurrences of a numberplate.
It's quite an interesting statistic, actually. With 26 million cars "on
the road" that would be an average of 270 hits for each car.
--
Roland Perry
Steve Firth
> In message <1jvhuyb.j56tlu1mw9xyxN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, at 12:10:02 on
> Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked:
>
> >> I think we are missing the obvious here. The streets are littered with
> >> ANPR cameras - the police probably already know that the OP's car was
> >> hundreds of miles away (if they bother to look it up),
> >
> >You are crediting the ANPR systems with super-cow powers that they do
> >not have.
>
> All they have to do is read numberplates, and for the log to be
> available to the police.
Which police? Last time I was involved with the police on simlar matters
there were 29 separate police forces in England and Wales with an
interest. At one level (PNC) they have information in common. At other
levels there is no automatic sharing of information and one police force
cannot pillage the IT systems of another. Not only that, but you're
making the error of assuming that all vehicle movements are recorded.
> If they can't trace terrorists' cars with them, what's the point - and
> it's the same information that's needed for cloners.
You are misunderstanding, I think, how ANPR works and is implemented. If
there is information that a car is of interest to the police then ANPR
can track that car. If there is no marker on that vehicle then its
movements are unlikely to be recorded.
Steve Firth
What makes you think that car must have such a sticker (none of mine do)
or that the two cars necessarily have different stickers?
Roland Perry
>> >Only very careless or unfortunate drivers seem to attract damage to the
>> >rear of the car.
>>
>> But a lot of cars have a sticker in the rear window saying who supplied
>> the car. I doubt the cloners replicate those.
>
>What makes you think that car must have such a sticker (none of mine do)
I don't think I've had many cars without a "dealer" sticker, although
one of mine only has the dealer name on the numberplate (in surprisingly
large writing).
>or that the two cars necessarily have different stickers?
They mention the dealership, which will differ from one town to another
(but more so for some brands than others). My main car's sticker is from
the specialist brand-agnostic one-man secondhand dealer (now ceased
trading) - must be quite rare, even more so on my make and model.
Then there's vanity plates, which are sometimes attached with
"imaginative" spacing between the letters. I don't approve of that, but
in this context could be a significant discriminator.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <1jvhuyb.j56tlu1mw9xyxN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, at 12:10:02 on
>> Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>> >> I think we are missing the obvious here. The streets are littered with
>> >> ANPR cameras - the police probably already know that the OP's car was
>> >> hundreds of miles away (if they bother to look it up),
>> >
>> >You are crediting the ANPR systems with super-cow powers that they do
>> >not have.
>>
>> All they have to do is read numberplates, and for the log to be
>> available to the police.
>
>Which police?
You could start with the ones near where the OP lives, and where he
alleges his car was at the time.
>Last time I was involved with the police on simlar matters
>there were 29 separate police forces in England and Wales with an
>interest.
Indeed so, and in my day job I'm not just acutely aware of trying to
co-ordinate the 43 police forces in the UK, but the police forces in (at
the last count) 192 different countries in the world.
>At one level (PNC) they have information in common. At other
>levels there is no automatic sharing of information and one police force
>cannot pillage the IT systems of another.
They must have some sort of mechanism for sharing this information,
otherwise how can they track a fugitive (eg) fleeing from a bombing in
London up the M1.
>Not only that, but you're making the error of assuming that all vehicle
>movements are recorded.
It has been suggested there's a database with currently 7 billion
entries. While I've not any experience at first hand, this sounds very
plausible.
>> If they can't trace terrorists' cars with them, what's the point - and
>> it's the same information that's needed for cloners.
>
>You are misunderstanding, I think, how ANPR works and is implemented. If
>there is information that a car is of interest to the police then ANPR
>can track that car. If there is no marker on that vehicle then its
>movements are unlikely to be recorded.
The 7 billion starts to sound a bit large, in that context.
From time to time the PR campaigns suggest that the cameras are primed
to track anyone with expired tax or insurance. That's probably a big
enough percentage that you might as well track everyone.
If they really are only tracking a handful (a few thousand perhaps) of
cars that they are "very interested in", it seems like a rather
expensive exercise. Having said that, I don't recall any case other then
the Glasgow Airport bomber (who fled up there after botched attempts in
Central London) where this information has been acknowledged to be
useful in a major crime. And even then, they were too late.
--
Roland Perry
Judith
There is of course any amount of further analysis which could be
performed.
1) eg - suspected cloned car - check every occurrence of that
particular plate - plus location - and time - check feasibility of
that data.
Spotted in one location and then spotted in different location 200
miles away two hours later
(Perhaps it was speeding after all :-)
Steve Firth
> In message <1jvi3o6.n9zcqchzqmnrN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, at 15:05:02 on
> Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked:
> >> >Only very careless or unfortunate drivers seem to attract damage to the
> >> >rear of the car.
> >>
> >> But a lot of cars have a sticker in the rear window saying who supplied
> >> the car. I doubt the cloners replicate those.
> >
> >What makes you think that car must have such a sticker (none of mine do)
>
> I don't think I've had many cars without a "dealer" sticker,
And yet such cars exist.
[snip]
> >or that the two cars necessarily have different stickers?
>
> They mention the dealership, which will differ from one town to another
[snip]
Yes, but again you seem to be asserting that a car must have such a
sticker. This isn't so, as I stated. I admit there's a possibility that
a photo may distinguish one car from another. I don't consider for a
moment that it's axiomatic that a photo will distinguish the two.
Roland Perry
>> >> But a lot of cars have a sticker in the rear window saying who supplied
>> >> the car. I doubt the cloners replicate those.
>> >
>> >What makes you think that car must have such a sticker (none of mine do)
>>
>> I don't think I've had many cars without a "dealer" sticker,
>
>And yet such cars exist.
>
>[snip]
>
>> >or that the two cars necessarily have different stickers?
>>
>> They mention the dealership, which will differ from one town to another
>[snip]
>
>Yes, but again you seem to be asserting that a car must have such a
>sticker. This isn't so, as I stated. I admit there's a possibility that
>a photo may distinguish one car from another. I don't consider for a
>moment that it's axiomatic that a photo will distinguish the two.
Agreed - that's why I said "a lot of cars", rather than "all cars".
--
Roland Perry
John Briggs
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:30:46 +0000, Judith<jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:40:03 +0000, Owen Dunn
>> <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:20:02 +0000, "Dr Zoidberg"
>>>> <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You are entirely correct that he is under no obligation to take a
>>>>> photo, and if he doesn't the police will carry on with the
>>>>> prosecution and he'll end up in court where he can show *them* a
>>>>> photo of his car to prove it's not the same as the one in the photo
>>>>> that the police have.
>>>>
>>>> And there was me thinking it was up to the police to prove guilt
>>>> rather than the accused to prove innocence.
>>>
>>> Well, it's up to the prosecution in a court case. But unless your
>>> friend is desperate for his day in court, it's in his own (and the
>>> police's) best interests to be as helpful as possible in showing that
>>> he wasn't there at the time.
>>>
>>> Being deliberately obstructive, even if it's on a point of principle,
>>> seems to me an unwise course of action when you're accused of a crime.
>>>
>>
>>
>> "deliberately obstructive"?
>>
>> Someone has done nothing wrong.
>>
>> cannot be arsed to use their own resources?
>
> offence (that of a keeper failing to disclose their vehicle's driver). The
> keeper now has the choice of whether to help rebut that evidence or allow it
> to be considered by a trier of fact unrebutted. I see no requirement or duty
> to do anything, let alone for the alleged keeper to prove their innocence.
The OP said nothing about an image ("A friend has received a speeding
ticket - he was 200 miles away at the time") - why do you suppose the
police secretly hold an image?
--
John Briggs
Steve Walker
Unless the other chap has fitted a towbar or some other distinguishing
feature, I think you're right. But presumably this would come to light
eventually through some ANPR, road tax or speeding issue, and a 'stop &
inspect' note would be put on the Police computer.
Steve Walker
> Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:40:03 +0000, Owen Dunn
>> <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Being deliberately obstructive, even if it's on a point of
>>> principle, seems to me an unwise course of action when you're
>>> accused of a crime.
>>
>
> Well, at the moment the police have what they think is good evidence
> against him. I don't think it's _constructive_ for him to refuse to
> provide evidence which might exonerate him. It's like telling the
> police `I have an alibi, but you'll have to guess what it is.'
>
>> Someone has done nothing wrong.
>>
>> Why should they have to prove their innocence - just because plod
>> cannot be arsed to use their own resources?
>
> it may be in their best interests to try.
Asking him to provide photographs of the car is a bit much. If he tells
them where it is parked, they can photograph it and inspect the tax disc etc
at their leisure.
Alex Heney
Of course they hold an image.
There may still be one or two speeding prosecutions a year across the
country where no image is involved. but even that many is unlikely.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Have an adequate day.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:00:04 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>>If he writes and tells them that it was not his car - that he was with
>>>other people at the date and time and they can vouch that that is the
>>>case.
>>>
>>
>>Which is, of course, exactly what you are saying above he should not
>>have to do.
>
>
>Feel free to point out exactly where I said that - the only thing I
>said he should not do is go to the bother of taking a photo and
>sending it to them. I did say that he should explain in writing.
>
>"Should he just write and tell them it cannot have been his car and
>leave it at that?" - does not preclude him explaining why - and indeed
>a sensible person would do so.
It most certainly does preclude explaining why.
Otherwise, instead of "and leave it at that", you should have said
"and explain why".
>
>
>>
>>>Also he should suggest that the police check their ANPR records (in
>>>case they cannot think of that for themselves).
>>
>>The police are not so utterly stupid as to "think" of that for
>>themselves.
>
>
>And how do you know that all ANPR information from police cameras is
>not collated and stored centrally?
>
>I think you will find that it is
First, there is nothing like enough of it to be that useful.
There is a lot, and it is increasing, but I do not believe most cars
pass ANPR cameras on a regular basis.
Second, it would possibly be illegal for them to do so.
>
>How do you know that it is not possible to input a car registration
>and for all locations that that car has been logged at over a
>specified period to be identified?
>
>I think you will find that it is
>
I would be amazed if that were true.
>How do you know that the location of the car which was caught speeding
>was not in a main city with well publicised ANPR cameras on every main
>road in to and out of the city?
>
>It was
Which city was this then?
I am not aware of ANY city which has that.
Particularly since the NPIA in the FAQ say
-------------------------
Where are the cameras?
For operational reasons, we are unable to disclose the specific
locations of fixed-site police ANPR cameras. However, you should
expect ANPR cameras to be in use on many roads across the country and
in locations requiring enhanced security.
----------------------------
So there are very few (if any) well publicised ones. And there
certainly are not the sheer numbers of them you seem to think there
are.
>
>How do you know that the location of the car which my friend owns was
>not in a different main city with well publicised ANPR cameras on
>every main road in to and out of the city?
>
>It was.
>
I do not believe such a city exists.
>
>Have a look at what the NPIA do.
>
They do hold the records centrally, true.
But there is a VERY good chance that your friend's car was not picked
up on that day, so that wouldn't help that much.
>Have a look at what the NADC is.
>
As far as I can find out, it is the Nation Association of Drainage
Contractors.
Or the North Atlantic Defence Coalition.
I can't find reference to any other UK organisation.
>"At the end of March 2010, the NADC was receiving approximately 10
>million reads per day, with over 7 billion vehicle sightings stored.
>This body of information on vehicle movements is key to the value of
>ANPR."
I am a little supervised the number of sightings stored is quite that
high, although the busiest cameras will be recording tens of thousands
per day, so I suppose it isn't really that many.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The glass, being topologically equivalent to a finite flat sheet, can be neither 'full' nor 'empty' : it may or may not have some beer balanced on it.
Alex Heney
I don't think so.
>- the "investigation"
>which they haven't done is to check the DVLA database to see if the car
>is the same make/model/colour. It is perfectly feasible to check this
>for everyone who says that it was not their car.
True, but why do you think they might not have done?
It is worth the 2 second check, but only just, because almost all
cloned plates will be on cars which do match.
That check will pick up the more frequent occurrence of them having
the wrong car entirely due to getting the number plate read wrong.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
He has Van Gogh's ear for music.
Alex Heney
wrote:
But of course many cars which do the same route every day will, have
far more hits than that, while others will have fewer.
And actually, 270 is not all that many when you consider that most
cars are more than a year old, and will be driven most days.
I'm not sure what the average age of cars in the UK is, but I remember
seeing somewhere that there are more cars needing an MOT than not
(i.e. more over three years old than under).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Even worse than raining cats and dogs is hailing taxi's.
John Briggs
> presumed it was to compare with images that they hold. But you're right,
> maybe they just wanted more snaps of other cars to fill their theme wall.
The OP's post is mildly ambiguous "they say he has to take photos of the
rear and front of his car and take them in to the local police station",
but my assumption is that they mean *his* local police station, rather
than *their* local police station. They would appear to be passing the
whole problem onto someone else.
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
You said it yourself - it is waste of time. Far simpler for the
recipient of the ticket to flag up the few that are of the wrong car.
> It is worth the 2 second check, but only just, because almost all
> cloned plates will be on cars which do match.
Exactly - so just skip the initial check.
> That check will pick up the more frequent occurrence of them having
> the wrong car entirely due to getting the number plate read wrong.
There is actually no need to make the assumption that cloned plates are
involved at all - rather than them having the wrong car entirely due to
getting the number plate read wrong.
--
John Briggs
Judith
wrote:
>
>
>A friend has received a speeding ticket - he was 200 miles away at the
>time.
I saw him in the pub last night - I asked him if he had taken a photo.
His reply was "How the f**ck do I do that, I haven't got a camera"
He has got a mobile phone.
(He is early 60s)
I then realised that taking a photograph is not that easy task that
many people think it is.
I asked the others in the group - two said they could take one with
their phone - five said they thought, or knew, that their phone had
the capability - but didn't know how to use it.
I think people in newsgroups often think that we are typical of the
population at large - particularly where technology is concerned.
So, for all those who were saying - just take a photograph and be
done with it - ask your mother, ask your father, ask your partner: how
would *they* take photographs of their car plates?
On the other hand - I would expect most (all) police officers to have
and be able to use a phone with a camera.
Sergeant: "Whilst you are on local patrol - just nip round to Number 6
- he's in all day - and take a photo of his plates please"
(PC thinks : Jobs's a good 'un - I bet I get a cup of tea"
Much too sensible.
Ian Jackson
<spam...@beeb.net> writes
supposedly doing naughty things in east London.
I don't think that any of the photos (all front view) would have been
clear enough to reveal any detail like the name on the number plate. One
of them might even have been of a different type of car.
She dealt with the first two by telephone (when the police took her word
that that there was no way it could have been her). The last one, she
sent a strongly-worded letter suggesting that they were harassing her,
and telling them to stop immediately. That was over four years ago, and
she hasn't had any repetitions since.
--
Ian
Roland Perry
Sun, 23 Jan 2011, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>>>> "At the end of March 2010, the NADC was receiving approximately 10
>>>> million reads per day, with over 7 billion vehicle sightings stored.
>>>> This body of information on vehicle movements is key to the value of
>>>> ANPR."
>>>
>>>There won't be enough computer power on the planet to process this
>>>amount of information.
>>
>>Google is processing links to around a trillion web pages, and can
>>search them. Maybe they should be given the job of doing a simple search
>>of those 7 billion records looking for occurrences of a numberplate.
>>
>>It's quite an interesting statistic, actually. With 26 million cars "on
>>the road" that would be an average of 270 hits for each car.
>
>But of course many cars which do the same route every day will, have
>far more hits than that, while others will have fewer.
The number of hits is more likely to be correlated with local camera
sites than whether the trip is done daily.
>And actually, 270 is not all that many
It should be enough to show that the car spends most of its time in
(say) Yorkshire rather then Devon. And the other evidence I was
expecting was sightings of the same plate in two places "at the same
time" (ie so close together that they could not have travelled the
distance in the available time, let alone without being recorded by
other cameras en-route).
>when you consider that most
>cars are more than a year old, and will be driven most days.
10 million a day divided into 7 billion is an easy sum - 700 days or
about two years. Which is a very plausible time to retain data as well
as how long such a database might be have operating in its current form.
As for how often cars are driven - I was trying not to get into
speculation about that. No doubt there are websites with data (just like
I know there are ones with the age profile mentioned later...) but
looking around the street where I live doesn't incline me to think that
every car is driven every day; and those which are, might be driven very
locally and therefore not trigger an ANPR camera every time. But that's
not a problem, because when they do trigger one it will still
demonstrate quite clearly what their home territory is.
>I'm not sure what the average age of cars in the UK is, but I remember
>seeing somewhere that there are more cars needing an MOT than not
>(i.e. more over three years old than under).
The typical longevity of a car is 12 years, and the number "on the road"
is reasonably constant - so there's likely to be about three times as
many needing MOTs as not. But I can't see why that's relevant.
--
Roland Perry
Nightjar <"cpb"@
> On 20/01/2011 22:00, Nightjar <"cpb"@ wrote:
>> On 20/01/2011 20:05, John Briggs wrote:
>>> On 20/01/2011 19:20, Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>> ....
>>>> Or he could take the picture now and it will be compared to the one
>>>> from
>>>> the speed camera at which point they will (hopefully) see that it's a
>>>> different vehicle and that will be the end of it.
>>>
>>> The police have only to look on the DVLA database to see that it is a
>>> different vehicle.
>>
>> How, given that a common method of cloning is to drive to a different
>> town, look for a vehicle of the same make, model and colour and use that
>> number?
>
> Because if it is the same make, model and colour, the police are not
> going to accept your photographs, are they?
That does not answer the question. However, a photograph may well show
minor differences that are not available on the DVLA database - the
colour of the upholstery, after-market add-ons, different number plate
layouts (e.g spacing or country plaque) or different stickers on the
cars, for example.
Colin Bignell
Judith
wrote:
<snip>
>>And how do you know that all ANPR information from police cameras is
>>not collated and stored centrally?
>>
>>I think you will find that it is
>
>First, there is nothing like enough of it to be that useful.
I would have thought that 10 million reads every day adding to a
database of 7 billion sightings would be quite useful.
>There is a lot, and it is increasing, but I do not believe most cars
>pass ANPR cameras on a regular basis.
>
>Second, it would possibly be illegal for them to do so.
Please could you explain why.
>>How do you know that it is not possible to input a car registration
>>and for all locations that that car has been logged at over a
>>specified period to be identified?
>>
>>I think you will find that it is
>>
>
>I would be amazed if that were true.
Why - I thought you dabbled on the fringes of IT?
Do you think that every number plate which is logged by ANPR would not
have location, date and time logged with it?
Do you not think there will be search capabilities to access that data
in useful ways?
>
>>How do you know that the location of the car which was caught speeding
>>was not in a main city with well publicised ANPR cameras on every main
>>road in to and out of the city?
>>
>>It was
>
>Which city was this then?
>
>I am not aware of ANY city which has that.
Durham Police - 94 cameras
London Police : 473
West Midlands Police : 388
Merseyside: 247
North West Motorways : 117
Staffordshire Police monitor the M6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manchester is now protected by a "ring of steel" - a network of
surveillance cameras that will log almost every car entering the city
centre.
The network of 15 automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras
cover main approaches to the metropolitan area.
Every car is screened against a network of police and government
databases, with the system able to instantly trigger alerts about
everything from suspected terrorists and stolen vehicles, to banned
drivers and tax dodgers.
The plate number, car colour and entry time of an estimated 600,000
cars per day are being kept by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) for
five years.
..
London's ring of steel was introduced in the early 1990s following a
bombing campaign by the IRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because *you* are not aware of them does not mean that they do not
exist.
Next time you drive in to Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, London
Nottingham or Durham - keep your eyes open - you can spot them if you
know what to look for.
>Particularly since the NPIA in the FAQ say
>-------------------------
>Where are the cameras?
>
>For operational reasons, we are unable to disclose the specific
>locations of fixed-site police ANPR cameras. However, you should
>expect ANPR cameras to be in use on many roads across the country and
>in locations requiring enhanced security.
>----------------------------
Because they do not usually disclose where they are does not mean
that they are *not* on the main roads in to major cities.
If you were in charge of ANPR - where would *you* locate the cameras
for maximum benefit?
(I would suggest that the 247 cameras in Liverpool are not all
located in the back streets)
>So there are very few (if any) well publicised ones. And there
>certainly are not the sheer numbers of them you seem to think there
>are.
10,000 is quite a large number (This may include Council owned
cameras from which the police have feeds)
>>Have a look at what the NADC is.
>>
>
>
>As far as I can find out, it is the Nation Association of Drainage
>Contractors.
>
>Or the North Atlantic Defence Coalition.
>
>I can't find reference to any other UK organisation.
>
Perhaps you should contact the NAI and tell them they are using terms
and abbreviations which Joe Public finds difficult to understand:
National ANPR Data Centre
Google is your friend : "nadc anpr"
About 249 results (0.24 seconds)
(I always find that if a search does not find anything - try adding
another term to the search words - this often helps)
You can have a read about it here:
http://www.npia.police.uk/en/10505.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National ANPR Infrastructure (NAI) comprises two core elements:
* a Back Office Facility (BOF) within each police force
* a single centralised National ANPR Data Centre (NADC)
As a registration number is read, the date, time and location are
recorded and the number is checked against a number of databases.
These include local and national police databases, including the
Police National Computer, along with databases supplied by the DVLA
and the Motor Insurers' Bureau. This ensures officers are alerted, in
real time, to vehicles that are stolen, involved in crime,
unregistered, unlicensed or uninsured.
All 'reads' are stored in the force BOF and forwarded to the NADC in
order to facilitate local, regional and national data searching.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB : "facilitate local, regional and national data searching"
Roland Perry
>Particularly since the NPIA in the FAQ say
>-------------------------
>Where are the cameras?
>
>For operational reasons, we are unable to disclose the specific
>locations of fixed-site police ANPR cameras.
That makes it sound as if they are hidden in some way. Here's a set of
the older ones on a road near me that I'd drive on perhaps a third of my
car trips that were more than a mile[1]: http://goo.gl/maps/1frl
More modern ones look like sets of black tubes, and are very common on
motorways. And then there's the ones at toll booths, airport carparks
and so on - although it's a good question whether the privatised
operator (only) or the police (also) are getting a feed from those.
I'm not counting the ones involved with SPECS speed cameras (the ones
with the Pacman gantries), as I don't know if a feed is skimmed of those
or not. But if they are, then the only main road into Nottingham from
the south (over Trent Bridge) has them, and that would be a second
'third of my trips'.
[1] I work from home, so don't have a commute.
--
Roland Perry
Dr Zoidberg
"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fm1oj6tsguh5fs7ta...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:30:12 +0000, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>A friend has received a speeding ticket - he was 200 miles away at the
>>time.
>
>
> I saw him in the pub last night - I asked him if he had taken a photo.
>
> His reply was "How the f**ck do I do that, I haven't got a camera"
>
> He has got a mobile phone.
>
> (He is early 60s)
>
> I then realised that taking a photograph is not that easy task that
> many people think it is.
Yes it is.
It really is.
> I asked the others in the group - two said they could take one with
> their phone - five said they thought, or knew, that their phone had
> the capability - but didn't know how to use it.
>
> I think people in newsgroups often think that we are typical of the
> population at large - particularly where technology is concerned.
>
> So, for all those who were saying - just take a photograph and be
> done with it - ask your mother, ask your father, ask your partner: how
> would *they* take photographs of their car plates?
With their cameras.
My mum has two digital cameras.
My dad's wife has at least one.
My GF and I have probably half a dozen cameras.
I think you are underestimating the abilities of the general population.
The vast majority will have use of a camera themselves or have a close
friend or relative who would assist.
I can't think of anyone I know who wouldn't be able to produce a picture
within a day or so and that includes plenty of elderly relatives.
--
Alex
Mr X
"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ihhm45$t8d$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Boots!
steve robinson
> Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact they're also offering another extra opportunity - a nice
> > easy way to knock it on the head early - is just icing on the
> > cake.
>
> Since cloners usually put the cloned plate on a car that matches the
> desription of the one they took the plate from, one wonders what the
> photos that were requested will prove.
>
> Speed camera shows R-reg Metro[1] doing 70mph along the A4.
> J's friend takes picture of their R-reg Metro[1] with the same
> plate, same car colour.
>
> How does plod, or the court, determine that these are not the same
> vehicle?
>
>
>
> [1] For example.
scratches , dings , dents logos on number plates stickers attached to
windows or the absence of
steve robinson
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:20:02 +0000, "Dr Zoidberg"
> <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:6vrgj6ds2q8jkav35...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > >
> >> A friend has received a speeding ticket - he was 200 miles away
> at the >> time.
> > >
> >> He has contacted the police and they say he has to take photos
> of the >> rear and front of his car and take them in to the local
> police >> station.
> > >
> >> Surely if the police want to prove that it was his car - then it
> is >> they who need to photograph the car?
> > >
> >> Should he just write and tell them it cannot have been his car
> and >> leave it at that?
> > >
> > That depends on whether he wants to be bloody minded and insist
> > on exercising his legal rights, knowing that it will end up
> > causing him far more trouble.
> >
> > You are entirely correct that he is under no obligation to take a
> > photo, and if he doesn't the police will carry on with the
> > prosecution and he'll end up in court where he can show them a
> > photo of his car to prove it's not the same as the one in the
> > photo that the police have.
>
> And there was me thinking it was up to the police to prove guilt
> rather than the accused to prove innocence.
>
>
> > Or he could take the picture now and it will be compared to the
> > one from the speed camera at which point they will (hopefully)
> > see that it's a different vehicle and that will be the end of it.
>
>
> I did not say he should just ignore things.
>
> I said he could write to the police and obviously explain the
> circumstances: perhaps where he was at the time - who was with him -
> those sorts of things.
>
> I would have thought that if someone had cloned plates then the
> police would be interested in solving that crime - rather than the
> minor speeding offence.
>
> Perhaps you are right and they would not be interested - I guess it
> is a sort of "mentality" thing.
>
> It sounds like you think that if he wrote and told them it could
> not be his car it would still be in the public interest to pursue
> the speeding case to court rather than investigate a more serious
> offence.
>
>
> I guess also it would be much to difficult for the police to take
> his word for it - put an ANPR alert in the location where the fake
> plates were spotted and pursue it that way.
>
> (PS - I was unsure of why you used the word "hopefully" above - if
> it's any help - I am not lying nor was my friend)
If he has a mobile phone he could ask the operator to provide
positioning infomation on the day concerned ,
a...@b.invalid
> friend is desperate for his day in court, it's in his own (and the
> police's) best interests to be as helpful as possible in showing that
> he wasn't there at the time.
>
> seems to me an unwise course of action when you're accused of a crime.
As a general rule "no comment" is almost always the best course of
action when accused of a crime.
The only caveat is that human rights don't apply to drivers but the
principle of still applies where available.
Judith
In which case - you must be correct - and I must have incredibly thick
friends.
ARWadsworth
>> 12:10:02 on Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>> remarked:
>>
>>> Only very careless or unfortunate drivers seem to attract damage to
>>> the rear of the car.
>>
>> supplied the car. I doubt the cloners replicate those.
>
> What makes you think that car must have such a sticker (none of mine
Mine would soon get a sticker of some sort if the police asked for a photo
of the car.
--
Adam
Judith
<snip>
>If it came to it they could by a disposible camera and take it to
>Boots!
>
Yes of course they could - they could hire a professional photographer
to come and take photos of the car *if* they wanted to.
On the other hand, the police could do *their* job.
He has told them that an offence has been committed - cloning car
plates.
Unfortunately in the eyes of plod - that is obviously not as serious
as a speeding offence - hence they can't be arsed to investigate
themselves and they want someone to do their work for them.
Mr X
happy for your money to be spent on sending round a police photographer?
Flop
Keep it in the car in case of an accident. Photograph location, damages,
other driver, witnesses. Anything you can.
Saves disagreement where the other party suddenly decides that it wasn't
his fault, his car has been destroyed and he has suffered
life-threatening injuries.
Flop
Clive Page
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
>Google is processing links to around a trillion web pages, and can
>search them. Maybe they should be given the job of doing a simple
>search of those 7 billion records looking for occurrences of a
>numberplate.
>
>It's quite an interesting statistic, actually. With 26 million cars "on
>the road" that would be an average of 270 hits for each car.
It doesn't need anything like the processing power of Messrs Google to
do this. I've been setting up and using astronomical databases with a
few billion records for some years. For ANPR records you would only
need a few simple fields: e.g a location identifier, the date and time,
and vehicle number (perhaps also some image quality measure), say about
20 bytes/record, total 140 GB, which fits easily on a dirt cheap disc.
Standard database management packages can index and search databases of
this size very easily; even finding near duplicates isn't hard.
I thought initially that it would be easy for the police to implement a
system to detect cloned plates by finding cases in which the same
apparent number-plate is detected in distant locations at nearly the
same time, and then put such plates on a watch list so they could easily
catch the culprits (or of course the innocent victims).
But on second thoughts, errors in the database might just be so common
so that most such duplicates would be false alarms. But that problem
only affects a general trawl for cloned plates. In a particular case,
when say a victim's car is used only in one part of the country, it
shouldn't be too hard to watch out for that same plate being used in
distant areas and catch the person driving the car with cloned plates.
--
Clive Page
Steve Walker
> And in court, he would have ton provide some sort of evidence that
> the car being photographed was not his - whether evidence of the
> appearance of his car, or evidence that his car was elsewhere.
Surely evidence of *his* location at the relevant time is what matters. It
is the driver who is accused and convicted, not the car.
Mr X
"Flop" <Fl...@flop.knot.me.uk> wrote in message
news:kZ6dnZqavY6TOaHQ...@brightview.co.uk...
> Slightly OT - it would be a good idea to get a disposable camera anyway.
> Keep it in the car in case of an accident. Photograph location, damages,
> other driver, witnesses. Anything you can.
>
> Saves disagreement where the other party suddenly decides that it wasn't
> his fault, his car has been destroyed and he has suffered life-threatening
> injuries.
>
the need.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>In message <h0umj654l5ahv8s2s...@4ax.com>, at 00:45:03 on
>Sun, 23 Jan 2011, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>>>>> "At the end of March 2010, the NADC was receiving approximately 10
>>>>> million reads per day, with over 7 billion vehicle sightings stored.
>>>>> This body of information on vehicle movements is key to the value of
>>>>> ANPR."
>>>>
>>>>There won't be enough computer power on the planet to process this
>>>>amount of information.
>>>
>>>Google is processing links to around a trillion web pages, and can
>>>search them. Maybe they should be given the job of doing a simple search
>>>of those 7 billion records looking for occurrences of a numberplate.
>>>
>>>It's quite an interesting statistic, actually. With 26 million cars "on
>>>the road" that would be an average of 270 hits for each car.
>>
>>But of course many cars which do the same route every day will, have
>>far more hits than that, while others will have fewer.
>
>The number of hits is more likely to be correlated with local camera
>sites than whether the trip is done daily.
>
The combination of the two is required.
>>And actually, 270 is not all that many
>
>It should be enough to show that the car spends most of its time in
>(say) Yorkshire rather then Devon.
True, but it really doesn't matter where a car spends "most of its
time", since a very large proportion will occasionally be used outside
their normal area.
> And the other evidence I was
>expecting was sightings of the same plate in two places "at the same
>time" (ie so close together that they could not have travelled the
>distance in the available time, let alone without being recorded by
>other cameras en-route).
>
It seems to me you would need to be quite luck for that to happen.
>>when you consider that most
>>cars are more than a year old, and will be driven most days.
>
>10 million a day divided into 7 billion is an easy sum - 700 days or
>about two years. Which is a very plausible time to retain data as well
>as how long such a database might be have operating in its current form.
The 10 million is "reads", not "sightings".
I was assuming the database had been built up over a bit more than 2
years.
Although even if it is only 2 years, that is still only an average of
2-3 times a week per vehicle.
>
>As for how often cars are driven - I was trying not to get into
>speculation about that. No doubt there are websites with data (just like
>I know there are ones with the age profile mentioned later...) but
>looking around the street where I live doesn't incline me to think that
>every car is driven every day; and those which are, might be driven very
>locally and therefore not trigger an ANPR camera every time. But that's
>not a problem, because when they do trigger one it will still
>demonstrate quite clearly what their home territory is.
>
>>I'm not sure what the average age of cars in the UK is, but I remember
>>seeing somewhere that there are more cars needing an MOT than not
>>(i.e. more over three years old than under).
>
>The typical longevity of a car is 12 years, and the number "on the road"
>is reasonably constant - so there's likely to be about three times as
>many needing MOTs as not. But I can't see why that's relevant.
Just trying to get some sort of very rough handle on how often the
majority of cars might expect to be photographed, by dividing the
number of sighting per car held by the average age of cars.
It seems likely to me, based on what figures we have, that many cars
will not be photographed more than once or twice a month, and even the
average isn't likely to be more often than a couple of times a week.
You *might* be luck and find the cloned plates and the real ones have
been photographed within a few of hours of each other, 200 miles
apart. But is seems much more likely that you won't.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm too smart to let my intelligence go to my head.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 00:35:02 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>And how do you know that all ANPR information from police cameras is
>>>not collated and stored centrally?
>>>
>>>I think you will find that it is
>>
>>First, there is nothing like enough of it to be that useful.
>
>I would have thought that 10 million reads every day adding to a
>database of 7 billion sightings would be quite useful.
With 26 million vehicles on the road, that is still only 2-3 times per
week on average, and a lot of cars will be "seen" 10+ times, if they
happen to commute past a fixed camera site, so a lot will be "seen"
much less than 2-3 times per week.
>
>>There is a lot, and it is increasing, but I do not believe most cars
>>pass ANPR cameras on a regular basis.
>>
>>Second, it would possibly be illegal for them to do so.
>
>
>Please could you explain why.
>
Data Protection issues.
I know there are exemptions to many of the DPA rules where preventing
or detecting crime is concerned, but I suspect that holding on to and
nationally correlating that data would fall foul of the same rules
that the ECHR has ruled prevent the police from retaining DNA samples
of people not convicted.
>
>
>>>How do you know that it is not possible to input a car registration
>>>and for all locations that that car has been logged at over a
>>>specified period to be identified?
>>>
>>>I think you will find that it is
>>>
>>
>>I would be amazed if that were true.
>
>
>Why - I thought you dabbled on the fringes of IT?
I have made my living from working in IT for the last 30 years.
>
>Do you think that every number plate which is logged by ANPR would not
>have location, date and time logged with it?
>
Of course.
they would be utterly pointless otherwise.
>Do you not think there will be search capabilities to access that data
>in useful ways?
>
Well as I said above, I doubt very much whether that would actually be
legal without specific cause.
But I should have removed the above comment anyhow. I typed that bit
before reading the NPIA stuff, which indicates they *do* hold the
records centrally, and they do retain the data ion that way.
They say they have agreement from the ICO, but that doesn't mean as
much as it should.
The ICO have on occasion been decided to be wrong by the courts in the
past.
>>
>>>How do you know that the location of the car which was caught speeding
>>>was not in a main city with well publicised ANPR cameras on every main
>>>road in to and out of the city?
>>>
>>>It was
>>
>>Which city was this then?
>>
>>I am not aware of ANY city which has that.
>
>
>Durham Police - 94 cameras
>
>London Police : 473
>
>West Midlands Police : 388
>
>Merseyside: 247
>
>North West Motorways : 117
>
As I said, I am not aware of ANY city which has that.
Care to give some links?
And to more than just numbers, to be "well publicised on every main
road into and out of" that means they need to be telling us which
roads they are on.
>Staffordshire Police monitor the M6
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Manchester is now protected by a "ring of steel" - a network of
>surveillance cameras that will log almost every car entering the city
>centre.
>
>The network of 15 automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras
>cover main approaches to the metropolitan area.
>
There must be Hundreds of roads into Manchester. 15 cameras can only
cover the few busiest.
>Every car is screened against a network of police and government
>databases, with the system able to instantly trigger alerts about
>everything from suspected terrorists and stolen vehicles, to banned
>drivers and tax dodgers.
>
>The plate number, car colour and entry time of an estimated 600,000
>cars per day are being kept by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) for
>five years.
>
>..
>London's ring of steel was introduced in the early 1990s following a
>bombing campaign by the IRA.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Because *you* are not aware of them does not mean that they do not
>exist.
True, but you haven't posed anything to show that any city has "well
publicised ca,eras on every main route into and out of the city".
>
>Next time you drive in to Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, London
>Nottingham or Durham - keep your eyes open - you can spot them if you
>know what to look for.
>
>
>>Particularly since the NPIA in the FAQ say
>>-------------------------
>>Where are the cameras?
>>
>>For operational reasons, we are unable to disclose the specific
>>locations of fixed-site police ANPR cameras. However, you should
>>expect ANPR cameras to be in use on many roads across the country and
>>in locations requiring enhanced security.
>>----------------------------
>
>Because they do not usually disclose where they are does not mean
>that they are *not* on the main roads in to major cities.
>
Of course.
>If you were in charge of ANPR - where would *you* locate the cameras
>for maximum benefit?
The busiest roads, of course.
>
>(I would suggest that the 247 cameras in Liverpool are not all
>located in the back streets)
I would agree with you entirely.
>
>
>>So there are very few (if any) well publicised ones. And there
>>certainly are not the sheer numbers of them you seem to think there
>>are.
>
>10,000 is quite a large number (This may include Council owned
>cameras from which the police have feeds)
>
It is.
But it isn't anywhere near as large a number as the 26 million
vehicles on the road.
Where does the figure of 10,000 come from anyhow?
>
>>>Have a look at what the NADC is.
>>>
>>
>>
>>As far as I can find out, it is the Nation Association of Drainage
>>Contractors.
>>
>>Or the North Atlantic Defence Coalition.
>>
>>I can't find reference to any other UK organisation.
>>
>
>Perhaps you should contact the NAI and tell them they are using terms
>and abbreviations which Joe Public finds difficult to understand:
>
>National ANPR Data Centre
>
>Google is your friend : "nadc anpr"
>About 249 results (0.24 seconds)
>
>(I always find that if a search does not find anything - try adding
>another term to the search words - this often helps)
>
>You can have a read about it here:
>
>http://www.npia.police.uk/en/10505.htm
I had read that page, without actually registering that the
abbreviation was the one I had been looking for from the previous
search.
I had thought that you were referring to another organisation (as with
NPIA) when you said NADC.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Next time you wave at me, use more than one finger, please.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>In message <cpsmj6hg74vo41okl...@4ax.com>, at 00:35:02 on
I know there are a lot of them around.
But if there are a total of approximately 10 million "sightings"
recorded each day, then on average that is only once every 2.6 days
per vehicle - so 2-3 times per week.
Given the number of people who do commute, past at least one of these
sites in each direction, and who will be sighted much more than 2-3
times per week, there must also be an awful lot who are seen less
often.
I still think you will be fairly lucky to get two sightings of the
same number close enough in time to be useful as evidence that they
weren't of the same vehicle.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Ability is a good thing but stability is even better.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 17:30:49 +0000, "Mr X" <M...@invalid.net> wrote:
The word of one person will never be taken as seriously in evidence as
"hard" evidence such as a photograph.
So far as they are concerned, they have hard evidence of one crime,
and the suspect claiming that another has been committed meaning it
wasn't him.
IT isn't unreasonable IMO for them to ask for a little more than an
unsubstantiated claim on his part.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Press Ctrl-Alt-Del to continue...
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:50:01 +0000, "Dr Zoidberg"
><AlexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>
>>I think you are underestimating the abilities of the general population.
>>The vast majority will have use of a camera themselves or have a close
>>friend or relative who would assist.
>>I can't think of anyone I know who wouldn't be able to produce a picture
>>within a day or so and that includes plenty of elderly relatives.
>
>
>
>In which case - you must be correct - and I must have incredibly thick
>friends.
Based on the people I know, I think you do.
Or at least incredibly technologically illiterate.
I know very few people who do not possess, and know how to use, either
a dedicated digital camera, or one in their phone.
And those very few people all have friends who do have, and would be
willing to help.
I accept that my close friends and my colleagues are all above average
in intelligence and technological ability, but not everybody I know
is.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
REALITY.SYS corrupted: Reboot universe? (Y/N/A)
Flop
flash, 35mm cannot be photoshopped and, if necessary/critical the camera
can be handed to the police undeveloped.
Flop