Bugger! Caught by a GATSO! - Update!
Chris Longhurst
flashed me *twice* on the dual carriageway just before the railway bridge. Contrary
to some postings, it *is* a 40mph limit down there (not 30 like someone suggested) -
I checked.
Now the mandatory 14 days has long passed, and I've not seen the fatal manilla
envelope, I can conclude one of two things:
(a) the police decided not to prosecute as I was slowing down from 45mph in a 40
zone.
(b) it was a dummy unit
Having researched the whole thing quite a lot in the last few weeks, here's some
other gems of info:
* Contrary to some beliefs, dummy units *do* flash twice.
* the cameras have a roll of film with *800* frames on it!!!!!
* they cannot prosecute if there is doubt about which vehicle was the trigger. In
spite of the fact that there are the markings for manual calculation on the road, if
two vehicles go past at an angle of about 25 degrees to the camera then there is no
way of proving which vehicle triggered it
* most radar detectors are useless. In fact I'd go so far as to say they all are for
finding GATSO radar. Most of them I looked at only registered the radar when you
were so close that braking to slow down wouldn't make any difference. Only one, an
American "Passport" radar detector did a better job, but it was still not going to
give anyone enough time to slow down.
* statistically, you have a one-in-eight chance of being fined if you are 'flashed'.
(due to the number of dummy units vs live cameras) As the ratio of dummys to empty
boxes is also 1 in 8, you have (statistically) a 1 in 64 chance of speeding past an
apparent GATSO and being fined.
As daft as it looks, slowing down for the camera is still the only way to guarantee
not being caught :-)
Of course, when the newer GATSO's are brought into use, radar detectors will be
completely useless. The newer versions use buried wires under the road - no visible
signs - no radar, just an ominous grey box with an elbow......
--
*** Pass or Pull Over! ***
Chris Longhurst
3D graphics engineer, graphic artist, car driver and non-caravanner.
email: chr...@division.co.uk or longh...@division.com
http://www.division.co.uk/~chrisl/
--------------------------------..oooOOOooo..--------------------------------
Standard disclaimer: The views expressed in this item are entirely my own.
--------------------------------..oooOOOooo..--------------------------------
David Shepherd
: As daft as it looks, slowing down for the camera is still the only way to guarantee
: not being caught :-)
You don't say :-)
: Of course, when the newer GATSO's are brought into use, radar detectors will be
: completely useless. The newer versions use buried wires under the road - no visible
: signs - no radar, just an ominous grey box with an elbow......
And when the new portable units with real-time number plate
recognition come in (these have been demoed on the M25 with the
overhead "slow down" signs but, I think, are yet approved for
prosection) come in then you won't even see the ominous
grey boxes or have the luxury of a 800 frame film running out
every so often.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd
SGS-THOMSON Microelectronics Ltd, 1000 aztec west, bristol bs12 4sq, u.k.
tel/fax: +44 1454 611638/617910 email: d...@bristol.st.com
"whatever you don't want, you don't want negative advertising"
Gwyn Evans
: ma...@tdraft.demon.co.uk (Matt West) wrote:
: >One thing I'd like to know is which side of a Gatso camera does the
: >radar 'fire'. If you were to slow down when you saw a camera, would
: >it be too late ?
: >On the side that you see first, there are two small holes near the
: >upper corners. Does the radar detect from these, therefore detecting
: >your speed as you approach the camera, or does it detect from the
: >lens/flash side and measure your speed from behind ?
: >
: I know the answer but I'm not telling. These cameras are placed where
: there's a proven record of speed related accidents. Just slow down.
Maybe in Devon, but not everywhere. (A40 at Swakely's? - 3 lane
dual carridgeway where the M40 becomes the A40 then enters a 50 zone.)
Gwyn
--
+==========================================================================+
| Gwyn Evans | Gwyn_...@mtits.co.uk | Views expressed and |
| MTI Trading Systems | MAG:BMF DoD #2020 | statements made are |
| Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK | gw...@cix.compulink.co.uk | mine, not MTI's |
+==========================================================================+
Matt West
>I know the answer but I'm not telling. These cameras are placed where
>there's a proven record of speed related accidents. Just slow down.
I do. If you are speeding where it is unsafe (ie. built up areas and
accident black spots) then you rightly deserve to be done.
The trouble is that some of these cameras are quite clearly placed to
catch as many people possible and often not in areas where speed
reduction would be more beneficial.
Matt.
Rajesh Varia
d...@bristol.st.com "David Shepherd" writes:
>
> And when the new portable units with real-time number plate
> recognition come in (these have been demoed on the M25 with the
> overhead "slow down" signs but, I think, are yet approved for
> prosection) come in then you won't even see the ominous
> grey boxes or have the luxury of a 800 frame film running out
> every so often.
>
I believe that these types of units have already been used in the
roadworks on the M1 between J21 & J22. Several friends have told
be that the unit reads number plates and flashes the registration
and speed on a unit 100m further ahead. Supposed to be pretty
good at reading the correct registration as well.
--
Rajesh Varia r...@c4rv.demon.co.uk
Matt West
radar 'fire'. If you were to slow down when you saw a camera, would
it be too late ?
On the side that you see first, there are two small holes near the
upper corners. Does the radar detect from these, therefore detecting
your speed as you approach the camera, or does it detect from the
lens/flash side and measure your speed from behind ?
I have read two magazine articles contradicting each other on how
these Gatso cameras work.
Matt.
Damian Webber
<DSw...@environ.devon-cc.gov.uk> writes:
-
- ma...@tdraft.demon.co.uk (Matt West) wrote:
- >One thing I'd like to know is which side of a Gatso camera does the
- >radar 'fire'. If you were to slow down when you saw a camera, would
- >it be too late ?
- >On the side that you see first, there are two small holes near the
- >upper corners. Does the radar detect from these, therefore detecting
- >your speed as you approach the camera, or does it detect from the
- >lens/flash side and measure your speed from behind ?
- >
- I know the answer but I'm not telling. These cameras are placed where
- there's a proven record of speed related accidents. Just slow down.
-
-
-
They might in your county but in Lancashire they are placed where maximum
revenue can be extracted. This applies only to speed cameras, the red light
ones are well placed. Eg The ring road around Blackburn, this used to be a
70 mph dual carriageway, following improvents eg new tarmac, barriers the
speed limit was reduced to 50 mph and 3 speed cameras were installed, 2
over the crest of a brows, and the other round a left hand bend. Having
travelled this road daily for 5 years I have only seen one accident, where a
police car went through some red lights and hit a car travelling through on
green. Oh I'm starting to chuckle again. Hee Hee Hee.
Regards
Damian
President UK Road Rage Group
--
tim
<DSw...@environ.devon-cc.gov.uk> wrote:
>ma...@tdraft.demon.co.uk (Matt West) wrote:
>>One thing I'd like to know is which side of a Gatso camera does the
>>radar 'fire'. If you were to slow down when you saw a camera, would
>>it be too late ?
>>On the side that you see first, there are two small holes near the
>>upper corners. Does the radar detect from these, therefore detecting
>>your speed as you approach the camera, or does it detect from the
>>lens/flash side and measure your speed from behind ?
>>
>I know the answer but I'm not telling. These cameras are placed where
>there's a proven record of speed related accidents. Just slow down.
>
So do I and I'm not going to arse about. The radar is in
the same plane as the photogaphic setup, so bouncing off the
rear of your vehicle. If you see the box/rulers in time and
slow down to below the trigger limit as you are entering the
ruled area you should be ok.
But remember why they bothered to put it there in the first
place. Some people consider knowledge power, whereas in
reality it is mutual enlightenment.
tim
_______________________________________________________
Ś Tim (that streak that just flashed past you) Ś
Ś_______________________________________________________Ś
Ś "The path of excess leads to the palace of wisdom" Ś
Ś - William Blake Ś
Ś_______________________________________________________Ś
Chris Longhurst
>
> >* statistically, you have a one-in-eight chance of being fined
> >if you are 'flashed'. (due to the number of dummy units vs live
> >cameras) As the ratio of dummys to empty boxes is also 1 in 8,
> >you have (statistically) a 1 in 64 chance of speeding past an
> >apparent GATSO and being fined.
>
> speak for other Highway Authorities, but there are *NO* empty-box
> Gatsos in Cheshire, i.e. they all have radar/flash units in them.
> We just move the camera around. Also I suspect that the ratio of
> cameras to boxes will vary from place to place. The camera is the
> bit the Police have to finance, so the numbers will depend to
> some extent on the resources/enthusuiasm of each Constabulary.
Like I put in my original post - these figures are all IMO - in my opinion, and none
of them should be taken as gospel......
mhum...@taz.dra.hmg.gb
Yep. This was first used there about 18 months ago when there were
long term roadworks there - usual setup: contraflow with 50 mph limit.
First time I went through (shortly after it was installed) I was in
the inside lane doing roughly 50 by my speedo, there was a car next
to me doing near enough the same speed. His registration was flashed
up on the screen along with the speed - 52 mph!
Next time I went through, about a week later, I nearly went into the
car in front as everything suddenly slowed down to 40 just before the
sensors - seemed to be quite effective.
(I later heard of it going off for somebody doing 51 as well. It was
an experiment to try and slow the traffic down with no fines or
points being handed out so I guess they didn't need to allow the
usual tolerances.)
Hugh Davies
>The trouble is that some of these cameras are quite clearly placed to
>catch as many people possible and often not in areas where speed
>reduction would be more beneficial.
I disagree. I have *never* seen a Gatso (or at least, the grey box)
anywhere other than places where people should slow down. The M25
to M4 stretch, the North Circular around Neasden and the A1(M)
through Sandy are all safer, saner, more relaxing places to drive
now that people obey the speed limits.
--
Regards,
Huge.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hugh J.E. Davies, Bedfordshire, England.
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
Chris Longhurst
> I believe that the Thames Valley Police area is recognised as the
> second most GATSO-intensive area of the UK. You have to have some
> sympathy. Earlier this year the government cut £7 million from their
> budget so I suppose they have to look for other ways to raise the
> money.
Quite how they'll manage this is a bit of a mystery too though. TV Police have
over 250 boxes, with only 18 cameras and another 15 dummy units (AFAIR) so
they're not so much making money as being a right royal pain in the arse.
Steve Thomas
:kevin fiske wrote:
:> I believe that the Thames Valley Police area is recognised as the
:> second most GATSO-intensive area of the UK. You have to have some
:> sympathy. Earlier this year the government cut £7 million from their
:> budget so I suppose they have to look for other ways to raise the
:> money.
:
:Quite how they'll manage this is a bit of a mystery too though. TV Police have
:over 250 boxes, with only 18 cameras and another 15 dummy units (AFAIR) so
:they're not so much making money as being a right royal pain in the arse.
This misses the point as well. If you're caught speeding, by a GATSO
or otherwise, any fines go to the Treasury, not to any more local body
and certainly not to the local police budget - at least, not directly.
As such, motives for any police force putting up GATSOs must lie in
the direction of road safety and efficiency (as measured by number of
convictions) rather than fund-raising.
In the case of TV, I suspect that the motive is more directed to increasing
the conviction rate and making themselves look better.
Steve
David Hough
hu...@axalotl.demon.co.uk (Hugh Davies) writes:
>
> I disagree. I have *never* seen a Gatso (or at least, the grey box)
> anywhere other than places where people should slow down. The M25
> to M4 stretch, the North Circular around Neasden and the A1(M)
> through Sandy are all safer, saner, more relaxing places to drive
> now that people obey the speed limits.
>
are all on a 60mph limit in places where I can't see that it is actually
dangerous to go fast. Inadvisable perhaps, but not dangerous. Not that I
ever have chance to go past them at that sort of speed anyway - the
times I have the misfortune to use the A40 it is usually choked with
traffic :-(
Dave
--
da...@llondel.demon.co.uk
Any advice above is worth what I paid for it.
Chris Longhurst
> I disagree. I have *never* seen a Gatso (or at least, the grey box)
> anywhere other than places where people should slow down. The M25
> to M4 stretch, the North Circular around Neasden and the A1(M)
> through Sandy are all safer, saner, more relaxing places to drive
> now that people obey the speed limits.
I know of plenty of places where they are installed as a complete waste of
time. Wokingham road in Reading springs to mind. There are 2 GATSO's within
200m of each other. Between them are two bus stops, a pelican crossing, three
traffic islands, a bus lane and a set of traffic lights. In the dead of night
it's physically impossible to get much above 30mph down there. Most of the
time, traffic is moving at around 20mph so those two are quite clearly a waste
of time. Or Tilehurst Hill, also in Reading. 40mph zone, up a 1 in 12 slope
with a speed camera pointing uphill only (it's not a reversible one). Oh that's
really sensible. Or how about Southend sea front (I think it was) with 4
cameras in the space of 200m, all pointing the same way.
Take a good hard look and I think you'll find that upto 50% of installations
are in places where it's just not feasible.
Dean Bubley
> In article <30bb0522...@distort.demon.co.uk>,
ma...@tdraft.demon.co.uk (Matt West) writes:
>
> >The trouble is that some of these cameras are quite clearly placed to
> >catch as many people possible and often not in areas where speed
> >reduction would be more beneficial.
>
> I disagree. I have *never* seen a Gatso (or at least, the grey box)
> anywhere other than places where people should slow down. The M25
> to M4 stretch, the North Circular around Neasden and the A1(M)
> through Sandy are all safer, saner, more relaxing places to drive
> now that people obey the speed limits.
>
Try:
A312 Hayes Bypass (going towards H'row)
A41 near Brent Cross flyover (both directions)
Dean
--
Dean Bubley, de...@datamon.demon.co.uk
kevin fiske
Hear, hear!
The council roads folk in both Oxfordshire and Berkshire seem to be
particularly cynical in their choice of sites.
GATSO cameras do appear in 30 and 40 limits, and at traffic light
controlled junctions where no sane person could surely object. But
they are also sprouting liberally along very open (and, to my
knowledge, accident-free) stretches of A-road where the only purpose
must be to rake in the cash.
I believe that the Thames Valley Police area is recognised as the
second most GATSO-intensive area of the UK. You have to have some
sympathy. Earlier this year the government cut £7 million from their
budget so I suppose they have to look for other ways to raise the
money.
Kevin Fiske - ke...@sagepart.demon.co.uk
Alan J Holmes
Gwyn Evans <Gwyn_...@mtits.co.uk> wrote:
>Dudley Swain (DSw...@environ.devon-cc.gov.uk) wrote:
>: ma...@tdraft.demon.co.uk (Matt West) wrote:
>: >One thing I'd like to know is which side of a Gatso camera does the
>: >radar 'fire'. If you were to slow down when you saw a camera, would
>: >it be too late ?
>: >On the side that you see first, there are two small holes near the
>: >upper corners. Does the radar detect from these, therefore detecting
>: >your speed as you approach the camera, or does it detect from the
>: >lens/flash side and measure your speed from behind ?
>: I know the answer but I'm not telling. These cameras are placed where
>: there's a proven record of speed related accidents. Just slow down.
> Maybe in Devon, but not everywhere. (A40 at Swakely's? - 3 lane
>dual carridgeway where the M40 becomes the A40 then enters a 50 zone.)
But that camera is usually pointing away from London, presumably
to catch people picking up speed on the approach to the M40.
Alan
Alan J Holmes
Hugh Davies <hu...@axalotl.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <30bb0522...@distort.demon.co.uk>, ma...@tdraft.demon.co.uk (Matt West) writes:
>>The trouble is that some of these cameras are quite clearly placed to
>>catch as many people possible and often not in areas where speed
>>reduction would be more beneficial.
>I disagree. I have *never* seen a Gatso (or at least, the grey box)
>anywhere other than places where people should slow down. The M25
>to M4 stretch, the North Circular around Neasden and the A1(M)
>through Sandy are all safer, saner, more relaxing places to drive
>now that people obey the speed limits.
Try the A412 into or out of Slough, the A40/M40 junction 1.
Neither are places where one should _need_ to slow down.
Alan
Alan J Holmes
>: in Worthing flashed me *twice* on the dual carriageway just before the
>: railway bridge. Contrary to some postings, it *is* a 40mph limit down
>: there (not 30 like someone suggested) - I checked.
>: Now the mandatory 14 days has long passed, and I've not seen the fatal
>: manilla envelope, I can conclude one of two things:
>Is this correct? Does the law say a notice of intended prosecution must
>be issued within 14 days.
I thought it was much longer, either three or six months.
Alan
Alan J Holmes
Dudley Swain <DSw...@environ.devon-cc.gov.uk> wrote:
>ma...@tdraft.demon.co.uk (Matt West) wrote:
>>One thing I'd like to know is which side of a Gatso camera does the
>>radar 'fire'. If you were to slow down when you saw a camera, would
>>it be too late ?
>>On the side that you see first, there are two small holes near the
>>upper corners. Does the radar detect from these, therefore detecting
>>your speed as you approach the camera, or does it detect from the
>>lens/flash side and measure your speed from behind ?
>I know the answer but I'm not telling. These cameras are placed where
>there's a proven record of speed related accidents. Just slow down.
Why then, are they often on straight roads with no access from
either side?
Alan
DANIEL ROBERT HOLDSWORTH
In article <49ktsv...@dougal.isltd.insignia.com>, sth...@dougal.isltd.insignia.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
:In article <30BDEA...@division.co.uk> Chris Longhurst <chr...@division.co.uk> writes:
::kevin fiske wrote:
::> second most GATSO-intensive area of the UK. You have to have some
::> sympathy. Earlier this year the government cut £7 million from their
::> budget so I suppose they have to look for other ways to raise the
::> money.
::Quite how they'll manage this is a bit of a mystery too though. TV Police have
::over 250 boxes, with only 18 cameras and another 15 dummy units (AFAIR) so
::they're not so much making money as being a right royal pain in the arse.
:
:This misses the point as well. If you're caught speeding, by a GATSO
:or otherwise, any fines go to the Treasury, not to any more local body
:and certainly not to the local police budget - at least, not directly.
:As such, motives for any police force putting up GATSOs must lie in
:the direction of road safety and efficiency (as measured by number of
:convictions) rather than fund-raising.
:
:In the case of TV, I suspect that the motive is more directed to increasing
:the conviction rate and making themselves look better.
Indeed.
A good reason for using GATSO cameras is that it makes the police crime clearup
rates look better. If you photo a driver speeding with a gatso, then you've
both caught him committing a crime, and solved that crime. One more solved crime
to reduce the proportion of unsolved crimes.
Of course, one can allow for this. But the TV companies never actually get their
hands on the raw data. If they did, then a day's work with a good statistician
and a mainframe would tell the whole story...
Dan H.
Mr. J.D. Ball
: As you may remember, I started this thread three weeks ago after a GATSO
: in Worthing flashed me *twice* on the dual carriageway just before the
: railway bridge. Contrary to some postings, it *is* a 40mph limit down
: there (not 30 like someone suggested) - I checked.
: Now the mandatory 14 days has long passed, and I've not seen the fatal
: manilla envelope, I can conclude one of two things:
Is this correct? Does the law say a notice of intended prosecution must
be issued within 14 days.
Jim.
kevin fiske
>In article <30BDEA...@division.co.uk> Chris Longhurst <chr...@division.co.uk> writes:
>:kevin fiske wrote:
>:> I believe that the Thames Valley Police area is recognised as the
>:> second most GATSO-intensive area of the UK. You have to have some
>:> sympathy. Earlier this year the government cut £7 million from their
>:> budget so I suppose they have to look for other ways to raise the
>:> money.
>:
>:Quite how they'll manage this is a bit of a mystery too though. TV Police have
>:over 250 boxes, with only 18 cameras and another 15 dummy units (AFAIR) so
>:they're not so much making money as being a right royal pain in the arse.
>
>This misses the point as well. If you're caught speeding, by a GATSO
>or otherwise, any fines go to the Treasury, not to any more local body
>and certainly not to the local police budget - at least, not directly.
>As such, motives for any police force putting up GATSOs must lie in
>the direction of road safety and efficiency (as measured by number of
>convictions) rather than fund-raising.
>
>In the case of TV, I suspect that the motive is more directed to increasing
>the conviction rate and making themselves look better.
>
>Steve
Steve - I stand corrected. Your gentle rebuke prompted me to call the
cops this morning.
From on high, and upon tablets of stone, and not in any particular
order, the word is the following:
The cameras (£30k each) are bought by the police, using money from
centrally allocated funds. The housings are bought by local
authorities, using money from their centrally allocated road safety
budgets. Sometimes the local authorities also use this money to assist
the police in buying the cameras.
Fines imposed as a result of speeders or red light runners being
snapped go into the central fines pot.
My policeman this morning said the motivation for both the police and
local authorities was a reduction in accidents and the consequent cost
to the community. A fatal accident costs in the region of £780,000, a
'serious' accident about £86,000, so says the Home Office. He said
cameras are only sited where there is a history of serious or fatal
accidents.
This claim could be tested fairly easily. County council highways
departments either keep or have ready access to accidents statistics.
It might be fun to pick a camera site that looks suspect and ask for
the accident history of the area.
Regards to all.
Kevin Fiske - ke...@sagepart.demon.co.uk
Hugh Davies
>The cameras (£30k each) are bought by the police,
Except in Flitwick, Beds., where the local residents are raising
funds to buy one and have it installed at a notorious accident
black spot. Good for them, say I.
Hugh Davies
>Try:
>
>A312 Hayes Bypass (going towards H'row)
Don't know this one.
>A41 near Brent Cross flyover (both directions)
This seems a perfectly reasonable place for a Gatso to me. The limit's 40
(I think) and is vastly exceeded. The road is quite narrow for 4 lanes,
there are morons slowing down for the (badly placed) Brent Cross exit,
there are lots of parked cars and pedestrians crossing the road. It's a
damn stupid place to speed.
So far as I am concerned, my point stands.
Mike Granby
In an earlier article kevin fiske wrote:
> A fatal accident costs in the region of £780,000
How on earth is this figure calculated? It seems far too high to me. I
guess they've done something like adding up the tax contributions the
victim would have made if he were to live out his full term. Have they
included the money the state will save by not having to support this
individual during his lifetime? You could end up concluding that some
road accidents actually end up saving the state money.
--
Mike Granby
Paradigm Controls Limited
Dean Bubley
> In article <dean-30119...@datamon.demon.co.uk>,
de...@datamon.demon.co.uk (Dean Bubley) writes:
>
> >Try:
> >
> >A312 Hayes Bypass (going towards H'row)
>
> Don't know this one.
>
> >A41 near Brent Cross flyover (both directions)
>
> This seems a perfectly reasonable place for a Gatso to me. The limit's 40
> (I think) and is vastly exceeded. The road is quite narrow for 4 lanes,
> there are morons slowing down for the (badly placed) Brent Cross exit,
> there are lots of parked cars and pedestrians crossing the road. It's a
> damn stupid place to speed.
Yes the limit is 40mph, although it was formerly 50mph. I believe it was
reduced from the start of Hendon Way (junction with Finchley Rd) to Hendon
to protect people entering/leaving driveways. However, the northbound
Gatso is well past the row of houses fronting the road; the southbound has
marginally more justification as it near (but just after!) a side turning.
It is on a three-lane dual carriageway, with one lane splitting off down
to the junction with the A406, and the other 2 lanes (separated by crash
barriers etc.) forming the flyover.
There are no parked cars, nor pedestrian crossings, on that stretch of the
A41. There are ample subways, and in 24 years I've never seen anyone try &
cross lemming-wise. (There's also a fence as well as crash barriers). The
nearest traffic lights are 0.5 miles in each direction.
>
> So far as I am concerned, my point stands.
Ditto me. I guess we'll agree to differ.
There are places on that road for which 40mph is an reasonable maximum;
however, the cameras are not located in those places.
Chris Longhurst
> >: Now the mandatory 14 days has long passed, and I've not seen the fatal
> >: manilla envelope, I can conclude one of two things:
>
> >Is this correct? Does the law say a notice of intended prosecution must
> >be issued within 14 days.
>
> I thought it was much longer, either three or six months.
Friends of mine who've been snapped have had their notices served usually
within the week. The longest I've heard of was 12 days.
Dean Bubley
Granby) wrote:
I think it's worked out on the basis of direct costs such as the
time/petrol involved in sending police, ambulance etc, and related
paperwork afterwards, plus, possibly, an implicit charge based on the road
being closed etc. I don't think the model is sophisticated enough to
incorporate indirect effects such as lost taxation etc.
However, you could use that as an argument to raise the acceptable threat
to life. E.g. 100,000 cars per year, gaining 1 minute's worth of time each
through going faster, thus affording so many extra working days etc.......
It would be horribly complicated to do, though, because a chain of cause &
effect is in operation. I'm sure you could pick any outcome & a value and
come up with a reasonable methodology to justify it.
Iain A F Fleming
hu...@axalotl.demon.co.uk (Hugh Davies) wrote:
> In article <30bb0522...@distort.demon.co.uk>, ma...@tdraft.demon.co.uk (Matt West) writes:
>
> >The trouble is that some of these cameras are quite clearly placed to
> >catch as many people possible and often not in areas where speed
> >reduction would be more beneficial.
>
> I disagree. I have *never* seen a Gatso (or at least, the grey box)
> anywhere other than places where people should slow down. The M25 to M4
> stretch, the North Circular around Neasden and the A1(M) through Sandy are
> all safer, saner, more relaxing places to drive now that people obey the
> speed limits.
Then you want to come to my village of Enstone, Oxon, on the A44.
(I might even buy you a pint!).
Rather than putting a GATSO box at the entry to the village (as they
did at bothe ends of Woodstock), or before the primary school, which
sits on a sharpish right-hand bend (where the majority of north-bound
accidents happened when the road was the A34), they chose to put it
further north, at a point in the village where you have passed the
majority of the village, the post office, the school, and the village
store. The only things to go before the 50mph limit comes back into
force are 2 houses and The Harrow pub.
So the net effect is that cars and lorries come screaming into the
village at about 50-60, brake hard right outside my house (about 1/3
mile inside the speed limit) to get round the corner safely, pass the
school at about 40, and finally hit 30 just at the GATSO, and then
accelerate the last 1/4 mile back up to 50 or 60.
As far as I can see, having the GATSO in the village has had the
effect of *raising* the overall speed on the road through the
village.
The only possible reason for puting it where it is is to raise
revenue, as it is:
(a) not easy to see (it's a slow left-hand bend) and
(b) where people are likely to be speeding back up, as the main
part of village has been passed.
Or am I being overly cynical?
--
Iain A F Fleming Compiler Group Micro Development Tools
SGS-THOMSON Microelectronics Bristol UK +44.1454.611537
Thomas Sippel - Dau
In article <30c39540...@pubnews.demon.co.uk>, mi...@paracon.co.uk (Mike Granby) writes:
-
- In an earlier article de...@datamon.demon.co.uk (Dean Bubley) wrote:
-
- > I think it's worked out on the basis of direct costs such as the
- > time/petrol involved in sending police, ambulance etc, and related
- > paperwork afterwards, plus, possibly, an implicit charge based on
- > the road being closed etc. I don't think the model is sophisticated
- > enough to incorporate indirect effects such as lost taxation etc.
-
- But you can do an awful lot of paperwork for 780,000 GBP. We are
- talking about 20 man years for well-paid staff with all overheads
- included. I know you need to add-in the petrol and vehicle costs,
- but it still seems the wrong order of magnitude to me.
It looks to me like the crude ratio of total attributable cost of
accidents to number of fatalities (or fatal accidents):
780,000 * 3-4000 (road deaths p.a) wourks out at about 3 billion,
or about 1% of all public spending, .4% of GDP.
Conversely, with 20 million cars or so total car insurance turnover
should be somewhere around 6-10 billion pounds, translating to insurance
premiums of 300-500, some of which is used to defray theft, which is
not "fatal".
Thomas
--
*** This is the operative statement, all previous statements are inoperative.
* email: cma...@ic.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau)
* voice: +44 171 594 6904 (day) fax: +44 171 594 6958
* snail: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
Geoff Adams
>Alan J Holmes wrote:
>
>> >: Now the mandatory 14 days has long passed, and I've not seen the fatal
>> >: manilla envelope, I can conclude one of two things:
>>
>> >Is this correct? Does the law say a notice of intended prosecution must
>> >be issued within 14 days.
>>
>> I thought it was much longer, either three or six months.
>
>Friends of mine who've been snapped have had their notices served usually
>within the week. The longest I've heard of was 12 days.
>
Oh yeah "I have a friend who...." eh Chris? :^)
Last Gatso talk I went to, it was 14 days or no prosecution, you don't
have to recieve it, ie, they have records as to when it was posted etc
and you don't have to be in, it's not sent recorded delivery, but it
must be PROCESSED within 14 days. Each snap is also viewed by a traffic
officer who says yeah or neigh for action.
As from next year all red light camera's will also snap speeders.
On Green.....
Geoff./
---
#==================================#==================================#
| Geoff Adams, Tel: (01444) 234191 | DOD #1481 | MAG #88198 |
| etl...@etlxdmx.ericsson.se | OGRI | Hawk GT |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Ericsson!, Even I Don't Know What I'm Saying, Why Should They? |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Is :- Honda NT650J Bros 650 | Was:- XJ600S,XT600E,XS250,H100 |
#==================================#==================================#
Mike Granby
In an earlier article Chris Longhurst <chr...@division.co.uk> wrote:
> Friends of mine who've been snapped have had their notices served
> usually within the week. The longest I've heard of was 12 days.
Natural justice would suggest that only a short delay is acceptable,
as otherwise the driver looses track of the exact circumstances of
the offense and as such is unable to defend himself properly.
Mike Granby
In an earlier article de...@datamon.demon.co.uk (Dean Bubley) wrote:
> I think it's worked out on the basis of direct costs such as the
> time/petrol involved in sending police, ambulance etc, and related
> paperwork afterwards, plus, possibly, an implicit charge based on
> the road being closed etc. I don't think the model is sophisticated
> enough to incorporate indirect effects such as lost taxation etc.
But you can do an awful lot of paperwork for 780,000 GBP. We are
talking about 20 man years for well-paid staff with all overheads
included. I know you need to add-in the petrol and vehicle costs,
but it still seems the wrong order of magnitude to me.
> However, you could use that as an argument to raise the acceptable
> threat to life. E.g. 100,000 cars per year, gaining 1 minute's worth
> of time each through going faster, thus affording so many extra
> working days etc.......
Indeed.
> It would be horribly complicated to do, though, because a chain of
> cause & effect is in operation. I'm sure you could pick any outcome
> & a value and come up with a reasonable methodology to justify it.
I think that is just what they've done. This huge figure makes allows
them to justify virtually any road project, be it traffic calming or
indeed road expansion, on the basis of lives saved. That alone is a
reason to be suspicious of the amount.
Matt West
>As far as I can see, having the GATSO in the village has had the
>effect of *raising* the overall speed on the road through the
>village.
>
>The only possible reason for puting it where it is is to raise
>revenue, as it is:
> (a) not easy to see (it's a slow left-hand bend) and
> (b) where people are likely to be speeding back up, as the main
> part of village has been passed.
>
>Or am I being overly cynical?
I agree. I have seen many cameras placed like this, at the wrong end
of the village.
They aren't much use at all, except for the Treasury.
Matt.
Mike Granby
In an earlier article etl...@etlxdmx.ericsson.se (Geoff Adams) wrote:
> As from next year all red light camera's will also snap speeders.
Do the traffic light cameras use pressure sensors for speed detection
purposes, then? They appear to generally be in smaller boxes, which
I had always assumed to be down to the lack of radar gear. Do you know
if the sensors are accurate enough for evidence purposes, or will they
be using the dual photograph / calibrated comb technique as well?
Hugh Davies
>Then you want to come to my village of Enstone, Oxon, on the A44.
>(I might even buy you a pint!).
Done! I'm on my way... :o)
Isn't that the A34(T), though?
>Or am I being overly cynical?
I think so. But WTF.
>--
> Iain A F Fleming Compiler Group Micro Development Tools
> SGS-THOMSON Microelectronics Bristol UK +44.1454.611537
Err, how do you live in Enstone and work in Bristol?
Or are you one of these fables, and oh-so-lucky teleworkers?
Dean Bubley
(Mike Granby) wrote:
I think they may use induction loops under the road surface. Look closely
at the tarmac of a (all?) camera'd junction, and you will see a fine
lattice-work in which the surface has been dug up & then replaced. There's
usually one such grid on either side of the white line - thus enabling
them to calculate the speed at which you crossed it, I assume.
David Hough
cma...@cc.ic.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau) writes:
>
> Conversely, with 20 million cars or so total car insurance turnover
> should be somewhere around 6-10 billion pounds, translating to insurance
> premiums of 300-500, some of which is used to defray theft, which is
> not "fatal".
>
Dave
--
da...@llondel.demon.co.uk
Any advice above is worth what I paid for it.
Mike Mounfield
<<They might in your county but in Lancashire they are placed
where maximum revenue can be extracted. This applies only to
speed cameras, the red light ones are well placed.>>
How many times are we going to have to bury this old chestnut?
(sorry, mixed metaphor) Highway Authorities and Police
Constabularies get NONE (read my lips) NONE of the fine
revenue from speed and red light cameras. (I wish...) Our friend
Ken Clarke and his mates get the lot. Sorry to spoil a good
conspiracy theory with facts, but there you go...
Why don't you ring Lancs CC and get the accident stats for the
areas concerned and find out for sure rather than speculating?
Cheers,
Mike Mounfield
--
Road Safety Engineer:>>These views are mine and do not
necessarily reflect those of Cheshire County Council<<
"Prejudice is the reason of fools" - Voltaire
Mike Mounfield
needs to SHOUT his name) squirted this into the Usenet continuum:
>>...the TV companies never actually get their
hands on the raw data....<<
Try reading the thread carefully, Daniel. TV in this context is
Chris's abbreviation for
Thames Valley, not wireless broadcast of pictures and sound.