|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Essex Traffic Police Take To The Air
Article by: Mike Barrett
Date: 27 Aug 2009
 Want to know how your hard earned tax money is being spent in Essex? Well recently we were sent some information that the Essex Police will be cracking down on the hardened criminals in Essex.
Using the latest in technologies and SWAT style tactics with unmarked vehicles and a helicopter the powers that be are targeting...
Yes you have guessed it the worst of the criminal fraternity: the driver...
The Essex Safety Camera partnership (now known as "driving casualties down") announced that they are going to target drivers on the A13 over the next few months.
According to the Website: "Essex Police will be using resources including marked and unmarked vehicles and the force helicopter along the whole stretch of the A13.
Distinctive helicopter signs (pictured above) are being placed along the A13. They are designed to warn motorists of the possibility of detection of offences from the air."
And the serious offenses that they will be looking for are listed as: "Essex Police will be undertaking additional enforcement targeting driver behaviour and issues such as the non-wearing of seatbelts, hand held mobile use, speeding, drink and drug driving and anti-social behaviour."
Now if this is anything like the A127 SPECs speed camera scheme then this will be totally funded by the taxpayer. According to the Safety Camera Partnership the A127 is issuing 40 tickets a week in the new A127 Camera area: "Since the scheme became operational, Essex Police have served a weekly average of merely 40 first-time notices of intended prosecution to registered keepers of vehicles on a route that carries approximately 70,000 vehicles per day. The scheme will continue to be monitored over the next 30 months to clarify these initial reports."
The Police have set up an email address specifically for this campaign A13@essex.pnn.police.uk for road users to report "problems, incidents or concerns". I will certainly be using this opportunity to share my opinions of the scheme with them, and I suggest that if you feel strongly then you should pass the email address around and give them the wisdom and concerns of this introduction to a Police State.
| Comments
|
 Posted by JockTamsonsBairn on Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:02 pm |
 |
| MikeB Wrote: | | Now if this is anything like the A127 SPECs speed camera scheme then this will be totally funded by the taxpayer. |
| News Team Wrote: | A Freedom of Information request to Essex County Council requesting the cost of the A127 Average Speed Camera installation has revealed something very interesting.
In a reply from Elaine Appleby, Senior Road Safety Officer, the total cost of the average speed camera installation was stated as £455,086.
But more interesting by far was the revelation that Essex County Council contributed only £39,860 of the total. The remaining £415,226 was paid by a company headquartered in the area. |
| M8TJT Wrote: | 40 per week out of 70,000 per day  Thats all of 0.008163% of drivers speeding then. If that's all, why the hell are they spending so muvch money to catch such a tiny proportion of the drivers that use the road.
40 per week @£60 = 2,400. Wonder how much it is costing. Still drivers are an easy touch, because we don't seem to have an option other than to plead guilty these days  |
I think this can be shown to prove 2 things - the Specs system is working! There are still 40 people a week who still don't understand the concept of Average Speed Cameras.
Jock
TomTom Go 940 LIVE (9.510, Europe v915.5074 on SD & 8.371, WCE v875.3613 on board) |
|
| Posted by aj2052 on Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:16 pm |
|
Surely any speed checks from a moving aircraft must be questionable and not approved and can only be verified from ground level by either a fixed camera or a following vehicles own speed verification which is already done thus negating any cost justification for this part.
Moto G5s Plus, Sygic 17.4.8 |
|
| Posted by martinwinlow on Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:56 am |
|
Dear 'MikeB',
To spend my working life, not trying to earn a fortune by stepping on the small guy, or ripping people off or whatever other means of feathering ones nest at the expense of others you can think of, but instead trying my level best to make this country a better place to live and work for all and then to be referred to as a 'pig' in a main-stream publication such as this one, is too much. I have noticed of late a distinct authority-bashing stance by PGPSW and have tolerated it so I can continue to take advantage of the updates it provides in this interesting and fast moving technical arena.
I do not deny that some traffic enforcement policies may appear ill-conceived or that some local authorities appear to milk speed enforcement for purposes far removed from cutting speed and therefore saving lives. However, if instead of this regrettable attitude of appearing to support individuals who want to speed whenever they want and get away with it, you supported more national consistency in speed enforcement foe example, or using proven, available and cheap technology to achieve a variable system of speed limits based on environmental conditions such as locality, weather, traffic volume etc you might achieve something worthwhile.
Unfortunately, your at best silly and childish comments and at worst downright insulting ones force me to request that I be 'unsubscribed'. Please remove all my details from your systems.
MW
|
|
| Posted by Tomo on Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:04 am |
|
| aj2052 Wrote: | | Surely any speed checks from a moving aircraft must be questionable and not approved and can only be verified from ground level by either a fixed camera or a following vehicles own speed verification which is already done thus negating any cost justification for this part. |
One would imagine that they would use markers on the road (the white dots or rectangles we see painted on many roads) as they are a set distance apart. All they need is a fancy stop watch and optional video equipment to record it just in case it goes to court.
Obviously, any laser or radar equipment must a/ be held stationary and b/must not be used through glass so a helicopter wouldnt be much good on either of those points.
Steve
Using Go540. |
|
| Posted by AshleyHinton on Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:32 am |
|
Ahh, the war on terror..er..crime..er..err..errrr oh sod it, the motorist will do (again) after all we're registered with the government (several times) so they know where to send the fines. Easy Money. Except of course it isn't, unless the Greed Camera in the sky can generate over £540 per hour.
What a waste.
The figure is based on a very rough web search with the question "How much does it cost to run a police helicopter" from which produced, amongst other things, the Derbyshire force helicopter FAQ:
http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/local/202.html
By the way, Essex Police web site gives the aircraft registration as G - ESEX, in case anyone on the A13 has the urge to look up & the helicopter is flying low enough during its chase for revenue.
I couldn't see a figure of how much it costs to run G-ESEX per hour.
I too am absolutely disgusted by this, and I do support the use of terms such as Flying Pigs. Do the police not realise that by constantly bringing war on motorists they are alienating the public against them?
The rank-and-file police officers who serve this country are of course not to blame, its their chiefs & political masters.
The same goes for the dedicated and hard-working helicopter crews, who I hope feel this is a sad & degrading use for such a wonderful resource.
The sooner police chiefs are directly elected, the better.
Regards,
Ashley
TT GO Original / v7 / 1GB SD - Mac's with 10.6 Snow Leopard - iPhone 3G with CoPilot, Navigon & NDrive - Linux PC with Crunchbang. |
|
| Posted by aj2052 on Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:24 am |
|
All your responses rely on the Human element and is therefore unacceptable lets face it all people believe they are correct including the police, do we request a Lie detector test wen taken to court?
Moto G5s Plus, Sygic 17.4.8 |
|
| Posted by joneri on Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:31 am |
|
I have always thought that the police would be better employed chasing down those idiots who refuse to use headlights in driving rain or fog. In my humble opinion they are far more dangerous and likely to cause accidents than those who do a couple of MPH above the limit.
It isn't sensible to have your eyes glued to the speedo in dull conditions when you need to pull out to overtake and run the risk of colliding with a dumbo who thinks invisibility is cool.
|
|
|
| Click here to view more comments... |
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
