View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
JonnyW Occasional Visitor
Joined: Sep 16, 2005 Posts: 39
|
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:23 pm Post subject: PCPSW Speed Camera Database is LESS reliable |
|
|
I have been using the PGPSW Speed Camera database for a few months now and I have found several cameras which have been REMOVED from the database when the GATSO's are STILL PRESENT.
Obviously this is a little concerning as this morning, I spotted a GATSO at the last minute - luckily I was not speeding - and the GATSO that WAS on the AUGUST database has been removed from the SEPTEMBER database.
I friend suggested the police are using SatNav in the Traffic Patrol Cars are using the PGPSW Speed Camera databases and informing PGPSW that a camera has been removed when in fact it is still present.
Are there any safeguards in place to prevent this? Could the police simply find a "high-revenue" camera and have it removed feom the database by emailing the administrators and telling them it has been moved of decomissioned?
I have a temporary database which I ADD cameras to and email PGPSW before the end of the month of the new locations but I'm wondering if the police are doing the OPPOSITE??? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Darren Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
|
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As a former Traffic Officer I reckon I'm qualified to comment. If you think Police Officers either a. have any interest in ruining our database or b. have the time to bother then you're mistaken! Your 'friend' is talking cr*p.
Surrey Police have GO's in all their Traffic and Area cars and use our database to protect their licences, believe it or not they get prosecuted if they get caught the same as you or I and worse they get disciplined on top of the 3 points and fine so an accurate database is in everyone's interests.
However, whilst we have safeguards in place it is impossible to verify each addition/request for deletion and so mistaked happen. Even the commercial databases suffer in this regard. _________________ Darren Griffin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tim Buxton Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: 14/09/2002 20:56:18 Posts: 5231 Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
|
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Darren wrote: | Surrey Police have GO's in all their Traffic and Area cars and use our database to protect their licences, believe it or not they get prosecuted if they get caught the same as you or I and worse they get disciplined on top of the 3 points and fine so an accurate database is in everyone's interests. |
Sorry Darren but I find this hard to believe. I'm sure most of us read about the traffic cop who was doing upwards of 160mph and didn't even get a fine, let alone losing his job or even his licence. And he wasn't even on an emergency call, but was 'putting the new vehicle through its paces'! Also on the news the other night was video footage of a police car (again, no evidence of blues and twos) which went through a 40mph roadworks at a speed sufficient to trip the Gatso sited there. _________________ Tim
Last edited by Tim Buxton on Wed Oct 26, 2005 3:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
patr Occasional Visitor
Joined: 04/08/2003 11:30:41 Posts: 6 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spot on Tim
27 speeding policemen in our area, number prosecuted or given points/fine = 0.
Similar story in Nottingham, North Wales and I suspect all over the country.
Methinks Darren is talking cr*p. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alix776 Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: 03/05/2003 14:45:49 Posts: 3999 Location: leyland lancs ENGLAND
|
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
if you lookat the apco rules police officers can exceed the speed limit where THE OFFICER deams it safe there are two sides to every story the officers may have been reponding to call where blues and two would have alerted and criminal goings. if you look at the police drivers hand book and try doing a running commentry while your driver to the standard in the book. I have tried and got 3 miles before I gave up. at the end of the police drivers are human they make mistakes like everyone else. I've seen what these guys have to deal with a 3 in the morning and it aint nice.
as darren says just because the driver hasn't been done in court or gor three points doesn't mean the driver hasn't been punished
personally I can't see the police subverting our database its not in there interests we have a checking proceedure but as darren has said we can't manually verify everycamera manually and mistakes do happen not only with our database but all databases
NOTICE
WE ARE WATCHNG THIS FORUM AND IF IT STARTS TO DESCEND INTO A SLANGING CONTEST IT WILL BE LOCKED. _________________ currently using aponia truck navigation on windows phone. Good bye IOS don't let the door hit you on the way out .
Oh the joys of being a courier.
device Lumia 950 xl |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iancjc Frequent Visitor
Joined: 10/02/2003 14:19:44 Posts: 749 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alix776 wrote: |
NOTICE
WE ARE WATCHNG THIS FORUM AND IF IT STARTS TO DESCEND INTO A SLANGING CONTEST IT WILL BE LOCKED. |
Have you looked at who's posting on this - MODERATORS.
If you lot can't agree why should we!
Ian _________________ -----------------------------------------------------------
TyTn II (WM6.1) / tomtom one v2
TTN6.03 tomtom 7.xx (one) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sharpy Occasional Visitor
Joined: Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 7 Location: West Midlands
|
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As a serving Traffic Officer i can confirm what Darren says. When i activate a safety camera i am served with the NIP`s and then have to submit a report to justify why i was exceeding the speed limit. This can be checked against in-car video to corroborate why i was exceeding the limit.
As for getting cameras removed from the database I`m too busy with paperwork !!!!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tim Buxton Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: 14/09/2002 20:56:18 Posts: 5231 Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
|
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alex's point was to try to ensure that this didn't descend into a 'Oh, and remember that other copper who got off' type thread. And I owe Darren a partial apology, too. The 160mph speeder did get prosecuted, he was let off by an inept judge.
All of which takes nothing away from the joint opinion of the Moderators who have posted in this thread so far that the police would not be concerned with feeding misinformation in respect of the $afety camera database.
I appreciate that I started the diverse debate but if, from now on, the debate could be confined to the original subject then it would be greatly appreciated.
Tim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Darren Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
|
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tim Buxton wrote: | Sorry Darren but I find this hard to believe. I'm sure most of us read about the traffic cop who was doing upwards of 160mph and didn't even get a fine, let alone losing his job or even his licence. And he wasn't even on an emergency call, but was 'putting the new vehicle through its paces'! Also on the news the other night was video footage of a police car (again, no evidence of blues and twos) which went through a 40mph roadworks at a speed sufficient to trip the Gatso sited there. |
It's quite true I assure you. The Warwickshire Traffic Officer you refer to was reported and prosecuted by Shropshire Police, it was the CPS who decided it was not worth pursuing. I can assure you that most of my ex-colleagues both serving and retired found the whole case deplorable. He should have been convicted.
I didn't see the video to which you refer but if he had tripped the Gatso and was unable to justify his speed then he'd be prosecuted. I can speak from experience here, I was inadvertently caught by Gatso On Duty and had my licence endorsed, fined and had to attend a disciplinary hearing where I was warned and an entry made on my otherwise (relatively) blemish free record! _________________ Darren Griffin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldie Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: 22/11/2002 13:33:48 Posts: 992 Location: Surrey, UK
|
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: PCPSW Speed Camera Database is LESS reliable |
|
|
JonnyW wrote: | I have been using the PGPSW Speed Camera database for a few months now and I have found several cameras which have been REMOVED from the database when the GATSO's are STILL PRESENT.
Obviously this is a little concerning as this morning, I spotted a GATSO at the last minute - luckily I was not speeding - and the GATSO that WAS on the AUGUST database has been removed from the SEPTEMBER database.
I friend suggested the police are using SatNav in the Traffic Patrol Cars are using the PGPSW Speed Camera databases and informing PGPSW that a camera has been removed when in fact it is still present.
Are there any safeguards in place to prevent this? Could the police simply find a "high-revenue" camera and have it removed feom the database by emailing the administrators and telling them it has been moved of decomissioned?
I have a temporary database which I ADD cameras to and email PGPSW before the end of the month of the new locations but I'm wondering if the police are doing the OPPOSITE??? |
For me it is a no win situation. If I leave the camera in the database when it has been reported as "missing" then I get complaints. If I act on advice received and remove it when really it is still there - then I get complaints. What is the answer - stay within the speed limit and ignore all the hooting behind :D
Some times I send a follow-up email to ask for clarification but this imposes a lot of extra work on me
Richard _________________ Various TomToms, Garmin eTrex Legend, GPSMAP 60CSx, Oregon 550t, Forerunner 405 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PAUL-R-S Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jun 03, 2005 Posts: 39 Location: london, uk
|
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i noticed a couple of cameras today that wsnt on the data base.
how can i add them to the database so next month they will be included ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldie Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: 22/11/2002 13:33:48 Posts: 992 Location: Surrey, UK
|
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
PAUL-R-S wrote: | i noticed a couple of cameras today that wsnt on the data base.
how can i add them to the database so next month they will be included ? |
Have a look in the readme.txt file that is in the downloaded ZIP file. There are some instructions there together with the email address for sending in updates.
Richard _________________ Various TomToms, Garmin eTrex Legend, GPSMAP 60CSx, Oregon 550t, Forerunner 405 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shrubies Occasional Visitor
Joined: Apr 24, 2005 Posts: 34
|
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have notice some cameras have been removed and these are mobile one which might come back again. Personal I would prefer the camera and not removed, and to know that there might be a camera around the corner even if it has been removed from the site.
One question does each camera get it own unique ID, if so can I combine all the old database file and make up for the ones that have gone missing my self.
Thanks |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JockTamsonsBairn Lifetime Member
Joined: Jan 10, 2004 Posts: 2777 Location: Bonnie Scotland (West Central)
|
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:25 am Post subject: Re: PCPSW Speed Camera Database is LESS reliable |
|
|
Oldie wrote: |
For me it is a no win situation. If I leave the camera in the database when it has been reported as "missing" then I get complaints. If I act on advice received and remove it when really it is still there - then I get complaints. What is the answer - stay within the speed limit and ignore all the hooting behind :D
Some times I send a follow-up email to ask for clarification but this imposes a lot of extra work on me |
Richard,
I don't know how you actually organise your database, and I'm sure that you get a flood of emails towards the end of the month (which reminds me... :D ), but would you be able to hold a camera on the database until you got 2 (independant) removal requests? _________________ Jock
TomTom Go 940 LIVE (9.510, Europe v915.5074 on SD & 8.371, WCE v875.3613 on board) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spook51 Lifetime Member
Joined: Mar 26, 2004 Posts: 548 Location: East Midlands
|
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:35 am Post subject: Re: PCPSW Speed Camera Database is LESS reliable |
|
|
Oldie wrote: | For me it is a no win situation. If I leave the camera in the database when it has been reported as "missing" then I get complaints. If I act on advice received and remove it when really it is still there - then I get complaints. What is the answer - stay within the speed limit and ignore all the hooting behind :D
Some times I send a follow-up email to ask for clarification but this imposes a lot of extra work on me
Richard |
I suspect the majority of users of the database would prefer a camera to be left rather than immediately deleted.
Perhaps you could set a criteria for deletion: three requests to delete and it goes? Or maybe a verification process? Both extra work but I'd suggest an annual subscription for updates to cover costs.
That might also assist with action against those who illegally distribute the database. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising |
|
|
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|