Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make 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!
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15134 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:08 pm Post subject:
Somerset:
Quote:
It has always been the practice that camera sites, both fixed and mobile, will be selected based on accident and speed data. Despite strong arguments from the public that there should not need to be a death before a camera is installed, the purpose of the safety camera operation is casualty reduction, and therefore there must be a collision history in order to monitor accidents and the effectiveness of enforcement.
At this stage, we will continue to use guidelines based on the DfT rules.
Surrey:
Quote:
The "netting off" funding system finished at the end of March. This was the system whereby safety camera partnerships were able to recover their audited costs from central government from the fines that the cameras generated. Any surplus was retained by central government, so there was no incentive to make additional revenue as this did not go to the
partnerships. As a condition of "netting off" the partnerships had to
follow strict rules on the siting of "core" camera sites to ensure that
they were focussed on the worst speed related or red light violation
related casualty hotspots. These rules are contained within the attached
Handbook. The rules allowed a degree of flexibility however to allow 15% of live camera enforcement time to be spent enforcing on other roads of public concern "exceptional sites" but where there had not been such a serious history of collisions, while remaining within the "netting off" process. The signing and visibility rules for "core" and "exceptional" sites were the same (ie well signed and highly visible). It was always possible to
provide mobile enforcement at the fixed camera sites under these rules if
necessary, for example when the fixed camera was not working due to damage or maintenance, to provide enforcement in the opposite direction, or as part of a strategy to address collisions on a longer stretch beyond the
fixed camera if there was another hazard for example. Again it was still
possible for the Police to undertake "covert" enforcement if required too,
but this could not be funded via netting off, and the subsequent fines
could not be included in the "netting off" system.
Now that the "netting off" system has finished and has been replaced by a
fixed grant to local authorities, the siting rules that were a condition of
the "netting off" funding system have been replaced by guidance (attached -
DfT circular 01/2007), though the content is similar. Within Surrey we are
in the process of consulting with County Council Members to check as to how they would like us to proceed in the deployment of camera sites in the
future. We are recommending to them that they continue to follow the same siting criteria as used at the end of the "netting off" process because
these criteria were refined as the Programme developed, and have been shown to reduce casualties successfully. The use of these criteria has maintained the principle that safety cameras should be focussed on the very worst collision hotspots (an approach that also helps maintain public support for their use), while allowing a degree of flexibility to address other
locations of public concern.
Dumfries & Galloway
Quote:
The Handbook and Rules of Guidance that Safety Camera Partnerships must
work to is different to that of English Partnerships and therefore our
operation is different.
At present we enforce the speed limit using two mobile safety camera
units at 14 proven crash locations and along 2 routes, the A75 and
A74(M). In addition to our enforcement at these crash hotspots we are
continuing our presence at sites of community concern and other key
hotspots across the region. We are looking to develop this in
conjunction with Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary in an effort to
reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads.
So it does appear that most SCP's, at least for now, are sticking to where they were before but will consider using some other spots if they're 'dangerous'
Joined: Jan 04, 2007 Posts: 2789 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:12 pm Post subject:
MaFt wrote:
right, the discussion is NOT about whether it is safe to speed or not, it is NOT about whether person A is safer than person B. it IS supposed to be a discussion about how, if at all, the ability for mobile cameras to now be placed anywhere on any road will affect the PGPSW mobile camera database.
this is the final warning vefore the thread gets locked.
MaFt
How feasible woulld it be to include ALL reported sites in the database and then verify a mobile site if it is reported again?
You're the poor guy who does all the work and I can only imagine what it's like.
Indications appear to be that things won't change much, so it looks like business as usual for the moment - provided that members wish to have mobile sites listed.
If/when the workload increases, perhaps the question should be asked in POLL format - ie, do we include mobile sites or not... a simple yes/no type thing - and (hopefully!!) this will avoid the kind of thing that's happened with this thread.
mostdom wrote:
999tommo wrote:
Sorry GPS Fan, but the link didn't work. Can you tell me where this thread is hiding and I will look at it.
Non-Tecnical Speed Camera Discussions. look for Red light Camera Conundrum.
Thanks, mostdom, you beat me to it - I think it depends if you're signed in BEFORE you click on the link or sign in as part of the process
quotes fixed by MaFt _________________ Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here
Surrey:
DfT circular 01/2007), though the content is similar. Within Surrey we are
in the process of consulting with County Council Members to check as to how they would like us to proceed in the deployment of camera sites in the
future. We are recommending to them that they continue to follow the same siting criteria as used at the end of the "netting off" process because
these criteria were refined as the Programme developed, and have been shown to reduce casualties successfully. The use of these criteria has maintained the principle that safety cameras should be focussed on the very worst collision hotspots (an approach that also helps maintain public support for their use), while allowing a degree of flexibility to address other
locations of public concern.
Can of worms there! Don't let the councils decide!
At least for the moment the mobile sites are safe. I was going to re address the Zoned suggestion for any road heavilly used by the 'partnership' (in respect to 999tommo) but I would have suggested this would be good for motorways. However I doubt that the mobile locations will be the problem if the partnership flexes its new muscles.
A repeated warning on a long road would not be a problem to me as I could always turn the audiable warning off, but if its a shortish road, it probably won't work? It would probably end up a seperate database too. _________________ Dom
HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:24 pm Post subject:
GPS_fan wrote:
How feasible woulld it be to include ALL reported sites in the database and then verify a mobile site if it is reported again?
That's what the pmobiles file does - unverified mobiles go in there, then get moved up to the mobiles file when verified.
GPS_fan wrote:
You're the poor guy who does all the work and I can only imagine what it's like.
Indications appear to be that things won't change much, so it looks like business as usual for the moment - provided that members wish to have mobile sites listed.
If/when the workload increases, perhaps the question should be asked in POLL format - ie, do we include mobile sites or not... a simple yes/no type thing - and (hopefully!!) this will avoid the kind of thing that's happened with this thread.
My view too. With the mobile/pmobile split users can control how many warnings they get - all, verified or none. And if mobiles do start getting too much work for PGPSW, they can decide to stop providing them altogether.
MaFt if you are going to remove posts then it is only fair that you remove all the posts involved!
Somebody was accusing me of avoiding a question, I responded with my reasons as to why I had avoided it and you removed my post! now it looks like I am avoiding the question without giving any reasons, and the original demand is still in plain view!!
Or was that your intention?
Those people that have the database have subscribed for it or downloaded it from a torrent site and are entitled to it, so why don't you have any section that involves cameras or speeding in a subscribers only section, that way you won't antagonise those of us that are law abiding and wish to have nothing to do with the database.
I subscribed for one month and I came to the conclusion that it was of no benifit to me, so I unsubscribed (well I just didn't renew)before anyone asks why I had the database! _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
To old to die young.
Last edited by classy56 on Tue May 22, 2007 1:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
That's what the pmobiles file does - unverified mobiles go in there, then get moved up to the mobiles file when verified.
The PMobile database is a serious contender to deal with this, but both databases would have to become almost organic to deal with the constant movement of sites. A site only need move a quarter mile to justify a change in the database.
Sometimes I think of MaFt as bob and wayang from MIB (slimy octapus thing with one eye from mars) :D Come to think of it which planet are you from MaFt? _________________ Dom
HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot
I don't think that there will be that many changes overnight.
I can't see that the SCP have the facilities to change this very far, even long term with more money i can't see much of a revision.
There is still the opposing side within the force, with some Police chiefs stating some cameras have gone far enough, however if the Council's are involved this could change more dramatically.
If there is a change which drastically effects us I'm sure the pgpsw database will find a method to adapt, even if a road has numerous mobile sites it could be read like a Spec's camera does over a long distance, i for one would be thankfull of any warning however long. _________________ TomTom Go 60
Garmin Nüvi 660, Firmware v4.90
Drive-Smart GPS with Loader v1.4.16
HTC Advantage X7500 MS 6.1 Tchart Speed Sentry
Satmap Active 10, Software v1.16
Fuzion 32 HUD Bluetooth GPS receiver
Sometimes I think of MaFt as bob and wayang from MIB (slimy octapus thing with one eye from mars) :D Come to think of it which planet are you from MaFt?
AAhhh! You told us this already, yorkshire wasn't it?
I'm getting expelled for this! he he. _________________ Dom
HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15134 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject:
the post was removed as it was directly after my post stating that any further off-topic posts would be removed.
Quote:
...why don't you have any section that involves cameras or speeding in a subscribers only section, that way you won't antagonise those of us that are law abiding and wish to have nothing to do with the database
if you don't want to discuss the original post then simply don't reply - it really is that simple.
other off-topic posts (since the final warning) have now been removed
Not sure where this one goes, but...I would like to see a date posted when a temp mobile was validated....and also there's one (so called permanent mobile) listed down the road from me, and I know for a fact that it has not been used in years....I just delete it each month, even though I've reported it....so how about a way of validating a non mobile position ?
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:09 pm Post subject:
classy56 wrote:
and the original demand is still in plain view!!
I've edited my post to remove the "demand".
classy56 wrote:
Those people that have the database have subscribed for it or downloaded it from a torrent site and are entitled to it, so why don't you have any section that involves cameras or speeding in a subscribers only section, that way you won't antagonise those of us that are law abiding and wish to have nothing to do with the database.
If you wish to have nothing to do with the database I suggest you stay away from subjects with titles like "Change in UK Law to Render Mobile Database Useless?"
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject:
FrequentFlyer wrote:
Not sure where this one goes, but...I would like to see a date posted when a temp mobile was validated....and also there's one (so called permanent mobile) listed down the road from me, and I know for a fact that it has not been used in years....I just delete it each month, even though I've reported it....so how about a way of validating a non mobile position ?
Submit an amendment to the camera on the Submit Camera page and put that information in the comments section.
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!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make 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!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
