Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 12256 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 11:08 am Post subject:
OK, I surrender. Does anybody know why those specs cameras have not been removed physically?
How do you suggest we deal with Gatsos without film in them and mobiles which aren't there, all of which give "false warnings"? _________________ Dennis
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19390 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:29 pm Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
How do you suggest we deal with Gatsos without film in them and mobiles which aren't there, all of which give "false warnings"?
Simple, we don''t KNOW if they are live or not, so they stay in.
But if a camera has signs on it specifically saying it is on test, or not in use, , or there are camera signs deliberately blanked out for a specific stretch of road, then those cameras should NOT be on the database.
(Thinking here of the constant battle over the test site on the A3 by Asda in Kingston and the test camera on the A4 at Gillette Corner in Brentford).
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 4838 Location: East Sussex, UK
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:23 pm Post subject:
Andy_P wrote:
But if a camera has signs on it specifically saying it is on test, or not in use, , or there are camera signs deliberately blanked out for a specific stretch of road, then those cameras should NOT be on the database.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 12256 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:26 pm Post subject:
During the last two weeks, I guess I've driven past about a dozen Specs cameras with signs saying "Not in Use" - spring immediately to mind a few on M3 between J3 and J2, M4 J16 to 17, M4 J19 to 18, M4 at Membury, M5 J12 to 11, M5 J5 to 4a and M1 north of J24. I don't know the status today of the M3 ones (which are in a short stretch in the middle of roadworks, with LIVE specs cameras in both directions outside the ones not in use, roadworks rolling and changing), same for M1 north of J24. But all the ones on M5 and M4 were activated within a week of me seeing them specifically saying not in use. According to your theories, I should have removed them all during the last week of January when they had "Not in Use" signs.
You'd prefer NOT to have false warnings during the time between me accepting them for the database (which you say I shouldn't have done because they were not in use) and the day they were activated even though that was some time before I would have been able to accept them......
Tuesday 26th January, 4 on M5 were signed Not in Use. They shouldn't have been incorporated into the database on Wednesday 27th January. On Tuesday 2nd February, they were not only in use, but the roadworks and speed limit were "mature" - obviously had been running for some days. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 4838 Location: East Sussex, UK
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:07 pm Post subject:
Whilst I fully agree with you for roadworks cams, and I assume (possibly incorrectly ) that the cams you mention above are of that ilk, the subject cams are a 'different case' as they are 'permanent', have been in use previously and are now apparantly no longer in use.
Joined: Mar 26, 2004 Posts: 542 Location: East Midlands
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:14 pm Post subject:
I would have thought that cameras noted as 'Not In Use' in September 2009 ought not to be on the database as 'active' in February 2010. How that informs a re-think of policy (if considered necessary) is for others to discuss but I suggest the criteria for inclusion/exclusion will be 'number of days'.
Sadly though they remain in the database giving false warnings. Just what does it take to get a camera removed from the database?
It takes the actual removal of the cameras, what else?
You drive it every day, I don't. You're satisfied they're inactive, I don't know that. So what am I to think of the database when I come blasting along at 55mph and suddenly there's a bunch of big yellow bluddy cameras staring at me? How long would it take to switch them back on again? If they are still there, they're no different from all the Gatsos we've got in the database - simply no idea whether they've got film in them, so safer to warn than not. If this database only contained active cameras, there'd be no mobile camera warnings at all.
I agree it's not easy and everyone accepts a degree of caution about removing entries but after 5 months surely you could at least reclassify them down to 'mobile'.
Facts are there never have been bright yellow cams there and (see living with InfoRad thread) false database entries are a right pain (literally).
Right now I turn the SCD off on approaching the bridge and usually don't turn it back on again for an hour.
Joined: Jan 22, 2007 Posts: 583 Location: Clacton on Sea
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:29 pm Post subject:
The DRC Bridge cameras cost a fortune to install and obviously when I verified them, I expected them to go live soon afterwards.
I have to agree that to have them giving a false warning is annoying, but is it not better to leave them there now, becasue one day they will be live and someone will get caught if the warning is removed - surely all we do with these is to look, see the signs and forget them on 'this occasion'?
SteveMPS, you say "facts are there have never been bright yellow cameras there" - well sorry, they are on the DRC where they indicate - just that they are mounted on the gantries overhead. _________________ John.
Joined: Mar 26, 2004 Posts: 542 Location: East Midlands
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 7:33 am Post subject:
I don't think that knowingly including cameras that give false warnings in the PGPSW database is going to do much for customer confidence in its accuracy.
Joined: Jan 22, 2007 Posts: 583 Location: Clacton on Sea
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:01 am Post subject:
spook51 wrote:
I don't think that knowingly including cameras that give false warnings in the PGPSW database is going to do much for customer confidence in its accuracy.
A fair comment, but personally I feel that this is a Catch 22 situation - As you say, the database is not accurate at this point, however take them out and they go Live the day after with just one or two members getting caught, then what will the response be?
In view of the comments, I would hope that Darren and MaFt will jointly deliberate this in the near future and give their considered response in the thread. _________________ John.
Joined: Sep 06, 2006 Posts: 1617 Location: East Hertfordshire
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:07 am Post subject:
I would have thought a clear explanation of the special situation with these specs in the download section would go a long way. Despite the slight frustrations caused by false positives, I'm pretty sure that most people on this site actually appreciate the impossibility of dealing with changes that can happen effectively on a day's notice unless verifiers are posted 'permanently' by each camera!
Even in spook51's example it is quite possible that the cameras were switched on and off again at some point in the intervening months - if they were removed from the database when the 'out of action/on test 'sign is installed rather than the camera itself removed, it only takes a workman 15 minutes to take the sign away again and reactivate - who's going to tell the verifier as soon as that happens? (And who's then going to complain about being NIPped unawares otherwise?)
They should surely be regarded like mobiles - we all expect (I think) they wont always be there on the road even if they are still on PGPSW. Users would then know how to treat the spec warnings (or not load them if they are too annoying - after all, average speed cameras are not nearly as 'drop dead you're nicked' as the spot cameras are).
Actually that raises a thought - there is already a set procedure for handling mobiles - could a similar one be used for specs (eg if the sign is reported and not cleared within a set time, the camera is removed until someone else reports it active again?) ? _________________ David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)
Joined: Jan 22, 2007 Posts: 583 Location: Clacton on Sea
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:32 am Post subject:
I have sent an email enquiry to the Highways Agency via their website asking if they are able to advise on the situation with these Specs, bearing in mind the time that they have lain dormant.
If they respond as quickly as VOSA have to a company related enquiry that I had to submit (they, VOSA, haven't even sent an acknowledgement of receipt of the email enquiry despite my company acknowledging a Cc. of it), then I won't get too excited as to a quick reply, but who knows....
Picking up on your point Dave, I totally agree regarding the activation of the cameras, it is only a matter of minutes work to bring them on line and then cometh the NIP's.
I would much prefer to have them on the database and in any event, they are 50mph cameras, which is what the bridge speed is now. If nothing else they serve as a reminder to one and all of that fact alone. There are enough irresponsible drivers who ignore the limit (and cut from lane to lane no matter the traffic volume) on this bridge and any resultant accident then brings the moans about the bridge and its delays! _________________ John.
Joined: Sep 06, 2006 Posts: 1617 Location: East Hertfordshire
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:49 am Post subject:
That's an interesting thought JaTe - what's to get upset about if you can think of these particular cameras just as 50-limit reminder signs ? _________________ David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 12256 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:50 am Post subject:
spook51 wrote:
I don't think that knowingly including cameras that give false warnings in the PGPSW database is going to do much for customer confidence in its accuracy.
I disagree. The cameras are physically there, so it's not false information, other than the fact of there being a sign saying Cameras not in Use. Now I'd much prefer to have a camera in the database, get a warning and then see on the road the Not in Use sign rather than nothing in the database.
If these four cameras cause you such angst, perhaps you might consider making a note and deleting Specs:67704@50, 67720, 68059 and 67600 from your TomTom after downloading them. By the way, they are still in the TomTom database too.
If the following three statements are correct, what odds will anybody give on the future of these cameras going active?
spook51 wrote:
I use the Dartford crossing regularly though not frequently and have experienced a 45 minute delay on the bridge approach yet on another occasion been able to drive non-stop at 70mph straight to a toll booth.
SteveMPS wrote:
you will regularly be a road hazard if you insist on sticking to 50 or less as everyone else (including the police cars) will be overtaking you.
JaTe wrote:
I would much prefer to have them on the database and in any event, they are 50mph cameras, which is what the bridge speed is now.
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
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
But these are where mobiles are likely to be, presumably not in an area that clearly states cameras not in use
During the last two weeks, I guess I've driven past about a dozen Specs cameras with signs saying "Not in Use" - spring immediately to mind a few on M3 between J3 and J2, M4 J16 to 17, M4 J19 to 18, M4 at Membury, M5 J12 to 11, M5 J5 to 4a and M1 north of J24. I don't know the status today of the M3 ones (which are in a short stretch in the middle of roadworks, with LIVE specs cameras in both directions outside the ones not in use, roadworks rolling and changing), same for M1 north of J24. But all the ones on M5 and M4 were activated within a week of me seeing them specifically saying not in use. According to your theories, I should have removed them all during the last week of January when they had "Not in Use" signs. 
) that the cams you mention above are of that ilk, the subject cams are a 'different case' as they are 'permanent', have been in use previously and are now apparantly no longer in use.
?
