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: Dec 09, 2006 Posts: 219 Location: Manchester UK
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:27 pm Post subject:
Darren wrote:
aj2052 wrote:
Not from a Moving Vehicle or Aircraft.
VASCAR can be used from a moving vehicle, indeed it is designed to be used for that purpose.
It times the target vehicle between two reference points and measures the distance as you cross the same two points or is the references are pre-measured then that part is not required. Time over Distance equals speed.
I agree, VASCAR was intended for use from a moving vehicle and you measured the timing distance with your patrol vehicle but a later model permitted you to input a known distance into the unit and just use the timer switch as the suspected vehicle was observed thus allowing multiple vehicles to be checked from a stationary vehicle that had a clear view of the start and end points. That was the reason for my comments about white or yellow paint spashes on the road (it depended on what colour was available at the time) _________________ HUAWEI P30 Pro (new edition) with Speedtrap Alert & alcatel1 for SatNav
CoPilot 10 with CamerAlert
RoadHawk in-car video
Reading glasses getting thicker as is my waist
Retired but want to go back to work for a rest.
Joined: Jan 31, 2005 Posts: 87 Location: Staffordshire
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:34 pm Post subject:
Quote:
On what do you base your emphatic statement?
The emphasis is based on the simple fact that there would not be enough revenue raised to pay the additional DOC ( Direct Operating Costs ) of the helicopter unit.
Facts and figures are easily available by Googling and / or FOI applications to do the maths if you want to.
Police helicopters are not considered by any Police Officer, or the Police Authority that own / lease them, as being used for a steady stream of income ( revenue ), i.e. they are not a Cash Cow - no matter what anyone might believe.
Police helicopters are expensive to purchase and operate, but are considered good value ( by the Police Authority ) in terms of the aerial support they can provide for searching, command & control of incidents, management of pursuits, aerial photographic work and much more.
If the Police decide to use them to assist in a speed reduction program, then this might be considered "added value" ( by the Police Authority ) in terms of the service they provide, but this will not raise any additional revenue.
If you take into account the total costs involved ( All resource costs, Admin costs, Aircraft operating costs etc etc ) against the amount of money that might be received from any motorist caught speeding at the time, you will realise this.
The presence of the warning signs, and the helicopter itself, will also have a deterrent effect ( more likely to be their intention ) and will probably result in fewer offences, therefore less revenue.
I love analogies, and of course respect that everyone is entitled to their opinion. No apology needed, just my humble comments about keeping the discussion on topic. _________________ iPhone SE, TomTom Go 5000, Garmin Zumo XT.
The emphasis is based on the simple fact that there would not be enough revenue raised to pay the additional DOC ( Direct Operating Costs ) of the helicopter unit.
The 'helicopter' signs have gone up along a long part of the A13 where the traffic never gets to a speed greater than 10mph before it is stopped by yet another red traffic light.
The Essex Police in the Southend area regularly use the helicopter late at night/early morning with the helicopter hovering in the same spot for half an hour or more. If a member of the public made that much noise during these times, keeping awake tens of thousands of residents, they would be spending a night in the cells.
Joined: Sep 06, 2006 Posts: 1618 Location: East Hertfordshire
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:42 pm Post subject:
Quote:
The 'helicopter' signs have gone up along a long part of the A13 where the traffic never gets to a speed greater than 10mph before it is stopped by yet another red traffic light.
So much for the revenue raising arguments then! _________________ David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:08 pm Post subject: Re: Road deaths are falling
shricthism wrote:
navver wrote:
Your link to the road death figures actually shows them as being fairly constant since around 1992. Guess when the first speed camera was installed in the UK, 1992.
Well navver - it looks to me as if the figure in 1992 was around 4000 and now is around 3000, so thats a 25% reduction. I wouldn't call that "fairly constant"
But is that down to speed cameras or the better desgn of cars?
Joined: Dec 13, 2004 Posts: 30 Location: Oxfordshire UK
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:25 pm Post subject:
nuttynurse wrote:
What about the Off-Duty copper who was speeding at 150mph in a built up area? just cause he wanted to give his new car a test drive, wouldn't we all? Even the Law Makers, Judges and Minsters get caught doing it.
I think this officer got away with it, too, and it was more like 156mph. If its the case I'm thinking of, he was doing near the same speed that a commercial aircraft gets off the ground at.
Maybe he just got back from his holiday and wondered what take-off speed would feel like in a car Maybe he was just stupid. Either way you can bet if I wanted to test my car & tried doing oh.. lets say 90 in a build-up area then I'd receive a just penalty for doing so. Not, it seems, if you're a member of HM Constabulary.
One law for them, another for us?
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.
Joined: Jan 31, 2005 Posts: 87 Location: Staffordshire
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:20 am Post subject:
It's all too easy to stereotype when one idiot Police Officer makes headline news by doing something stupid, and brands all other Police the same. ( One bad apple in the barrel syndrome ! )
As a general rule these days if a Police Officer is convicted of an offence the penalty is usually harsher on them - not only are they dealt with by the Courts with stiffer penalties, because the Police "should" set an example to others, but in addition they face their own internal discipline procedures which can result in additional fines, reduction in rank, and other penalties including dismissal from their job.
This doesn't happen in "Civvy street" - If you turn up for work having just been done for 90 MPH on a 40 MPH limit road, you don't normally run the risk of your boss taking a month's pay off you in addition to any fine the Court might have imposed !
So not one law for them and one for us - more like 2 laws for them and only one for us _________________ iPhone SE, TomTom Go 5000, Garmin Zumo XT.
Joined: Aug 22, 2007 Posts: 212 Location: Peterborough
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:41 am Post subject:
Darren wrote:
I don't want these forums to become a home for anti-police sentiment, they do a job and the vast majority do it well.
I do agree completely and comments that are anti-police for the sake of it do not contribute anything. However, the activities of the police do feature in many of these threads as they are often referred to when they are hiding in the bushes with their speed guns to catch us 'criminals' and is the reason why we have a database of locations.
It is rather ironic that the incident I linked to above was caused by the police testing VASCAR equipment - the very thing that they use to catch us for doing 44 in a 40 resulted in the unfortunate death of a motorist.
The penalty for the police officer was rather trivial and any other motorist would have been put inside.
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!
All times are GMT + 1 Hour Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6
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
Maybe he was just stupid. Either way you can bet if I wanted to test my car & tried doing oh.. lets say 90 in a build-up area then I'd receive a just penalty for doing so. Not, it seems, if you're a member of HM Constabulary.
