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: Oct 14, 2006 Posts: 316 Location: Portsmouth, UK
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject:
Lost_Property wrote:
I'm wondering how the 27 verifiers will feel when they are asked to verify the 1000 unverified cameras, on top of new ones being submitted, which are about to go back into the database
How do you make that out? They wont have to verify any more sites than before! The only difference is that with the new download we will able to see where the mobile sites have been reported even before they are verified. _________________ Alan - iPhone 5 64GB, with CamerAlert, TomTom Europe & CoPilot
Joined: Dec 06, 2003 Posts: 335 Location: North Surrey (TW17) UK
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject:
MaFt wrote:
emjaiuk wrote:
MaFt
Just a thought, do you want members comments on unverfied sites they pass, and if you do in what format? e.g. using the existing camera reporting form.
yes, please. also if peopl can continue to report mobile sites everytime they are seen.
MaFt
Did you not see the above before you posted
Quote:
I've also had mobile warnings where there has been a flashing Slow Down xxmph, at flood lights where there have been, or is, road works, traffic monitoring cameras etc. All false warnings submitted by people who mistakenly thought they were mobiles, these will of course stay in the unverified camera database, as the chances of people verifying them as mobile sites is pretty remote.
With regard to warning signs, it must vary between areas, in my local area there are roads with warning signs that to the best of my knowledge have never seen any form of speed check, and there are at least 4 mobile sites that are on roads with no warning signs whatsoever. However i wouldn't presume make this a statement of fact covering the whole country. People can only make comments on there own understanding oflocal knowledge. _________________ Go740L App 9.510 Europe 985.8155
RDS_TMC mount
Home 2.8.3.2499 Win10 Home
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:50 pm Post subject:
Quote:
How do you make that out? They wont have to verify any more sites than before!
Read back through the posts, make a note of whats been said and you'll see what I mean. It really is that simple. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:09 pm Post subject:
Lost_Property wrote:
I've also had mobile warnings where there has been a flashing Slow Down xxmph, at flood lights where there have been, or is, road works, traffic monitoring cameras etc. All false warnings submitted by people who mistakenly thought they were mobiles, these will of course stay in the unverified camera database, as the chances of people verifying them as mobile sites is pretty remote.
But don't you report these as false warnings in the light of your local knowledge so that they can be removed from the database? That's what I see as one of the benefits of the unverified file - users can see sites that are awaiting verification and give their views on them, and so they are either moved into the main database or removed from the unverified file.
Lost_Property wrote:
The decision by PGPSW to include unverified mobiles would, I thought, make the 'majority' happy, but no, unverified statics were asked to be included. Maybe it wasn't so silly when I, tongue in cheek, suggested people may want unverified traffic light cameras and unverified laybys and bridges over dual carriageways. Maybe speed humps could go on the list. Where does it all end.
I asked for that for the reason I gave above, as a way of getting data on unverified cameras. I want to get as much good data into the database as quickly as possible. I don't want unnecessary alerts either.
Lost_Property wrote:
I'm wondering how the 27 verifiers will feel when they are asked to verify the 1000 unverified cameras, on top of new ones being submitted, which are about to go back into the database. Still, not to worry, it's only their extra time and extra fuel they will have to worry about. Plus of course, if they do travel to these sites and believe them to be unlikely, will there have to be an unverified camera database and another showing an unverified verifiers unlikely database?
Aren't they going to have to verify them anyway, or were those 1000 sites just being dropped altogether? I didn't think that was the case. And with extra help from people who are using the unverified camera list, maybe they'll be doing less travelling. And I thought the point of them verifying these cameras was that if they did believe them to be unlikely, then they would be removed. Isn't that how the verification process works?
Lost_Property wrote:
I have asked several times what the advantages are of having the cameras included and said the reasons I thought it unneccesary, not one person has come up with a positive answer, so I'm still none the wiser. But I'm always willing to be enlightened and learn an alternative kind of logic. :P
I hope I have been able to cast some light on the darkness.
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject:
Quote:
With regard to warning signs, it must vary between areas, in my local area there are roads with warning signs that to the best of my knowledge have never seen any form of speed check, and there are at least 4 mobile sites that are on roads with no warning signs whatsoever. However i wouldn't presume make this a statement of fact covering the whole country. People can only make comments on there own understanding oflocal knowledge.
Quote:
xxxx
Head of Safety Camera Programme Office
Road User Safety Division
Department for Transport
Zone 2/12
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR
Direct line: 020 7944 xxxx
Fax: 020 7944 xxxx
E-mail: xxxx@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Web site: www.dft.gov.uk
16 August 2006
Dear xxxx
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST
Thank you for your e-mail dated 31 July 2006.
I am writing to confirm that the Department has now completed its search for the
information which you have requested.
You have asked six questions and these are repeated below, with the appropriate
response in each case:
1) Is there a minimum size for the warning sign of a mobile speed camera van?
All camera warning signs must comply with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD), as amended, or have been specially authorised by the Secretary of State for Transport. TSRGD provides for camera warning signs of different sizes but does not specify the circumstances in which specific sizes should be used.
2) Are there any rules about the position of the sign, e.g. can it be at ground level?
The Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the Safety Camera Programme requires the provision of camera warning signs that are visible but does not specify the exact location or mounting details for these signs. This will vary from site to site depending on the conditions at each site. Portable signs are permitted and these will usually be at ground level.
3) Is there a camera in the front of these vehicles?
Cameras mounted in enforcement vehicles may be located to enable them to be used from the front, rear or side of the vehicle depending on the equipment used and the constraints of the enforcement location.
4) Are they allowed to park in bus lay by's or on the footpath?
The Department expects that all enforcement vehicles are parked safely and legally. A health and safety risk assessment is usually undertaken to ensure that any enforcement location is safe. Where restrictions exist, there is sometimes an exemption in the Traffic Regulation Order that allows vehicles to wait for 'police purposes' where there is no other safe or convenient location. Each location therefore needs to be considered on its own merits.
5) Does the photo used in evidence have to show the vehicles number plate and/or its speed?
Any photographic image collected that will be used as evidence needs to be collected in accordance with the Home Office Type Approval of the enforcement device used. This will include evidence of the registration mark and the alleged speed detected.
6) Does the law require that there are 2 photos required?
All enforcement equipment used must have Home Office Type Approval and this sets out the requirements needed for evidence purposes. Not all type approved enforcement devices require the provision of two photographs.
If you are unhappy with the way the Department has handled your request or with the decisions made in relation to your request you may complain by writing to me at the above address. Please see attached details of DfT’s complaints procedure and your right to complain to the Information Commissioner.
If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.
Yours sincerely
xxxx
_________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
I'll stick my ten penneth in here I think. First I would like to thank the powers that be for bringing back the unverified sites.
Someone said sommat like, 'there was no logic to it and it didn't make sense'. Well I think it does, (for me anyway).
The entire reason that I subscribe to this site is so that I can get warnings on my SatNav of POTENTIAL speed traps.
If I get a warning of a mobile site whether verified or not, whether occupied or not at least I'll get the chance to check my speed so I don't get points on my license.
Before the Holier than thou brigade pipe up, we all wander over the limit from time to time. It can't be helped if your tired or distracted or on a subtle downward slope etc and anyone that says otherwise is frankly, deluding themselves.
Having gone to the trouble and (modest) expense of obtaining the database I would be extremely anoyed if I was trapped by a mobile site that was known about but ommited completely from the database because it had not been reported many times or officially verifed.
Surely, as these sites are reported and verified they can then be promoted to 'actual' in the database.
Those of you that do not wish to use the unverified site information can simply delete that information and those of us that do, keep it!
It seems to me that a few members of this site have 'hogged the stage' and I would imagine a great many of us that have been looking at this thread develop into a personal row as to who is right and who is wrong, are put off commenting because of the possibility of such an attack from some of the most vociferous contributors.
Joined: Dec 28, 2005 Posts: 2003 Location: Antrobus, Cheshire
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:15 pm Post subject:
classy56 wrote:
philpugh wrote:
As far as I see it...
ALL mobile sites are 'potential' sites - they are often not in place when I have been past them - I wouldn't think of reporting them as unused though. I would be in favour of having a separate list of potential cameras (all types) as it may assist in more rapid verification of them.
When you say "they are often not in place" on a scale of 1-10 (1 being extremely accurate, 10 being I've never seen a mobile unit in a reported location)how accurate in YOUR experience is the mobile database?
When they have been in place the accuracy is good to very good (8-9/10). I wasn't criticising the database - I'm a firm believer in the "better to have been warned about something not there today then never to have been warned at all" philosophy.
BTW: Seems to be a pretty active topic just of late _________________ Phil
Joined: Dec 06, 2003 Posts: 335 Location: North Surrey (TW17) UK
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject:
Lost_Property wrote:
Quote:
With regard to warning signs, it must vary between areas, in my local area there are roads with warning signs that to the best of my knowledge have never seen any form of speed check, and there are at least 4 mobile sites that are on roads with no warning signs whatsoever. However i wouldn't presume make this a statement of fact covering the whole country. People can only make comments on there own understanding oflocal knowledge.
Quote:
xxxx
Head of Safety Camera Programme Office
Road User Safety Division
Department for Transport
Zone 2/12
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR
Direct line: 020 7944 xxxx
Fax: 020 7944 xxxx
E-mail: xxxx@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Web site: www.dft.gov.uk
16 August 2006
Dear xxxx
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST
Thank you for your e-mail dated 31 July 2006.
I am writing to confirm that the Department has now completed its search for the
information which you have requested.
You have asked six questions and these are repeated below, with the appropriate
response in each case:
1) Is there a minimum size for the warning sign of a mobile speed camera van?
All camera warning signs must comply with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD), as amended, or have been specially authorised by the Secretary of State for Transport. TSRGD provides for camera warning signs of different sizes but does not specify the circumstances in which specific sizes should be used.
2) Are there any rules about the position of the sign, e.g. can it be at ground level?
The Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the Safety Camera Programme requires the provision of camera warning signs that are visible but does not specify the exact location or mounting details for these signs. This will vary from site to site depending on the conditions at each site. Portable signs are permitted and these will usually be at ground level.
3) Is there a camera in the front of these vehicles?
Cameras mounted in enforcement vehicles may be located to enable them to be used from the front, rear or side of the vehicle depending on the equipment used and the constraints of the enforcement location.
4) Are they allowed to park in bus lay by's or on the footpath?
The Department expects that all enforcement vehicles are parked safely and legally. A health and safety risk assessment is usually undertaken to ensure that any enforcement location is safe. Where restrictions exist, there is sometimes an exemption in the Traffic Regulation Order that allows vehicles to wait for 'police purposes' where there is no other safe or convenient location. Each location therefore needs to be considered on its own merits.
5) Does the photo used in evidence have to show the vehicles number plate and/or its speed?
Any photographic image collected that will be used as evidence needs to be collected in accordance with the Home Office Type Approval of the enforcement device used. This will include evidence of the registration mark and the alleged speed detected.
6) Does the law require that there are 2 photos required?
All enforcement equipment used must have Home Office Type Approval and this sets out the requirements needed for evidence purposes. Not all type approved enforcement devices require the provision of two photographs.
If you are unhappy with the way the Department has handled your request or with the decisions made in relation to your request you may complain by writing to me at the above address. Please see attached details of DfT’s complaints procedure and your right to complain to the Information Commissioner.
If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.
Yours sincerely
xxxx
You must consider yourself very fortunate in living and driving in an area which only has Safety Camera Partnership mobile units. Where I live and in the surrounding counties, uniformed police are still very active in carrying out speed enforcment checks. As I'm sure somebody with your detailed knowledge is aware, these operate to different criteria.
I greatly admire those of you who manage to achive perfection in all things, particually all aspects of the Road Traffic Acts. To my everlasting shame I unfortunatly am not perfect. Therfore I welcome any assistance in reminding myself of my responsibilities. _________________ Go740L App 9.510 Europe 985.8155
RDS_TMC mount
Home 2.8.3.2499 Win10 Home
Joined: Dec 28, 2005 Posts: 2003 Location: Antrobus, Cheshire
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:28 pm Post subject:
To give a for-instance...
The location for MOBILE:6109 (A57 East of Warrington) is something I pass nearly every day - it's very near to where I work. I haven't seen it there for many weeks (possibly all this year) but it will be there at odd times of the day/night - it's a good area to get unsuspecting motorists coming from M6 and just a few hundred yards into a 40mph limit. _________________ Phil
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14890 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject:
My final post (unless bmuskett starts up again and threatens to beat my record!! ).
I've just scanned the first 15 pages of the thread again. Sadly, only TWO of the company wanting the unverified files (incidentally, I'm assuming it will be plural, i.e. speed zoned - another 7 towards the permitted total my GO can handle) actually said it could be an aid to verification of such sites - well done bmuskett and a .
emjaiuk has recently asked if reports are desired, to which MaFt has said Yes. I wonder whether this thread will be subject to follow-up? In other words, in the fullness of time, shall we learn how many mobile sites have been verified by ordinary members as opposed to Verifiers? Shall we dare to publish the numbers of the "overwhelming majority" who demanded the files who have subsequently submitted verifications? Shall we learn how many people actually download the files (or will they form part of the whole so we all get them regardless)? I venture to suggest that without some such information, the Database is heading towards a certain amount of ridicule (I confess I don't use the Tom Tom cameras, but nevertheless pour scorn on them from afar for their inaccuracy). _________________ Dennis
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:39 pm Post subject:
For technical reasons as MaFt has already stated, it has been decided that the unverified mobiles file will be a part of the regular download. It's not ideal but unavoidable given the methods we use to prepare the multiple database formats.
We can obtain statistics regarding the numbers of users who submit reports etc and we will be looking at these numbers to decide whether or not the unverified database remains as a permanent feature or not. We cannot discuss numbers of downloads, subscribers etc as this is commercially sensitive information.
Finally, as I think we've resolved the issue and to avoid any further tit for tat posts I intend locking this thread in a short while. _________________ Darren Griffin
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 ... 17, 18, 19
Page 19 of 19
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
).
.
