Percentage of live Gatso's
Discussion
ok, been having a think about this, though when I see my SCP friend i'll get the definitive answer.
the key holes are to be found in the area where the camera is mounted.
The camera is looking through a glass/perspex window.
There is a chance that you could get light spillage through the lock holes if the covers were open, which isn't a good thing in a dark box due to the flare/reflection you would get from the window.
From this then it could be said that if the covers were open it's unlikely that there is a camera inside as the operator would have made sure the covers were closed for this reason. However, seeing as the covers primariliy protect against the weather and lock seizures (which the SCP person would have to sort) why wouldn't he just close them anyway?. Plus there's much more elegant and reliable ways to stop the light getting to the camera window.
so, Dizzee may have a point, even though the facts as presented were a little skewed.
the key holes are to be found in the area where the camera is mounted.
The camera is looking through a glass/perspex window.
There is a chance that you could get light spillage through the lock holes if the covers were open, which isn't a good thing in a dark box due to the flare/reflection you would get from the window.
From this then it could be said that if the covers were open it's unlikely that there is a camera inside as the operator would have made sure the covers were closed for this reason. However, seeing as the covers primariliy protect against the weather and lock seizures (which the SCP person would have to sort) why wouldn't he just close them anyway?. Plus there's much more elegant and reliable ways to stop the light getting to the camera window.
so, Dizzee may have a point, even though the facts as presented were a little skewed.
The Loose Goose said:
The only way to prove this as fact is..
For a series of experiments, Going through speeds traps and setting the camera off.
Then checking if the holes are open or closed..
Any volunteers to prove who is right??
I don't mind having a look at the camera's that flashed me.For a series of experiments, Going through speeds traps and setting the camera off.
Then checking if the holes are open or closed..
Any volunteers to prove who is right??
I often drive past the same onces more then once anyway so after a job when i'm on my way back i can have a look if they're opened or closed.
About 50% have a radar in them according to a Bel detector. Of those some are dummy units (usually stronger radar signal- less stealthy). Favourite spots always have the real deal inside, but many housings never seem to have the equipment installed.
Money making spots would seem to get the priority for the hardware. As the cameras go digital (a slow process I think since it relies on the insallation of data links to the camera locations at present - will speed-up with wirelss communications no doubt), the situation might change? I think one reason for lack of a working camera / radar is the need to empty the film and process it.
M-way variable speed limits are not all live either on M42 or M25 according to radar emissions, but I think they are already digital, so a flash = a ticket - no chance it ran out of film
I would reccomend not speeding past any housings just in case! Easy while we can still see them, but note they are starting to be hidden again since the end of Scamera Pratnership hypothication. Get a Snooper/roadangel quick!
Money making spots would seem to get the priority for the hardware. As the cameras go digital (a slow process I think since it relies on the insallation of data links to the camera locations at present - will speed-up with wirelss communications no doubt), the situation might change? I think one reason for lack of a working camera / radar is the need to empty the film and process it.
M-way variable speed limits are not all live either on M42 or M25 according to radar emissions, but I think they are already digital, so a flash = a ticket - no chance it ran out of film
I would reccomend not speeding past any housings just in case! Easy while we can still see them, but note they are starting to be hidden again since the end of Scamera Pratnership hypothication. Get a Snooper/roadangel quick!
Medic-one said:
I also thought they either don't work at all, or they flash and you're actually caught.
I drive past them almost on a daily basis above the limit (nee naa) and 80% of them flashes and i assume actually takes a picture, and the other 20% just doesn't do anything.
and your car is taxed and insured? If so, you are the luckiest man alive.I drive past them almost on a daily basis above the limit (nee naa) and 80% of them flashes and i assume actually takes a picture, and the other 20% just doesn't do anything.
Zod said:
Medic-one said:
I also thought they either don't work at all, or they flash and you're actually caught.
I drive past them almost on a daily basis above the limit (nee naa) and 80% of them flashes and i assume actually takes a picture, and the other 20% just doesn't do anything.
and your car is taxed and insured? If so, you are the luckiest man alive.I drive past them almost on a daily basis above the limit (nee naa) and 80% of them flashes and i assume actually takes a picture, and the other 20% just doesn't do anything.
Medic-one said:
The Loose Goose said:
The only way to prove this as fact is..
For a series of experiments, Going through speeds traps and setting the camera off.
Then checking if the holes are open or closed..
Any volunteers to prove who is right??
I don't mind having a look at the camera's that flashed me.For a series of experiments, Going through speeds traps and setting the camera off.
Then checking if the holes are open or closed..
Any volunteers to prove who is right??
I often drive past the same onces more then once anyway so after a job when i'm on my way back i can have a look if they're opened or closed.
pacman1 said:
Medic-one said:
The Loose Goose said:
The only way to prove this as fact is..
For a series of experiments, Going through speeds traps and setting the camera off.
Then checking if the holes are open or closed..
Any volunteers to prove who is right??
I don't mind having a look at the camera's that flashed me.For a series of experiments, Going through speeds traps and setting the camera off.
Then checking if the holes are open or closed..
Any volunteers to prove who is right??
I often drive past the same onces more then once anyway so after a job when i'm on my way back i can have a look if they're opened or closed.
See, I was wondering, in view of Swindon removing their fixed cameras, and all the revenue going to the government anyway and also the costs of legal challenges, and, their general unpopularity with the public, and also whether in some areas they may increase accidents rather than reducing them, whether it's just not worth sending all the NIPs out..
ETA, see, you'd still have their deterrent value where they might still exist and are shown to be useful, but none of the grief associated with their wider use.
Just wonderin
Perhaps it's already being done, and the days of mass fixed cameras are over.
ETA, see, you'd still have their deterrent value where they might still exist and are shown to be useful, but none of the grief associated with their wider use.
Just wonderin
Perhaps it's already being done, and the days of mass fixed cameras are over.
Edited by pacman1 on Monday 31st August 17:45
Jimmyarm said:
Dizeee said:
the holes being open and comnnection to a love camera is correct. There are plenty out there with open holes, and they all tell a story.
Is it just me that found this last bit quite amusing 
The only reason that the holes would be open is because someone has not shut them because SHUT is what they should be. The holes are not connected to the camera nor is the camera dependent on the status of the holes for its operation. It would appear that Dizeee's insider informant is winding him up.
Dizeee said:
Puff the magic.. said:
It would appear that Dizeee's insider informant is winding him up.
Bless! If only you knew the real facts...
Meanwhile, here's another picture of the back of a Gatso with the cover open (this one has had a little fire damage):
As you can see the only thing on the cover are the two locks, the postion of which neatly corresponds to the two holes on the opposite side.
Apart from having to open the lock covers to open and close the locks to insert and extract the camera there are no other connections between the camera and the lock covers.
Camera technicians know where the cameras are installed so don't indicate to each other through the use of lock cover positions where they are...or at least they shouldn't.
Camera technicians know where the cameras are installed so don't indicate to each other through the use of lock cover positions where they are...or at least they shouldn't.
I don't think there's any logic to the lock positioning being used as a signal by the camera installers either. The camera installer obviously knows which housings he has put a camera in, so the only benefit of using that ad hoc system is to warn others, either work colleagues, friends or family.
With that in mind I'd be surprised if it remained a secret for longer than a week.
With that in mind I'd be surprised if it remained a secret for longer than a week.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff