Percentage of live Gatso's
Discussion
Puff the magic.. said:
deeps said:
Yes, fixed cameras are old hat, it's all about mobile scamera vans now, and that was always going to be the case. They soon realised how easy the pickings are from a comfy mobile unit, and that could only ever go one way.
What would the reason for 'easy pickings' be then?Quite simply, when scamming from their vans they can mingle-in amongst other traffic parked in lay-bys etc, and shoot motorists travelling at average speeds safely, from half a mile away. A licence to print.
deeps said:
Puff the magic.. said:
deeps said:
Yes, fixed cameras are old hat, it's all about mobile scamera vans now, and that was always going to be the case. They soon realised how easy the pickings are from a comfy mobile unit, and that could only ever go one way.
What would the reason for 'easy pickings' be then?Quite simply, when scamming from their vans they can mingle-in amongst other traffic parked in lay-bys etc, and shoot motorists travelling at average speeds safely, from half a mile away. A licence to print.
The answer to it would be that if drivers continue to speed and make it easy then pickings will be likewise.
Puff the magic.. said:
deeps said:
Puff the magic.. said:
deeps said:
Yes, fixed cameras are old hat, it's all about mobile scamera vans now, and that was always going to be the case. They soon realised how easy the pickings are from a comfy mobile unit, and that could only ever go one way.
What would the reason for 'easy pickings' be then?Quite simply, when scamming from their vans they can mingle-in amongst other traffic parked in lay-bys etc, and shoot motorists travelling at average speeds safely, from half a mile away. A licence to print.
Puff the magic.. said:
The answer to it would be that if drivers continue to speed and make it easy then pickings will be likewise.
No, that's not 'the' answer, it is in fact just your opinion.Where there is a money making industry that actually produces nothing, there is corruption based on greed and false beliefs such as yours.
A nice comparrison to the scamera industry is the climate change industry, where real businesses are being
The scam industry is engineered to make money, if money was removed from the equation the industry wouldn't even exist. Drivers will always exceed limits when it's safe to do so, always for ever and ever as long as vehicles exist. They will always be easy pickings to scammers.
If we all slowed to a 20mph crawl, the limits would be lowered to 10mph under the pretence of reducing the continuing road deaths. And so the scam would continue, albeit justified in the minds of the car haters, the gullible, and of course the big business bus companies favourites such as Brake and Transport 2000.
Now it's my turn to ask you a question. What percentage of accidents occur above the speed limit on UK roads?
You were doing so well then came the ridiculous bit when you said speed limits are reduced purposely to catch drivers out.
The number of accidents caused by excess speed is around 5% but the number of casualties is close to 50%. in other words a low number of the collisions causes most of the deaths and serious injuries. Perhaps you can now "see through" the guff you repeat in this respect.
The number of accidents caused by excess speed is around 5% but the number of casualties is close to 50%. in other words a low number of the collisions causes most of the deaths and serious injuries. Perhaps you can now "see through" the guff you repeat in this respect.
Puff the magic.. said:
You were doing so well then came the ridiculous bit when you said speed limits are reduced purposely to catch drivers out.
The number of accidents caused by excess speed is around 5% but the number of casualties is close to 50%. in other words a low number of the collisions causes most of the deaths and serious injuries. Perhaps you can now "see through" the guff you repeat in this respect.
To help clarify, Deeps asked you what percentage of accidents occur above the speed limit on UK roads, not what percentage of accidents were caused by excess speed.The number of accidents caused by excess speed is around 5% but the number of casualties is close to 50%. in other words a low number of the collisions causes most of the deaths and serious injuries. Perhaps you can now "see through" the guff you repeat in this respect.
Call me cynical, but it strikes me that the use of the term "excess speed" in the statistics could well simply be the product of spin, enabling the user to include those accidents that happened below the speed limit but at a speed that is deemed excessive for the conditions whilst implying that the speed limit was actually being broken.
I also believe the use of percentages or absolute numbers in isolation are similarly not useful. For example, saying that around 2,500 people were killed in road accidents in 2007 is not as useful as saying that 2,500 people were killed in road accidents in 2007, compared to around 6,000 who died as a result of suicide in the same period and around 80,000 who died as a result of smoking (that numbers from 2005, but I would imagine it hasn't decreased significantly by 2007).
youngsyr said:
Puff the magic.. said:
You were doing so well then came the ridiculous bit when you said speed limits are reduced purposely to catch drivers out.
The number of accidents caused by excess speed is around 5% but the number of casualties is close to 50%. in other words a low number of the collisions causes most of the deaths and serious injuries. Perhaps you can now "see through" the guff you repeat in this respect.
To help clarify, Deeps asked you what percentage of accidents occur above the speed limit on UK roads, not what percentage of accidents were caused by excess speed.The number of accidents caused by excess speed is around 5% but the number of casualties is close to 50%. in other words a low number of the collisions causes most of the deaths and serious injuries. Perhaps you can now "see through" the guff you repeat in this respect.
Call me cynical, but it strikes me that the use of the term "excess speed" in the statistics could well simply be the product of spin, enabling the user to include those accidents that happened below the speed limit but at a speed that is deemed excessive for the conditions whilst implying that the speed limit was actually being broken.
I also believe the use of percentages or absolute numbers in isolation are similarly not useful. For example, saying that around 2,500 people were killed in road accidents in 2007 is not as useful as saying that 2,500 people were killed in road accidents in 2007, compared to around 6,000 who died as a result of suicide in the same period and around 80,000 who died as a result of smoking (that numbers from 2005, but I would imagine it hasn't decreased significantly by 2007).
Excess speed is speed that is in excess of the speed limit
Excessive speed is speed that is far in excess of the speed limit
Both terms indicate that the speed is above the speed limit. A reasonable guide would be the ACPO speed enforcement guidelines. Excess speed will result in a FPN whereas excessive speed will result in a summons.
I do believe you are thinking of excess speed as being speed that is in excess of the speed for the conditions, that is something quite different.
Puff the magic.. said:
youngsyr said:
Puff the magic.. said:
You were doing so well then came the ridiculous bit when you said speed limits are reduced purposely to catch drivers out.
The number of accidents caused by excess speed is around 5% but the number of casualties is close to 50%. in other words a low number of the collisions causes most of the deaths and serious injuries. Perhaps you can now "see through" the guff you repeat in this respect.
To help clarify, Deeps asked you what percentage of accidents occur above the speed limit on UK roads, not what percentage of accidents were caused by excess speed.The number of accidents caused by excess speed is around 5% but the number of casualties is close to 50%. in other words a low number of the collisions causes most of the deaths and serious injuries. Perhaps you can now "see through" the guff you repeat in this respect.
Call me cynical, but it strikes me that the use of the term "excess speed" in the statistics could well simply be the product of spin, enabling the user to include those accidents that happened below the speed limit but at a speed that is deemed excessive for the conditions whilst implying that the speed limit was actually being broken.
I also believe the use of percentages or absolute numbers in isolation are similarly not useful. For example, saying that around 2,500 people were killed in road accidents in 2007 is not as useful as saying that 2,500 people were killed in road accidents in 2007, compared to around 6,000 who died as a result of suicide in the same period and around 80,000 who died as a result of smoking (that numbers from 2005, but I would imagine it hasn't decreased significantly by 2007).
Excess speed is speed that is in excess of the speed limit
Excessive speed is speed that is far in excess of the speed limit
Both terms indicate that the speed is above the speed limit. A reasonable guide would be the ACPO speed enforcement guidelines. Excess speed will result in a FPN whereas excessive speed will result in a summons.
I do believe you are thinking of excess speed as being speed that is in excess of the speed for the conditions, that is something quite different.
Again, a cynical person could argue that such a vague term that isn't explicitly defined in those type of reports could be used to include whatever the author wishes (within its literal meaning), regardless of a standard definition existing for the term.
However, I am sorry for falsely accusing you of not answering Deeps's question.
The whole publishing of statistics for speeding, KSIs and so on does strike me as being heavily spun though. I work in a heavily numerical industry and know very well how easy it is to put your case across with "weasel words" and carefully selected data. It's no exageration to say that I'm confident that experts in the field could present equally compelling cases for and against a certain conclusion from the same set of data in all but the most extreme cases.
My opinion on the publication of speeding statistics is informed by recognising many of the tactics used in publishing those sets of data from the reports I read and write that are designed to persuade the reader of a certain viewpoint. Of course that spin may not necesarily come from the creator of the data itself.
loomx said:
I had an acident a while ago, in a 60mph zone, doing about 50mph, and the police stated that it was due to excessive speed.
Which is probably was for the conditions.
I never got a summons or any points, just did one of the driver training things.
That would be a typical misuse of the term. Which is probably was for the conditions.
I never got a summons or any points, just did one of the driver training things.
When the data got back to the police road traffic collision database that term would have been changed to the correct code.
There are only 2 contributory factors for excess speed on the police record form now, 306 Exceeding the speed limit and 307 Travelling too fast for the conditions
The police officer can't, as nobody can, be right all of the time so checks are in place to correct the data returned if required. From what you have described a correction would be required.
Edited by pitmansboots on Thursday 3rd September 12:10
youngsyr said:
Puff the magic.. said:
youngsyr said:
Puff the magic.. said:
You were doing so well then came the ridiculous bit when you said speed limits are reduced purposely to catch drivers out.
The number of accidents caused by excess speed is around 5% but the number of casualties is close to 50%. in other words a low number of the collisions causes most of the deaths and serious injuries. Perhaps you can now "see through" the guff you repeat in this respect.
To help clarify, Deeps asked you what percentage of accidents occur above the speed limit on UK roads, not what percentage of accidents were caused by excess speed.The number of accidents caused by excess speed is around 5% but the number of casualties is close to 50%. in other words a low number of the collisions causes most of the deaths and serious injuries. Perhaps you can now "see through" the guff you repeat in this respect.
Call me cynical, but it strikes me that the use of the term "excess speed" in the statistics could well simply be the product of spin, enabling the user to include those accidents that happened below the speed limit but at a speed that is deemed excessive for the conditions whilst implying that the speed limit was actually being broken.
I also believe the use of percentages or absolute numbers in isolation are similarly not useful. For example, saying that around 2,500 people were killed in road accidents in 2007 is not as useful as saying that 2,500 people were killed in road accidents in 2007, compared to around 6,000 who died as a result of suicide in the same period and around 80,000 who died as a result of smoking (that numbers from 2005, but I would imagine it hasn't decreased significantly by 2007).
Excess speed is speed that is in excess of the speed limit
Excessive speed is speed that is far in excess of the speed limit
Both terms indicate that the speed is above the speed limit. A reasonable guide would be the ACPO speed enforcement guidelines. Excess speed will result in a FPN whereas excessive speed will result in a summons.
I do believe you are thinking of excess speed as being speed that is in excess of the speed for the conditions, that is something quite different.
Again, a cynical person could argue that such a vague term that isn't explicitly defined in those type of reports could be used to include whatever the author wishes (within its literal meaning), regardless of a standard definition existing for the term.
However, I am sorry for falsely accusing you of not answering Deeps's question.
The whole publishing of statistics for speeding, KSIs and so on does strike me as being heavily spun though. I work in a heavily numerical industry and know very well how easy it is to put your case across with "weasel words" and carefully selected data. It's no exageration to say that I'm confident that experts in the field could present equally compelling cases for and against a certain conclusion from the same set of data in all but the most extreme cases.
My opinion on the publication of speeding statistics is informed by recognising many of the tactics used in publishing those sets of data from the reports I read and write that are designed to persuade the reader of a certain viewpoint. Of course that spin may not necesarily come from the creator of the data itself.
It is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. Perhaps this is why "spin" is often claimed when the Road Safety pro has simply used the language as it was meant and someone outside of the industry has taken the term literally.
Puddenchucker said:
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.
This is a given, due to unrefutable photographic evidence.
The only logical correlation I can surmise is that the sliding shutter latch is prone to jamming, or seizing due to exposure to elements. Therefore, cameras that are not regularly maintained or active have the cover left shut, since access is never going to be required.
However, since live cameras have to be accessed regularly, perhaps all service/operation crew have been advised to leave the shutter down/key holes open, to prevent jamming/seizing and therefore not being able to access the camera internals?
Dizeee, who knows what your connection to Gatso cameras actually is, but it can't be in the manufacture or service/operation of them, otherwise you'd know exactly what the two rear apetures were for.
shakotan said:
...However, since live cameras have to be accessed regularly, perhaps all service/operation crew have been advised to leave the shutter down/key holes open, to prevent jamming/seizing and therefore not being able to access the camera internals?...
Not an unreasonable conclusion however Camera Techs are instructed to make sure they are set in the "Closed" position when they secure the cabinets.Puff the magic.. said:
You were doing so well then came the ridiculous bit when you said speed limits are reduced purposely to catch drivers out.
I never said that, only you did. "If we all slowed to a 20mph crawl, the limits would be lowered to 10mph under the pretence of reducing the continuing road deaths ".
Are you saying I'm wrong with that theory? If so, why would the continuing road deaths have become acceptable?
Puff the magic.. said:
The number of accidents caused by excess speed is around 5% but the number of casualties is close to 50%. in other words a low number of the collisions causes most of the deaths and serious injuries. Perhaps you can now "see through" the guff you repeat in this respect.
So you're saying that "close to 50%" of KSI collisions happen at 34mph here in Somerset? That's the "excess speed" the Scamera Partnership target, and coincidentally the speed that raises them the most revenue.pitmansboots said:
shakotan said:
...However, since live cameras have to be accessed regularly, perhaps all service/operation crew have been advised to leave the shutter down/key holes open, to prevent jamming/seizing and therefore not being able to access the camera internals?...
Not an unreasonable conclusion however Camera Techs are instructed to make sure they are set in the "Closed" position when they secure the cabinets.shakotan said:
pitmansboots said:
shakotan said:
...However, since live cameras have to be accessed regularly, perhaps all service/operation crew have been advised to leave the shutter down/key holes open, to prevent jamming/seizing and therefore not being able to access the camera internals?...
Not an unreasonable conclusion however Camera Techs are instructed to make sure they are set in the "Closed" position when they secure the cabinets.The argument here has been the lock shutters.
pitmansboots said:
shakotan said:
pitmansboots said:
shakotan said:
...However, since live cameras have to be accessed regularly, perhaps all service/operation crew have been advised to leave the shutter down/key holes open, to prevent jamming/seizing and therefore not being able to access the camera internals?...
Not an unreasonable conclusion however Camera Techs are instructed to make sure they are set in the "Closed" position when they secure the cabinets.The argument here has been the lock shutters.
shakotan said:
The only logical correlation I can surmise is that the sliding shutter latch is prone to jamming, or seizing due to exposure to elements. Therefore, cameras that are not regularly maintained or active have the cover left shut, since access is never going to be required.
The urban myth is that the shutters are required to be open to allow the camera to keep within operating temperatures as it bakes inside a metal box.Edited by bluepolarbear on Wednesday 9th September 08:07
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??
Walked past 2 different camera's today which both have flashed me over the last 2 days and on both of them the holes were closed.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??
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff