Another good day for ANPR etc around the Severn Crossings...
Another good day for ANPR etc around the Severn Crossings...
Author
Discussion

Six Fiend

Original Poster:

6,067 posts

246 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
They did this not so long ago, obviously a good spot...

http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/Ne...

I like it.

Vesuvius 996

35,829 posts

302 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all


I love this.

Love it.


I'm insured, taxed and licensed. Anyone who isn't should be nicked.

SS2.

14,712 posts

269 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
Vesuvius 996 said:
I love this.

Love it.

I'm insured, taxed and licensed. Anyone who isn't should be nicked.
yes

Jeremy Kyle

172 posts

231 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
no disrespect to the hard work put in by the officers/ authorites as i belive we need to take the unliscened, untaxed and uninsured off the roads but 19 vehicles?? thats not very good considering how much money must have been spent. just the 100 officers would have cost be 4-5K. think i could show you 19 vehicles which need to be off the road just by walking around certain areas for a couple of hours!

Vesuvius 996

35,829 posts

302 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
Jeremy Kyle said:
no disrespect to the hard work put in by the officers/ authorites as i belive we need to take the unliscened, untaxed and uninsured off the roads but 19 vehicles?? thats not very good considering how much money must have been spent. just the 100 officers would have cost be 4-5K. think i could show you 19 vehicles which need to be off the road just by walking around certain areas for a couple of hours!
Fortunatelty, JK, we still (for now) need EVIDENCE before convicting people.


over_the_hill

3,338 posts

277 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
I think the info and figures quoted in the story (link above) show that most people caught by the ANPR checks are "Real" criminals.

story said:
One person was arrested on suspicion of possession with intent to supply Class A drugs, three for driving while disqualified, three for possession of Cannabis, two for possession of offensive weapons, one for being wanted on warrant and one for drink driving.

In addition, 16 vehicles were seized for having no insurance, one articulated lorry was seized for having a fraudulent excise licence. Two further vehicles were seized by HM Revenue and Customs for using illegal fuel.

Munter

31,331 posts

272 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
Vesuvius 996 said:
Jeremy Kyle said:
no disrespect to the hard work put in by the officers/ authorites as i belive we need to take the unliscened, untaxed and uninsured off the roads but 19 vehicles?? thats not very good considering how much money must have been spent. just the 100 officers would have cost be 4-5K. think i could show you 19 vehicles which need to be off the road just by walking around certain areas for a couple of hours!
Fortunatelty, JK, we still (for now) need EVIDENCE before convicting people.
I do believe he was suggesting the officers walk around and use the mk1 eye ball to identify evidence of defective and untaxed vehicles. Knock together a palm top with a camera and ANPR software and voila, walk down the street and check the lot.

Brother Mycroft

843 posts

230 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
Does anyone remember the 'revelation' from our very own Mr. Vonhosen that 5% of all vehicles were uninsured?

I challenged that figure... saying it was a fraction of that.

25,000 vehicles scanned... 110 pulled over... assuming all were notinsured to get the tug that means less than 0.5%...

Mr. Vonhosen has again proven to fill out his lack of real knowledge with bul<cough>hit!


Six Fiend

Original Poster:

6,067 posts

246 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
Munter said:
Vesuvius 996 said:
Jeremy Kyle said:
no disrespect to the hard work put in by the officers/ authorites as i belive we need to take the unliscened, untaxed and uninsured off the roads but 19 vehicles?? thats not very good considering how much money must have been spent. just the 100 officers would have cost be 4-5K. think i could show you 19 vehicles which need to be off the road just by walking around certain areas for a couple of hours!
Fortunatelty, JK, we still (for now) need EVIDENCE before convicting people.
I do believe he was suggesting the officers walk around and use the mk1 eye ball to identify evidence of defective and untaxed vehicles. Knock together a palm top with a camera and ANPR software and voila, walk down the street and check the lot.
But that won't catch people with offensive weapons, drugs, and the other offenses...ANPR checks seem to be rather good at getting the dodgies on the move rather than have a walking BiB stand by the vehicle waiting for the naughty people to come back to it.

I do see the costs/result argument but reckon this method catches a wider range of criminals.

Munter

31,331 posts

272 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
Six Fiend said:
Munter said:
Vesuvius 996 said:
Jeremy Kyle said:
no disrespect to the hard work put in by the officers/ authorites as i belive we need to take the unliscened, untaxed and uninsured off the roads but 19 vehicles?? thats not very good considering how much money must have been spent. just the 100 officers would have cost be 4-5K. think i could show you 19 vehicles which need to be off the road just by walking around certain areas for a couple of hours!
Fortunatelty, JK, we still (for now) need EVIDENCE before convicting people.
I do believe he was suggesting the officers walk around and use the mk1 eye ball to identify evidence of defective and untaxed vehicles. Knock together a palm top with a camera and ANPR software and voila, walk down the street and check the lot.
But that won't catch people with offensive weapons, drugs, and the other offenses...ANPR checks seem to be rather good at getting the dodgies on the move rather than have a walking BiB stand by the vehicle waiting for the naughty people to come back to it.

I do see the costs/result argument but reckon this method catches a wider range of criminals.
Thats fair enough. I'm not sure which way is best. But Vesuvius 996 was off target.

cliffe_mafia

1,740 posts

269 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
Brother Mycroft said:
Does anyone remember the 'revelation' from our very own Mr. Vonhosen that 5% of all vehicles were uninsured?

I challenged that figure... saying it was a fraction of that.

25,000 vehicles scanned... 110 pulled over... assuming all were notinsured to get the tug that means less than 0.5%...

Mr. Vonhosen has again proven to fill out his lack of real knowledge with bul<cough>hit!
It says 10% here....

There are 27 million drivers on Britain's roads, and it is estimated that one in ten are currently uninsured.

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...

Brother Mycroft

843 posts

230 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
cliffe_mafia said:
Brother Mycroft said:
Does anyone remember the 'revelation' from our very own Mr. Vonhosen that 5% of all vehicles were uninsured?

I challenged that figure... saying it was a fraction of that.

25,000 vehicles scanned... 110 pulled over... assuming all were notinsured to get the tug that means less than 0.5%...

Mr. Vonhosen has again proven to fill out his lack of real knowledge with bul<cough>hit!
It says 10% here....

There are 27 million drivers on Britain's roads, and it is estimated that one in ten are currently uninsured.

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...
Propaganda... Goebbels was full of it too!

Edited by Brother Mycroft on Wednesday 10th October 16:22

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

248 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
Not to mention that the Severn crossings are not places where you'd expect there to be anywhere near the average of uninsured drivers.

Would it be a surprise if someone said there are 10 times more uninsured drivers in urban areas than on motorways? I wouldn't.

Brother Mycroft

843 posts

230 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
10 Pence Short said:
Not to mention that the Severn crossings are not places where you'd expect there to be anywhere near the average of uninsured drivers.

Would it be a surprise if someone said there are 10 times more uninsured drivers in urban areas than on motorways? I wouldn't.
That simply does not make sense.

25,000 cars anywhere should produce 1,250 'badduns'... so what you are saying is that somehow 1140 people decided that they will not go on the M4/M48 that day because it is obvious that they will be discovered?

If this was true it means the cops are really fv<king dumb because surely they should know better where to place their resources!

Now I do believe that occasionally some of the BIB can be a little... err... err... dense but that goes wayyyyyyy beyond dense into thick as sh!t territory!

Nah... you are in my opinion acting once again as an apologist for various cops here and around generally... your choice.

Six Fiend

Original Poster:

6,067 posts

246 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
Brother Mycroft said:
10 Pence Short said:
Not to mention that the Severn crossings are not places where you'd expect there to be anywhere near the average of uninsured drivers.

Would it be a surprise if someone said there are 10 times more uninsured drivers in urban areas than on motorways? I wouldn't.
That simply does not make sense.

25,000 cars anywhere should produce 1,250 'badduns'... so what you are saying is that somehow 1140 people decided that they will not go on the M4/M48 that day because it is obvious that they will be discovered?

If this was true it means the cops are really fv<king dumb because surely they should know better where to place their resources!

Now I do believe that occasionally some of the BIB can be a little... err... err... dense but that goes wayyyyyyy beyond dense into thick as sh!t territory!

Nah... you are in my opinion acting once again as an apologist for various cops here and around generally... your choice.
Ah yes dear, but this wasn't just about insurance. Offensive weapons, drugs, benefit fraud, illegal fuel, no licence, wanted on warrant, drink driving...



Edited by Six Fiend on Wednesday 10th October 16:35

Jeremy Kyle

172 posts

231 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
Six Fiend said:
Ah yes dear, but this wasn't just about insurance. Offensive weapons, drugs, benefit fruad, illegal fuel, no licence, wanted on warrant, drink driving...

Edited by Six Fiend on Wednesday 10th October 16:34
excatly it should have produced more "badunns" than 10% but it only produced less than 0.5%!!

Edited by Jeremy Kyle on Wednesday 10th October 16:37

Six Fiend

Original Poster:

6,067 posts

246 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
Jeremy Kyle said:
Six Fiend said:
Ah yes dear, but this wasn't just about insurance. Offensive weapons, drugs, benefit fruad, illegal fuel, no licence, wanted on warrant, drink driving...

Edited by Six Fiend on Wednesday 10th October 16:34
excatly it should have produced more "badunns" than 10% but it only produced less than 0.5%!!

Edited by Jeremy Kyle on Wednesday 10th October 16:37
So is there a question about the demographic of drivers on the crossings? Would the % be higher on the M32 say around St Pauls and Easton??? Serious question not back pedalling!

Chrispy Porker

17,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
Brother Mycroft said:
10 Pence Short said:
Not to mention that the Severn crossings are not places where you'd expect there to be anywhere near the average of uninsured drivers.

Would it be a surprise if someone said there are 10 times more uninsured drivers in urban areas than on motorways? I wouldn't.
That simply does not make sense.

25,000 cars anywhere should produce 1,250 'badduns'... so what you are saying is that somehow 1140 people decided that they will not go on the M4/M48 that day because it is obvious that they will be discovered?

If this was true it means the cops are really fv<king dumb because surely they should know better where to place their resources!

Now I do believe that occasionally some of the BIB can be a little... err... err... dense but that goes wayyyyyyy beyond dense into thick as sh!t territory!

Nah... you are in my opinion acting once again as an apologist for various cops here and around generally... your choice.
Hey BM
I could take you to streets where almost all the vehicles are uninsured/taxed. ( but you wouldn't like it there)
I could take you to streets where none of the vehicles are.
The fact that on the Severn Crossing on one weekday there were few untaxed and uninsured vehicles proves what? Zilch. The sample is hardly representative.

mark69sheer

3,906 posts

233 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
This is policing at its best.

However as mentioned it does seem a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

I agree with the operation and I am pleased with its result.

As a divisional chief however I would be asking couldn't existing resources solve a lot of these problems.

The CSPO's would surely catch a lot of the untaxed cars out on the roads if they simply checked the tax disc of every car they walked past. this wouldn't add any burden to the job they allready do other than making them better value for money.

Jeremy Kyle

172 posts

231 months

Wednesday 10th October 2007
quotequote all
Six Fiend said:
Jeremy Kyle said:
Six Fiend said:
Ah yes dear, but this wasn't just about insurance. Offensive weapons, drugs, benefit fruad, illegal fuel, no licence, wanted on warrant, drink driving...

Edited by Six Fiend on Wednesday 10th October 16:34
excatly it should have produced more "badunns" than 10% but it only produced less than 0.5%!!

Edited by Jeremy Kyle on Wednesday 10th October 16:37
So is there a question about the demographic of drivers on the crossings? Would the % be higher on the M32 say around St Pauls and Easton??? Serious question not back pedalling!
dont know the area so cant comment. But if i was BIB i would know where crime is more frequent in their local area and they should definately be targetting these areas first, thats common sense.