View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
sdm197 Lifetime Member
Joined: Dec 06, 2004 Posts: 227
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:17 pm Post subject: Police have to inform where they set up mobile units? |
|
|
Hi All,
I saw this on the net for a little known gps device, in the sales pitch this little gem cropped up
Mobile Speed Trap Detection
This is really where the competing products fall down. There is no good reason for this because the Police BY LAW must announce seven days prior to operating mobile speed traps in a new area exactly where they will be doing so.
...and to be fair to the Police, they do this because it is systemised and doesn’t require anyone to make the announcement -- in order to get signoff on a new location, it must be automatically added to the database and just needs someone to download it, which we do every day.
This makes it easy to update all mobile speed camera locations with 100% accuracy BEFORE the Police ever start using them.
The only reason I can imagine that competitors to the BTST Locator do not update these locations regularly is because you need to pay someone to do it (which we do).
So now we had a database that is 100% accurate and that no other speed camera detector will ever be able to use (remember our shareholding in the mapping company -- we have the exclusive rights to the fixed speed camera locations database and we will NEVER allow any rival to use these locations).
If this is the case where can we find where the Police publish this information?
SDM197. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulB2005 Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 04, 2006 Posts: 9323 Location: Durham, UK
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Their sales pitch is amusing at times....
Adam Blair is also involved with Talex - see this thread
Oh and you can Google the information. Try Surrey Speed Cameras or simalar...
Interesting how they don't tell you the laser and radar detector they are selling will soon become illegal anyway....
edit:spelling
Last edited by PaulB2005 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaFt Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15240 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
utter rubbish i'm afraid... the police can speed check wherever they like. safety camera partnerships however have guidelines suggesting that they only go to areas with lots of deaths or accidents due to driving. but they are only guidelines. they do not have to publish where they are going at any time.
the locations given on arious SCP websites are unusable - they tend to say 'they will be on xxx road'. but without exact coordinates that information is useless - the range can be over a mile long... do you really want to be alerts for a mile long stretch when a few eagle eyed camera spotters can let us know the exact spot they use?
MaFt |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sdm197 Lifetime Member
Joined: Dec 06, 2004 Posts: 227
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Guys,
Yes you are right, they would probably narrow it down to a road if we were lucky, and as you suggest the A2 for example is a very long road......
I hadn't thought of it from that perspective.
Thanks for both your replies though,
SDM197. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bobby6969 Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jul 27, 2006 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
PaulB2005 wrote: | Their sales pitch is amusing at times....
Interesting how they don't tell you the laser and radar detector they are selling will soon become illegal anyway....
edit:spelling |
Why do you say soon become illegal?
Is this for definite? when? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulB2005 Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 04, 2006 Posts: 9323 Location: Durham, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Why do you say soon become illegal? |
By the end of the changes to the law will make laser and radar detectors illegal in the UK. GPS based systems are NOT affected.
Quote: | Department for Transport - Road Safety Bill 2004 note 2: Speeding "Safety Cameras form an integral part of a successful road safety strategy, strict rules govern the positioning of cameras to ensure that they are sited only where there is a demonstrable risk and danger to road users. There is overwhelming evidence from both UK and international literature that speeding results in more collisions and more severe casualties. Furthermore the evidence from the independent review of the safety camera programme by University College London and PA Consulting found that cameras significantly reduced the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites.
The Government believes that devices which interfere with or detect the proper functioning of such cameras have only one purpose: to tell drivers when they can break speed limits and get away with it. This is unacceptable. It prevents the police from carrying out their duties, and is a danger to other law-abiding road users.
The Government will not be prohibiting those devices that rely on Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to warn drivers of published camera sites or posted speed limits, as these compliment the Government's policy to ensure that camera sites are visible and conspicuous to drivers, and so help deter excessive and inappropriate speeds on the roads." |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
PaulB2005 wrote: | Quote: | Why do you say soon become illegal? |
By the end of the changes to the law will make laser and radar detectors illegal in the UK. GPS based systems are NOT affected.
Quote: | Department for Transport - Road Safety Bill 2004 note 2: Speeding "Safety Cameras form an integral part of a successful road safety strategy, strict rules govern the positioning of cameras to ensure that they are sited only where there is a demonstrable risk and danger to road users. There is overwhelming evidence from both UK and international literature that speeding results in more collisions and more severe casualties. Furthermore the evidence from the independent review of the safety camera programme by University College London and PA Consulting found that cameras significantly reduced the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites.
The Government believes that devices which interfere with or detect the proper functioning of such cameras have only one purpose: to tell drivers when they can break speed limits and get away with it. This is unacceptable. It prevents the police from carrying out their duties, and is a danger to other law-abiding road users.
The Government will not be prohibiting those devices that rely on Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to warn drivers of published camera sites or posted speed limits, as these compliment the Government's policy to ensure that camera sites are visible and conspicuous to drivers, and so help deter excessive and inappropriate speeds on the roads." |
|
What a load of total rubbish, blatent lies and spin from the government. Paragraphs 2 and 3 directly contradict each other. Why does knowing where a speed camera is by the use of radar detector 'prevents the police from carrying out their duties' but using a GPS based device 'compliment the Government's policy to ensure that camera sites are visible and conspicuous to drivers'?????
GPS based units can also be used 'to tell drivers when they can break speed limits and get away with it'. Still we are well used to out and out lies much worse than this from the present government.
About the only thing that will 'interfere with -snip- such cameras' is a radar/laser jamming device, which no doubt are already covered by at least one of the 6,000 odd laws a year that this snooping, power crazy, nanny state government have introduced, even if they not specifically illegal already. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Darren Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
The use of radar/laser detectors in this country is only permitted here by virtue of a loophole. Many other European countries outlaw them already.
You may recall that they used to be forbidden to 'use' here but a test case some years back found a loophole in the WTA legislation.
Where it does get silly is when you can sell, own and possess a device but not legally use it. That's a mockery and makes the job of a Police Officer more difficult. Much better that they ban them and prohibit sale and possession outright. No room for doubt then. _________________ Darren Griffin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry Darren, I don't agree with your last paragraph. If the government allow one form of camera awareness that complement the government's policies (GPS), then why should we not allow all types?
Based on the argument used in their second paragraph, any form of camera awarenes will 'complement' their policies. I suspect that the real reason is because the previous law did not work so they are tinkering yet again. Why are detectors so bad when a good database, such as ours, are OK to use?
Much better that they ALLOW their use, this will also remove any ambiguity over their use for the police, and no doubt free up police and court time for other 'inconsiderate parking' and other more easily 'proved' motorist based offences. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Darren Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I suspect that the actual facts are that it is much simpler to legislate against radar/laser. They can easily forbid the transmission/reception of certain radio frequencies. Legislating against the use of a Lat/Lon database is very much more difficult.
There is a world of difference between camera awareness by virtue of a device using a GPS based database or POIs in a Road Atlas etc and devices that actively detect and or transmit to thwart a speed check such as radar or laser.
It's a game of course but whilst many of us use the database, those whose et out armed with radar/laser and jammers are a different matter entirely.
We're all entitled to our opinions of course, I dislike static and mobile SCP cameras but fully support the rights of a Police Officer to set up an ad hoc speed check wherever they see fit. _________________ Darren Griffin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bobby6969 Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jul 27, 2006 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
So the quote from government is - law, due to be law or may become law?
If it's up for parliment (October I think) it doesn't mean it 'will' become law, does it? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Darren Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is part of the third and last part of the Road Safety Bill, it's all agreed but lost out on parliamentary time so didn't make the statute books last year.
Whilst it 'could' still be blocked, it's highly unlikely to be. _________________ Darren Griffin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bobby6969 Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jul 27, 2006 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
So 'if' it does become law using a radar/laser detector will have the same punishment as if you got caught with a laser blocker. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Darren Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
bobby6969 wrote: | So 'if' it does become law using a radar/laser detector will have the same punishment as if you got caught with a laser blocker. |
The punishment scales for any offence have not yet been laid out. I'd suspect that a laser jammer would still attract a higher level of punishment as this has been deemed to be perverting the course of justice, a serious offence. _________________ Darren Griffin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Darren wrote: | They can easily forbid the transmission/reception of certain radio frequencies. |
Just to be niggly...
Transmission yes. Plenty of examples of how/why that can be outlawed (and should be, to avoid interference etc.)
But reception in itself would be very hard to legislate against, otherwise all these people who pick up Radio 3 on their fillings might end up in trouble.
I would have thought it would be similar to when the police used to share the top end of the normal broadcast FM band for their radios. There was nothing illegal about listening in, what was made illegal was using what you heard for criminal intent.
Still, those who make the laws can do what they like really....
...Or those who enforce them, too.
Did anyone hear on the news recently about the man who was spotted taking a photo of a police car badly parked on a bus stop for no good reason?
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/Quizzed-over-terrorism-and-all.4332791.jp
The police detained him and questioned him under the TERRORISM legislation, and even worse, rather than say it was stupid, their Superintendent (deputy commander for Portsmouth police) backed them up!
That's just plain bullying tactics, to get back at him for trying to embarrass them IMHO.
The scary thing is I once did exactly the same thing...
I tried to complain that all the police cars round a local police station were regularly dumped on yellow lines and often up on two wheels, completely blocking the pavement.
At least the station officer just fobbed me off with "we can do what we like, sunshine" and didn't arrest me!
I was very careful not to let them see my registration number though!
Another news link |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
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!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|