Resident operated speed cameras

kdbcom · Occasional Visitor Joined: Jul 08, 2005 Posts: 21

I dont know if any one has brought this subject up but in Surrey & possibly other home counties local residents are recruited & trained to operate hand held speed cameras at various locations. They are intended to keep monitor speeds in built up areas and "rat runs".
The trained residents are supplied a camera by the local police force and check drivers speeds. They apparantely take down the offending drivers reg no and inform the police who contact the offender and warn them of the offence. I gather that action may be taken following a second report of speeding that is reported.
I have personally seen these teams in action using a camera & noting down particulars in a village on the Surrey / Sussex border and they wear the police style yellow reflective weatherproof jackets. They are usually in pairs.
Is it considered necessary to have the locations of these private traps submitted to the speed camera database and if so could a suitable icon be developed

tonys66 · Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:32 pm Post subject:

They can only report cars speeding in a effet to get a police maned cameras there. you cannot be isseud a warning for speeding on the say so of a member of the public. it's mainley done as a deterant to get drivers to slow down

kdbcom · Occasional Visitor Joined: Jul 08, 2005 Posts: 21

This is a new idea being tried locally (Surrey /Sussex) & not the old scheme you mentioned about checking the area first by the public prior to installing a fixed camera. It has been stated that the police will be taking follow up action on reported offences. Actions reported by public alone have resulted in prosecutions and motorists have learned this,to their cost, over offences such as careless or dangerous driving. As this is the case I can see no reason why a police trained member of the public cannot pass on information that could result in some form of prosecution. N.B. it will not be done on the first report of the offence as a warning letter will be sent first by the police but subsequent offences will be dealt with a view to prosecution. The local police have requested volunteers to have training to take part in this new scheme.

Skippy · Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:30 am Post subject:

The evidence from these people can't be relied on in court so this is a bit of a bluff.

Of course, if a police person comes to your house and tells you "You where spotted by a civilian doing 35 MPH through a 30 limit in xxxx village" and you ADMIT that you were speeding then you can be prosecuted. If you DENY it then they can't take any further action due to lack of evidence.
_________________
Gone fishing!

Darren · Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:53 am Post subject:

The evidence supplied by the member of the public, regardless of the fact that he may have received training etc is not valid for the purposes of prosecution. All the police can do to follow up multiple reports about individuals is write and or visit them and verbally warn them.
_________________
Darren Griffin

kdbcom · Occasional Visitor Joined: Jul 08, 2005 Posts: 21

Darren are we saying then that you would not be interested in the locations of these cameras as it is not a directly prosecuteable offence being caught on one or should a safety aspect come in here that they might be being used at a hazardous location (as surely this is the excuse used for the placing of all cameras). In which case shouldn't the members be warned of these as per other cameras.

Darren · Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:09 pm Post subject:

mad-andy · Occasional Visitor Joined: Aug 08, 2006 Posts: 1

We have a village near us and all the numptys were in the paper after raising a vast amount of money to help buy one of these (from local council tax and goverment funding,not their pocket).
After the WI Stormtroopers and their henpecked husbands had been busy lording it up jumping from hedges and bus shelters for a month it turned out the camera that the police advised them to buy was not valid for use in the UK as it only approved in the usa.At a guess one of their own got a warning and questioned the legality.
Not heard a thing about it since then, the least they could have done was put it on fleabay to put some council coffers back in the pot.
Wouldn`t have minded so much if the camera was to be used in the village further on a few miles as this is where the fast traffic causes a problem,primary school,playing fields,old peoples home but sadly not a single local councillor or MP lives there and most houses are council so to them that dont matter.
Saftey? my eye, gits , although I did have a little chuckle.

tanda · Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject:

I remember reading a "Readers Letter" in a motorcycle magazine, years ago, someone wrote in and said his mate was a policeman in the highlands of scotland, and he was on patrol, with a collegue in a panda car, and they were parked in a lay-by, with a hand held speed gun. Where they were parked, they had a view of the road, as it wound its way round the side of a hill, they could see for miles. It wasn't long before a little green sports car came into sight, and he was shiffting. They pointed the gun at the sports car, and got a reading of 200mph, before the gun frose up, and displayed "ERROR". They tried to re-set it, but it wouldn't clear, then the car went over head, it wasn't a sports car, it was a Harrier Jump Jet. When they got back to the station, the sargent had a fiddle with the gun, but couldn't re-set it, so it was sent away for repair. When it came back, the sargent wrote a snotty letter to the RAF, demanding they foot the bill. The RAF, replied and said, "One of our Harrier Jets was on low level manovers when the onboard computer detected the aircraft was being scanned by a radar device, the computer jammed the signal, armed two missiles, and locked on the target, and was awaiting confermation from the pilot to fire, so think yourselves luckey". Forget about the camera database, just get me one of them, Laughing Out Loud

.
_________________
Audi A3 Sline sat nav

mikealder · Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:10 pm Post subject:

Fortunatly active jamming systems such as those employed on military aircraft are not easy to obtain, also it is illegal to own this type of active Radar jamming equipment let alone operate it.
In use the RAD HAZ emitted wouldn't do you much good when in close proximity.
I have seen systems that did this (jamming RADAR) for fooling cameras, but these are a big no no in this country.
IIRC a Tornado aircraft was "targeted" by the police with a speed gun, similar to the Harrier, if the police use these cameras illuminating aircraft it is only a matter of time before something goes horribly wrong - Mike

Skippy · Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:34 pm Post subject:

There's not much point in jamming radar, you can detect it easily enough with a radar detector. It's laser guns that you need a jammer for....
_________________
Gone fishing!

Crad · Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject:

There is another side to this insidious activity is that the voluntary members of this activity are not employed by anybody and as such are uninsured. Sooner or later one of them will cause an accident and be liable to a law suit; this should curtail the act.

lupos0_1 · Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:44 pm Post subject:

Skippy · Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:32 am Post subject:

lupos0_1 · Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:10 am Post subject:

	PocketGPS
	Web