a few bad apples?

[detective-boy]

Detective Boy.. Do you know if those ANPR camera flag up discrepencies caused by use of false number plates where the vehicle details on record don't match what's been photographed ??

The ANPR cameras won't flag up a false plate as they only know what they've read, not what it is on. If there is a picture (some of the simple ANPR recorders don't actually record any video, just the list of numbers qutomatically read) and anyone goes back and looks (e.g. if it is a speed camera, or if there is a real-time operator with the unit) then the discrepancy would be noted and investigated as far as possible.

False plate offences are treated as reasonably serious incidents - if nothing else they would probably mean it is a nicked car.

 

[detective-boy]

Actually, fuck it. I was right - here's a screenshot:

I'm not saying ANPR can't be part of a speed detection system, but the ANPR itself is nothing to do with it, it is simply an automatic number plate reader. It can be linked up to lots of different systems, one of which is a speed detection system.

You will see ANPR advertised at your local garage forecourt. That is ANPR. It is nothing to do with speed detection. Because the system it is hooked up to is nothing to do with speed detection.

 

[learydeary]

yay! no rules!

an lose your liscence for drunk cycling though

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I'm not saying ANPR can't be part of a speed detection system, but the ANPR itself is nothing to do with it, it is simply an automatic number plate reader. It can be linked up to lots of different systems, one of which is a speed detection system.

You will see ANPR advertised at your local garage forecourt. That is ANPR. It is nothing to do with speed detection. Because the system it is hooked up to is nothing to do with speed detection.

I'm not sure you really understand the technology.

The ANPR system as provided to UK police forces by Appian Technolgy Plc consists of hardware (cameras and computers) and the software (Talon Spectrum Application - [runs on any windows PC or dedicated hardware+ PDA] and Back Office Facility II [provides interface with PNC]).

What's 'good' about the hardware side of things is that Appian's system makes it easy to integrate existing hardware into the system.

That's why on their corporate website, they quote some 'community safety manager' saying "We are very pleased with the way the Talon system has operated, particularly as the CCTV cameras were not installed with ANPR in mind."

With regard to 'garage forecourts':

"We also talking to the commercial sector about their sites, particular garage forecourts. One of the biggest truisms about vehicles is that they have got to fill up with petrol," he explained.

Supermarkets are soon to agree a deal that will lead to all cars entering their garage forecourts having details of their number plates sent to Hendon. In return, the retailers will receive warning information about those drivers most likely to "bilk" - drive off without paying their bill.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=674001

So, yeah. It is ANPR.

If it's in the UK and it's ANPR, it's 'Talon'.

If it's Talon, it does 'speed'.

PITO kindly informs us that:

Project Laser 2 - an extension of the pilot - began in June 2003 with 23 forces to:..

...Establish whether ANPR activity can be part-funded by using fines money generated by intercept teams

http://www.pito.org.uk/what_we_do/identification/anpr.htm

While Appian assure us that:

The Talon ANPR system can be used to produce a violation fine on speed or red light enforcement systems. The benefit of this means that the manual process of preparing a violation fine can be replaced by an automated process, reducing the time and costs associated with dispatching fines

http://www.appian-tech.com/applications/speed.html

I don't think you can say that any aspect of ANPR is 'nothing to do with speed detection'.

Speeding 'undetected' will become a memory and ANPR will be the cause.

...as will driving without MOT, insurance or TAX. Plus we get a fuckalootingly huge database storing virtually every vehicle movement for six years, which we can add to the pile and data-mine for associations and *flags* and lots of nice things to help us in the War on Terror.

Groovey.

 

[detective-boy]

an lose your liscence for drunk cycling though

No. Driving licences are for motor vehicles. Only offences involving motor vehicles can lead to points on your (motor vehicle) driving licence or the loss of it.

Drunk posting on the other hand ...

 

[detective-boy]

I'm not sure you really understand the technology.

I do. You are totally missing the point.

Speed detection can be done in lots of ways. Most have absolutely nothing to do with ANPR (e.g. Gatsos, coppers in cars with time and distance speed measuring devices ...).

ANPR can be used for lots of things. Many have absolutely nothing to do with speed detection (e.g. automated vehicle gate access control, recording of index numbers at service stations ...)

ANPR can be, and is, used as part of a speed detection system. It has the added advantage over other, non-ANPR systems, that it can automatically create the fixed penalty notice.

But ANPR is NOT synonymous with speed detection. The clue is in the acronym - Automatic Number Plate Reader. That is what it does. Which may be why the speed detection systems which incorporate ANPR are called something else.

 

[tommers]

Its pretty much survival of the fittest out there on the roads, everyones a selfish cunt just concerend about getting themselves from A to B in as short a time possible. If they think they can get away with it. . .they'll do it.

correct. it's stupid to categorise people by how they get to work in the morning.

can we stop it please?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I think we're pretty much in agreement, DB.

ANPR can be, and is, used as part of a speed detection system. It has the added advantage over other, non-ANPR systems, that it can automatically create the fixed penalty notice.

Exactly.

Now - are you arguing that the Appian system used in the UK will not be used for this purpose?

In the 2003/2004 period, the National Safety Camera Program (Gatso etc) raised over £20m in profit (total ~£112m fines minus £92m expenditure).

According to the ABD, The Metropolitan Police magazine, Metline, March 1999 Edition stated:

"Speed cameras have their limitations...but when these matters can be overcome they will be a sure winner for raising revenue".

How right they were.

But you go on to say:

But ANPR is NOT synonymous with speed detection. The clue is in the acronym - Automatic Number Plate Reader. That is what it does.

The acronym stands for 'Automatic Number Plate Recognition'.

While it may not be synonymous with speed detection per se, the Appian Talon Spectrum system deployed on the UK road network for practical purposes is. It appears to include speed detection functionality 'right out of the box'.

Taking into account the potential revenue streams available but using this functionality, seriously, why do you imagine it wouldn't be used?

..the speed detection systems which incorporate ANPR are called something else.

You'll have to educate me on this point. What are they called?

 

[Major Tom]

So why didn't you then? You simply listed a load of speeding statistics and then asked why cyclists are being demonised. Make a decent point and maybe you'll get a sensible answer.

wanker
what should i expect from plod eh?
any intelligent person knew exactly what i meant. only you seemed not to.

And now you're doing it again. As you appear to think "two (non-motorised) wheels good, four wheels bad", I assume that your last sentence means that you think that motorists are NOT being reported for offences whilst cyclists are.

how many different ways can you deliberately fail to see the point

Well, if that is the case, would you care to produce some figures to support it, because I'd bet a pound to a pinch of shit that there are millions more motorists than cyclists prosecuted every year.

figures can't describe what isn't being recorded. everyday experience of being on the roads for thirty years means so much more, in my view. why don't you do your own research or disprove me. you seem to have so much spare time on your hands. fraid i don't. nor do i care what you think. you're plod. i expect hostility from you. it's your job.

And, if it is not the case, perhaps in a few weeks you might like to pop along and explain to us all what you really meant.

you haven't disapointed me. sarcasm eh? every policeman's tool of the trade. extreme sarcasm. of course officer, you're so right.

 

[Major Tom]

So exactly what is the "quite a large number" of children who are killed every week then?

I'll give you a clue: in 2004 it was ... er ... 1.48 on average

oh that's alright then - no problem.

stupid cunt!

of course i meant to say killed or injured - but you're such a pedantic cunt.

 

[detective-boy]

Now - are you arguing that the Appian system used in the UK will not be used for this purpose?

No. I'm sure it will.

The acronym stands for 'Automatic Number Plate Recognition'.

My mistake. Reader is sometimes used but the "correct" version is recognition. But that does not alter my point at all.

You'll have to educate me on this point. What are they called?

Er ... Appian, Talon ... as you have been repeatedly pointing out.

My point is simply that ANPR itself is simply a number plate recognition system. When it is combined with other things it can be used as a speed detection system.

But ANPR should not become confused with speed detection in the public consciousness. It is becoming sloppy shorthand and will lead to confusion and set lots of rumours running. Every time people see "ANPR" they will think speed detection. Precision is important when discussing new developments.

 

[Major Tom]

from the government's web site

Deaths and injuries on the road

3,508 people were killed in road accidents in 2003
33,707 were seriously injured
253,392 were slightly injured
Children

171 children were killed in road accidents in 2003
3,929 were seriously injured
More than twice as many boys as girls are killed or seriously injured in pedestrian and cycle accidents
Drink driving

560(p) people were killed in drink-drive related incidents in 2003
2,580(p) were seriously injured
There were over 19,000(p) drink-drive casualties in total in 2003
6% of all road casualties and 16% of deaths in 2003 occurred when someone was driving when over the legal limit for alcohol
Male drivers under 25 had the highest incidence of failing a breath test after being involved in a road accident in which someone was injured
p = provisional

Drink drive statistics (November 2003)
Motorcyclists

693 motorcyclists were killed in road accidents in 2003
6,959 were seriously injured
Motorcyclists represent 1% of traffic but represent 20% of deaths and serious injuries
Motorcycle riders are 40 times more likely to be killed than car drivers
Cyclists

114 pedal cyclists were killed in road accidents in 2003
2,297 were seriously injured
Pedestrians

774 pedestrians were killed in 2003
7,159 were seriously injured
Pedestrians represent 13% of all road casualties and 22% of all road death

 

[Major Tom]

hmm..

must be something wrong - they've missed off deaths caused by cyclists.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

But ANPR should not become confused with speed detection in the public consciousness. It is becoming sloppy shorthand and will lead to confusion and set lots of rumours running. Every time people see "ANPR" they will think speed detection. Precision is important when discussing new developments.

OK, I see your point.

Although I don't share your view that ANPR as implemented in the UK should not be conflated with 'speed detection'.

You agree that such functionality of the system will be used.

All that remains is a discussion regarding the 'public perception' regarding ANPR in the UK. Obviously, I can see why there might be a desire to understate the capabilities of the system in terms of issueing fixed penalty notices and raising revenue - if there's one thing that gets the Great British Public onto the streets it's when you hit them in the wallet.

Personally I sort of agree with you, but only in that I'd rather people perceived the system as the truely Orwellian panopticon machinery of control it really is, rather than 'just another Gatso'.

Too late to do anything about it now, though. It'll up and clocking 50 million plate/time/locations per day by the summer.

 

[Amanita Virosa]

My point is simply that ANPR itself is simply a number plate recognition system. .

So it would appear:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/4941558.stm
Police say some of the raids were made at houses, some were street arrests and some made at the roadside after using automatic number plate recognition.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

So exactly what is the "quite a large number" of children who are killed every week then?

I'll give you a clue: in 2004 it was ... er ... 1.48 on average

Ground control to Major Tom - you're talking bollocks.

166 child (0-15yrs) road traffic incident fatalities in 2004, of whom 77 were pedestrians http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/grou...uments/downloadable/dft_transstats_038554.pdf

I must admit to being quite staggered that someone who is supposed to have an interest in upholding the law sees no problem with 166 kids getting killed every year on the roads. I think that is a shocking stat, and it is widely acknowledged that many of these deaths, as well as a substantial amount of the almost 4,000 serious injuries to children, are due to people breaking the speed limit - that's not talking bollocks, its pointing out the actual consequences of what occurs when mindless wankers think there's no problem with driving at 40 mph in a 30 mph zone. And then get 2 years inside, if they're caught, and if they don't manage to get off on a technicality. Speed kills and i'm not talking about amphetamine.

 

[detective-boy]

figures can't describe what isn't being recorded. everyday experience of being on the roads for thirty years means so much more, in my view. why don't you do your own research or disprove me. you seem to have so much spare time on your hands. fraid i don't. nor do i care what you think. you're plod. i expect hostility from you. it's your job.

Your approach invites hostility and sarcasm.

You simply make blatantly inaccurate statements, rant and then get the arse when someone points out you are talking bollocks.

I haven't got "so much spare time on my hands", but I try to ensure that what I am saying is not just my impression but can be backed up with some hard facts (you may like to try it). So let's spend 10 minutes Googling shall we:

2003: 77 prosecutions for careless or reckless cycling; 82 for cycling on the footway and 166 for cycle lighting offences - total 325 (down from 6293 in 1982, so a fall of 95% in enforcement of cycling offences by court prosecution over twenty years)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_foi/documents/divisionhomepage/037550.hcsp

2003: 2.2million offences of speeding in motor vehicles prosecuted (up 44% on 2002). Of these 18% were prosecuted in Court and 81% by Fixed Penalty Notice.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0605.pdf

Aug-Dec 1999: 665 fixed penalty notices issued for cycling on the footway (29 in the Metropolitan Police area and 10 in the City of London Police area). Multiplied up that would be 1596 for the year (70 MPS and 24 City)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo001023/text/01023w10.htm

Taking these together, to estimate fixed penalty notices for cycling offences in 2003:

- if the percentage is assumed to be the same as for speeding offences: 1805

So that's 1805 cyclists prosecuted for manner of riding, riding on footways and lighting offences compared with 2.2million motorists prosecuted for speeding alone (and there are dozens of other offences which are prosecuted). A prosecution rate of ... er ... 1219 motorists for every single cyclist.

You're right! It is a vendetta!

Twat.

 

[detective-boy]

I must admit to being quite staggered that someone who is supposed to have an interest in upholding the law sees no problem with 166 kids getting killed every year on the roads.

Where did I say I saw no problem with it?

I was using the statistic to question Major Tom's assertion that "quite a large number" of children are killed every week which the average reader would not perceive as meaning 1.48.

I note that you trot out the standard, knee-jerk "Speed kills" phrase. It is simplistic bollocks. Many of the children killed are killed by cars driving at an inappropriate speed within the speed limit. Read my previous posts if you want to know more.

 

[Major Tom]

The reaction that we got on this thread from detective boy certainly adds weight to my point - that the forces of "law and order" in this country just can't put aside their mistrust of cyclists in order that they can start tackling the real problem on our roads.

Their is an in-built bias towards motorists throughout our system - from local authorities, through the police, the courts, parliament, the media, and even in the way that we pay for the roads.

an intersting article in the latest London Cyclist points out that motorists are subsidised up to £1 per mile in London and 21p a mile elsewhere in the country.

Cyclists pay about 11p per mile, while according to the AA motorists pay around 35p a mile.

If this cost was proportional to the wear and tear on the roads motorists would have to pay around 10,000 times what a cyclists pays.

If a motorist paid £200 annually, then cyclists would be required to pay 2p.

Factor in to that the damage to the environment, the health effects, the loss of land (motor-ways, multi lane highways, garages, car-parks etc.), the human carnage, etc. and really you have to ask yourself whether cars deserve to be on the roads at all, considering the pittance the average motorists pays.

Although I realise this is probably a different thread, it is relevant because it is one of a number of factors in place that prevent, or offer disincentives, for most people taking up what is the cleanest, greenest, healthiest form of transport we have.

 

[Major Tom]

Your approach invites hostility and sarcasm.

because i don't agree with you?

 

[Major Tom]

Your approach invites hostility and sarcasm.

You simply make blatantly inaccurate statements, rant and then get the arse when someone points out you are talking bollocks.

I haven't got "so much spare time on my hands", but I try to ensure that what I am saying is not just my impression but can be backed up with some hard facts (you may like to try it). So let's spend 10 minutes Googling shall we:

2003: 77 prosecutions for careless or reckless cycling; 82 for cycling on the footway and 166 for cycle lighting offences - total 325 (down from 6293 in 1982, so a fall of 95% in enforcement of cycling offences by court prosecution over twenty years)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_foi/documents/divisionhomepage/037550.hcsp

2003: 2.2million offences of speeding in motor vehicles prosecuted (up 44% on 2002). Of these 18% were prosecuted in Court and 81% by Fixed Penalty Notice.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0605.pdf

Aug-Dec 1999: 665 fixed penalty notices issued for cycling on the footway (29 in the Metropolitan Police area and 10 in the City of London Police area). Multiplied up that would be 1596 for the year (70 MPS and 24 City)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo001023/text/01023w10.htm

Taking these together, to estimate fixed penalty notices for cycling offences in 2003:

- if the percentage is assumed to be the same as for speeding offences: 1805

So that's 1805 cyclists prosecuted for manner of riding, riding on footways and lighting offences compared with 2.2million motorists prosecuted for speeding alone (and there are dozens of other offences which are prosecuted). A prosecution rate of ... er ... 1219 motorists for every single cyclist.

You're right! It is a vendetta!

Twat.

if you can't see the flaw in that "evidence" then you are a true dim-wit.

I guess the police just don;t hire people for their mathematical or statistical skills

 

[Major Tom]

correct. it's stupid to categorise people by how they get to work in the morning.

can we stop it please?

i agree entirely

i drive, i cycle and i walk - roughly in equal measures (not mileage, but in time).

Therefore when I'm regularly attacked for my cycling, but never for driving, i perceive a bias somewhere.

 

[Major Tom]

Where did I say I saw no problem with it?

I was using the statistic to question Major Tom's assertion that "quite a large number" of children are killed every week which the average reader would not perceive as meaning 1.48.

I note that you trot out the standard, knee-jerk "Speed kills" phrase. It is simplistic bollocks. Many of the children killed are killed by cars driving at an inappropriate speed within the speed limit. Read my previous posts if you want to know more.

I meant to say killed and injured. Besides, 1.48 per week (note the per week bit here) is a high number. BTW I'm not "the average reader", I'm in a profession where I actually have to use statistics in an accurate manner, not just to launder the truth.

 

[Major Tom]

I note that you trot out the standard, knee-jerk "Speed kills" phrase. It is simplistic bollocks. Many of the children killed are killed by cars driving at an inappropriate speed within the speed limit. Read my previous posts if you want to know more.

speed still kills, there is clear evidence that 30 mph limits in urban areas is entirely inappropriate, but of course local authorities, MoT etc. never dare take on the motorists' lobby.

 

[detective-boy]

because i don't agree with you?

No.

Because you're a twat.

If you actually argued your point competently then I would probably be agreeing with (at least some of) it

 

[detective-boy]

if you can't see the flaw in that "evidence" then you are a true dim-wit.

There are lots of flaws. It is is not intended to be other than a quick, broad brush evaluation of the issue in orders of magnitude. What "flaw" are you on about? And how would you even start to reconcile these statistics with your claimed victimisation of cyclists?

 

[detective-boy]

speed still kills, there is clear evidence that 30 mph limits in urban areas is entirely inappropriate, but of course local authorities, MoT etc. never dare take on the motorists' lobby.

So that will be why there are no ... er ... 20mph limits then.

Why are you so intent on basing your argument on blatantly incorrect statements when you could base them on loads of other things?

(Edited to add: I've wasted enough time on you now. You're on ignore)

 

[Major Tom]

No.

Because you're a twat.

If you actually argued your point competently then I would probably be agreeing with (at least some of) it

i take that as a complement you fucking tosser

 

[Major Tom]

So that will be why there are no ... er ... 20mph limits then.

Why are you so intent on basing your argument on blatantly incorrect statements when you could base them on loads of other things?

(Edited to add: I've wasted enough time on you now. You're on ignore)

you are a stooopid cunt then

why'd you even bother coming on this thread?

fuck off

 

[Major Tom]

So that will be why there are no ... er ... 20mph limits then.

Why are you so intent on basing your argument on blatantly incorrect statements when you could base them on loads of other things?

(Edited to add: I've wasted enough time on you now. You're on ignore)

well, you clearly are not interested in a debate - or hearing my answer.

This thread was supposed to be making what is a simple and obvious point - that cars are much more dangerous than bikes.

I wrote it in the way i did deliberately to provoke a response.

only detective-boy failed to understand what i was pointing out

anyway the fact remains - motor vehicles are more dangerous than cars, and cyclists are disappropriately targetted as scapegoats.

tosser-boy went some way to proving my point, even if he couldn't undertsand the point i was making, or even stick to the argument at hand.

oh well...time for bed