average speed checks. How they work?
- Thread starter kained&able
- Start date
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
detective-boy said:
Fair enough, but they do have the legal and technical framework (with the national ANPR data centre is fully operational) to do this.
The technical standards for ANPR that are used in both the public and private sector have have been converged over the last few years in anticipation of this (the same technology providers are selling to both markets anyhow) so I'd imagine the major obstacles remaining are obtaining commercial agreements with private companies.
They've already integrated ANPR tracking with the insurance companies' databases.
Probably not to the degree of being able to tell the difference bewteen car models, yet...cybertect said:
Anyhow, as you can clone from an identical vehicle it would be pretty pointless for that reason alone, you'd only catch the stupid ones
All this points to the difficulty of identifing a vehicle 100% reliably.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
cybertect said:
I forgot step three: electronically tagged number plates, coming soon to a Congestion Charge Zone near you...
The front end (the technical aspects of the ANPR cameras, etc.) and the back end (the databases to which the read number is then fed / stored / analysed / cross-cehcked) are very different.cybertect said:
As you say, there is no difference between private and public sector technical ability - it is the same technology, it is pretty good now (success rates well into 90%, even dealing with non-standard number plate fonts and spacing pretty well) and it is pretty affordable. But that's all it is, a bit of technology like, I don't know, an auto-focus or red-eye correction or something. On it's own the front end is entirely benign - so you drive past a camera which can read your number plate ... fine, if it doesn't do anything with what it reads there is no issue.
The back end is where there are political, operational, procedural, commercial and various other arguments to be had. The Data Protection Act restricts the gathering , storage and analysis of personal data (including registration numbers). Every system must be registered and, to be registered, must record it's aims. Every use of the data (including storage) must be consistent with the aims and the Information Commissioner will only register systems for which that applies. They also do some checking and enforcement (very little, unless generated from complaints) and there are criminal offences for misuse. Although there are national security / crime prevention exemptions, police and security services systems are not wholly exempt as a matter of course.
There IS compliance with the law as it stands by the police and other authorities and the Information Commissioner has forced changes in police practice in the past.
To bring all the different, seperately registered systems together will be very difficult. The Information Commissioner is involved in the debate and is likely to be a major stumbling block for all of the data from all the sources being kept for a full five years.
pembrokestephen
New Member
I was specifically informed by the Dyfed-Powys SCP that "photos were not for the purpose of identifying the driver", though I should point out that they also grievously misrepresented the registered keeper's responsibility in the same letter.pogofish said:
The "problem" I have is that it is not possible to tell from the image whether it is me or my partner driving, and since we both drove on that route on that day, it could have been either of us. But it's also quite a serious criminal offence to "knowingly or recklessly furnish false information", so, while I was happy to carry out their demand that I "nominate" a driver, I wasn't prepared to admit that it was me. This has now turned into a court case, which should be...interesting, since my solicitor is of the view that, although I "nominated" myself, they are still prosecuting me for failure to identify the driver, but rather interfered with my best efforts to determine who was driving by telling me I simply had to nominate someone.
All a bit of a mess. And it's only going to get worse, as ANPR and camera enforcement of road users spreads...
If you mean that "Insurance company databases are now linked with the Police National Computer, so that a check by police on a car number will immediately show up whether or not it has current insurance (and RFL and MOT as well), and police ANPR cameras are linked into the PNC, automatically carrying out these checks" then you are right.cybertect said:
If you mean that somehow an insurance company can track your car from day to day using the ANPR system, then source please. Because they can't.
pembrokestephen
New Member
Yeah, the blue "cameras" are part of the Trafficmaster scheme, and as far as I know, they're actually infra-red signallers that chat to Trafficmaster units in people's cars. All rather more benign.cybertect said:
Cheers, so the dark blue jobbies you can see in welsh villiages, sometimes two to a pole pointing slightly downwards, are counters, not cameras ?
That's good to know, even though it's mostly academic. Villiages or anywhere where you have people on foot are not the places for "making progress". At least I don't need to brake now when I see one ahead on the open road.
That's good to know, even though it's mostly academic. Villiages or anywhere where you have people on foot are not the places for "making progress". At least I don't need to brake now when I see one ahead on the open road.
s.172(2) Road Traffic Act 1988 requires a registered keeper to provide information required by the police if an offence (defined in s.172(1) and including speeding) is alleged to have been committed by the driver of that vehicle.pembrokestephen said:
s.172(3) makes it an offence not to provide such information.
But s.172(4) provides a defence if you can show that you did not know AND could not have ascertained with reasonable diligence who the driver of the vehicle was.
In the case of a company, pool or hire car, due diligence would be likely to include proper records of who had the vehicle at a particular time (i.e. a proper log book system or similar) and conviction would likely follow if the system was not good enough to provide the information. In the case of a shared domestic vehicle it is unlikely that the court would say you should keep log books, BUT the aim of the Notice of Intended Prosecution and the requirement that it is issued within 14 days is to enable you to think back a reasonable time and work out who was doing what. You may be able to rely on this defence but you'd have to convince the Court that you genuinely could not have been expected to work out which day was which 14 days after the event.
There is lots of case law in this case (Dwight Yorke established a loophole where he did not sign the forms nominating the driver, but that was rapidly closed by the Courts) and the Human Rights Act has also been (unsuccessfully) quoted in an attempt to get it overruled as a disproportionate breach of the right against self-incrimination (this failed on the basis that nomination of the driver did not incriminate in terms of the offence - that was a seperate matter (an argument I think probably still has some mileage in it - not particularly convinced by the distinction!).
The way those systems measure speeds (so that they can give people messages about delays without having a network of observers ringing in) was one of the first large scale uses of ANPR technology. They automatically read number plates of passing traffic and then read them again at another location down the motorway (they are on motorways and main routes where a large proportion of the traffic goes in straight lines rather that turning off in millions of different combinations) and work out how fast the traffic is moving by the time taken between the two points. In this they are identical to the way the Average Speed ANPR systems work. BUT they are not connected to any database, they do not issue penalties and they do not store information for any length time (for their purpose they only need it for long enough to make the calculation and they can then bin it).pembrokestephen said:
They came in way before enforcement use of ANPR technology because they worked well enough even with the 70% or so accuracy ANPR technology could deliver in those days. As long as SOME vehicles were read at each of the sites then the calculation could be made and as nothing else was done with the data, no-one was going to know about any error or have any issue with it.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
detective-boy said:
No, that was never my suggestion, just that the national database checks against Insurance records - which I know has already proven inconvenient for some people where their Insurance company's own data was incorrect.
detective-boy said:
The ACPO Guidance on Data Protection & RIPA for the Police the use of ANPR data (October 2004) does say
However, elsewhere in the same document, we find [their emphasis]
Subsequent lobbying and statements by ACPO and ministers seem to have resulted in the exception proving to be the rule, with retention has been extended to five years where it's stored in the National database.
It is going to be an interesting shake out whether different standards whether apply where the original source of the data was a private company, local authority or the police's own cameras but, TBH, I've seen little evidence of this in any public statements by either the government or the police.
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
detective-boy said:
Seems they may use photo evidence as well!
From another forum...
http://forums.dundeebikers.com/index.php?showtopic=3917&st=15
Mind you, I don't have a great deal of sympathy for the guy!
XerxesVargas
formerly MrMalcontent
My sister lives at the end of the hugely long set of average speed cameras on the west coast of Scotland - 60 odd miles i think.
She has the last two cameras between her tiny village and the nearest big town. Teh road goes up the coast and is quite twisty-turny. As a result nobody every gets done on that stretch because its almost impossible to average over 60. You can get over 60 on some sections but slowing down for the tight corners means that you average well below 60.
Of course the downside for my sister is that the road - the A77 is a major route for ferry traffic to N Ireland. So now everybody speeds up going through the village. Safety eh?
She has the last two cameras between her tiny village and the nearest big town. Teh road goes up the coast and is quite twisty-turny. As a result nobody every gets done on that stretch because its almost impossible to average over 60. You can get over 60 on some sections but slowing down for the tight corners means that you average well below 60.
Of course the downside for my sister is that the road - the A77 is a major route for ferry traffic to N Ireland. So now everybody speeds up going through the village. Safety eh?
You make the same mistake may critics of police and court practice and procedure make and you take quotations from seperate places in a document and quote the out of context.cybertect said:
The first quote - "Data should not be retained on the grounds that it might become of use for some other purpose at some future date. " - clearly comes from a section on general considerations and states the Data Protection law - retention MUST be in accordance with the aims of the system, it cannot be in case a better idea is thought of later.
The second quote - "The general rule is that ALL ANPR data should be retained." - comes from a section dealing with data gathered as part of a specific crime initiative. It means all data should be retained for two years (in the two sections - 90 days general access and the rest restricted). Part of the reason for this would be the requirements of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act which requires all material which MAY have a bearing on a criminal prosecution be retained and disclosed in case it is of use to the DEFENCE.
You are making a valid point about agencies pushing to extend the retention time periods. Don't undermine it by being tempted to make spurious arguments. For what it is worth I do not really see any need to keep data more than the 2 years mentioned - if we haven''t worked out it may be useful in that time then it probably won't be. If you use the "Well, it might ..." you might as well add EVERY data source everywhere.
That's always a possibility - just because the vast majority of prosecutions are done using number plates doesn't mean it's the only way (though "There are only three in the area and your's is the only one with stickers" would probably not be enough on it's own to prove beyond reasonable doubt - I'd be looking for at least five or six characteristics which match, preferably in terms of leathers / helmet as well as bike.)pogofish said:
Circumstantial evidence is just as valid as direct evidence in traffic prosecutions as in crime ones.
I'm not sure there has been any test case on the subject yet, but I would expect the Courts to restrict "average speed" enforcement to relatively short stretches (a mile or two), for purposes of jurisdiction of the various Courts as much as for anything else. It would also have to be in an area of single speed limit (otherwise which one did you break?) and with no alternative routes (though theoretically you could be charged with an offence of "within the such-and-such area I suspect the Courts would normally require a specific road to be named).MrMalcontent said:
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
detective-boy said:
Hmm. Forgive my naivety, but that sub-section is headed up under "10.4 General Crime ANPR Deployments" vs "10.1 Major Incident Records", "10.2 Crime Intelligence Data" and "10.3 National Security ANPR Deployments", all within the "Data Retention" section.
I was rather under the impression from all the press about it that ANPR deployment is itself a "General Crime initiative"...
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
detective-boy said:
The particular conditions & relative remoteness of large stretches of that road, coupled with a horrendous accident record which entailed regular huge & disruptive detours for ferry/local traffic as there is no easy alternative route (& no public road turn-offs) for big stretches of its length, meant that average cameras were intended to cover long stretches of it from the outset.
IIRC, you get averaged & re-averaged over several stages on the worst bits.
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
detective-boy said:
Indeed, I've known someone who tried to wiggle-out of a charge for a spectacular mainstreet wheelie & it eventually got whittled down to the lid, with his name (also address & phone number! He was a right poser
) painted on it as the deciding factor for conviction. XerxesVargas
formerly MrMalcontent
pogofish said:
On the A77 the ave speed catchment area is about 60 miles IIRC. Its the longest in the world.
Sorry just cehcked the BBC its - 46km stretch of the A77
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4397970.stm
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
Cobbles said:
An immense amount in the A77's case. Which TBH, it may not need, unless the traffic volume has risen a hell of a lot since I last used it regularly? It was still a major accident blackspot even then, despite it never actually seeming that busy.
Part of the problem is that much of it clings to the coast, which is mile upon mile of highly unstable boulder dropping cliffs. Dualing through that would need some masterful & costly engineering. Many of the accidents in the past have been because of rockfalls & folk going too fast to avoid debris, or hitting something when doing so. Not strictly because of the road itself.
I have to say, I wouldn't look forward to going its length nailed to the speed limit. in the early morning or with the sunset on one side of you, it could be an absolutely cracking road for the bike!
That's because the media haven't got a fucking clue what they're talking about. As I thought you understood, ANPR is a TECHNOLOGY. It can be used for any number of things (including access control, levy of parking charges and numerous other similar security-based applications.)cybertect said:I was rather under the impression from all the press about it that ANPR deployment is itself a "General Crime initiative"...
Thanks for the link. You'll notice the article mentions about 40 banks of cameras. I suspect that any offences are based on averages between adjacent sets of cameras, in relation to very much more defined piece of road than a 46km long one, though the road does appear to have many of the characteristics which may allow longer distances to be acceptable to the Courts (and in such a remote area may well all fall within the jurisdiction of a single Court).MrMalcontent said:
pembrokestephen
New Member
Yeah. I don't reckon they'd have been expecting to track people over the whole length in one segment, as that would have been a licence to do 130 over half of it, then stop for a nice cup of tea at the roadside...pogofish said:
Ich bin ein Mod
does his make up in his room
I'm sure I remember this from when it was brought in toopogofish said:
XerxesVargas
formerly MrMalcontent
pogofish said:An immense amount in the A77's case. Which TBH, it may not need, unless the traffic volume has risen a hell of a lot since I last used it regularly? It was still a major accident blackspot even then, despite it never actually seeming that busy.
Part of the problem is that much of it clings to the coast, which is mile upon mile of highly unstable boulder dropping cliffs. Dualing through that would need some masterful & costly engineering. Many of the accidents in the past have been because of rockfalls & folk going too fast to avoid debris, or hitting something when doing so. Not strictly because of the road itself.
I have to say, I wouldn't look forward to going its length nailed to the speed limit. in the early morning or with the sunset on one side of you, it could be an absolutely cracking road for the bike!
Vast stretches of it cant be dual carriageway - as you say - because there just isn't the room.
The real reason why it is such an accident black spot is not teh ferry traffic per se, though that does add significantly to the number, but local kids. With it being so remote there are, tragically, many, many cases of Fiesta XR2's (or the modern like) being wrapped around trees/dry stone walls when full of teenagers.
Actually the A77 is a lovely road to drive. And when you know it like the back of your hand its great fun. Though I still can't get over average 60 between Ballantrae and Girvan.
Detective_Boy said:
AFAIK its both. That is to say that it does take your average speed between the individual cameras, of which there are 40 sets, and obviously if you only go between two then it applies there. However, if you drive the whole 46 km stretch it will take an average speed over the whole 46 km.
