Safe Speed Forums

Camera van details are to remain secret

I thought the guidlines say they have to publish mobile camera locations


http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.605686.0.camera_van_details_are_to_remain_secret.php

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

The location is public. They just don't want to say how much money is made in fines there.
On which basis they've told the press where to put their FOI request. Pretty lame excuse I think. If they weren't pinging loads there they wouldn't need to worry about compromising the "operational effectiveness" of the site because they wouldn't keep going back there. I think we can infer from that that they're making a shitload.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Whilst, as a car driving resident of the Thames Valley area, I'd be only too happy to put the boot into the TVSRP, in all fairness they DO publish their talivan locations (http://www.saferroads.org/DisplayPage.asp?pageid=14). And that isn't what this article is about anyway...

I think somebody needs to challenge this one, as they are all trying to use it to stop any information about real numbers being released. Section 31 is intended to prevent the release of information that would prejudice law enforcement, etc. There is a mention of prejudice of "the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2)", where subsection 2 gives a set of scenarios, the one I think they are trying to use is "the purpose of ascertaining a person's fitness or competence in relation to the management of bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other activity which he is, or seeks to become, authorised to carry on".

Basically we are not allow to get Revenue and Fine Information, or related stuff like "What percentage of speeding offences that you detect are successfully prosecuted", because by releasing that information we could use to determine the fitness of the SCP and its management to do its job. Such high-level numbers certainly can have nothing to do with individual prosecutions, so cannot prejudice them, so it has to be something about their performance.

I'd consider that a fairly safe bet, yes... Look at that photo in the article - a classic example of TVP talivanning. Oh suuuuuuuuuure, the van might be parked in a nice visible spot (no hiding in the bushes a la CSCP), but they haven't exactly gone out of their way to make the police markings visible. Approaching the van from the rear, the unsuspecting motorist will see nothing more threatening than a small white van. It's not until you get pretty damned close to the rear end that you'll be able to make out the microscopically small "Police" legend just above each of the rear windows (I've walked past one of these small talivans, and I had to get to within about 10m before I could make out what the words actually were on the rear doors).

And then there's the location - "the mobile speed camera is placed on the uphill carriageway, yards from where the speed limit changes from 30mph to 40."... So, rather than looking to catch people heading the other way who aren't slowing down for the entry into the 30 limit, they're out to catch people who accelerate just a few seconds too soon whilst entering the 40 limit. Now, whilst it is technically illegal to exceed the 30 limit until you've passed the 40 limit sign (*), it's surely entirely against the spirit of the law to be scamming people who may very well have been sticking to the 30 limit like saints everywhere else, and who have only exceeded it because they can clearly see that they're just a few seconds away from entering a higher limit.



* hmm, as an aside here, when is a vehicle classed as having entered the new limit? Could you be done for speeding if you started accelerating as soon as your front bumper passes the higher limit sign, so that the rear portion of your vehicle which has still to pass the sign is exceeding the lower limit you're in the process of leaving?

I know this location very well - it's not far from family.

Placing the van facing uphill can only be for revenue - it's a dual carriageway, with a hospital entrance on the opposite side but not accessible from the uphill carriageway. It's on the way out of town, and it looks like the van is parked by the girls' school old gates in which case I can't ever recall their being an RTC in that area. The genuinely dangerous part is on the opposite carriageway which is where a multiple mini roundabout awaits people who have been doing 50/60 downhill from the M40.

I would certainly never choose that location to enforce.

So of cource, the SCP won't want to say how many fines generated, it's probably the biggest money earner on their patch.

I missed that bit. I just scanned the article and assumed the scammers would set up on the downhill side where the gradient makes it easy to go over. Mind you, if it's the hill I'm thinking of the slope makes it easy for them on either side. Certainly against the spirit of the law like you say. Any idea what the crash history is there?

Edit: from Cotswold's comments while I was typing it's exactly where I thought it was.


Not surprised.

Another edit: just heard about someone in my wife's office getting pinged by this lot. Climbing the hill up to the 40 zone, got pinged at 38... but unfortunately still in the 30 bit at the time. It really does make a mockery of it all.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein