New cameras spot traffic offences

[super jumbe]

Drivers making banned turns or illegally using yellow-box junctions are liable to be caught out by remote cameras in a pioneering initiative by a borough council.

The first unattended CCTV enforcement system for moving traffic offences has been introduced by Redbridge council in east London.

The council said the scheme was working well, with "serious traffic contraventions" captured.

In use at four locations, the system has been designed by the Videalert company and can also catch drivers ignoring restricted access signs.

According to the company, its system combines video ****ytics and ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) detection to "capture more offences than can be achieved by traditional legacy solutions and will deliver a higher return on investment and compliance whilst increasing road safety wherever it is deployed".

It has been installed using an innovative capital expenditure neutral model, whereby all costs are recovered through the issuing of penalty charge notices (PCNs).

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/cameras-spot-traffic-offences-122353687.html#D8rmgZq

[M T Glass]

I'm just glad to see that they're fixed cameras, otherwise it would be easy to rotate one to peer into the window behind.

Big Bro.

[Meat-Head]

Err hang on, thought there was a thread/post that said counicls are not alloud to do this?

ask gastonj he is good at stuff like this

[super jumbe]

Nah kalipo very good on council matters!!!

[Meat-Head]

There is a yellow box outside b&q if you dont park in it you DO NOT get out onto the road. Yes its wrong, but like the clash should i stay or go!

[GastonJ]

I'm more interested in this quote

"capture more offences than can be achieved by traditional legacy solutions and will deliver a higher return on investment and compliance whilst increasing road safety wherever it is deployed".

Return on investment? So catching the motorist on camera is considered an investment now with a monitory return? and there was me thinking it should be about road safety, not how much more you can squeeze motorists for. The choice of words may be unfortunate but the message is quite clear for that council and the company "get more cameras, make more money, safety is secondary" *shrug*

[Meat-Head]

Off topic:-

bring back metal detector and dawg licenses

[Canker_Canison]

So these cameras. Are they like the one's from years ago that can read your tax disk?

The amount of idiots I heard swearing they were real... yet even now, many years later, we still don't have cameras that can read your tax disk.

Give me an air rifle & a box of pellets & I'll take care of those cameras.

[Meat-Head]

Yeah cant rember who but an offical bloke came in and said

quote

We put a box on the end camera, the roadworks stopped the traffic, got 32 untaxed cars

[rds60h]

I'm more interested in this quote



Return on investment? So catching the motorist on camera is considered an investment now with a monitory return? and there was me thinking it should be about road safety, not how much more you can squeeze motorists for. The choice of words may be unfortunate but the message is quite clear for that council and the company "get more cameras, make more money, safety is secondary" *shrug*

Any Councils buying and installing these cameras on that basis are breaking the law and would therefore render any PCN's issued void.
Because it is stated that the issuing of PCN's by Councils must be issued on a basis of safety and Not to increase income.