On 06/10/14 13:51, Bob Henson wrote:
Many
people will have to be employed to check the results and action them -
you can't just hurl court summonses at people because they apparently
drove a long way in a day according to an arbitrary computer algorithm.


you wont do that. Not worth it.
Only investigate the really stoopid one like a car being in London one
minute and Bradford the next. You KNOW summats up with that!


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 06/10/2014 6:17 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/10/14 13:51, Bob Henson wrote:
Many
people will have to be employed to check the results and action them -
you can't just hurl court summonses at people because they apparently
drove a long way in a day according to an arbitrary computer algorithm.


you wont do that. Not worth it.
Only investigate the really stoopid one like a car being in London one
minute and Bradford the next. You KNOW summats up with that!


Absolutely - but only if anyone notices, and I'm not sure that's very
likely.

--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.

"Bob Henson" wrote in message
...
On 06/10/2014 6:17 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/10/14 13:51, Bob Henson wrote:
Many
people will have to be employed to check the results and action them -
you can't just hurl court summonses at people because they apparently
drove a long way in a day according to an arbitrary computer algorithm.


you wont do that. Not worth it.
Only investigate the really stoopid one like a car being in London one
minute and Bradford the next. You KNOW summats up with that!

Absolutely - but only if anyone notices,

Someone is guaranteed to notice if you automate that noticing.

and I'm not sure that's very likely.

Its close to certain if its automated.

On 06/10/2014 18:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/10/14 13:51, Bob Henson wrote:
Many
people will have to be employed to check the results and action them -
you can't just hurl court summonses at people because they apparently
drove a long way in a day according to an arbitrary computer algorithm.


you wont do that. Not worth it.
Only investigate the really stoopid one like a car being in London one
minute and Bradford the next. You KNOW summats up with that!



Its the same technology as average speed cameras, you know the fastest
between two cameras so you can flag any that are too quick.

Also given that its almost impossible to get between two cities without
being ANPRed yo know that if two cars are seen in none adjacent areas
something is up.

If people actually knew how many cameras there are they would fit
revolving plates. 8-)

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 03/10/14 20:44, bert wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
Tim+ wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote:
My last road fund licence disc expired on 30th September, so there
was no
point in my keeping the tax disc holder in the windscreen after that.
However, although they are no longer required, I see more cars with tax
discs on than without. OOI, are there any here who have removed the tax
disk holder from their vehicles, even though the tax has not yet
expired?

Yep.
Tim

I'm keeping mine for ever.

Bill
I should hang on to it because you might need it again once they realise
just how easy it will be for any DIY number plate maker to avoid road
tax MOT and insurance.

Indeed. simply find a car that looks like yours and steal or duplicate
the plates


And SORN your own vehicle.
--
bert

In message , Bob Henson
writes
On 04/10/2014 3:17 PM, Jabba wrote:
Adrian wrote


On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 14:11:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I should hang on to it because you might need it again once they
realise just how easy it will be for any DIY number plate maker to
avoid road tax MOT and insurance.

Indeed. simply find a car that looks like yours and steal or duplicate
the plates

Because, obviously, a small round piece of paper is all that's been
stopping people from doing that for years.


Hundreds have been nicked for not showing it, when they have been taxed.
Some for sticking it on the wrong side of the windscreen.

Beer bottle labels used to be a good replacement if you lost one.


There used to be a requirement to display it on the nearside of the
windscreen within eight inches, I think, of the bottom corner. I got
told to move mine from the middle behind the mirror (I thought it was
safer out of my sight-line) by a copper in Manchester once, and actually
got a ticket issued by a Yellow Banded Vulture (now Blue banded) in
Malmesbury because mine had fallen off the windscreen. The car was brand
new, hence had to be taxed, and it was visible on the floor of the car
whence it had fallen, but I got done because it was not correctly
displayed. I sent the bill to the garage whose crap disc-holder had
fallen off the screen, and they refunded the fine. They were both a long
time ago, but I haven't heard that the law has changed.

Thinking back again, I was negotiating a five minute parking truce with
a Yellow Banded Vulture in Nottingham whilst I picked up a new, heavy
HiFi from a shop when he suddenly whipped out his pad and started
writing a ticket. I thought he had decided to book me, but he had
spotted a car driving past with no disc in the windscreen, noted the
number. and started issuing a ticket all in one movement. You have to
admire talent - even with a YBV.

I think that's a big difference. Under the new system the casual
observer whether traffic warden or joe public will not be able to spot
untaxed cars.
--
bert

In message . com,
"Dennis@home" writes
On 04/10/2014 19:24, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 18:29:51 +0100, Dennis@home wrote:

Yes, but none of this is the extra step required to work out if the
plate is appearing at places/times which would be impossible with only
one of them.

And, if it does, which one's the naughty one? Or are BOTH clones?

You issue a new number to the registered keeper

And if the RK doesn't want a new number? What if it's an expensive
private plate?


He can have it back latter.
PS he doesn't own the number, it can be taken back.
Wouldn't it be easier to check VIN
--
bert

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 20:17:02 +0100, Clive George wrote:

The missing step is automatically trawling the database looking
for clones.

You don't need to. When you do the look up you check when and
where the ANPR system last "saw" it. What you could do is
analyse the
times bewteen vehicles appearing on different cameras and build
a
"knowledge base" of how long it would normally take to get from
one camera to the ones within an area. Less than that time plus
a
margin, flag it as a possible clone.

What you're describing is automatically trawling the database
looking
for clones.

"trawling" to me is a separate process independant of the normal
lookup.

And that's almost certainly not done.

Quite likely, a waste of resources when you can do a simple
comparision during a normal look up and seta flag (and return the
result to the enquirer).

But it's the only way to pick up a cloned car if it's not otherwise
behaving suspiciously enough to trigger an individual lookup.

No you are missing the point. Every time a vehicle passes an ANPR
camera a lookup is done to see if it's a "wanted" vehicle, when that
look up is done the date/time/location information is stored against
that registration mark. Next look up on that registration compares
where "it" is now against when/where "it" was last seen. If the time
bewteen those two locations is too short to get between them
something "odd" is going on...

But for the average motorist going about their normal business how
frequently would they be clocked by an ANPR?
Snip


--
bert

In message ,
writes
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014 08:31:49 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

This no disc seems a strange way to proceed. If as we are all told, there
are many untaxed and uninsured people on the roads, a member of the public
could easily look at a vehicle and tell the authorities if it was expired.
Now however how would anyone know?

Brian

If such things really concerned somebody then looking at the vehicles
windows may produce more fruitful results than an easily swapped about
or forged paper disc.
One of the reasons for the change is that the not-easily forged tax disc
is expensive to produce. Also the reg number is written on the disc
While not universal many cars will have the
vehicle registration number etched on the Windows and if that differs
from the plates it may indicate that something is amiss. There can be
valid reasons for them to differ,heritage plate transfer,all windows
replaced from a reclamation source if vandals have smashed the
originals but it makes a starting point. OTOH unless you are directly
concerned like you have just been in a prang with such a vehicle you
could just ignore it and let the police and other agencies like the
DVLA do their job.
Members of the public constantly wanting to report others are a right
pain and tie up police time as they clog them up with petty things and
sometimes for retaliatory reasons like a fallout with neighbours or
the Inlaws.
if people want be a part time Police person then they can become a
special and have the proper resources behind them and a bit of
regulation around how they behave.

G.Harman
If it wasn't for the "part time police person" esp dog walkers lots of
crimes would never be resolved including finding the stolen world cup in
1996
--
bert

On 06/10/2014 20:27, bert wrote:
But for the average motorist going about their normal business how
frequently would they be clocked by an ANPR?
Snip


In my case, travelling by the main road route to work, *at least* twice
in the three miles.

If I were one of those commuting between where I live and the West End
of London, I lost count at about 15, if you include the speed and
traffic light cameras.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 06/10/2014 20:22, bert wrote:
In message . com,
"Dennis@home" writes
On 04/10/2014 19:24, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 18:29:51 +0100, Dennis@home wrote:

Yes, but none of this is the extra step required to work out if the
plate is appearing at places/times which would be impossible with
only
one of them.

And, if it does, which one's the naughty one? Or are BOTH clones?

You issue a new number to the registered keeper

And if the RK doesn't want a new number? What if it's an expensive
private plate?


He can have it back latter.
PS he doesn't own the number, it can be taken back.
Wouldn't it be easier to check VIN

I don't know how many laser scanners capable of reading the vin are
deployed.

In message , bert ]
writes
In message , Bob Henson
writes

Thinking back again, I was negotiating a five minute parking truce with
a Yellow Banded Vulture in Nottingham whilst I picked up a new, heavy
HiFi from a shop when he suddenly whipped out his pad and started
writing a ticket. I thought he had decided to book me, but he had
spotted a car driving past with no disc in the windscreen, noted the
number. and started issuing a ticket all in one movement. You have to
admire talent - even with a YBV.

I think that's a big difference. Under the new system the casual
observer whether traffic warden or joe public will not be able to spot
untaxed cars.

But seeing as the computer 'knows' whether a car is taxed or not anyway,
that doesn't really seem an issue.

--
Chris French

On 06/10/2014 20:40, bert wrote:
If it wasn't for the "part time police person" esp dog walkers lots of
crimes would never be resolved including finding the stolen world cup in
1996

Pickles and it was still gold.

--
Rod

On 06/10/2014 09:39, Bob Henson wrote:
....
We know that - OK, I should have said "had" changed - not "has" changed.
When anyone, as they regularly do, calls me a pedantic old sod, I'll
defer to you and tell them you are the real champion :-)

I do my best :-)


--
Colin Bignell

On 06/10/2014 20:19, bert wrote:
....
I think that's a big difference. Under the new system the casual
observer whether traffic warden or joe public will not be able to spot
untaxed cars.

The traffic warden will probably have a hand held ANPR device, so that
only leaves Joe Public, who probably wasn't a major source of
information anyway.


--
Colin Bignell

On 06/10/2014 20:27, bert wrote:
....
But for the average motorist going about their normal business how
frequently would they be clocked by an ANPR?
Snip

Every time I use the local supermarket car parks or at least one Council
owned car park. The Council uses ANPR to calculate the parking charge,
while the supermarkets use it to enforce their free parking periods. I
also have to enter my car registration to get a ticket in any local pay
and display car park, even one where the first hour is free. I have no
idea which, if any, of these might feed back to the national ANPR
database, but the potential is certainly there.

--
Colin Bignell

On 06/10/2014 22:35, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 06/10/2014 20:19, bert wrote:
....
I think that's a big difference. Under the new system the casual
observer whether traffic warden or joe public will not be able to spot
untaxed cars.

The traffic warden will probably have a hand held ANPR device, so that
only leaves Joe Public, who probably wasn't a major source of
information anyway.


I am somewhat surprised that something like a QR code hasn't yet been
pushed onto vehicles - e.g. the VIN plate or as an extra feature f a
numberplate. Then just about any smartphone could easily be used in this
sort of role.

--
Rod

On 06/10/2014 13:51, Bob Henson wrote:
....
With the number of cars on the road, are you sure they'll bother to
continuously monitor every car, 24 hours a day, every day of the week,
and get someone to check and action the results? The computer can be set
to follow certain criteria as to whether or not the car could have been
in the places the cameras say on the same day or at the same time. Many
people will have to be employed to check the results and action them -
you can't just hurl court summonses at people because they apparently
drove a long way in a day according to an arbitrary computer algorithm.
Well, you could, but they won't. There aren't even any cameras round
here anyway - if you stay off the motorway, they'd probably never find
you anyway.

Looking at the ACPO guidelines on ANPR use, the minimum data passed to
the national database is the registration, a digital image of it, the
time, date, location, GPS coordinates, the Police force identification
and the name of the camera. Optional data are the direction of travel
and an overview image, which could be used to identify the make, model,
colour and taxation class of the vehicle. What individual forces do with
that data is largely left up to them and seems to depend upon what
resources they choose to allocate.

However, this 2008 BBC news article suggests that ANPR is good enough at
spotting false plates for crooks to have started using foreign plates:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7247794.stm


--
Colin Bignell

On Mon, 6 Oct 2014 20:40:12 +0100, bert ] wrote:

In message ,
writes
OTOH unless you are directly
concerned like you have just been in a prang with such a vehicle you
could just ignore it and let the police and other agencies like the
DVLA do their job.

if people want be a part time Police person then they can become a
special and have the proper resources behind them and a bit of
regulation around how they behave.

G.Harman
If it wasn't for the "part time police person" esp dog walkers lots of
crimes would never be resolved including finding the stolen world cup in
1996

An accidental find ISTR, not any different than reporting suspicious
items found thrown over a wall into the garden which you report to the
police who then find they were stolen.
I don't know any dog walkers who encourage their pets to do trained
searching on command like working dogs involved with drugs/explosives
and the various tasks a trained Police dog with handler can undertake
just so they can behave like vigilantes and get a feel good factor.
Amateur sleuths are best left to the fantasies of books ,radio and TV.

G.Harman

In message , polygonum
writes
On 06/10/2014 22:35, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 06/10/2014 20:19, bert wrote:
....
I think that's a big difference. Under the new system the casual
observer whether traffic warden or joe public will not be able to spot
untaxed cars.

The traffic warden will probably have a hand held ANPR device, so that
only leaves Joe Public, who probably wasn't a major source of
information anyway.


I am somewhat surprised that something like a QR code hasn't yet been
pushed onto vehicles - e.g. the VIN plate or as an extra feature f a
numberplate. Then just about any smartphone could easily be used in
this sort of role.

I imagine that a smartphone would have no problem in running an ANPR app
anyway.


--
Chris French

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Bob Henson
writes
On 04/10/2014 3:17 PM, Jabba wrote:
Adrian wrote


On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 14:11:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I should hang on to it because you might need it again once they
realise just how easy it will be for any DIY number plate maker to
avoid road tax MOT and insurance.

Indeed. simply find a car that looks like yours and steal or duplicate
the plates

Because, obviously, a small round piece of paper is all that's been
stopping people from doing that for years.


Hundreds have been nicked for not showing it, when they have been taxed.
Some for sticking it on the wrong side of the windscreen.

Beer bottle labels used to be a good replacement if you lost one.


There used to be a requirement to display it on the nearside of the
windscreen within eight inches, I think, of the bottom corner. I got
told to move mine from the middle behind the mirror (I thought it was
safer out of my sight-line) by a copper in Manchester once, and actually
got a ticket issued by a Yellow Banded Vulture (now Blue banded) in
Malmesbury because mine had fallen off the windscreen. The car was brand
new, hence had to be taxed, and it was visible on the floor of the car
whence it had fallen, but I got done because it was not correctly
displayed. I sent the bill to the garage whose crap disc-holder had
fallen off the screen, and they refunded the fine. They were both a long
time ago, but I haven't heard that the law has changed.

Thinking back again, I was negotiating a five minute parking truce with
a Yellow Banded Vulture in Nottingham whilst I picked up a new, heavy
HiFi from a shop when he suddenly whipped out his pad and started
writing a ticket. I thought he had decided to book me, but he had
spotted a car driving past with no disc in the windscreen, noted the
number. and started issuing a ticket all in one movement. You have to
admire talent - even with a YBV.

I think that's a big difference. Under the new system the casual observer
whether traffic warden or joe public will not be able to spot untaxed
cars.

But the ones likely to do anything about it have a MUCH
better system which scans all the number plates as they
drive around and raises an alarm when it finds one that
isnt currently taxed.

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message . com,
"Dennis@home" writes
On 04/10/2014 19:24, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 18:29:51 +0100, Dennis@home wrote:

Yes, but none of this is the extra step required to work out if the
plate is appearing at places/times which would be impossible with
only
one of them.

And, if it does, which one's the naughty one? Or are BOTH clones?

You issue a new number to the registered keeper

And if the RK doesn't want a new number? What if it's an expensive
private plate?


He can have it back latter.
PS he doesn't own the number, it can be taken back.
Wouldn't it be easier to check VIN

Nope, that can't be trivially checked when driving passed
the car with a suitably equipped car. That's in all the cop
cars in some jurisdictions now.

On 06/10/2014 22:55, polygonum wrote:
On 06/10/2014 22:35, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 06/10/2014 20:19, bert wrote:
....
I think that's a big difference. Under the new system the casual
observer whether traffic warden or joe public will not be able to spot
untaxed cars.

The traffic warden will probably have a hand held ANPR device, so that
only leaves Joe Public, who probably wasn't a major source of
information anyway.


I am somewhat surprised that something like a QR code hasn't yet been
pushed onto vehicles - e.g. the VIN plate or as an extra feature f a
numberplate. Then just about any smartphone could easily be used in this
sort of role.

Isn't the OCR for a numberplate within what a smartphone can do? Or send
the picture off to somewhere central to be OCR'd. No need for QR codes,
which have the disadvantage of not being human readable.

On 06/10/14 22:16, Chris French wrote:
In message , bert ] writes
In message , Bob Henson
writes

Thinking back again, I was negotiating a five minute parking truce with
a Yellow Banded Vulture in Nottingham whilst I picked up a new, heavy
HiFi from a shop when he suddenly whipped out his pad and started
writing a ticket. I thought he had decided to book me, but he had
spotted a car driving past with no disc in the windscreen, noted the
number. and started issuing a ticket all in one movement. You have to
admire talent - even with a YBV.

I think that's a big difference. Under the new system the casual
observer whether traffic warden or joe public will not be able to spot
untaxed cars.

But seeing as the computer 'knows' whether a car is taxed or not anyway,
that doesn't really seem an issue.


I can see at least 3-4 cars a day on my short drive that have a busted
headlight. So can everyone else. Doesn't seem to stop them though.

On 06/10/2014 20:27, bert wrote:
In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 20:17:02 +0100, Clive George wrote:

The missing step is automatically trawling the database looking
for clones.

You don't need to. When you do the look up you check when and
where the ANPR system last "saw" it. What you could do is
analyse the
times bewteen vehicles appearing on different cameras and build
a
"knowledge base" of how long it would normally take to get from
one camera to the ones within an area. Less than that time plus
a
margin, flag it as a possible clone.

What you're describing is automatically trawling the database
looking
for clones.

"trawling" to me is a separate process independant of the normal
lookup.

And that's almost certainly not done.

Quite likely, a waste of resources when you can do a simple
comparision during a normal look up and seta flag (and return the
result to the enquirer).

But it's the only way to pick up a cloned car if it's not otherwise
behaving suspiciously enough to trigger an individual lookup.

No you are missing the point. Every time a vehicle passes an ANPR
camera a lookup is done to see if it's a "wanted" vehicle, when that
look up is done the date/time/location information is stored against
that registration mark. Next look up on that registration compares
where "it" is now against when/where "it" was last seen. If the time
bewteen those two locations is too short to get between them
something "odd" is going on...

But for the average motorist going about their normal business how
frequently would they be clocked by an ANPR?
Snip


The ANPR cameras in Medway 'read' 220,000,000 plates a year. Population
around 280,000.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 07/10/2014 08:03, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 06/10/2014 20:27, bert wrote:
In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 20:17:02 +0100, Clive George wrote:

The missing step is automatically trawling the database looking
for clones.

You don't need to. When you do the look up you check when and
where the ANPR system last "saw" it. What you could do is
analyse the
times bewteen vehicles appearing on different cameras and build
a
"knowledge base" of how long it would normally take to get from
one camera to the ones within an area. Less than that time plus
a
margin, flag it as a possible clone.

What you're describing is automatically trawling the database
looking
for clones.

"trawling" to me is a separate process independant of the normal
lookup.

And that's almost certainly not done.

Quite likely, a waste of resources when you can do a simple
comparision during a normal look up and seta flag (and return the
result to the enquirer).

But it's the only way to pick up a cloned car if it's not otherwise
behaving suspiciously enough to trigger an individual lookup.

No you are missing the point. Every time a vehicle passes an ANPR
camera a lookup is done to see if it's a "wanted" vehicle, when that
look up is done the date/time/location information is stored against
that registration mark. Next look up on that registration compares
where "it" is now against when/where "it" was last seen. If the time
bewteen those two locations is too short to get between them
something "odd" is going on...

But for the average motorist going about their normal business how
frequently would they be clocked by an ANPR?
Snip


The ANPR cameras in Medway 'read' 220,000,000 plates a year. Population
around 280,000.

Sorry "Kent" not Medway, pop 1,466,500.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 06/10/2014 22:55, polygonum wrote:
On 06/10/2014 22:35, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 06/10/2014 20:19, bert wrote:
....
I think that's a big difference. Under the new system the casual
observer whether traffic warden or joe public will not be able to spot
untaxed cars.

The traffic warden will probably have a hand held ANPR device, so that
only leaves Joe Public, who probably wasn't a major source of
information anyway.


I am somewhat surprised that something like a QR code hasn't yet been
pushed onto vehicles - e.g. the VIN plate or as an extra feature f a
numberplate. Then just about any smartphone could easily be used in this
sort of role.


There has been a requirement for the VIN to be visible for a few years
now. Its normally on a bar code on the dash and can be read with a
suitable scanner.

On 06/10/2014 23:19, wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014 20:40:12 +0100, bert ] wrote:

In message ,
writes
OTOH unless you are directly
concerned like you have just been in a prang with such a vehicle you
could just ignore it and let the police and other agencies like the
DVLA do their job.

if people want be a part time Police person then they can become a
special and have the proper resources behind them and a bit of
regulation around how they behave.

G.Harman
If it wasn't for the "part time police person" esp dog walkers lots of
crimes would never be resolved including finding the stolen world cup in
1996

An accidental find ISTR, not any different than reporting suspicious
items found thrown over a wall into the garden which you report to the
police who then find they were stolen.
I don't know any dog walkers who encourage their pets to do trained
searching on command like working dogs involved with drugs/explosives
and the various tasks a trained Police dog with handler can undertake
just so they can behave like vigilantes and get a feel good factor.
Amateur sleuths are best left to the fantasies of books ,radio and TV.

G.Harman


Seems neither the police, nor the dog walkers, nor the dogs, nor the
amateur sleuths, noticed a corpse hanging from a tree for several days
in a West London park

On 07/10/2014 07:06, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/10/14 22:16, Chris French wrote:
In message , bert ]
writes
In message , Bob Henson
writes

Thinking back again, I was negotiating a five minute parking truce with
a Yellow Banded Vulture in Nottingham whilst I picked up a new, heavy
HiFi from a shop when he suddenly whipped out his pad and started
writing a ticket. I thought he had decided to book me, but he had
spotted a car driving past with no disc in the windscreen, noted the
number. and started issuing a ticket all in one movement. You have to
admire talent - even with a YBV.

I think that's a big difference. Under the new system the casual
observer whether traffic warden or joe public will not be able to spot
untaxed cars.

But seeing as the computer 'knows' whether a car is taxed or not anyway,
that doesn't really seem an issue.


I can see at least 3-4 cars a day on my short drive that have a busted
headlight. So can everyone else. Doesn't seem to stop them though.

That will be the Yodel directors on their way to a board meeting

On Mon, 6 Oct 2014 20:27:23 +0100, bert wrote:


But for the average motorist going about their normal business how
frequently would they be clocked by an ANPR?

Almost certainly depends on where you are. AFAIK the last probably
time I was on ANPR would have been Saturday evening passing through
Hexham. I don't think there are any between Hexham and here or any
within 20 miles of here but then they don't have to be very big and
obvious. Just look at the ones at car park entrances, very discrete.

Some one mentioned ANPR on traffic lights, hum nearest traffic
lights? They'll be on the temporary(*) Bailey Bridge over the River
Eden at Langwathby, 10+ miles away. After those the next sets will at
the 20+ miles distance again. Ah no I expect there will be ANPR on
the A69 around Brampton thats only about 15 miles away, the next
nearest lights will be in Brampton as well.

(*) FSVO of "temporary" it's been there since a flood in 1968 took
out the stone arch bridge.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 07/10/2014 10:18, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014 20:27:23 +0100, bert wrote:


But for the average motorist going about their normal business how
frequently would they be clocked by an ANPR?

Almost certainly depends on where you are. AFAIK the last probably
time I was on ANPR would have been Saturday evening passing through
Hexham. I don't think there are any between Hexham and here or any
within 20 miles of here but then they don't have to be very big and
obvious. Just look at the ones at car park entrances, very discrete.

Some one mentioned ANPR on traffic lights, hum nearest traffic
lights? They'll be on the temporary(*) Bailey Bridge over the River
Eden at Langwathby, 10+ miles away. After those the next sets will at
the 20+ miles distance again. Ah no I expect there will be ANPR on
the A69 around Brampton thats only about 15 miles away, the next
nearest lights will be in Brampton as well.

(*) FSVO of "temporary" it's been there since a flood in 1968 took
out the stone arch bridge.


The temporary bridge over the Thames at Walton was built in 1953 and is
still there today, although road traffic uses a new bridge, built in 1999.

--
Colin Bignell

On 07/10/2014 10:06, stuart noble wrote:
....
Seems neither the police, nor the dog walkers, nor the dogs, nor the
amateur sleuths, noticed a corpse hanging from a tree for several days
in a West London park

They probably thought it was a Damien Hirst art installation.

--
Colin Bignell

On 05/10/2014 22:51, Clive George wrote:
On 05/10/2014 21:56, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 20:17:02 +0100, Clive George wrote:

The missing step is automatically trawling the database looking
for clones.

You don't need to. When you do the look up you check when and
where the ANPR system last "saw" it. What you could do is
analyse the
times bewteen vehicles appearing on different cameras and build
a
"knowledge base" of how long it would normally take to get from
one camera to the ones within an area. Less than that time plus
a
margin, flag it as a possible clone.

What you're describing is automatically trawling the database
looking
for clones.

"trawling" to me is a separate process independant of the normal
lookup.

And that's almost certainly not done.

Quite likely, a waste of resources when you can do a simple
comparision during a normal look up and seta flag (and return the
result to the enquirer).

But it's the only way to pick up a cloned car if it's not otherwise
behaving suspiciously enough to trigger an individual lookup.

No you are missing the point.

No, I really am not.

Every time a vehicle passes an ANPR
camera a lookup is done to see if it's a "wanted" vehicle, when that
look up is done the date/time/location information is stored against
that registration mark. Next look up on that registration compares
where "it" is now against when/where "it" was last seen. If the time
bewteen those two locations is too short to get between them
something "odd" is going on...

Yes - and working out if the time between the locations is too short is
the trawling I'm talking about. And I don't believe that's done. It can
be done manually when a car is flagged up for some other reason - and
people have mentioned examples earlier in this thread.

What's not done is automatically working it out, and adding it to the
"wanted" list as a result.

As with all these things, since the data are there and available, its
only a matter of time before requirements creep ensures that the mining
exercise is done.

People often get worried about the data kept on them, when in many cases
the meta data relating to it actually have more sinister uses that the
data themselves.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 06/10/2014 09:34, Bob Henson wrote:
On 05/10/2014 10:51 PM, Clive George wrote:
On 05/10/2014 21:56, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 20:17:02 +0100, Clive George wrote:

The missing step is automatically trawling the database looking
for clones.

You don't need to. When you do the look up you check when and
where the ANPR system last "saw" it. What you could do is
analyse the
times bewteen vehicles appearing on different cameras and build
a
"knowledge base" of how long it would normally take to get from
one camera to the ones within an area. Less than that time plus
a
margin, flag it as a possible clone.

What you're describing is automatically trawling the database
looking
for clones.

"trawling" to me is a separate process independant of the normal
lookup.

And that's almost certainly not done.

Quite likely, a waste of resources when you can do a simple
comparision during a normal look up and seta flag (and return the
result to the enquirer).

But it's the only way to pick up a cloned car if it's not otherwise
behaving suspiciously enough to trigger an individual lookup.

No you are missing the point.

No, I really am not.

Every time a vehicle passes an ANPR
camera a lookup is done to see if it's a "wanted" vehicle, when that
look up is done the date/time/location information is stored against
that registration mark. Next look up on that registration compares
where "it" is now against when/where "it" was last seen. If the time
bewteen those two locations is too short to get between them
something "odd" is going on...

Yes - and working out if the time between the locations is too short is
the trawling I'm talking about. And I don't believe that's done. It can
be done manually when a car is flagged up for some other reason - and
people have mentioned examples earlier in this thread.

What's not done is automatically working it out, and adding it to the
"wanted" list as a result.



I think you are correct, but may not be for long. The time and resources
taken to correlate all references to one number would have been so
great that, as you suggest, it would surely never have been done,
unless for, say, a specific police request. Now it would appear there
may be a very easy way to cheat the tax system, I wonder if they will
have to reconsider anyway? On the other hand it may still be too
expensive an undertaking - but if they don't do it, tax evasion may
rocket up.

The ability to cheat the system has not changed - the paper disc was of
relatively little use as a mechanism of bulk enforcement.

The enforcement mechanism really boils down to, if you have a car it
must be taxed (or SORNed) - no further enquiry needed.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 06/10/2014 12:46, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/10/14 12:13, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

I don't think ANPR is involved with catching VED evaders - as you must
either have VED or SORN the vehicle, any vehicle that is un-SORNed and
has no current VED is guilty - it does not have to "be caught on the
public road" like the old days...

THough ANPR will catch those who have declared SORN, but use the car on
the roads anyway, which amounts to evading VED.


That is true -

Unless it catches SORNed vehicles being transported on a trailer etc...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
Nightjar \cpb\@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 07/10/2014 10:18, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014 20:27:23 +0100, bert wrote:


But for the average motorist going about their normal business how
frequently would they be clocked by an ANPR?

Almost certainly depends on where you are. AFAIK the last probably
time I was on ANPR would have been Saturday evening passing through
Hexham. I don't think there are any between Hexham and here or any
within 20 miles of here but then they don't have to be very big and
obvious. Just look at the ones at car park entrances, very discrete.

Some one mentioned ANPR on traffic lights, hum nearest traffic
lights? They'll be on the temporary(*) Bailey Bridge over the River
Eden at Langwathby, 10+ miles away. After those the next sets will at
the 20+ miles distance again. Ah no I expect there will be ANPR on
the A69 around Brampton thats only about 15 miles away, the next
nearest lights will be in Brampton as well.

(*) FSVO of "temporary" it's been there since a flood in 1968 took
out the stone arch bridge.


The temporary bridge over the Thames at Walton was built in 1953 and is
still there today, although road traffic uses a new bridge, built in 1999.

actually, the current bridge was only opened last summer (July 2013) and
the old bridges have now gone.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 07/10/2014 15:30, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar \cpb\@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 07/10/2014 10:18, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014 20:27:23 +0100, bert wrote:


But for the average motorist going about their normal business how
frequently would they be clocked by an ANPR?

Almost certainly depends on where you are. AFAIK the last probably
time I was on ANPR would have been Saturday evening passing through
Hexham. I don't think there are any between Hexham and here or any
within 20 miles of here but then they don't have to be very big and
obvious. Just look at the ones at car park entrances, very discrete.

Some one mentioned ANPR on traffic lights, hum nearest traffic
lights? They'll be on the temporary(*) Bailey Bridge over the River
Eden at Langwathby, 10+ miles away. After those the next sets will at
the 20+ miles distance again. Ah no I expect there will be ANPR on
the A69 around Brampton thats only about 15 miles away, the next
nearest lights will be in Brampton as well.

(*) FSVO of "temporary" it's been there since a flood in 1968 took
out the stone arch bridge.


The temporary bridge over the Thames at Walton was built in 1953 and is
still there today, although road traffic uses a new bridge, built in 1999.

actually, the current bridge was only opened last summer (July 2013) and
the old bridges have now gone.

I am sure I recall driving over a new bridge next to the girder bridge,
although I haven't been that way for a while now. Has that been replaced
as well? Nevertheless, my point remains that the 'temporary' girder
bridge lasted the best part of 60 years.

--
Colin Bignell

In article , Nightjar
\cpb\@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 07/10/2014 15:30, charles wrote:
In article , Nightjar
\cpb\@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 07/10/2014 10:18, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014 20:27:23 +0100, bert wrote:


But for the average motorist going about their normal business how
frequently would they be clocked by an ANPR?

Almost certainly depends on where you are. AFAIK the last probably
time I was on ANPR would have been Saturday evening passing through
Hexham. I don't think there are any between Hexham and here or any
within 20 miles of here but then they don't have to be very big and
obvious. Just look at the ones at car park entrances, very discrete.

Some one mentioned ANPR on traffic lights, hum nearest traffic
lights? They'll be on the temporary(*) Bailey Bridge over the River
Eden at Langwathby, 10+ miles away. After those the next sets will at
the 20+ miles distance again. Ah no I expect there will be ANPR on
the A69 around Brampton thats only about 15 miles away, the next
nearest lights will be in Brampton as well.

(*) FSVO of "temporary" it's been there since a flood in 1968 took
out the stone arch bridge.


The temporary bridge over the Thames at Walton was built in 1953 and
is still there today, although road traffic uses a new bridge, built
in 1999.

actually, the current bridge was only opened last summer (July 2013)
and the old bridges have now gone.

I am sure I recall driving over a new bridge next to the girder bridge,
although I haven't been that way for a while now. Has that been replaced
as well? Nevertheless, my point remains that the 'temporary' girder
bridge lasted the best part of 60 years.

Look at wiki for the whole story

income tax was a temporary thing to pay for the Napoleonic War.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In message om
"Dennis@home" wrote:


[snip]



There has been a requirement for the VIN to be visible for a few years
now. Its normally on a bar code on the dash and can be read with a
suitable scanner.

It might well be a requirement, but Fiat group still persist in putting
the vehicle ident in the boot.
Punto, 500, Panda and Chrysler/Lancia Ypsilon to name but a few.

--
Jim White
Wimbledon London England

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 15:10:11 +0100, "Nightjar wrote:

Some one mentioned ANPR on traffic lights, hum nearest traffic
lights? They'll be on the temporary(*) Bailey Bridge over the
River
Eden at Langwathby, 10+ miles away. After those the next sets will
at
the 20+ miles distance again. Ah no I expect there will be ANPR on
the A69 around Brampton thats only about 15 miles away, the next
nearest lights will be in Brampton as well.

(*) FSVO of "temporary" it's been there since a flood in 1968 took
out the stone arch bridge.

The temporary bridge over the Thames at Walton was built in 1953 and is
still there today, although road traffic uses a new bridge, built in
1999.

Wiki says both old bridges (Nos.4 and 5) where removed by Nov 13.
AFAICT from the wiki that there hasn't been an occasion since the
completion of bridge 3 (1864) when there hasn't been a functional
bridge there. War damage and weight restrictions brought on the
construction of the 4th, the poor quality 5th, got the current and
now only 6th bridge constructed.

When the flood on the 23rd March 1968 took out the old stone bridge
at Langwathby there was no crossing there until the "temporary"
bridge opened on the 31st May 1968. It is also only a single carriage
way, hence the traffic lights.

The floods in Jan 2005 had another good try at taking the bridge out
as well but had to be statisfied with just under mining the road on
the Penrith side:

http://www.howhill.com/weather/view....2005&m=01&d=08

--
Cheers
Dave.