Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dublin DCC cameras will soon double up as "congestion charge" monitoring devices.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    DMC2005
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭DMC2005


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Thats why it would be so convenient for the corporation to use these same cameras for monitering traffic for congestion charges.

    Well it might do ... if any of them were in the city center. As far as I know they are all on motorways. But anyway the traffic cams in the city center wouldnt be of any use for a whole host of reasons including :

    1) They lack image quality needed
    2) There aren't enough of them.
    3) To dedicate them to congestion charge enforcement would mean they couldnt be used for traffic monitoing as they would need to be zoomed in to lanes all the time.
    4) They are too discreet - people wouldn't know where the congestion charge is

    I can't see any motivation to use them as congestion charge cameras. If this charge was introduced, a whole fleet of cameras would pay for themselves within weeks so the cost of the cameras would not be an issue. Anyway they would be looking at purchasing 100+ cameras to enforce the congestion charge. "Doubling up" the existing 10 would mean they only have to buy 90+ ... hardly much of a difference.

    So in conclusion..... This is a stupid theory.


  • Options
    #33
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    DMC2005 wrote: »
    Well it might do ... if any of them were in the city center. As far as I know they are all on motorways. But anyway the traffic cams in the city center wouldnt be of any use for a whole host of reasons including :

    1) They lack image quality needed
    2) There aren't enough of them.
    3) To dedicate them to congestion charge enforcement would mean they couldnt be used for traffic monitoing as they would need to be zoomed in to lanes all the time.
    4) They are too discreet - people wouldn't know where the congestion charge is

    I can't see any motivation to use them as congestion charge cameras. If this charge was introduced, a whole fleet of cameras would pay for themselves within weeks so the cost of the cameras would not be an issue. Anyway they would be looking at purchasing 100+ cameras to enforce the congestion charge. "Doubling up" the existing 10 would mean they only have to buy 90+ ... hardly much of a difference.

    So in conclusion..... This is a stupid theory.
    When the congestion charge is up and running there will be less traffic on the inner city road thus most of the inner city DCC cameras will be left idle and their operators who monitor them will be boared so they can count the licence plates of guzzling jeeps and MPVs to pass their time away :D

    I did say some of the DCC cameras will be passed over for this use. By operating a portion of them for ANPR purpses they can move them around so people could not familiar themselves with them to avoid the charge. Dont forget your toll bridge pass will also be compatible with parking meters, the port tunnel and various carparks so people will find it difficult to escape these charges because they will be traced through the city.


  • Options
    #34
    Dirty Dave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 111 ✭✭Dirty Dave


    STEVO B wrote: »
    Well the police can track your every move with your mobile phone anyway. Big Joe from the Naul will tell you all about it.

    So could Ian Huntley, but you are wrong about the police being able to track your every movement from it.

    The closest you can be tracked with your mobile is to the nearest cell you are registering off. Sometimes that can narrow down your location to within a couple of hundred metres at best. Sometimes. Most of the time, it wont be that accurate.

    And tracking the movements of a single person takes a shed load of time and effort with a good few people working on it. Thats why its only used to loosely track the movements of people who are under investigation for murder or other serious crimes.

    Thats why mobile phone companies cant tell you where your phone is if you lost it - far too much cost and effort involved.

    If it was as easy as you seem to think, mobile operators would offer a monthly subscription service for a price to help you locate it.

    Fone Finder! TM


  • Options
    #35
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    I worked for a haulage company once and we could track the movements ov every truck on the fleet in real time to within 5 Metres, anywhere in Europe.

    twas called Allegro IIRC, and it used mobiles


  • Options
    #36
    Dirty Dave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 111 ✭✭Dirty Dave


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    I worked for a haulage company once and we could track the movements ov every truck on the fleet in real time to within 5 Metres, anywhere in Europe.

    twas called Allegro IIRC, and it used mobiles

    Specific technology AFAIK - they use GPRS (from a mobile SIM card in the device) to send their signals but the actual devices themselves are what provide the telemetry. Similar I grant you, but telemetry from a mobile wouldnt be that accurate.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Even if he did jump the style he didn't deserve the death penalty.

    I think you may have missed my point...

    I meant that I hope you object to him being proven innocent because it was done through an invasion of his privacy...which you're completely against.
    The CCTV should also have proved his innocence but these were conveniently "switched off",
    There you go with those "clever" quotes again. Are you "suggesting" that they weren't switched off?
    just like all the Dublin city CCTV and CCM cameras will be when the cops are proven wrong in any incident.
    And yet amazingly, despite being able to manipulate such things, they were so stupid that they went and requested the very information in the de Menzies case that would show them to be at fault, and having found said evidence, they went and published it, letting the public know.

    These police are fiendishly clever, eh? They set things up so they can't be found at fault...then go and find themselves at fault using the very type of technology you complain will only be used against the common man. How devious.


  • Options
    #38
    DMC2005
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭DMC2005


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    When the congestion charge is up and running there will be less traffic on the inner city road thus most of the inner city DCC cameras will be left idle and their operators who monitor them will be boared

    Firstly on congestion charge system would work without using ANPR for at least 90% of cases. Secondly processing of these charges will most likely be handed over to a private operator. DCC will not be reading plates themselves.
    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    I did say some of the DCC cameras will be passed over for this use.

    All of them will - the private operatior will install their own.
    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    By operating a portion of them for ANPR purpses they can move them around so people could not familiar themselves with them to avoid the charge.

    Moving them around is a stupid idea. Just put cameras at every road which is an entry point to the congestion charge zone. Whats the advantage in having to move them around all the time? You think it would save money or something?


  • Options
    #39
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    DMC2005 wrote: »
    Whats the advantage in having to move them around all the time? You think it would save money or something?
    If people knew where these cameras were located they would be taking every known rat run around the city to avoid them.


  • Options
    #40
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    ...in which case (given that DMC stated they'd be at every road into the charged area) those people would be avoiding the congestion-charge area....which would mean that they would't be anywhere that mobile cameras would be able to charge them for either.


  • Options
    #41
    DMC2005
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭DMC2005


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    If people knew where these cameras were located they would be taking every known rat run around the city to avoid them.

    There would be cameras are on EVERY road into the congestion charge zone. If there is some small lane somewhere that could be used as a rat run, it gets turned into a cul de sac.

    Go see how many ways of avoiding the congestion charge you can find in London by using rat runs....


  • Advertisement
Advertisement