Low Emission Zone (LEZ) Options

[Mick]

The London Low Emission Zone (using ANPR) goes live next month.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/lez/default.aspx

It is just me or have TfL been a little quiet in the implementation of this ?

Incidentally, you an check to see if your vehicle is OK or not, here -

http://lezlondon.tfl.gov.uk/lez/vehicles/default.aspx

[Ilkie]

The London Low Emission Zone (using ANPR) goes live next month.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/lez/default.aspx

It is just me or have TfL been a little quiet in the implementation of this ?

Incidentally, you an check to see if your vehicle is OK or not, here -

http://lezlondon.tfl.gov.uk/lez/vehicles/default.aspx

Tell me about it, I have just taken delivery of a new cherry picker and will have to scap a perfectly good one, all with 6 months notice.

Consultation: none.

Still, we all know who will end up paying the resulting increased costs!

Ilkie

[Doktor Jon]

Thanks for posting the links Mick, and a very Happy New Year to you BTW (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) .... and Ilkie (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

There was actually a piece about this on the BBC TV news earlier today, and I won't repeat my exact comments at the time, but suffice to say that the assertion that the LEZ is being introduced purely as a means of reducing the environmental impact of engine emissions, is really about as likely as me being made a Dame in the next Queens birthday honours list (IMG:style_emoticons/default/no.gif)

If the mayor simply wanted to reduce carbon exhaust emissions from vehicles already driving through London, then there are far more obvious and sensible ways to do that, without introducing yet another tax which will invariably impact on the economy of London (IMG:style_emoticons/default/furious.gif)

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner ....

Oh well, roll on the next expansion of the congestion charge zone .... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wallbash.gif)

Actually just a thought, but does anybody know just how many ANPR cameras there are in London now?

[Mick]

................................
Actually just a thought, but does anybody know just how many ANPR cameras there are in London now?

Interesting question DJ !

The short answer is (just like the PSS CCTV cameras in London) - Lots know a little bit, BUT No One Really Knows The Full SP.

With so many stakeholders involved - MPS / BTP / CoLP / TfL / local authorities / H.A. / the private sector (and now the ODA coming into the picture) perhaps I could respond with another question ?

Who's responsibility should it be, to collect and then keep such information up-to-date ? Who should take ownership of that sort of data ?

In London, everyone is doing a little bit, but no-one is doing everything. Each organisation seems to be waiting for someone else to ACCEPT TOTAL OWNERSHIP of this matter, and so pull the whole lot together. The Olympics may be another driver, but I am still not sure it will prove to be a tipping point.

The Issues as see I them are -


1. Scope

Where do you draw the line re SCOPE - Just public sector CCTV and ANPR cameras ? Congestion Charge and LEZ ? Brent Cross Shopping Center ? What about the one in Mr Patel's Newsagents? Those on the ESSO garage forecourt? Sporting Stadia / Schools / Or the one covering Miss Whiplash's front door ? London Underground ? Those on Busses and Trains ? Pubs and Clubs ? People with them on their Heads? Gatso's ? Weather (web) cams ?

The scoping is going to be a major excersise in itself.


2. Ongoing Costs

But even if you can agree on the scope, and get a key stakeholder to take on this work (the initial start up costs although large would not be beyond the resources available for some of the big players) the fear seems to be that once one organisation say "YES, we'll do it" - they may be making a rod for their own back.

It is no good doing it, if you don't keep it fresh.

The costs involved in the keeping of such data up-to-date could well become quite substancial. Who knows how many new CCTV /ANPR cameras will go up each week, how many will be de-commissioned. Do we want to capture defective CCTV cameras ? How do we keep track of mobile CCTV ? Owners change, analogue moves to digital, static moves to PTZ and a X8 zoom changes to a X80 zoom.

You could end up with one organisation's (virtually never-ending and at the moment largely unknown) funding going towards the collating / monitoring and updating of CCTV and ANPR information, producing lots benefits for themselves. But also lots of benefits for other stakeholders, with those others not having had to put their hand in their pockets.

In the Silo Funding world that we operate in, no-one really likes that.

Hmmmmmmm - Maybe cross charging is the answer ?

[Ilkie]

Interesting question DJ !

The short answer is (just like the PSS CCTV cameras in London) - Lots know a little bit, BUT No One Really Knows The Full SP.

With so many stakeholders involved - MPS / BTP / CoLP / TfL / local authorities / H.A. / the private sector (and now the ODA coming into the picture) perhaps I could respond with another question ?

Who's responsibility should it be, to collect and then keep such information up-to-date ? Who should take ownership of that sort of data ?

In London, everyone is doing a little bit, but no-one is doing everything. Each organisation seems to be waiting for someone else to ACCEPT TOTAL OWNERSHIP of this matter, and so pull the whole lot together. The Olympics may be another driver, but I am still not sure it will prove to be a tipping point.


The Issues as see them are -


1. Scope

Where do you draw the line re SCOPE - Just public sector CCTV and ANPR cameras ? Congestion Chargeand LEZ ? Brent Cross Shopping Center ? What about the one in Mr Patel's Newsagents? Those on the ESSO garage forecourt? Sporting Stadia / Schools / Or the one covering Miss Whiplash's front door ? London Underground ? Those on Busses and Trains ? Pubs and Clubs ? People with them on their Heads? Gatso's ? Weather (web) cams ?

The scoping is going to be a major excersise in itself.


2. Ongoing Costs

But even if you can agree on the scope, and get a key stakeholder to take on this work (the initial start up costs although large would not be beyond the resources available for some of the big players) the fear seems to be that once one organisation say "YES, we'll do it" - they may be making a rod for their own back.

It is no good doing it, if you don't keep it fresh.

The costs involved in the keeping of such data up-to-date could well become quite substancial. Who knows how many new CCTV /ANPR cameras will go up each week, how many will be de-commissioned. Do we want to capture defective CCTV cameras ? How do we keep track of mobile CCTV ? Owners change, analogue moves to digital, static moves to PTZ and a X8 zoom changes to a X80 zoom.

You could end up with one organisation's (virtually never-ending and at the moment largely unknown) funding going towards the collating / monitoring and updating of CCTV and ANPR information, producing lots benefits for themselves. But also lots of benefits for other stakeholders, with those others not having had to put their hand in their pockets.

In the Silo Funding world that we operate in, no-one really likes that.

Hmmmmmmm - Maybe cross charging is the answer ?

Mick, this, as you know is a subject close to my heart.

Maybe I can give you my views on it avoiding the issues such as civil liberties, human rights and what is politically acceptable.

Dealing with ANPR (CCTV is more a more complex issue), I believe that the scope should be ANPR systems that view the public space and areas where the public are invited (this would bring in shopping centres, petrol stations, car parks utilised by the public etc).

Technically this could be undertaken with low cost infrastructure back to central communication portals and thereafter linked to a National ANPR Data Centre (NADC).

Funding for the NADC system should be from central government as they are the gatekeeper of the databases which would interface with the information gathered and they would provide the service to handle co-ordination and information desemination.

The provision of the required funding by the politicans would show true commitment to enhancing public security and to crime reduction.

Now the tricky part because this is where legislation is required, ANPR interface standards are now established (NAAS), therefore all ANPR systems installed in the public space (as defined above) should meet that standard.

Planning of all public space systems should (in Law) notifiable to NADC to ensure they are all connected. This would compel reluctant organisations to provide the data.

I think there is precedent for this in the financial, telecommunication and ISP (for email) fields.

The cost of installing and maintaining ANPR systems would remain with the organisations that own it as they have their own business use for it's deployment.

The benefits of such a system would be enormous.

The providers of ANPR information could utilise data gathered from outside their system (I would see the type and level of information fed back scaled to the organisation's needs and 'status') and, this is one of the major benefits, duplication could be avoided saving substantial expenditure.

I cannot for the life of me see the downside of this, although it would require some joined up thinking at high level to pass the necessary legislation and provide the funds.

From the Police perspective, they would need to get their act together with respect to allocating additional resources in providing a vastly expanded intercept provisioin with increased cell space and vehicle removal facilities.

Foreign VRNs are now being dealt with via agreements within the EU by implementing VRN Database sharing, and vehicles coming into the country from countries that have not signed up to the sharing agreements would be issued with visitor plates.

Due to problems with motorcycles and scooters only having number plates on the rear, more rear facing ANPR cameras should be installed (something we are playing with at the moment).

Easily enough!

Ilkie

[Doktor Jon]

Extremely interesting comments gents (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes.gif)

Fulfiling my role as the Devils Advocado (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) it's interesting to try and consider many of the operational and ethical issues that will need to be considered, as video surveillance systems invariably become more "joined up" in the future.

As you are probably aware from some of my previous scribbles, when it comes to the use of CCTV in public places, I've long been of the opinion that a separate appropriately resourced independent Surveillance Inspectorate should be created, not only to help drive up performance, but also to ensure compliance with current and future regulatory legislation, and to provide an informed role in terms of addressing civil liberties and privacy issues.

Whilst the current Information Commissioner is certainly building a reputation in terms of demonstrating a greater understanding of the implications of using CCTV, his department is woefully under-resourced and currently (IMHO) not technically competent to fulfil a wider role in terms of technical compliance.

I tend to think that one of the difficulties in discussing what we need to do, is as fundamental as understanding why we need to do it, and what is the most appropriate and affordable method of achieving those objectives.

I find ANPR a very interesting application, but not necessarily for obvious reasons. A huge amount of investment is being piled into a national scheme, and yet the technology is not 100% reliable, and not without a fairly well predicted 'get out of jail' card, for those individuals mindful to avoid capture at any cost.

In some respects, it does rather remind me of the Thatcher governments desire that the whole country be dug up for cabling every household, and then before the project was completed, technology had progressed into a digitally driven satellite age.

ANPR in its present form is I believe only a relatively short term fix, as with the development of parallel technologies such as satellite tracking, Mesh networks (possibly road pricing 'pay as you drive' technology) and others far to clever for me to comprehend, there will invariably be more technically efficient and reliable methods of tracking vehicles without having to rely on visual confirmation from a piece of reflective plastic.

Much of what you touched on Mick, is I believe exactly the kind of topics which not only require an open and informed debate, but are issues that have concerned the authors of the National CCTV Strategy (it's been a bit quite on that front since publication (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) )

You are of course absolutely right, that each stakeholder is intent on being concerned with their narrow remit, and not necessarily (if you'll excuse the pun) prepared to look at the bigger picture.
Whilst the Olympics are a rapidly advancing deadline for technical integration, I'm not at all convinced that all the pieces will be in place in time. I had a conversation with someone quite recently who was potentially involved with the event in terms of security planning, and his reticence to commit to an active role was purely on the basis that he regarded it somewhat as a poisoned chalice.

There are often relatively easy solutions to quite complex socio technological issues, but unfortunately lack of political commitment can often straight jacket any attempts to address problems which are of concern to the majority, but ignored or disregarded by those who should know better.

Given the political desire for rapidly expanding the UK's ANPR network, what notional lifespan do you learned gents foresee for this relatively simple yet costly technology, when viewed in relation to other technical solutions which may or may not have been considered?

D.J.

[MichaelC]

We've had years and years of the industry promoting technology as the cure for all our ills, yet very little thought has been given to how we make it work properly and who is going to pay for it longterm.
Actually there has probably been more discussion about these factors here, then I have seen anywhere else in a very long time.

I have always wondered what would happen if an impartial researcher looked at the overall cost of the way existing CCTV systems are used, and then related that to the actual results achieved. Now that would make for some interesting reading (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Ilkie]

We've had years and years of the industry promoting technology as the cure for all our ills, yet very little thought has been given to how we make it work properly and who is going to pay for it longterm.
Actually there has probably been more discussion about these factors here, then I have seen anywhere else in a very long time.

I have always wondered what would happen if an impartial researcher looked at the overall cost of the way existing CCTV systems are used, and then related that to the actual results achieved. Now that would make for some interesting reading (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Agreed, and this is the fault of a strong industry (sales) and weak client management.

The same client management generally finds if difficult top say no to their political masters.

I have lost count the amount of times we have been installing cameras that we know are only been commissioned due to political pressure.

Also seen system growth tenfold over the years with many clients but with maintenance budgets cut year on year and no renewal strategy in place.

Not views that are voiced too often as we do not want to bite the hand that feeds us!

Rant over.

Ilkie

[Doktor Jon]

Not views that are voiced too often as we do not want to bite the hand that feeds us!

That's what I'm here for (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I have to agree with all that's been said; indeed there has been a singular degree of complacency amongst many industry players, in so far as they don't want to rock the boat but they do want to keep the product sales growing.

Somewhat ironically, when the larger players start loosing out to cut price competition from Taiwean manufacturers, they are the first to complain about the market being flooded by cheap rubbish, when in fact there are some extremely competent companies producing very good product, often badged for the big boys.

Personally I'd like to see a collective outbreak of healthy responsibility, with more manufacturers going the route of educating their staff, educating their clients, supporting the installers and supporting initiatives that have positive benefits both for society and ultimately their bottom line.

It's a new year ... I can dream (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[Mick]

I have always viewed the tehnical aspects of CCTV and ANPR as just a small part an end to end community safety process.

As Ilker has mentioned earlier, often is is a knee jerk reaction to a matter that could be addressed in other (far more cost effective) ways.

If it is appropriate (and this is where old Jim Aldridge's OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT can prove useful / although I personally tend to use a Risk Assessment based process) the installation should go ahead, BUT once installed, it must not be viewed as the end of the matter.

I think we all realise that the technology dosn't work on it's own.

An old crusty CCTV manager use to tell me - "A CCTV camera has never jumped off a wall and arrested someone."

The technology needs adequately resourcing with well trained staff (from a number of diverse business areas) working with robust business processes, and supported by adittional technology, at all stages in the CCTV /ANPR supported crime reduction strategy.


As I see it the people involved in the legal end to end process include -

Those working in the CCTV control room

Police or other first response teams.

CCTV product (Evidence or Intell') gatherers

CCTV product analysts

The CPS (and defence teams) use and understanding of CCTV product.

The Judges use and understanding of CCTV product.

Those responsible for the long term storage of the CCTV product (remembering it may need to be reviewed many years after the original recording was made) and eventual disposal.


Operationally (and technically) the use of CCTV and ANPR once installed, also has requirements that need to be continually fufilled. These include -

Maintenance / Servicing / and Upgrades.

Continual staff training (for ALL areas of the community safety partnership / extended police family).

Development of slicker business processes (again for all those involved).

ALL THIS COSTS MONEY AND THESE COSTS ARE OFTEN NEVER CONSIDERED AT THE OUTSET.


Also, as you can see there are loads of partners involved here (and don't forget to add the techies to the mix) and as CCTV has only been with us for about 20 years (and ANPR for the last ten) all these partners (at a strategic level within their respective organisations) are still trying to get their heads around this new technology whilst at the same time doing their normal day job.

This fragmentation and imaturity does not make the joined up approach easy to implement.

Finally, every now and again we have technical leaps (FOR EXAMPLE - ANPR CAPABILITY / ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL / FACIAL RECOGNITION ? WANTED PERSON'S NOSES GLOW RED !!!!).

These suddenly move the goal-posts for all those involved, and often demands further or differant resources to support the new techniology.

Sad to say, but if the police responded to EVERY arrestable ANPR activation, we would soon run out of police officers to make the arrests, police cells to put the bad guys in, and courts to deal with the cases.

The technology is great, but we just can't keep up with it.

The Local Authorities / the Police / the CPS / the Courts, are all like supertankers. It takes ages for them to change course, and by the time they do, they are then given yet another new heading.

[Doktor Jon]

Edited by DJ - 11/01/08 - 00.32

Slight "BBCode" problem to be resolved (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif)

[Doktor Jon]

I have always viewed the tehnical aspects of CCTV and ANPR as just a small part an end to end community safety process.
As Ilker has mentioned earlier, often is is a knee jerk reaction to a matter that could be addressed in other (far more cost effective) ways.

If it is appropriate (and this is where old Jim Aldridge's OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT can prove useful / although I personally tend to use a Risk Assessment based process) the installation should go ahead, BUT once installed, it must not be viewed as the end of the matter.

I'd have to agree with you on those points Mick (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes.gif)

I've always said that before you can arrive at an accurate Operational Requirement, you absolutely must conduct a Risk Assessment Survey (RAS) as part of the overall planning process. The difficulty is that in their haste to install CCTV, most facilitators are either not prepared, or more often not aware, that correct profiling can make an enormous difference in the 'CCTV works' / 'doesn't work' argument.

The technology needs adequately resourcing with well trained staff (from a number of diverse business areas) working with robust business processes, and supported by adittional technology, at all stages in the CCTV /ANPR supported crime reduction strategy.

Operationally (and technically) the use of CCTV and ANPR once installed, also has requirements that need to be continually fufilled. These include -

Maintenance / Servicing / and Upgrades.
Continual staff training (for ALL areas of the community safety partnership / extended police family).
Development of slicker business processes (again for all those involved).

ALL THIS COSTS MONEY AND THESE COSTS ARE OFTEN NEVER CONSIDERED AT THE OUTSET.

Also, as you can see there are loads of partners involved here (and don't forget to add the techies to the mix) and as CCTV has only been with us for about 20 years (and ANPR for the last ten) all these partners (at a strategic level within their respective organisations) are still trying to get their heads around this new technology whilst at the same time doing their normal day job.

This fragmentation and imaturity does not make the joined up approach easy to implement.

The lack of funding issue is often based on ignorance or misplaced optimism on the part of those tasked with setting up the infrastructure.
Over the next five ish years, I would expect to see a shift away from sole primary investment in traditional Control Room operations, and more money being channelled into de-centralised monitoring (e.g. patrol vehicles and personnel, remote central stations) and post event analysis / evidence retrieval operations.

Although the application of the technology is relatively new in the great scheme of things, many of the major problems stem from a constant cycle of re-inventing the wheel (pun not intended (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif) ).

I'm actually celebrating (probably not the right word (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) ) my 30th year in the biz this year, and even 25+ years ago, there was a much better grass roots understanding amongst CCTV practitioners of exactly how equipment should and should not be used. Unfortunately the wisdom of experience was comprehensively down trodden in the unruly rush to install Town Centre schemes, using copious quantities of government funding to get the schemes up and running, and then worry about any shortcomings at a later date.

Finally, every now and again we have technical leaps (FOR EXAMPLE - ANPR CAPABILITY / ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL / FACIAL RECOGNITION ? WANTED PERSON'S NOSES GLOW RED !!!!).

These suddenly move the goal-posts for all those involved, and often demands further or differant resources to support the new techniology.

Sad to say, but if the police responded to EVERY arrestable ANPR activation, we would soon run out of police officers to make the arrests, police cells to put the bad guys in, and courts to deal with the cases.

The technology is great, but we just can't keep up with it.

The Local Authorities / the Police / the CPS / the Courts, are all like supertankers. It takes ages for them to change course, and by the time they do, they are then given yet another new heading.

Much of what you said here Mick, is painfully true.

It's perhaps unfortunate to observe that whilst key parts of the system is indeed like a collection of supertankers, the captains are generally unwilling or unable to accept any warnings of icebergs ahead, prefering instead to deal with the consequences when they actually see them for themselves.

Much hope rests on the emerging Video Analytics technologies to save the day, and yet lots could be done tomorrow to improve things dramatically. Unfortunately that can't happen unless those controlling the purse strings are prepared to accept that things are not quite right, and there's no sign of that happening any time soon.

[MichaelC]

Over the next five ish years, I would expect to see a shift away from sole primary investment in traditional Control Room operations, and more money being channelled into de-centralised monitoring (e.g. patrol vehicles and personnel, remote central stations) and post event analysis / evidence retrieval operations.

I'm actually celebrating (probably not the right word (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) ) my 30th year in the biz this year, and even 25+ years ago, there was a much better grass roots understanding amongst CCTV practitioners of exactly how equipment should and should not be used. Unfortunately the wisdom of experience was comprehensively down trodden in the unruly rush to install Town Centre schemes, using copious quantities of government funding to get the schemes up and running, and then worry about any shortcomings at a later date.
Much of what you said here Mick, is painfully true.

It's perhaps unfortunate to observe that whilst key parts of the system is indeed like a collection of supertankers, the captains are generally unwilling or unable to accept any warnings of icebergs ahead, prefering instead to deal with the consequences when they actually see them for themselves.

Much hope rests on the emerging Video Analytics technologies to save the day, and yet lots could be done tomorrow to improve things dramatically. Unfortunately that can't happen unless those controlling the purse strings are prepared to accept that things are not quite right, and there's no sign of that happening any time soon.

All sounds very familier (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes.gif)

By the way congratulations on your anneversary Dok (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) you should be in line for a long service medal (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Michael

[Doktor Jon]

All sounds very familier (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes.gif)

By the way congratulations on your anneversary Dok (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) you should be in line for a long service medal (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Michael

Thanks for that Michael,

Another twenty years and who knows what I'll end up with (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)