Talk:Gatso

Deployment

I think it should be made clearer both that even though cameras have to be yellow, you cannot use this in court to have your case dismissed, and also that SCPs can use grey hidden cameras but they will not be able to claim back the fine costs (under current arrangements), and would therefore go 'bust' so they dont. --TFoxton 13:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think, perhaps, it should be in Safety Camera Partnership, or Speed cameras, as it applies to all types of static camera, not just to those manufactured by Gatso. This, I think, should really be an article about the technicalities and characteristics of just Gatso cameras. -- de Facto (talk). 14:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole paragraph on requirements (paint yellow etc) relates to all types of camera (as you suggest) and should probably - with the above info - be put into either Road-rule enforcement camera under a 'UK' section or in a new article such as Safety cameras in the UK for example?!? --TFoxton 15:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is incorrect in its claim that cameras need to be yellow. My understanding is as follows but I cannot find anything to back this up: Cameras of authorities within the netting off scheme have to be yellow unless they can show that there is a reason not to such as in an area of natural beauty. The government guidelines suggest that other cameras should be painted in a conspicuous colour. (Elephant53 17:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

Advertising?

This article seems to be little more than company advertising. Is it desirable? 62.251.121.16 21:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This entire article reeks of astroturfing. The absolute only reason I even know that Gatsos exist is because I know they get set on fire in protest of their nebulous nature - and absolutely no mention of this anywhere in the article?
And this little gem: "After the camera units were deployed there was a significant improvement in accident rates in their vicinity." Which, like basically every part of the article, is marked "citation needed."
I think this entire article needs to be started over from scratch.
--Cogniac (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism + destruction section

I am challenging the assertion that "dozens" of cameras have been "disabled" (disabled = a POV euphemism surely). The page cited is part of the series http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2a.htm http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2b.htm http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2c.htm .

In the page http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2b.htm reference is made to a "pair of hat stands near Preston". As someone who drove past these on a regular basis I can confirm that, when the photo was taken, the "stand" on the left still has the plastic cap that came with the post - in other words, no camera had been installed on it up till the time that had been taken. In addition many of the photos seem to relate to accident damage or petty damage (such as: turning the camera away from the road as opposed to arson or explosion).

I think this section needs to exist but it must be worded in an NPOV manner and avoid triumphalism or exaggeration. For this reason the speedcam.co.uk site cannot be judged reliable, in my view. Rugxulo (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gatso. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081106083044/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/nscp/handbookofrulesandguidancefo4582 to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/nscp/handbookofrulesandguidancefo4582
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609134442/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/pdfdftcirc0107 to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/pdfdftcirc0107

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)