WA Radio Scanner Users' Group

I was listening to police scanner before and a car going P2 somewhere called in and said "Activate red light camera leach + albany h/way"

then controller said Activated...

Can someone explain that plz

He is advising VKI that in the line of duty he has activated the camera. VKI will note the time and reason for the activation to be used as evidence so the officer will not incur a fine/demerit points doing his job.

ok thanks nick, bit confused about the way they say it. Does that also mean that that camera would be operational or would they have to do it for all of them.

I wasn't listening as are in Bubury but I suspect he activated a red light camera and wanted protection from prosecution, much the same as activating the multanova camera going to a call out p1/p2

i dont se why he would need to do that , if he has his lights on they could check the callsign on the system and relise hes P2

they need audio prove as well. do we remember the coppers in country that were in unmarked and speed thro with mask on there face. they had lights ON

yeah but they wernt on the way to a P2 job so theres nothing to check on the computer system , they just turned on there L+S and hoped for the best

Lucas_arts_182 wrote:i dont se why he would need to do that , if he has his lights on they could check the callsign on the system and relise hes P2

I think it's just to make a record at the time that it happened, so there can be no room for mis-interpretation later.

It's a sensible protocol if you ask me - it shows the officer has acknowledged they triggered the camera, and it gives VKI the information in real-time as well.

Nick wrote:He is advising VKI that in the line of duty he has activated the camera. VKI will note the time and reason for the activation to be used as evidence so the officer will not incur a fine/demerit points doing his job.

I hate to pop everyone's bubble but the infringement still arrives in the internal mail and attached to it is a 'please explain' from the boss.. Then you pray like hell that you weren't going too over the limit trying to do the right thing otherwise you get told to pucker up and cop it sweet, pardon the pun..

That is, of course if you're not that good at writing the replying report.. A saying comes to mind - "You can't make an omelette without breaking a couple of eggs.." Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to a bureacracy (forgive my spelling, its late) as WAPOL..

Nick wrote:He is advising VKI that in the line of duty he has activated the camera. VKI will note the time and reason for the activation to be used as evidence so the officer will not incur a fine/demerit points doing his job.

ehhh rego number doesnt go to the driver. goes to the police station.

yeah but they should be slowing down at intersections anyway.
P2 authorises speed limit + 25km/h , no more so they can still get done for speeding but if its just because there running a red light they should have nothing to worrie about

Whiskey1Urgent wrote:I hate to pop everyone's bubble but the infringement still arrives in the internal mail and attached to it is a 'please explain' from the boss.. Then you pray like hell that you weren't going too over the limit trying to do the right thing otherwise you get told to pucker up and cop it sweet, pardon the pun..

That is, of course if you're not that good at writing the replying report.. A saying comes to mind - "You can't make an omelette without breaking a couple of eggs.." Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to a bureacracy (forgive my spelling, its late) as WAPOL..

One would hope though that in a case like this, where a priority had been duly authorised and a camera was triggered, that it'd be an exercise in going through the motions?

If you put on your "please explain" something along the lines of... was on the way to job 12345 under priority conditions authorised by VKI at {time} on {date}, the red light camera was activated at the intersection of X and Y then it wouldn't be too hard to explain away? Or am I living in a fantasy world and the actual process is needlessly more complicated than that?

Lucas_arts_182 wrote:yeah but they should be slowing down at intersections anyway.
P2 authorises speed limit + 25km/h , no more so they can still get done for speeding but if its just because there running a red light they should have nothing to worrie about

Bombing red lights is one thing and that's just too dangerous anyway.. But popping a camera for more than 20kmh when you're roaring to an agg burg where an old lady has been filled in.... I know what I'd be doing...

Zebedee wrote:

Whiskey1Urgent wrote:I hate to pop everyone's bubble but the infringement still arrives in the internal mail and attached to it is a 'please explain' from the boss.. Then you pray like hell that you weren't going too over the limit trying to do the right thing otherwise you get told to pucker up and cop it sweet, pardon the pun..

That is, of course if you're not that good at writing the replying report.. A saying comes to mind - "You can't make an omelette without breaking a couple of eggs.." Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to a bureacracy (forgive my spelling, its late) as WAPOL..

One would hope though that in a case like this, where a priority had been duly authorised and a camera was triggered, that it'd be an exercise in going through the motions?

If you put on your "please explain" something along the lines of... was on the way to job 12345 under priority conditions authorised by VKI at {time} on {date}, the red light camera was activated at the intersection of X and Y then it wouldn't be too hard to explain away? Or am I living in a fantasy world and the actual process is needlessly more complicated than that?

Unfortunately, it just depends sometimes.......

Whiskey1Urgent wrote:Unfortunately, it just depends sometimes.......

Why does that not surprise me?