text:
Login Home About Articles Tests Calculator Courses Online Shows Tools
BestMatch Chat Comparison Camera Finder F-Stop Integrator Finder News Spider Quizzes
Access Control (800) Acquisition (250) Audio (136) Awards (40) Bandwidth (451) Cabling (128) China (723) Consumer (173) Coronavirus (176) Criticism (207) Directory (117) Distributors (139) Facial Recognition (270) Failure (118) Financials (163) Financial Updates (154) Funding (216) GDPR (76) Guide (417) Hacking (138) Help Request (0) Installation (418) Integrators (954) Intrusion (258) IR (633) Lawsuits (73) Legal (192) Locks (163) Low Light (498) LPR (118) Marketing (588) Monitoring (515) Networking (131) ONVIF (469) Panoramic (151) Police (330) Power (486) PPF (184) Privacy (185) Profile (369) PSIM (124) Retail (129) RFP (44) Robot (77) Sales (1168) Standards (232) Startup (270) Statistics (495) Storage (548) Thermal (274) Tools (133) Trade Show (86) Tutorials (175) Video Analytics (482) VMS (1368) VSaaS (273) WDR (379) Wireless (309)
BestMatch Calculator Chat Comparison Camera Finder F-Stop Integrator Finder News Spider Online Shows Quizzes
To view the videos, please enable JavaScript in your internet browser.
Is Public CCTV Effective?
By John Honovich, Published Jul 07, 2008, 12:00am EDT
While we continue to spend more on public CCTV systems, the debate on CCTV effectiveness has reached a polarizing and inconclusive standoff. On the one side, you have a number of studies and leading thinkers who clearly contend that CCTV systems are ineffective. On the other, you have numerous municipalities who are weekly green-lighting new CCTV projects.
This report offers key findings from the 20 top studies/articles in the field and offers practical recommendations on how to optimize the use of public CCTV systems.
A directory of the 20 top papers in the field are included at the end of this document. This report is based on those papers.
Key Findings Summary
The expectation that CCTV systems should be deployed to reduce crime rather than solve crime has created huge problems.
While the studies show serious doubt on CCTV's ability to reduce crime generally, a strong consensus exists in CCTV's ability to reduce premeditative/property crime
CCTV is consistently treated as a singular, stable technology, obscuring radical technological changes that have occurred in the last 10 years
Differences in per camera costs are largely ignored, preventing policy makers from finding ways to reduce costs
Routine comparison of police vs cameras is counterproductive
Practical Recommendations Summary
Stop claiming that CCTV can generally reduce crime
Optimize future public CCTV projects around crime solving rather than crime reduction
Optimize future public CCTV projects around material and premeditative crimes
Target technologies that support crime solving and material/premeditative crimes
Focus on minimizing cost per camera
Finding: Crime Reduction vs Crime Solving
The overwhelming majority of studies focus on analyzing CCTV's ability to reduce crime. The general approach is to take current crime statistics for a region and compare those statistics to the period after installation of CCTV. A number of techniques are used to adjust to control for general changes in crime and to track displacement or diffusion of benefits to other areas. Nevertheless, the focus of all quantitative analysis has been on reducing crime.
This is the mirror opposite of the private sector. In the private sector, the overwhelming majority of CCTV systems are justified by their use in solving crime. It is investigations where most private businesses find value and return in their CCTV systems. For businesses, only a very small percentage of CCTV cameras are ever even watched. The systems pay for themselves by periodically being able to identify or prove a criminal activity.
This indicates a failure of expectations for public CCTV systems. In the private sector, when CCTV effectiveness is discussion, the assumption is usually that CCTV is used for investigations. By contrast, the focus on public CCTV effectiveness being determined on reducing crime sets a dangerous expectation that is difficult to achieve and likely to create dissatisfaction within the community.
The problem seems to be the fault of the original advocates of these systems, rather than a deficiency of the testers. The academics and researchers performing these tests were reacting to the expectations that the proponents of these systems made originally.
Join IPVM Newsletter?
IPVM is the authority on physical security technology including video surveillance, access control, weapons detection and more. Refusing to accept advertising or sponsorships, over 15,000 subscribers globally trust and pay for IPVM's independent reporting and research.
Enter your email to get notified of new shootouts, tests, investigations, online shows and more.
In the recommendations section, I will examine how we can move beyond this unproductive and problematic situation.
Finding: Reducing Crime Generally vs Premeditative/Property Crime
The media's main focus has been on whether or not CCTV reduces crime as a whole. This often has turned the issue into an all or nothing debate. The testing has also focused on the general impact on crime reduction but notable attention has been paid to different types of crime.
Widespread consensus exists that CCTV is effective in reducing premeditative/property crime. All the studies acknowledge this, even the ACLU's which otherwise is extremely negative towards CCTV. The most frequently cited example is the ability to reduce thefts in parking lots.
By contrast, the same studies widely agreed that CCTV demonstrated little or no affect on reducing crimes of passion. Incidents like public drunkenness or acts of rage generally did not seem to be affected by the presence of CCTV cameras.
This fits a broadly accepted rational actor model and the effect that CCTV cameras has on rational actors. Since CCTV cameras increases the risk that a criminal will be prosecuted for a crime, the criminal will respond accordingly. The cameras will affect the perceived risk/reward calculation. Common sense indicates that this impact is much more likely for property/premediated crimes than it would be for crimes of passionate, where by definition, people are not calculating the consequences.
Rather than engage in political debates over the issue in general, we should use this more nuanced knowledge to optimize our use of CCTV.
Finding: CCTV as Singular, Stable Technology
The studies overwhelming treated CCTV as a singular, stable technology. Only the UK Home Office Report of 2005 even acknowledged the issue of technological change. The rest of the studies do not even discuss differences in technology available. I do not fault them as the evidence available is limited to even conduct such a test. Nevertheless, differences in technology can make an extreme difference.
The studies cover a very broad time period. The oldest study I found was from 1994 with most of the studies available being performed in the period from 2000 – 2004.
The problem is that CCTV technology has experienced a dramatic transformation in that time period. This is somewhat similar to the type of change experienced with mobile phones going from big, bulky, limited and expensive to slim, powerful and ubiqutious. It is quite unfair to assess the question is CCTV effective, in any form, without factoring in the differences in the type of technology used.
The examples found in the studies were fairly shocking compared to today's mainstream CCTV systems. The clear majority of systems employed in the studies used VCRs. Even when systems used DVRs, most were recording under 2 frames per second. All of the systems used standard definition cameras. While none of the reports discussed the type of transmission systems, given that almost all the tests were from 2004 or earlier, it is extremely likely none of them were using IP networks for transmission. Though limited, the best discussion on this topic in the literature is the 2005 UK Home Office Report.
While none of this is the researcher's fault, not factoring changes in technology obscures crucial differences. In the recommendations section, I explore what types of technologies and how they can impact system effectiveness.
Finding: Differences in Per Camera Costs Largely Ignored
While most studies cited general cost numbers, the cost per camera was largely ignored. The most frequently cited number is the amount the UK home office has spent on CCTV (500 million pounds). However, only the 2005 UK Home Office study actually broke down the cost per camera. Since the studies were focused on determining if the crime rate was reduced, this element is understandable. Nevertheless, communities could save significant money and improve effectiveness by more carefully tracking the cost per camera.
Understanding the cost per camera is important to recognize changes in technology and to identify waste. The 2005 UK Home Office report indicated that cost per camera ranged from $7,000 pounds to $33,000 pounds for cameras installed in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The study does not clearly explain the cause of the cost differences.
In my experience deploying similar systems, the main driver of costs from this era is the transmission systems. Because these cameras are generally outdoors and distributed throughout a city, transmission systems need to be built to send the video from the camera to the monitoring center. The solution of choice in this time frame was proprietary analog fiber transmission systems. Such systems required expensive transmission equipment and almost always laying of new fiber. This routinely generated costs of thousands to tens of thousands.
By contrast, today, the solution of choice for transmission is IP networks. IP networks dramatically reduce the cost of transmission. IP networks replace proprietary analog fiber systems with low cost commodity IP equipment. IP Networks often can share existing fiber networks or connect to a telecommunication carriers system to greatly reduce or eliminate the need for new fiber or construction.
Finding: Cops vs Cameras Comparison Counterproductive
A frequent sentiment expressed by interviewees in both articles and studies is the preference for police officers versus cameras. While this is obviously understandable and I expect most every reasonable person would agree that police officers are preferable to cameras, this omits a crucial element.
Since police officers are so much more expensive than cameras, a comparison between the two is very misleading. According to the 2005 UK Report, the annualized cost per camera ranged from 600 to 3000 pounds. This is 1/15th to 1/80th the cost for a yearly police officer (including benefits, training, equipment, etc). In actuality, then the comparison is more like dozens of cameras versus an officer. Furthermore, given the significant price reduction in CCTV systems since most of the tests occurred, the comparison is now between hundreds of cameras and a single police officer.
Examined at a macro level, a similar distortion is apparent. Many of the articles and studies cite the 500 million pound UK Home Office spending over the last decade. Nevertheless, 500 million pounds for CCTV represents less than 1% of the spending on police officers during that time period.
Even if all funding on CCTV was transferred to hire new police officers, it would only increase funding by a very small percent. And, of course, a small percent increase in police officers would not be expected to dramatically decrease crime either.
This is an area where CCTV proponents have created unrealistic expectations that actually undermine their own cause.
Now, let's examine some recommendations:
Recommendation: Abandon emphasis on general crime reduction
Proponents of public CCTV systems should abandon the emphasis and claim that CCTV systems can reduce crime generally. Even if proponents ignore the fact that studies demonstrate this, clinging to this claim only creates greater debate and dissension.
By abandoning this claim, it will heal some of the major discord and allow all parties to focus on better uses of CCTV. Given the vastly improved quality of today's CCTV systems at greatly reduced prices, this should be reasonable to accomplish.
Recommendation: Focus Projects on Crime Solving
Just like the private sector has broadly adopted CCTV by focusing on solving crimes, the public sector should too. This would save communities money as certain features or cameras could be eliminated and designs could be focused on areas and technologies that help solve crimes.
This would simultaneously ease the impact on privacy as less attention and resources would be placed on trying to monitor systems live and thereby the risk of monitoring the innocent public.
Recommendation: Focus Projects on Material/Premeditative Crimes
To the extent that CCTV is used to support crime reduction, such efforts should focus on material/premeditative crimes.
Limiting the locations covered and monitored live to those areas with high rates of these types of crimes will maximize the probability those systems will be effective.
Recommendation: Target Technologies that Support Crime Solving
Though historically the camera of choice has been a PTZ, systems should emphasis the use of megapixel fixed cameras.
A PTZ, or Pan/Tilt/Zoom camera, can be controlled by an operator to look in many different directions and areas. PTZ cameras are favored by security operators as it allows them to control the camera in live monitoring. Two significant downsides exist for PTZs: One, they require a dedicated operator to use the cameras, incurring significant operation cost. Two, PTZs are generally bad for producing evidence because they miss everything expect for the area where the camera is momentarily positioned.
Megapixel cameras are far better fit for public places and crime solving. The cameras being used in the study are standard definition units with very limited abilities to view details. Much like the transition from film cameras to today's digital super high resolution cameras, CCTV systems now routinely employ megapixel cameras that provide dramatically greater detail. Such detail is key for public places that usually cover large outdoor areas. In this scenario, megapixel cameras give you the benefits of PTZ cameras because the detail allows zooming with the benefits of a fixed cameras' ability to always capture video of a set area. This is critical to crime solving because the camera needs to have an image if we are to use the evidence to identify or prosecute a crime.
Recommendation: Minimize Cost Per Camera
Given what we have learned from first generation systems and the advances in technology available today, we should be vigilant about tracking and minimizing the cost per camera. We now have a good sense of what works and does not work. We should optimize around that and ensure that we can keep costs per camera low.
The two key elements in minimizing costs is (1) ensuring that IP networks are leveraged and that (2) unnecessary funding is not spent for needless bells and whistles. By doing this, municipalities should easily be able to deploy systems for between 2,000 and 4,000 pounds per camera. This would drop the cost by 60% or more relative to historical standards.
With our extensive experience and knowledge, we must re-position goals, modify designs and economize our efforts:
Set the goals appropriately on tasks that can succeed: Crime Solving and Property Crime Reduction
Select technologies such as IP and megapixel cameras that improve performance
Ensure spending per camera is controlled and benefits from new technologies
With these practices, we can ensure both effective CCTV systems and a positive economic contribution to society.
Directory of CCTV Effectiveness Studies
The debate on the effectiveness of CCTV is amazingly complex. Dozens of studies done over more than a decade with frequently conflicting positions makes the situation hard to assess. This problem is magnified by the difficulty of finding reference material.
This directory provides a catalog of as many publicly available studies and reports I can find on the web.
UK Home Office CCTV Review 2005: The most frequently cited review in the literature, basically the authoritative source. I found it to be the most comprehensive and nuanced, providing details on operation, technology used, costs plus breakdowns of effectiveness by types of crimes. Despite its length, absolutely worth reading. 176 pages.
UK Home Office CCTV Review 2002: [link no longer available] The second most frequently cited report in the CCTV study literature. 68 pages.
UK Parliament CCTV Summary 2002: [link no longer available] 4 page report summarizes CCTV issues and studies.
Department of Justice Guide to Video Surveillance 2006 [link no longer available]: In-depth analysis on CCTV performance and extensive guidelines on use of CCTV. 100 pages.
Study for Los Angeles CCTV Use 2008: A balanced and in-depth 91 page analysis of the general merits and the specific deployments within Los Angeles.
New York City Apartments Effectiveness Study 2008 [link no longer available]: Examines the use of CCTV in a 120 building complex in 2005; limited to no evidence supporting benefits of surveillance
Northampton UK Success Story 2002: A 1 page review by the town itself on how their actively monitored CCTV system reduces crime by 30% and generates 250 arrests per month.
Harvard CCTV Case Study 2007 [link no longer available]: Provides an analysis of existing studies citing a 4% reduction in crime with strongest reduction in property crimes. Offers a qualitative review of Harvard's existing deployment. Report, 12 pages.
Temple CCTV Philadelphia Case Study 2008 [link no longer available]: Statistical Analysis by Criminal Justice Professor Demonstrates 13% reduction in crime. Report, 12 pages.
Baltimore CCTV Review 2007: Article reviewing the number of cameras, deployment, use and results of Baltimore's CCTV system. Claims 15% reduction in crime through active monitoring. 4 pages.
ACLU Review of Surveillance Cameras 2008: Reviews numerous studies and contends that meta-analysis demonstrates that surveillance cameras offer no benefits. Report, 13 pages.
Washington DC CCTV Article 2008: Washington Post shares details on pricing, number of cameras, use and results to date. Article, 2 pages.
San Francisco Bay Area CCTV Review 2007: [link no longer available] Provides details on the frequency of CCTV camera use in San Francisco and in comparison with other systems in the Bay Area. 5 pages.
Survey and Summary of CCTV Studies by EPIC 2002: Civil liberties research center provides an overview of issues involved and a review of findings and statistics available.
Glascow CCTV Study 1999 [link no longer available]: Demonstrates CCTV cameras had no impact on reducing crime or solving cases during the test period of 1994/1995.3 pages.
Guardian London CCTV Review 2008: Reports that only 3% of street crimes are solved with CCTV; mentions that new program is now solving 15%-20% of cases in limited areas. Article, 2 pages.
3 reports cite this report:
Prominent Blowhard Attacks Video Surveillance on Mar 02, 2010
Bruce Schneier's biases against surveillance cameras are clear, despite his...
Are Public CCTV Cameras an Utter Fiasco? on Jul 21, 2009
The UK's love-hate relationship with CCTV cameras continues. This time, the...
How Obama Impacts the Security Industry on Nov 04, 2008
The security bubble is burst. With the election of Obama, US demand for...
Comments : Subscribers only. Login. or Join.
Loading Related Reports
Login to view the video.
About FAQ Favorite Products Share a Tip
Contact Tests Worst Products Online Shows
Calculator Camera Finder Privacy Policy


A 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom (main-suite) home situated in a quiet well managed Estate offering an upmarket quality lifestyle. Open plan reception, living area and kitchen with breakfast counter and a large walk -in pantry cupboard and space for two appliances and a single fridge. The covered spacious patio is accessed from the living area and main bedroom. The pool area and clubhouse with braai facilities in a beautiful park like setting is ideally suited for all the recreational needs of the residents and their visitors. The Estate has 24 hr Security with access control, regular guard patrolling, electric fencing, DSTV and Site Management services. It is conveniently located within walking distance to the Broadacres Shopping Centre and in close proximity of the Life Hospital, Cedar Square, Fourways Mall, Monte Casino, Lanseria Airport and other amenities. easy access to Main, Witkoppen and William Nicol roads. This is an outstanding investment opportunity. Watch your property soar with the current development of the Fourways Precinct. Buy now before you cant afford it. All serious Offers will be considered.


text:
Q: How $_post in PHP works I am passing variable from jquery to php, and trying to submit my form through submit button also, but my variable is not visible in $_POST['submit'].
I have an html page with a list where I am choosing more than one value and concatenating it with ':' and passing it to PHP.
once I press the submit button on the form I want to insert that selected list in my database table.
Please, can someone explain.
HTML
<!doctype html>
       <html lang="en">
       <head>

      <script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
      </head>
      <body>
      <form action="new_page.php" method="post">
    <select class= "sweet" name="sweets" multiple="multiple">
      <option>Chocolate</option>
      <option >Candy</option>
      <option>Taffy</option>
      <option>Caramel</option>
      <option>Fudge</option>
      <option>Cookie</option>
    </select>
    <input type="submit" name ="submit" value ="submit"  />
    <script>
    $(function(){
        var s_type="";
        $('.sweet').click(function() {
            if(s_type.length){
                s_type+= " : " + $(this).val();
            }else{
                s_type+=  $(this).val();
            }
            $.post('new_page.php', 'sweet=' +s_type, function (response){
                alert(response);
            });

        });
    });
    </script>
    </body>
    </html>`

PHP Page  new_page.php
<?php
   if(isset($_POST['sweet'])){
       $filename = $_POST['sweet'];
   }
   if(isset($_POST['submit'])) {
        if(isset($_POST['sweet'])){
            $filename = $_POST['sweet'];
            echo '*****profile   ' .$filename;
        }
        $id= 'A';
        $db =  new PDO("sqlite:test.db");
        $q1 = $db->prepare('INSERT INTO test_sweet(id,sweets) values(?,?)');
        $q1->execute(array($id,$filename));
   }
?>

A: Edit: I'll add this remark here aswell:
If you want multiple values from your <select> change it into <select multiple> and you're done, this JS is a rather unintuitive workaround.
(Even moreso since you can't easily remove values you selected without reloading the whole page)
Might give this a try, mind you it's drycoded (untested):
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
  <head>
    <script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
  </head>
  <body>
    <form id="sweetForm">
      <select id="selSweets" name="sweets" multiple="multiple">
        <option>Chocolate</option>
        <option >Candy</option>
        <option>Taffy</option>
        <option>Caramel</option>
        <option>Fudge</option>
        <option>Cookie</option>
      </select>
      <input id="submit" type="submit" name="submit" value="submit" />
    </form>
    <script>
      $(function() {
        var sweets = [];
        $('#selSweets').change(function() {
          var val = $(this).val();
          if (sweets.indexOf(val) == -1) // See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Array/indexOf#Browser_compatibility for browser compatibility on indexOf()
            sweets.push(val);
        });

        $("#sweetForm").submit(function(e)
        {
          $.post(
            'new_page.php',
            {
              sweets: sweets
            },
            function(data, status, jqXHR)
            {
              console.log(data);
            }
          );
          e.preventDefault();
        });
      });
    </script>
  </body>
</html>

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
This is a List of National Historic Landmarks in South Carolina, United States.  The United States' National Historic Landmark (NHL) program is operated under the auspices of the National Park Service, and recognizes buildings, sites, structures, districts, and objects according to a list of criteria of national significance. There are 76 NHLs in South Carolina and 3 additional National Park Service-administered areas of primarily historic importance.

Architects whose work is recognized by two or more separate NHLs in the state are:
Robert Mills (8 sites),
Edward Brickell White (4 sites),
Gabriel Manigault (3 sites), and
William Wallace Anderson (2 sites).

These tallies do not include any buildings that are contributing properties within historic districts unless they are also individually designated as NHLs.

There are five places listed for their association with artists and writers.

There are four World War II-era museum ships; all are located at Patriot's Point in Charleston Harbor.

Current NHLs in South Carolina

The 76 NHLs in South Carolina are distributed across 16 of the 46 counties in the state; 42 of the 76 are located in Charleston County.

|}

Historic areas of the National Park System in South Carolina
National Historic Sites, National Historic Parks, National Memorials, and certain other areas listed in the National Park system are historic landmarks of national importance that are highly protected already, often before the inauguration of the NHL program in 1960, and are then often not also named NHLs per se.  There are five of these in South Carolina.  The National Park Service lists these five together with the NHLs in the state,  The Charles Pinckney National Historic Site (also known as Snee Farm) and Ninety Six National Historic Site
are also NHLs and are listed above.  The remaining three are:

Former NHLs in South Carolina

The nuclear-powered commercial vessel NS Savannah was moved to Virginia. Piedmont Number One, a historic textile mill, burned in 1983.

See also
National Register of Historic Places listings in South Carolina
List of National Historic Landmarks by state

References

External links
.
National Historic Landmarks program, at National Park Service
South Carolina Department of Archives and History: The National Register of Historic Places - Search Records by County
 National Register Information System, National Park Service.

South Carolina

South Carolina-related lists
National Historic Landmarks

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Quizzes (announced or unannounced), Tests, and final Exams will all be given periodically in this class.
All such assessment will be directed primarily at practical skills competencies rather than remembering and repeating facts from class. If you can do what we talked about in class then you should be fine in the vast majority of our assessments.


The Andersons, Inc. , has signed a letter of intent to form a Limited Liability Company (LLC) with Lansing Grain Company. The Andersons, a prominent regional player in grain merchandising, will be a minority investor in the LLC. Lansing Grain Company has agreed to contribute substantially all of its assets into the LLC. Lansing Grain Company is an independently owned ag- merchandising company with trading offices in Okemos, Michigan, Minneapolis and Kansas City. Lansing Grain Company trades wheat, corn, feed ingredients, and other grains/oilseeds.
The new venture affords both organizations a platform from which to launch future growth initiatives. The Andersons expects to gain significant market knowledge and to expand its trading area outside the eastern corn belt, while the Lansing Grain Company anticipates enhancing its growth opportunities.
"The value of this relationship lies in merging the expertise in our two companies into one collective knowledge base," explained Mike Anderson, The Andersons' President and CEO. "The expanded market synergies both companies will gain, as well as the additional trading and arbitrage opportunities, are substantial."
"Our growth has always been focused on doing what's right for our customers," noted Bill Krueger, Chief Operating Officer of the Lansing Grain Company. "Our partnership with The Andersons fits well with this strategy."
Lansing Grain Company, a privately owned firm, was formed in 1931. The current ownership group has grown Lansing into a national trading company. The company trades whole grains and feed ingredients into U.S. domestic markets. Current annual revenues are approximately $500 million. Corporate headquarters are in Okemos, Michigan and trading operations are directed from the Overland Park, Kansas office. Additional information is available online at www.lansinggrain.com .
The Andersons, Inc. , headquartered in Maumee, has been in operation since 1947. The Andersons is a respected leader and prominent player in grain merchandising and wholesale fertilizer distribution in the eastern Corn Belt. Its strong position in this basic business has allowed the Company to diversify into other agribusiness operations, railcar leasing, turf care product manufacturing and distribution, and general merchandise retailing. Additional information is available online at www.andersonsinc.com .


STD. 1 TO 5 AND 6 TO 8 OTHER MEDIUM VIDHYASHAYAK BHARATI COMING SOON.. SEE LATEST PARIPATRA.
Previous articlePAGAR BABAT- JILLA PANCHAYAT NA PRATHMIK SIXAKO NA MAY PAID IN JUNE NA PAGAR BHATHTHAO MATE NIBHAV GRANT NA PRATHAM HAPTA BABAT PARIPATRA DATE- 15-6-2018.
Next articleJILLA PANCHAYAT NA PRATHMIK SIXAKO NA MAY PAID IN JUNE NA PAGAR BHATHTHAO MATE NIBHAV GRANT NA PRATHAM HAPTA BABAT PARIPATRA DATE- 15-6-2018.


It's Monday morning and this post has been written, which means I survived Challenge Penticton and am alive to tell the tale! Grab yourself a delicious beverage and curl up in a comfy chair because it's story time.
To prevent this post from turning into a thousand-page novel, I'll start with Saturday morning, the day before the race. I was up dark and early at 4am, in the car and on my way to Penticton by shortly after 5. Why so early you ask? I needed to be at the race site to check in between 9am and noon, and having never driven to the Okanagan before, I figured the more time I could give myself, the better.
Some very loud music was needed in the car for a while as I gradually started to perk up, but once it became light outside and I had some food in me, the 4 hour drive seemed to fly by. Although rainy and smoky in patches, the scenery on the way to Penticton was gorgeous. In case you haven't heard, there have been some crazy forest fires here in BC this summer and a lot of parts of the Okanagan smell like campfire. So while it was a bit hazy, there was plenty to look at.
I arrived in Penticton just before 10am, and I'm not sure how I managed to get so lucky, but the hotel room I was due to check into at 3pm actually happened to be ready. After unloading my car, I drove over to the race site to check in, pick up my race package, tattoos, swag bag, and sign a waiver. #safetyfirst.
Upon returning to my hotel, I had a task to do that required a lot more brain power than I anticipated: Packing race gear into 3 gear bags – one for street clothes (green), one for the swim/bike transition (red), and the third for the bike/run transition (blue).
The red and blue bags needed to be checked in on Saturday afternoon with my bike, so I spent a solid hour packing, thinking, checking the weather forecast, unpacking, re-packing….. it went on and on, and included several texts to two of my friends also competing to make sure I was doing it right. In my last triathlon we had access to all of our items right next to our spots on the bike racks during both transitions, but because of the scale of Challenge Penticton, obviously it would be chaos if the same were true.
And of course, among many other things, cheer us on!
We attended the mandatory athlete meeting at 2:30 that afternoon, then headed out to drive the bike course so that there would be no surprises on Sunday. With the exception of two significant climbs and a few rather crappy road surfaces, it didn't seem too daunting.
That night I showered, ate dinner, and was fast asleep by 8pm.
Down at the race site, I parked and eventually met up with some of my triathlon buddies. I took a gel (coach's orders) with some Vega pre-workout energizer, then sausaged myself into my wetsuit.
Mike and I headed down to the beach and into the water to join a bunch of other athletes for a warm-up, something I'm SO glad we did because it really helped me to feel comfortable in the water when the gun went off. The full distance race went off first, followed about 15 minutes later by the pro athletes doing the half distance, then all the age groupers. I'd never done a mass start before (which means all participants, male and female, all age categories start at the same time) so it was super congested, but not as bad as I'd imagined.
Just as my coach suggested, I kept my kick pretty easy in the water until the last 200m, where it got more aggressive in order to stimulate blood flow to my legs in preparation for the bike. I came out of the water in just under 34 minutes, ran up onto the beach, through to the transition area, and straight over to one of the wetsuit strippers who helped me peel my wetsuit off.
It was really cloudy and spitting rain a little bit as I went through T1, so I decided to grab the rain jacket I'd packed in my bike gear bag to put on over my tri kit. For the most part, this was a good decision because not only did it rain a few times on the bike course, but it was super windy along the water. It kept me warm but didn't cause me to overheat when the sun poked out from behind the clouds, so I'm glad I had it with me.
Driving the bike course the day before was 100% worthwhile because it helped me to plan out my nutrition protocol. Ideally, it's best to take in fuel when the gut is under the least stress – as in, not in the middle of or just before a huge climb, but on a longer flat stretch or slight downhill. The heat wasn't an issue at all so I don't think I lost nearly as much fluid through sweat as I have done in training. Still though, I kept on the Vega gels and fluids regularly because I knew that my ability to have a good run would depend on it.
The hardest part was, as expected, the steep climb around 40km. There were about 2200ft of climbing to be done on this bike course, and according to my Polar V800, the steepest part gained 155ft over 0.8 miles. That might not seem that hard compared to some of the other Ironman/Challenge courses out there, but it was tough enough for me! I put my bike into the easiest gear possible, sat back in the saddle and kept my focus just a couple of feet ahead of my front wheel until I got to the top.
Of course, what goes up must also come down, and my favourite part of the whole bike segment was the descent into Okanagan Falls. I hadn't really noticed it when we did our drive-through on Saturday, but cruising down the winding road and looking over the valley was absolutely stunning. I wish I could have taken photos of it for you to see but there were many miles between me and my phone that still needed to be covered!
Coming into T2, I was feeling really good. The last stretch of the bike course was fairly flat, perfect for getting a few more calories in. I finished the 90K in 3:48:57 and moved into the transition area while a volunteer racked my bike.
Note for those paying super close attention to detail: I didn't end up wearing this hat. Instead, I bought myself a sweet pink and black Asics lid beacuse, well…. pink. #matchymatchy.
Here's where things got a little bit tough. In the change tent, another volunteer was helping me get ready for the run. I was putting on my shoes while she strapped my bib number and race belt around my waist, and shoved my gels into the back pockets of my top. In the bag with my gels were some Tums, which I'd packed just in case my gut started having issues. Although minor, I could definitely feel enough of an ache in my stomach for it to slow me down. It wasn't until after I'd left transition that I realized I hadn't asked the volunteer to pass me a couple of Tums, so I had to go on without them. No big deal though.
My coach and I planned for my first 10 miles to be kept conservative, starting my heart rate in high zone 2 and progressing to zone 3, then hammering to the finish in the last 3.1 miles. The zone 2 part didn't really happen (oops), but I stayed steady in Z3 with splits ranging between 8:00-8:30/mile until mile 10. I kept a gel in my hand for almost the entire run, taking little squirts of it along with water as I ran through the aid stations. By mile 10 I could really feel my quads getting sore, but I knew it was time to empty the tank so I gradually picked up speed.
Crossing the finish line was an amazing experience. There were spectators everywhere, the energy was fantastic, and the volunteers treated everyone like pros. My final time was 6:10:52, putting me 7th out of 16 in my age category and 214/434 athletes overall.
Post-race, I grabbed my gear bag and headed over to wait in line for a massage. The staff in the massage tent were wonderful and pulled out blankets (not the foil kind – real ones!!) for athletes to cover up in while we waited. I sat there for about 15 minutes drinking Vega Recovery Accelerator and eating a chocolate mint protein bar, which tasted like an absolute dream.
It still hasn't quite sunk in that my first half Ironman, the thing I've been training for over the past 8 months is done. Surprisingly, I feel really good muscles-wise, and the only thing that hurts is my quads. Today I'll be driving home (but not before hitting up at least a few of the fruit stands on the way – the peaches are literally the size of my face!) and I can't help but feel a huge sense of gratitude. I'm overwhelmed by the amount of support I've received from my friends, training buddies, family, my coach, co-workers, and from all of YOU!
Triathlon training and racing can be very much about the times, the splits, the stats, and the heart rate figure glaring back on the watch. But when I think back on the last 8 months, it's not the long training sessions that stick out in my mind, or all the numbers I recorded every day in Training Peaks. It's the encouragement and reassurance from people in my life that kept me going, and that's exactly what was running through my mind as I chugged through the 70.3 miles yesterday. So thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!
Lastly, I've been asked by a couple of people what's next on the list as far as triathlon goes. I'll be taking a break from training for a little while, but after the amazing experience of Challenge Penticton, it's very safe to say that I'm definitely not finished. Watch this space! ?
Wow!! What an accomplishment! Congrats Angela, you should be VERY VERY proud of yourself.
Thank you so, SO much Cara!
Thank you so much Ami! PS. Miss you lots – I hope you and Jim are doing well!
Congratulations! What a fantastic race recap and you did amazing.
Angela, I am so proud of you that I almost teared up reading this. I have watched the immense effort and passion you have put into this and I couldn't be more proud of you.
I felt the same way reading your Transrockies recap! Thanks so much lady – your support has been constant every step of the way and I'm SO grateful for it.
Congratulations! I know you've worked tremendously hard, 8 months is a long time to prepare. I loved reading this recap and all the training posts. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks Lauren, and thank you so much for all your cycling tips along the way. I hope you had a wonderful weekend!
Thanks Ange! And absolutely try the coconut oil trick – I slathered it all over the line my heart rate monitor sits on, and finished the race with absolutely zero new marks from it. Worked like a charm!
Congratulations Angela!! I don't always comment, but I follow along, and am so excited to read about a fabulous race after all the training and work you've put in. Judging from your smile in all your pictures (seriously, you could be Triathlon Barbie, lol!) you had a great time at it. You're still inspiring us back here in Ontario, keep it up!!
Aw thank you, Cari! It was a great day for sure. I do miss racing with you and the other H+P-ers though, and I love following along with your progress on Facebook! Looking forward to seeing what races you're doing this fall!
You are so inspiring and amazing!! Congrats on a great race! I can't wait to hear what you are up to next.
Thank you, Shannon! That's still TBD, but as of now, I'm planning at least one more 70.3 next year!
No words except – You.are.amazing.
Congrats!! Loved reading your recap.
Thank you for this. I came across it while searching for the race, so I could register for my first half-iron. Your story is very encouraging to me.
You are most welcome, Catherine! So great to hear that you're getting into long-distance triathlon as well. Challenge Penticton will be the 2016 Canadian Long Distance Triathlon Championships in 2016 so the distance is kind of between a full and half Ironman, but I hear the course is similar and the atmosphere was absolutely fantastic this year. Definitely take a look!
Congrats Angela!!! You really inspire!!! Hoping to perform as awesome as you ?
Thanks William! Good luck in your training and racing too!