One law for them again?
Discussion
Iaha. You are wasting your time!
I tried for several years to try and get a message across about what, why and wherefore.
None of it was good enough. There are many experts on here who have a friend who is a copper!
I have now finished posting why, wherefore and how. In fact I have not posted for quite a few weeks now although I have been reading the site.
Because of much I have recently read, I have decided to quit as there is little point and I have lost the will to try and explain. In fact many of the replies and posts recently on this site have strengthened my resolve to be much less benevolent at the roadside!
I wish you luck in your attempts to explain. Eventually you will run out of the will to try as well. After all, you are just a gormless public servant and what do you know anyway?
I tried for several years to try and get a message across about what, why and wherefore.
None of it was good enough. There are many experts on here who have a friend who is a copper!
I have now finished posting why, wherefore and how. In fact I have not posted for quite a few weeks now although I have been reading the site.
Because of much I have recently read, I have decided to quit as there is little point and I have lost the will to try and explain. In fact many of the replies and posts recently on this site have strengthened my resolve to be much less benevolent at the roadside!
I wish you luck in your attempts to explain. Eventually you will run out of the will to try as well. After all, you are just a gormless public servant and what do you know anyway?
Gone,
I've been absent for a few weeks (new job, busier than I used to be), but I'm sorry to hear that.
I have disagreed with you quite often, but I'd like to think it's been (mostly) amicable...and I've valued your perspective as a serving BiB even when we've disagreed.
So I'd hope that you take a few weeks/months out, then have a think and maybe reconsider...this place isn't all numpties, same as the UK isn't all chavs (even though it appears to be in the city-centre on a Sat night!!!)
As far as this thread goes, I think it's a non-issue from the perspective of BiB breaking the law, but it does reflect a growing dissatisfaction with current government policy: -
1)MoP's are being prosecuted to the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law (letter is the speed limit, spirit would reflect the fact that the speed limit is there to mitigate against a level of risk on that road...so if the offence took place at a time when that risk would be less than average, shouldn't leniency apply?!?)
1a) Prosecutions are proceeding manifold now - it's a numbers game, no longer a clear road-safety issue (historically BiB would "pull" a driver and explain what was wrong...current camera-based enforcement has all-but eliminated the educational effect)
2) BiB are immune to said letter of law, so public see BiB doing what the government are hammering them for doing...with no perceptible difference in risk!
I hope that makes sense - the Police are taking the PR battering for the policies which the government has implemented and which the quango SCP's are gleefully enforcing. The public need more serving police to stand up and put the lie to this "road safety" policy, so we can get some sane enforcement and policing (esp. of tailgating, road-rage, dwdc etc...) back on our roads and safety levels improving at a meaningful rate again.
I've been absent for a few weeks (new job, busier than I used to be), but I'm sorry to hear that.
I have disagreed with you quite often, but I'd like to think it's been (mostly) amicable...and I've valued your perspective as a serving BiB even when we've disagreed.
So I'd hope that you take a few weeks/months out, then have a think and maybe reconsider...this place isn't all numpties, same as the UK isn't all chavs (even though it appears to be in the city-centre on a Sat night!!!)
As far as this thread goes, I think it's a non-issue from the perspective of BiB breaking the law, but it does reflect a growing dissatisfaction with current government policy: -
1)MoP's are being prosecuted to the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law (letter is the speed limit, spirit would reflect the fact that the speed limit is there to mitigate against a level of risk on that road...so if the offence took place at a time when that risk would be less than average, shouldn't leniency apply?!?)
1a) Prosecutions are proceeding manifold now - it's a numbers game, no longer a clear road-safety issue (historically BiB would "pull" a driver and explain what was wrong...current camera-based enforcement has all-but eliminated the educational effect)
2) BiB are immune to said letter of law, so public see BiB doing what the government are hammering them for doing...with no perceptible difference in risk!
I hope that makes sense - the Police are taking the PR battering for the policies which the government has implemented and which the quango SCP's are gleefully enforcing. The public need more serving police to stand up and put the lie to this "road safety" policy, so we can get some sane enforcement and policing (esp. of tailgating, road-rage, dwdc etc...) back on our roads and safety levels improving at a meaningful rate again.
as usual, the high and mighty try to take the high ground, and when they fail, they bail out....
problem is, there is NO DEFEBCE against the hipocracy of this situation, period.
evey time there is a thread like this, we get the same old bollox about how great the trianing is etc etc, but the police accident rate continues to rise way ahead of the overall acident rate.
I have said this before, but I will say it again, if you lot think your soo good, come and try racing against the rest of us, then we can see how good your 9 weeks of training was.
once again though, I suspect we will get all the usual rubbish about how racing is different, boaring, etc etc and other such excuses...
problem is, there is NO DEFEBCE against the hipocracy of this situation, period.
evey time there is a thread like this, we get the same old bollox about how great the trianing is etc etc, but the police accident rate continues to rise way ahead of the overall acident rate.
I have said this before, but I will say it again, if you lot think your soo good, come and try racing against the rest of us, then we can see how good your 9 weeks of training was.
once again though, I suspect we will get all the usual rubbish about how racing is different, boaring, etc etc and other such excuses...
Cooperman said:
If exceeding a speed limit is so VERY, VERY dangerous, where is the judgement that makes it OK for police drivers, but not OK for anyone else. . .
If speeding is dangerous, then it's as dangerous for the 'Old Bill' in real terms. If speeding, in itself, is not dangerous, then we need to be more pragmatic in how we all view it, police officers included.
Exactly, if speeding is so dangerous, then surely for the Plod it should be treated in the same way as discharging a firearm - something very serious indeed. Both would seem to be equally dangerous from the publicity we hear...
scuffham said:
as usual, the high and mighty try to take the high ground, and when they fail, they bail out....
problem is, there is NO DEFEBCE against the hipocracy of this situation, period.
evey time there is a thread like this, we get the same old bollox about how great the trianing is etc etc, but the police accident rate continues to rise way ahead of the overall acident rate.
I have said this before, but I will say it again, if you lot think your soo good, come and try racing against the rest of us, then we can see how good your 9 weeks of training was.
Havoc.
Thanks!
The above post is typical of the ones that make me determined to harden my stance. If you are a half reasonable person who has just made a mistake, then you will be lumped in with the attitude of the author of this post and we will argue the point if necessary before the bench!
scuffham said:
once again though, I suspect we will get all the usual rubbish about how racing is different, boaring, etc etc and other such excuses...
The only excuses offered are usually those who have been driving with their brain in neutral! I often listen to them.
Its not a question of bailing out at all. Just a question of realising that there is no point wasting valuable time on people who are not interested in an alternative point of view gained from experience and from professional knowledge.
I was brave enough like others to raise my head above the parrapet. I have been continually sniped at since!
Cheers anyway, the last three years have been an experience and I accept how most of you feel about the law. It is however the law and the Police are there to enforce it. Whether you agree with how that is done is mostly immaterial unless your particular official compliant about actions of individual officers is investigated and upheld.
I feel I am wasting my time. I do not need to spend time on this site to be ridiculed or receive abuse however it is directed. I have just had enough.
>> Edited by gone on Monday 10th October 21:22
zumbruk said:
Section 87, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984:
'No statutory provision imposing a speed limit ... shall apply to any
vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or
police purposes, if the observation of that provision would be likely to
hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose to which it is being put at
the time'.
"if the observation of that provision would be likely to
hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose to which it is being put at
the time'." is a qualifying statement to the exemption and is there for a reason.
A policeman can not break the speed limit simply because he is on duty - he would have to demostrated that the speed limit hindered them in their duty.
For example while on general patrol the speed limit does not hinder them and therefore they would not have an exception.
gone said:
as usual, the high and mighty try to take the high ground, and when they fail, they bail out....
problem is, there is NO DEFEBCE against the hipocracy of this situation, period.
evey time there is a thread like this, we get the same old bollox about how great the trianing is etc etc, but the police accident rate continues to rise way ahead of the overall acident rate.
I have said this before, but I will say it again, if you lot think your soo good, come and try racing against the rest of us, then we can see how good your 9 weeks of training was.
Havoc.
Thanks!
The above post is typical of the ones that make me determined to harden my stance. If you are a half reasonable person who has just made a mistake, then you will be lumped in with the attitude of the author of this post and we will argue the point if necessary before the bench!
scuffham said:
once again though, I suspect we will get all the usual rubbish about how racing is different, boaring, etc etc and other such excuses...
The only excuses offered are usually those who have been driving with their brain in neutral! I often listen to them.
Its not a question of bailing out at all. Just a question of realising that there is no point wasting valuable time on people who are not interested in an alternative point of view gained from experience and from professional knowledge.
I was brave enough like others to raise my head above the parrapet. I have been continually sniped at since!
Cheers anyway, the last three years have been an experience and I accept how most of you feel about the law. It is however the law and the Police are there to enforce it. Whether you agree with how that is done is mostly immaterial unless your particular official compliant about actions of individual officers is investigated and upheld.
I feel I am wasting my time. I do not need to spend time on this site to be ridiculed or receive abuse however it is directed. I have just had enough.
>> Edited by gone on Monday 10th October 21:22
Sorry to see you leave gone.
But perhapsthe way you feel you have been victimised/abused/ridiculed is directly linked to the same hardening of attitudes/opinions of 1000's of MOTORISTS around the country.
Mojo.
I rest me case....
once again, the high and mighty go off in a huff.
And before you do go off on one, just consider that I am not a 'hooligan' or serial speeder (clean licence thanks) etc etc.
I am just sick and tired of the same old b0ll0ck being trotted out by the boys in blue, both officially and in forums like this.
I pay a shed load in both direct TAX and council TAX to pay for you lot, what I and other expect is RESPECT and INTEGRATY, not high handed b0ll0cks.
>> Edited by scuffham on Monday 10th October 22:24
once again, the high and mighty go off in a huff.
And before you do go off on one, just consider that I am not a 'hooligan' or serial speeder (clean licence thanks) etc etc.
I am just sick and tired of the same old b0ll0ck being trotted out by the boys in blue, both officially and in forums like this.
I pay a shed load in both direct TAX and council TAX to pay for you lot, what I and other expect is RESPECT and INTEGRATY, not high handed b0ll0cks.
>> Edited by scuffham on Monday 10th October 22:24
gone said:
If you are a half reasonable person who has just made a mistake, then you will be lumped in with the attitude of the author of this post and we will argue the point if necessary before the bench!
Used to be I'd be happy with that arrangement, as I trusted all concerned to be honest and fair. Now...the public perception (mine included) genuinely is that the motorist is an easy target, and that magistrates:-
a) believe coppers over and above MoP, such that in a "his word vs mine", the copper will always win; and
b) don't always seem to understand points of fact or law, such that you may be in the right but if it's a speeding case you could still lose.
Oh - and (c) chances are it'd be an SCP employee/partner (uniformed or not) in court and I wouldn't trust those bunch as far as I could throw Mungo!!!
And I'd agree with Mojo's point above as well. "Speeding" is being pushed towards social unacceptability by the government, just like drink-driving was. But the difference is that many MoP can't see the direct link in the accident stats or in their personal experience, in the way that they could with DUI. Hence the pushback from society. Oh...and you never saw coppers driving around drunk...so there were never any clamours of establishment hypocrisy.
FWIW I still think the police are stuck in the middle of this and doing nothing wrong (most cases), but I also think many MoP are doing "nothing wrong" when an inappropriately-sited GATSO or van zaps them, say at 70 in a 60 or 83 in a 70 (both true cases, people I know, dry clear daylight conditions, no previous, sensible drivers.)
scuffham said:
as usual, the high and mighty try to take the high ground, and when they fail, they bail out....
problem is, there is NO DEFEBCE against the hipocracy of this situation, period.
evey time there is a thread like this, we get the same old bollox about how great the trianing is etc etc, but the police accident rate continues to rise way ahead of the overall acident rate.
I have said this before, but I will say it again, if you lot think your soo good, come and try racing against the rest of us, then we can see how good your 9 weeks of training was.
once again though, I suspect we will get all the usual rubbish about how racing is different, boaring, etc etc and other such excuses...
But as has been said by many on this thread, it's a non issue.
What's the point in making it one with Bib on this forum, most of whom agree with the nonsense of the current regime, and are (probably) trying their best to effect change of opinion. I've already had some influence with some pretty senior ranks, discussing such issues, along with ideas for better methods of protecting our motorists from the high risk road user groups.
It's a chip, chip process, but you won't be surprised if we bite to your thread header, and your subsequent rants.
But not a great deal of sense in falling out about it.
MMmmmh!.....Let's go back to the begining again eh?
In the begining, global pressures began to force governments to cut back on public spending and the raising of taxes, nationalised industries and so on. Maggie of course sold all them off.
Still not enough cut backs though, Mmmmmh! government looks around...."what activities can we offload to the private sector?" Various NHS functions? Hospital building (PFI's)? Let's sell off the railways! ...Motorway building and maintenance (roadcharging)? More "indirect taxes"? Cut backs in the fire service, the ambulance service? and every other service you can think of.
Oh wait a minute!............. did I forget something?
Yes the police force! now what can we hive off that they do?....Mmmmmh! office work!........traffic wardens are cheap...........Plastic policemen are cheap too!...Here! What if!!!!......we off loaded road policing and made it self funding!
Yeah! an' we could change the law so that all we need to do is take a photograph automatically, accuse them of speeding, send them the bill......why! we could MAKE money instead of it costing us to police it! "Brilliant"...(so said the mad mullah of the land of the dragon....alledgedly).
If there is anyone left in this country who believes that the policy of introducing the scamerati cameras and the "war upon the motorist" is ANYTHING to do with road safety then it's time that they saw their shrink!.......
In the begining, global pressures began to force governments to cut back on public spending and the raising of taxes, nationalised industries and so on. Maggie of course sold all them off.
Still not enough cut backs though, Mmmmmh! government looks around...."what activities can we offload to the private sector?" Various NHS functions? Hospital building (PFI's)? Let's sell off the railways! ...Motorway building and maintenance (roadcharging)? More "indirect taxes"? Cut backs in the fire service, the ambulance service? and every other service you can think of.
Oh wait a minute!............. did I forget something?
Yes the police force! now what can we hive off that they do?....Mmmmmh! office work!........traffic wardens are cheap...........Plastic policemen are cheap too!...Here! What if!!!!......we off loaded road policing and made it self funding!
Yeah! an' we could change the law so that all we need to do is take a photograph automatically, accuse them of speeding, send them the bill......why! we could MAKE money instead of it costing us to police it! "Brilliant"...(so said the mad mullah of the land of the dragon....alledgedly).
If there is anyone left in this country who believes that the policy of introducing the scamerati cameras and the "war upon the motorist" is ANYTHING to do with road safety then it's time that they saw their shrink!.......
I think the analogy with drink driving is an interesting one.
The Govt are trying to tell us that exceeding arbitary limits is as dangerous as drink driving.
Yet they also allow police drivers (and I'm not talking class 1 trained experts) to exceed the limits.
That is the crux of the argument on this thread. Allowing police cars to drive at 'lethal' speeds (my words, i.e. exceeding limits) just undermines the 'speeding kills' argument.
That's not the police's fault and it's largely irrelavent that some officers are highly trained when most aren't.
The Govt are trying to tell us that exceeding arbitary limits is as dangerous as drink driving.
Yet they also allow police drivers (and I'm not talking class 1 trained experts) to exceed the limits.
That is the crux of the argument on this thread. Allowing police cars to drive at 'lethal' speeds (my words, i.e. exceeding limits) just undermines the 'speeding kills' argument.
That's not the police's fault and it's largely irrelavent that some officers are highly trained when most aren't.
To play a little advocatus diaboli though Ted, drink driving is a question of exceeding arbitrary limits also, (although granted the police have no exemption) I'd much rather see a decent test of impairment in use than a best guess proxy such as blood alcohol level (I still think the current method is a better idea than no policing of drink-drive at all though).
PetrolTed said:
I think the analogy with drink driving is an interesting one.
The Govt are trying to tell us that exceeding arbitary limits is as dangerous as drink driving.
Yet they also allow police drivers (and I'm not talking class 1 trained experts) to exceed the limits.
That is the crux of the argument on this thread. Allowing police cars to drive at 'lethal' speeds (my words, i.e. exceeding limits) just undermines the 'speeding kills' argument.
That's not the police's fault and it's largely irrelavent that some officers are highly trained when most aren't.
So in reality, I think that all 'sides' of this argument are agreed that the status quo is an impossible, untenable situation, when, in order to justify the government's stance on speed enforcement, we have home office ministers declaring it a "serious criminal offence".
In reality we know that probably more than 80% of those caught speeding by camera are much safer than average drivers - so where is the sense in it all!
The argument lines drawn are not public against Bib, (although it easily can become one), it is generally a mutually held frustration about the methodology of enforcement.
It is clearly failing in terms of road safety, convenience, and PR.
The overall costs to the treasury are greater now than they were.
In this respect technology is the devil itself. It is crack cocaine - it sucks the authorities in with its guile, attractiveness and appeal.
They are now so far down the road, that although they now know the road they have travelled was completely wrong, they have neither the interest nor the strength nor the political humility to come back.
But it has created a bit of a mess.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff