RE: Police Too Busy
Discussion
Nice to see a couple of Police officers on here giving an honest view.. I do feel sorry for you, it must be depressing as hell watching the bleeding hearts cry out for the criminals rights.
I must say that when I have been pulled by Traffic (speed gun, and followed etc) I have been quite polite, and so have they, and I have been let off for
120Mph on a dual carriageway, Broken tail light plus front light and a sorry wheel or two (Student car), and 37mph (on Gun) in a 30 so I have met 3/4 really nice cops ( I would say that )
I have also met one or two complete *******rs incl a friend who opines that he can drive at 90mph with his mates (another coppers) a**e outta the passenger window mooning to other cars. Why ? Plod let plod go.
(Not all don't get me wrong, its his opinion).
The police are humans too...
I do actually accept that speeding is an offence, but I think we all know that many limits are too low (and being lowered !) and amazingly that is where the cameras are.. Shock, horror. Nice straight dual carriageway, 40mph limit.. That sucks. Or the hidden 'safety' camera that is sooo safe that you don't see it to slow down..
I used to have cars broken into all the time (bad estate) and my fathers car was stolen Every Sunday pm for a month. I know that if my dad and I waited around and 'had a word' with the regular thief that we would probably be in jail right now. Police did nothing.
I hope that the Govt will actually get tough on crime, and indeed will change the law on the side of us generally law abiding people..The Sun is on the case, and I know it is sad, but I bet you we will soon start seeing the results. One powerful paper that..
I must say that when I have been pulled by Traffic (speed gun, and followed etc) I have been quite polite, and so have they, and I have been let off for
120Mph on a dual carriageway, Broken tail light plus front light and a sorry wheel or two (Student car), and 37mph (on Gun) in a 30 so I have met 3/4 really nice cops ( I would say that )
I have also met one or two complete *******rs incl a friend who opines that he can drive at 90mph with his mates (another coppers) a**e outta the passenger window mooning to other cars. Why ? Plod let plod go.
(Not all don't get me wrong, its his opinion).
The police are humans too...
I do actually accept that speeding is an offence, but I think we all know that many limits are too low (and being lowered !) and amazingly that is where the cameras are.. Shock, horror. Nice straight dual carriageway, 40mph limit.. That sucks. Or the hidden 'safety' camera that is sooo safe that you don't see it to slow down..
I used to have cars broken into all the time (bad estate) and my fathers car was stolen Every Sunday pm for a month. I know that if my dad and I waited around and 'had a word' with the regular thief that we would probably be in jail right now. Police did nothing.
I hope that the Govt will actually get tough on crime, and indeed will change the law on the side of us generally law abiding people..The Sun is on the case, and I know it is sad, but I bet you we will soon start seeing the results. One powerful paper that..
quote:
Stop complaining about it, we don't get up in the morning deciding to go out and persecute motorists just because they are easy targets we deal with them because the break the rules.
I think that's a fair comment, I wouldn't expect a policeman to make decisions like "I don't think that law is right so I'll ignore anyone I see breaking it"
Many of us think the some parts of the law are misguided and should be changed, in particular that it is absurd to set a single maximum speed limit for a stretch of road that is supposed to be appropriate for all times and all conditions. This is not an argument to have with the police however.
What frustrates me (and others it seems) is that there are always funds and resources available for ever more speed cameras, radar and laser guns, police traffic cars (marked and unmarked) and now leading edge (and presumably massively expensive) technology to read number plates and even recognise faces, all designed to enforce a particular law which I believe is fundamentally flawed while the resources available to protect me from thieves, muggers, drug addicts etc. etc. are being constantly reduced and have now reached the point where the police simply have to stop trying to prevent certain types of crime.
Steve
What frustrates me (and others it seems) is that there are always funds and resources available for ever more speed cameras, radar and laser guns, police traffic cars (marked and unmarked) and now leading edge (and presumably massively expensive) technology to read number plates and even recognise faces, all designed to enforce a particular law which I believe is fundamentally flawed while the resources available to protect me from thieves, muggers, drug addicts etc. etc. are being constantly reduced and have now reached the point where the police simply have to stop trying to prevent certain types of crime.
Steve
An understandable view point. I'm not sure where the money for speed cameras comes from. Handheld laser guns have been used for ages now so I don't think there will suddenly be a mass spending on that. Regarding ANPR vehicles you're right to say that they are expensive, but they’re not used to target speeding offences. They work by recognising a number plate, then automatically checking that plate against the PNC to see if there are any markers on the vehicle. These could vary from 'vehicle used in drive off'(leave petrol stn without paying) to 'vehicle believed to be used by paedophiles.' I.e, they will spot a vehicle suspected to be used by a criminal.
The vehicle concerned can then be stop checked. I would say that 90% of criminals use vehicles to get around, whether they be stolen or pool cars. The ANPR is invaluable and can, if you sit in the right place with it, keep many officers busy all day dealing with criminals.
>> Edited by relaxitscool on Monday 11th March 15:57
Related but a bit O/T - some bleeding heart was on the radio complaining about Stop & Search this morning saying that in 80% of cases the person stopped hadn't even done anything wrong so it was massively inefficient.
I read that as in 20% of cases it's a criminal that gets stopped which I reckon is a pretty good average. If one copper can collar just five people per day, let's assume 200 on-duty days per year, that's 200 crims per officer/year which even in these days of stretched resources should keep the ungodly on the run pretty well.
The 20% would drop pretty quickly as the supply of criminals dried up if it wan't for the efficient recycling policy of the courts
I read that as in 20% of cases it's a criminal that gets stopped which I reckon is a pretty good average. If one copper can collar just five people per day, let's assume 200 on-duty days per year, that's 200 crims per officer/year which even in these days of stretched resources should keep the ungodly on the run pretty well.
The 20% would drop pretty quickly as the supply of criminals dried up if it wan't for the efficient recycling policy of the courts
quote:
Dan, Look at it this way. If you see a guy go through a red light and know a nearby officer sees it, you expect him or her to stop the car and give him a ticket. But if you do the same, would you pissed off for getting a ticket and tell the bobby to get out and catch real criminals or take it on the chin?. Most people do the former. What I’m trying to say the law is the law and we are under an obligation to enforce it all, not bits. Having said that, I can’t answer for all bobbies and know there are some arses out there.
Ah... now you've hit the nail on the head. Jumping a red light is bloody dangerous, while I probably can't put my hand on my heart and say I've never done this, I can't remember the last time I did, and if I did it certainly was not deliberate. (god knows there are enough bizarre junctions roundabouts etc. near where I live, that you are never sure which light refers to you).
I was caught speeding 3 years ago, I thought the road was derestricted, but it turned out to be a 30. The policeman that pulled me over showed me the radar gun… it said 47, (what I felt was a safe speed based on road and conditions), I was asked what I thought the speed limit was, I said I thought it was 60, I was told the limit was 30. Well what can you say… I was speeding, I got caught. It makes no difference what I thought the speed limit was. The copper practically apologised as the limit was not well posted (like I said most policemen and women I have spoken to are decent types), I took my points and fine, and that was it.
I think probably I speak for a number of people on this forum, but I pride myself on my driving, I go out of my way to drive at a reasonable distance from the car in front, I will not jump red lights, I always keep to the left on dual carriageways and motorways, If I hear a siren I make sure I know where its coming from and pull over at the safest convenient place, If a motorbike comes up behind me I pull over as far as is safe to allow him to pass...
...but, believe it or not I have on occasion broken the speed limit. I like to think I drive a sensible speeds depending on conditions and my surroundings, I also on occasion drive at well below the speed limit.
Driving safely is all about common sense. If it is 3:30 outside the local primary school, you should drive at a speed whereby if a kiddy runs out from between those parked 6’ Numptymobiles (which have been designed to make it impossible to see kids through) you can either stop or at least avoid the little bugger. Whereas the local dual carriageway on a clear bright morning is safe at about 50-55 (various weird junctions) however it’s posted at 40!
Relaxitscool, I’m not having a go at you, I’m glad you and JR take the time to post here, but It amazes me that there seems to be this perception that people who drive fast are homicidal maniacs who don’t care who they kill in their single minded pursuit of speed. While this maybe true in some cases the majority of owners of performance cars, like me pride themselves on their driving… They may just do it a little quickly from time to time.
Christ this post has turned into an epic!! Sorry about that.
Cheers Dan
quote:
Many of us think the some parts of the law are misguided and should be changed, in particular that it is absurd to set a single maximum speed limit for a stretch of road that is supposed to be appropriate for all times and all conditions.
This is a point which annoys me! (I'm not annoyed at Steve or the Police) My local council recently lowered speed limits around primary schools to 20mph! But they only did it in one or two towns. It's not widespread! The school in my town still has a 30 limit on the 2 roads that pass it. So do most other school in the area except 3! (schools that is) What gets me is that, although the motorist was happy with the limit to start with, it ios now being ignored byall, including the police! And I know why! The idea wasn't thought up by the council, or the school, or the police, it was thought up by the parents, the parents who drive to drop of and pick up little johnny! They decided the 30mph limit is unsafe and so decided to campaign for a 20 limit! And now even the campaigners are doing 30!!
The coucils and local authorities don't listen to the public, they take public opinion as the minority that are making the most noise! And so act on this 'noise'! Usually created by busy-bodies and the like who can't even drive!!!!
that's not a lot!Police too busy?
There's a story going round which is certainly believeable even if it isn't true. Goes something like this.
A householder calls the police because his garage is being broken into. told too busy.
He rings back and tells the police not to bother, he has just shot the intruder.
As if by magic, dozens of police arrive & arrest the unharmed intruder and the householder.
They question the householder; "You lied to us; you said that you had shot the intruder!"
He counters; "You said that there were no policemen available..."
Makes you think.
I back the police, I just wonder if they aren't being distracted by targets, paperwork, politics, admin, lawyers working the legal aid system etc.
Hats off to those of you who are policemen, it is a thankless job.
There's a story going round which is certainly believeable even if it isn't true. Goes something like this.
A householder calls the police because his garage is being broken into. told too busy.
He rings back and tells the police not to bother, he has just shot the intruder.
As if by magic, dozens of police arrive & arrest the unharmed intruder and the householder.
They question the householder; "You lied to us; you said that you had shot the intruder!"
He counters; "You said that there were no policemen available..."
Makes you think.
I back the police, I just wonder if they aren't being distracted by targets, paperwork, politics, admin, lawyers working the legal aid system etc.
Hats off to those of you who are policemen, it is a thankless job.
quote:
They decided the 30mph limit is unsafe and so decided to campaign for a 20 limit!
I'm going to change my logon to "Cracked Record" but this is the crux of the whole argument.
Of COURSE it's silly to drive at 40+ past a school where the Canyoneros are dropping off the sprogs but driving past the same school at 3am in the morning at 20mph is failing to make normal progress.
Of COURSE 80mph through fog on the M62 is stupid and dangerous but on a clear motorway on a sunny day it's ponderous.
The answer is to train drivers to recognise hazards and drive appropriately. It's not rocket science, it's not even "Little Scientist - 100 Experiments You Can Do On The Kitchen Table" science. It doesn't even have very many big words in it and if you're having problems they're all in the dictionary for f**k's sake.
Yes, I know that everyone who posts here already knows all this. Yes I know you've all heard it a thousand times before. Yes I know I'm being boring and repetitive but why is it that there are so many otherwise intelligent people who just can't get a grip on something this simple?
My mind is reeling with the concept that people just can't understand this. I'm going home now to smash my head against a wall until it bleeds.
Goodnight
Steve
Yum, that was a true story, he used a water pistol to 'shoot' the scrote.
We are all on here arguing the same points time and again, we know speed is dangerous is used inappropriately (sp?) but why are we not mailing the council, the papers etc and getting these outdated laws changed and more reasonable ones put it..
We all also wonder why Plod can sit for days at a time behind a tree in a 40mph dual carriageway safely zapping speeders but if you are attacked in the street or your car is nicked plod are not interested.
This stop and seach business is quite simple to me (I've been stopped twice now) - If you are NOT committing or abouts to commit a crime, then it is 5 minutes of your time taken up. Nothing more.
We are all on here arguing the same points time and again, we know speed is dangerous is used inappropriately (sp?) but why are we not mailing the council, the papers etc and getting these outdated laws changed and more reasonable ones put it..
We all also wonder why Plod can sit for days at a time behind a tree in a 40mph dual carriageway safely zapping speeders but if you are attacked in the street or your car is nicked plod are not interested.
This stop and seach business is quite simple to me (I've been stopped twice now) - If you are NOT committing or abouts to commit a crime, then it is 5 minutes of your time taken up. Nothing more.
Steve, how true. All these threads will probably end in somebody stating that inappropriate use of speed should be punished and better driver training is the way forward. Shame the goverment can't see it. Stiil, the discussions en route to these conclusions is always entertaining...long may it continue 
quote:
All these threads will probably end in somebody stating that inappropriate use of speed should be punished and better driver training is the way forward. Shame the goverment can't see it
Actually my reply from Essex County Council when I whinged about 'Stealth Tax Collectors' was that he agreed that not all drivers are very good, and used that as a justification for reducing speed limits.. I am formulating a reply :d
Also, as an aside, a barrister stated in the paper yesterday that the Court of Appeal ruled that the Police MUST attempt to resolve All crime and as such refusal to attend a crime scene is illegal....
It's quite obvious,even to the most dimwitted,that police pursue speeding with such tenacity because they get a cut out of the proceeds.Simple innit?Plus,as speeding is an "absolute" offence they don't have to prove motive,opportunity etc.etc. Easy and cheap for them to do,especially when you consider their return. (It's good for "clear-up rate" also)
>> Edited by esselte on Tuesday 12th March 10:11
>> Edited by esselte on Tuesday 12th March 10:11
quote:IIRC The police don't get a cut - the money still goes to the treasury but from the money, local authorities can apply for grants to maintain cameras and install new ones, so it's not the decision of the police.
It's quite obvious,even to the most dimwitted,that police pursue speeding with such tenacity because they get a cut out of the proceeds.Simple innit?
The police are in fact merely the tool of the local authorities and government - blame them for all this.
Quite so, but if the police are pursuing motorists for these reasons, then it is because they have been set targets by the government which can be achieved in this way. If targets were thought about and set properly they would mean the police would need to target violent crime instead of meeting their broad targets by scooping up motorists.
Again, the buck stops with the government.
Again, the buck stops with the government.
quote:
Surely the fact that it's one of the easiest 'crimes' to police is a factor. It's black and white - you were either speeding or you weren't and the amount of evidence required to be produced in support of the accusation is minimal in comparison to other crimes.
True, but if you were to record the amount of speeding convictions to the amount of people actually committing the offence, it would probably be the worst detection rate ever!! (impossible to do I know) In comparison and despite what's reported, the conviction ratio of other crimes, such as Robbery is quite good.
Yes traffic offences can be easy to prove, that’s because most are 'found committing' or witnessed by an officer. Hence the evidence is good. When you start to bring in civilian witnesses the job with of course become more complicated and require more investigation. That’s why there's lot more officers dedicated to dealing with crime rather than traffic. Which when you think about this is risky. After all, its the traffic department who keep the roads moving. If it weren’t for them, the country would grind to a halt.
At the risk of being misinterpreted, I think this whole forum is in risk of becoming (to paraphrasae Steve)something of a cracked record.
We are all agreed on what the true causes of death on the roads are, we are all aggreed on who the real criminals are, we are all agreed on whose fault it is (largely).
Indeed, we are all wasting our breath preaching to the converted on a car enthusiast forum.
I'm sure that a lot of guys here are subscribers to the Association of British Drivers (ABD), but for those who aren't, can I suggest you join? It only costs a few quid a year, and for that you get an entertaining and informative newsletter regularly.
I am aware of how unlikely it is that most of us will actually bother writing to our MP, council etc, for all our incessant bitching. Having done this, I also know how unproductive an excercise it is, should you actually get around to it.
So why not give someone else your backing and let them do the work? That's not really the true spirit of the ABD, admittedly, but it's better than bitching to each other to no effect.
(BTW, I'm not having a go at anyone on this forum, I agree entirely with what everyone is saying, and the whole thing incences me to the point of epilepsy)
We are all agreed on what the true causes of death on the roads are, we are all aggreed on who the real criminals are, we are all agreed on whose fault it is (largely).
Indeed, we are all wasting our breath preaching to the converted on a car enthusiast forum.
I'm sure that a lot of guys here are subscribers to the Association of British Drivers (ABD), but for those who aren't, can I suggest you join? It only costs a few quid a year, and for that you get an entertaining and informative newsletter regularly.
I am aware of how unlikely it is that most of us will actually bother writing to our MP, council etc, for all our incessant bitching. Having done this, I also know how unproductive an excercise it is, should you actually get around to it.
So why not give someone else your backing and let them do the work? That's not really the true spirit of the ABD, admittedly, but it's better than bitching to each other to no effect.
(BTW, I'm not having a go at anyone on this forum, I agree entirely with what everyone is saying, and the whole thing incences me to the point of epilepsy)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff