calibrated speedometers

[boristhebold]

'''All of these things are of the same negative philosophy as the manner in which these officers performed their duties in this case. They ignored the brutally expensive equipment that we all pay for and switched it off: they chased a driver whose driving was absolutely flawless and accused him of speeding with absolutely no evidence. The state of their vehicle is testimony to the mentality they display when doing their job; it is unkempt and uncared for.'''

I only have what has been written here on this thread to go on...

The Officers drive the cars allocated to them, there is no excuse for scruffy, litter strewn vehicles (Although I imagine the Daily Mail headline when it is discovered Officers spent 30 minutes a day washing and vaccing cars), however, the kit installation is down to the Garage. It looks a very poor installation.
Imagine coming on duty at 5pm, for a 10 hour shift. One of your fleet is in the garage in any case, another has been 'borrowed' by firearms (more on that later) and the 3rd one is already out on the 2 x 10 shift. You are left with 2 options, take the ratty unmarked one with the bad install, awaiting going to be stripped and to the block...or don't go out (Another Mail headline, ''Cops don't show at bump as they refused to drive a dirty car'') The car in question may well have minor niggles with the kit that the 2 officers knew about and chose to keep the kit switched off, relying on old fashioned methods ?
Lots of Forces use their vehicles for more than one role now and Armed Response is one level up from Traffic if a firearms incident is happening...so if ARV s are a car down, they will take a traffic car. It will not come back in the same state it left in. It WILL be full of litter and WILL have feet marks on the dash.
The vast majority of Traffic Officers...read more than 95%... will keep a tidy, washed car. The inverse is often true of firearms officers.
I am neither a traffic bobby, nor a firearms bobby but have seen them close up for more years than I care to remember, so no axe to grind there. I was also given a £60, 3 point SP30 in January, so again, not one of the self righteous brigade.

It just makes me laugh/cry/annoyed when so many people moan at being caught for a motoring offence and do anything they can to wriggle out of it. The same people moan at speed cameras, but then again at being stopped by a real Bobby. The ever present 'you should be out catching real criminals'. So many tales of a mate of a mate told me.......mainly uncorroborated....
I'll go back to my little hole and hibernate again now...

[Mr Tea]

vonhosen said:

loomx said:

vonhosen said:

Spoken testimony is accepted for what it is (& is often good enough) in a court for assaults etc. Why should it not be OK in traffic matters in those circumstances ?
I've said before though that I am more than happy to record every encounter with the public.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 26th April 19:41

Because if someone sees an assult with thier eyes they would know it happened, if you see someone driving fast, you cannot know they are speeding 100%, and therefore need proof to back it up.

It really is as simple as that!

You can know they are speeding & you can produce evidence of it too.

All you need is the opinion of two officers (formed independently at the same time), or one officer & a speedometer. That's all the back up required.

The officers give their testimony but there is no physical evidence to submit before the court, just as there may be no physical evidence to submit before the court for a common assault or public order offence etc.

It's really as simple as that.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 29th September 21:20

Sorry Von, I think you might be missingthe point here; no-one is saying that a policeman's word under oath should be good evidence if there is no other form of corroberation. The OP's point here (as I understand it) related neatly to your examples; imagine if you will a Police officer on the beat, they have a video camera with facial recognition technology specifically in order to allow them to identify offenders. A man walks past a woman, punches her in the face, steals her handbag, throws a brick through a shop window and runs off into the night. The officer chose not to turn the camera on to record the incident and merely gives a witness statement where they identify the offender from an ID parade.

Does that sound like clever policing to you?

[vonhosen]

Mr Tea said:

vonhosen said:

loomx said:

vonhosen said:

Spoken testimony is accepted for what it is (& is often good enough) in a court for assaults etc. Why should it not be OK in traffic matters in those circumstances ?
I've said before though that I am more than happy to record every encounter with the public.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 26th April 19:41

Because if someone sees an assult with thier eyes they would know it happened, if you see someone driving fast, you cannot know they are speeding 100%, and therefore need proof to back it up.

It really is as simple as that!

You can know they are speeding & you can produce evidence of it too.

All you need is the opinion of two officers (formed independently at the same time), or one officer & a speedometer. That's all the back up required.

The officers give their testimony but there is no physical evidence to submit before the court, just as there may be no physical evidence to submit before the court for a common assault or public order offence etc.

It's really as simple as that.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 29th September 21:20

Sorry Von, I think you might be missingthe point here; no-one is saying that a policeman's word under oath should be good evidence if there is no other form of corroberation. The OP's point here (as I understand it) related neatly to your examples; imagine if you will a Police officer on the beat, they have a video camera with facial recognition technology specifically in order to allow them to identify offenders. A man walks past a woman, punches her in the face, steals her handbag, throws a brick through a shop window and runs off into the night. The officer chose not to turn the camera on to record the incident and merely gives a witness statement where they identify the offender from an ID parade.

Does that sound like clever policing to you?

But are you suggesting he should compound it by saying to the woman "there's nothing I can do about the offence as my camera wasn't working for <insert favourite reason here>" ?

[jith]

ipsg.glf said:

jith said:

they chased a driver whose driving was absolutely flawless and accused him of speeding with absolutely no evidence. The state of their vehicle is testimony to the mentality they display when doing their job; it is unkempt and uncared for. Their interference, and I mean that quite literally, in this man's life has cost him dear financially and emotionally, and it has achieved utterly nothing.

You will never, I repeat never, achieve a decent standard of driving until the ludicrous notion that strictly controlling speed is a priority.

Flawless? Says who?
No evidence? Says who?

I don't want to see prosecutions for minor infractions of the speed limit. I know of no-one who does (except the loonies, of course)

But 100mph in a 70mph is over 40% over the speed limit. Hardly a minor transgression if you look at it that way.

Apologies for not responding immediately to these threads, but I can't spend the same time on here that I used to, and quite frankly, I am tired of going over the same ground and seeing things actually get worse rather than better.

More detail; the two officers who stopped this lad actually complimented him on his style of driving; THEY said it was flawless. They then went on to accuse him of this speed and could show him absolutely nothing, leaving him literally stunned. He is sitting in the rear of the vehicle shown in the pictures, knows nothing about how detection equipment works, observes all the gadgets and cables everywhere, but knows damn well whether or not something is switched on! Quite frankly, I am utterly dismayed that anyone can come on here under these specific cicumstances and think that this is acceptable. My god, what kind of standards do some of you people work to?

The conversation I had with the second Fiscal was an even bigger eye opener than the inspection on the vehicle. When I asked him if he had actually read the report that disclosed the police had everything switched off, he accused me of being ridiculous and said that "the police would never do a thing like that!" I responded by telling him that it is in the report, they stated it themselves!! Clearly he never read it, but worst of all he did not have a clue about how the police operate in unmarked vehicles or how the equipment functions. What the hell is this individual doing working in the prosecution service when he has no idea how the evidence is accrued?

When we entered a not guilty plea and requested the evidence all that was received was two extremely summary reports from the officers and a so-called calibration certificate from two other officers from the shift before. The two that had carried out the report did not test the speedo at the start of their shift nor at the end: or if they did would not state that they did and could not supply certificates.

This case and the others similar to it that I have been involved in raise many questions, but the two at the top of the list are firstly the business of the police being unable to present any physical or material evidence whatsoever, and I'm not prepared to debate that issue any further. Secondly there has to be questions asked as to how they can justify both the clear abuse of process by failing to provide sufficient and pertinent evidence when they have the means to do so, and why there is still this ludicrous and totally ill founded emphasis on speeding offences in the apparent name of road safety.

Lastly let me once again remind you that this nonsense about the lad might have been lying about his speed, or he should own up and take it on the chin, is most definitely NOT how the law works. The onus of proof of an offence lies squarely with the crown. It is not up to the driver at any time to assume the police got it right and "take it on the chin". It is the clear cut responsibility of the police and the prosecution service to competently and professionally prosecute a crime. In this case they failed dismally to reach anything approaching a professional standard; that's why they lost.

[p1esk]

James - thanks for your PM, and the above post.

The amount of time and effort that goes into processing these speeding cases makes me sick. If I had my way speed limits would be advisory, and we wouldn't get nicked for exceeding them unless some other more important factor were to be present; and I do not believe that such a policy would have any seriously detrimental effect on safety. This entire speeding business is a complete load of bks.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[saaby93]

In many cases they are treated as being advisory
eg buffer zones outside towns village where they extend the limit an extra 1/4 mile to allow people to slow down. The people that requested them dont expect them to be enforced to the limit

[vonhosen]

saaby93 said:

In many cases they are treated as being advisory
eg buffer zones outside towns village where they extend the limit an extra 1/4 mile to allow people to slow down. The people that requested them dont expect them to be enforced to the limit

The limit means what it means, not what you would like it to mean.

[saaby93]

vonhosen said:

saaby93 said:

In many cases they are treated as being advisory
eg buffer zones outside towns village where they extend the limit an extra 1/4 mile to allow people to slow down. The people that requested them dont expect them to be enforced to the limit

The limit means what it means, not what you would like it to mean.

I know that
but if anyone asks it seems the police often respond with waste of police time, otherwise theyd be issuing tickets to the people who requested the extension in the first place.

[vonhosen]

saaby93 said:

vonhosen said:

saaby93 said:

In many cases they are treated as being advisory
eg buffer zones outside towns village where they extend the limit an extra 1/4 mile to allow people to slow down. The people that requested them dont expect them to be enforced to the limit

The limit means what it means, not what you would like it to mean.

I know that
but if anyone asks it seems the police often respond with waste of police time, otherwise theyd be issuing tickets to the people who requested the extension in the first place.

People do get prosecuted in those areas, when those tasked with upholding the law choose to.

[saaby93]

vonhosen said:

saaby93 said:

vonhosen said:

saaby93 said:

In many cases they are treated as being advisory
eg buffer zones outside towns village where they extend the limit an extra 1/4 mile to allow people to slow down. The people that requested them dont expect them to be enforced to the limit

The limit means what it means, not what you would like it to mean.

I know that
but if anyone asks it seems the police often respond with waste of police time, otherwise theyd be issuing tickets to the people who requested the extension in the first place.

People do get prosecuted in those areas, when those tasked with upholding the law choose to.

I also know that
However the people being with issued with tickets will have still been treating the limit as being advisory.

[p1esk]

saaby93 said:

In many cases they are treated as being advisory
eg buffer zones outside towns village where they extend the limit an extra 1/4 mile to allow people to slow down. The people that requested them dont expect them to be enforced to the limit

I'm now pretty diligent about respecting red ring limits, but I feel that buffer zones bring red ring limits into disrepute. Apply the 30 limit to protect the area that needs protecting, and I'll happily comply with that, but I do not respect buffer zone limits. They should be abolished, along with speed humps, rumble strips, and most of the nonsense known as traffic calming. Driver calming is what we want.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[vonhosen]

saaby93 said:

vonhosen said:

saaby93 said:

vonhosen said:

saaby93 said:

In many cases they are treated as being advisory
eg buffer zones outside towns village where they extend the limit an extra 1/4 mile to allow people to slow down. The people that requested them dont expect them to be enforced to the limit

The limit means what it means, not what you would like it to mean.

I know that
but if anyone asks it seems the police often respond with waste of police time, otherwise theyd be issuing tickets to the people who requested the extension in the first place.

People do get prosecuted in those areas, when those tasked with upholding the law choose to.

I also know that
However the people being with issued with tickets will have still been treating the limit as being advisory.

Anyone can treat any limit as advisory if they wish.
What they can't control is whether they'll be prosecuted for doing so (where they were travelling in excess of that limit).

[vonhosen]

p1esk said:

saaby93 said:

In many cases they are treated as being advisory
eg buffer zones outside towns village where they extend the limit an extra 1/4 mile to allow people to slow down. The people that requested them dont expect them to be enforced to the limit

I'm now pretty diligent about respecting red ring limits, but I feel that buffer zones bring red ring limits into disrepute. Apply the 30 limit to protect the area that needs protecting, and I'll happily comply with that, but I do not respect buffer zone limits. They should be abolished, along with speed humps, rumble strips, and most of the nonsense known as traffic calming. Driver calming is what we want.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Why is a red ringed limit any different to a NSL ?

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 3rd October 14:12

[p1esk]

vonhosen said:

p1esk said:

saaby93 said:

In many cases they are treated as being advisory
eg buffer zones outside towns village where they extend the limit an extra 1/4 mile to allow people to slow down. The people that requested them dont expect them to be enforced to the limit

I'm now pretty diligent about respecting red ring limits, but I feel that buffer zones bring red ring limits into disrepute. Apply the 30 limit to protect the area that needs protecting, and I'll happily comply with that, but I do not respect buffer zone limits. They should be abolished, along with speed humps, rumble strips, and most of the nonsense known as traffic calming. Driver calming is what we want.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Why is a red ringed limit any different to a NSL ?

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 3rd October 14:12

Because red ringed limits are (in the main) applicable to built-up areas, where the hazard density is greater, and it is more appropriate to go around steadily and quietly, but the open road is a different environment where we should be free to use a wider range of speeds - just like it used to be.

I don't suppose a young fella like you will see it that way, not having experienced pre-NSL driving, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[vonhosen]

p1esk said:

vonhosen said:

p1esk said:

saaby93 said:

In many cases they are treated as being advisory
eg buffer zones outside towns village where they extend the limit an extra 1/4 mile to allow people to slow down. The people that requested them dont expect them to be enforced to the limit

I'm now pretty diligent about respecting red ring limits, but I feel that buffer zones bring red ring limits into disrepute. Apply the 30 limit to protect the area that needs protecting, and I'll happily comply with that, but I do not respect buffer zone limits. They should be abolished, along with speed humps, rumble strips, and most of the nonsense known as traffic calming. Driver calming is what we want.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Why is a red ringed limit any different to a NSL ?

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 3rd October 14:12

Because red ringed limits are (in the main) applicable to built-up areas, where the hazard density is greater, and it is more appropriate to go around steadily and quietly, but the open road is a different environment where we should be free to use a wider range of speeds - just like it used to be.

But do you struggle determining what's an appropriate speed in the circumstances in town ?

My experience is that the speed limit in town doesn't tell me what is a safe maximum there any more than a NSL tells me what a safe maximum is. Each is just a line drawn in the sand & if I I see reason to stick to one it equally applies to the other.

p1esk said:

I don't suppose a young fella like you will see it that way, not having experienced pre-NSL driving, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I've plenty of experience of the NSL not applying a speed limit in relation to my driving (& in modern cars on modern roads, rather than a 1960 Wolseley )

[p1esk]

vonhosen said:

p1esk said:

vonhosen said:

p1esk said:

saaby93 said:

In many cases they are treated as being advisory
eg buffer zones outside towns village where they extend the limit an extra 1/4 mile to allow people to slow down. The people that requested them dont expect them to be enforced to the limit

I'm now pretty diligent about respecting red ring limits, but I feel that buffer zones bring red ring limits into disrepute. Apply the 30 limit to protect the area that needs protecting, and I'll happily comply with that, but I do not respect buffer zone limits. They should be abolished, along with speed humps, rumble strips, and most of the nonsense known as traffic calming. Driver calming is what we want.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Why is a red ringed limit any different to a NSL ?

Because red ringed limits are (in the main) applicable to built-up areas, where the hazard density is greater, and it is more appropriate to go around steadily and quietly, but the open road is a different environment where we should be free to use a wider range of speeds - just like it used to be.

vonhosen said:

But do you struggle determining what's an appropriate speed in the circumstances in town ?

No. I accept 30 as a maximum, but adjust it downwards from there if necessary, according to circumstances.

vonhosen said:

My experience is that the speed limit in town doesn't tell me what is a safe maximum there any more than a NSL tells me what a safe maximum is. Each is just a line drawn in the sand & if I I see reason to stick to one it equally applies to the other.

p1esk said:

I don't suppose a young fella like you will see it that way, not having experienced pre-NSL driving, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I've plenty of experience of the NSL not applying a speed limit in relation to my driving (& in modern cars on modern roads, rather than a 1960 Wolseley )

Cheeky! I have no experience of 1960 Wolseleys, but I do have experience of 1950s Austin A35, A40 Farina and of course my first car - a 1960 Austin-Healey Sprite. Your 'NSL not applying a speed limit' only relates to your special situation with your work. Apart from that you're in the same boat as the rest of us, as indeed you have acknowledged on numerous occasions, i.e. you can't afford to get nicked.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Edit: Yes, I know I've made a bit of a balls-up of the quoting, but I'm sure a bright bunch of fellas like you will understand which bits I'm responsible for.

Edited by p1esk on Sunday 4th October 17:41

[Stubby Pete]

ipsg.glf said:

Could the young chap be lying about his actual speed?

If you think grave miscarriages of justice are taking place why don't you try to convince people of that, club together and buy a covertly equipped car with calibrated speedo and await a 'wrongful' prosecution.

I can't honestly see what other options you have.

Do you really think that Police Officers would put their job, pension and liberty at stake for the sake of catching a speeding motorist, who did not seem to endanger anyone in the process?

So from that comment, can we assume that the Officers in the OP's tale of woe have been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice and sacked with no pension??

I think not!!

I don't think anybody genuinely believes that all traffic cops are corrupt, equally I would be surprised if anybody believed that all were completely without fault.
The point that matters is that an accusation of speeding is not evidential and therefore should not result in a prosecution. Reasonable doubt surely has a place in our judicial system?

Two people have a story to tell, there is no reasonable doubt simply because one of them wears a uniform? I for one would not have a problem on the whole and have indeed accepted 3 points and £60 with no evidence (based on the opinion of 2 officers with a calibrated speedo) simply to avoid the hassle of court and I was guilty. However, this opens up a huge fault in the system and allows for prosecutions to be gained when there is no tangible evidence whatsoever, if targets of prosecutions were ever to be introduced (if they are not already albeit unofficialy) this would be very dangerous for the public.

Edited to add one word for the pedants amongst us

Edited by Stubby Pete on Sunday 4th October 20:05

[vonhosen]

Stubby Pete said:

ipsg.glf said:

Could the young chap be lying about his actual speed?

If you think grave miscarriages of justice are taking place why don't you try to convince people of that, club together and buy a covertly equipped car with calibrated speedo and await a 'wrongful' prosecution.

I can't honestly see what other options you have.

Do you really think that Police Officers would put their job, pension and liberty at stake for the sake of catching a speeding motorist, who did not seem to endanger anyone in the process?

So from that comment, can we assume that the Officers in the OP's tale of woe have been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice and sacked with no pension??

I think not!!

I don't think anybody genuinely believes that all traffic cops are corrupt, equally I would be surprised if anybody believed that all were completely without fault.
The point that matters is that an accusation of speeding is not evidential and therefore should not result in a prosecution. Reasonable doubt surely has a place in our judicial system?

Two people have a story to tell, there is no reasonable doubt simply because one of them wears a uniform? I for one would not have a problem on the whole and have indeed accepted 3 points and £60 with no evidence (based on the opinion of 2 officers with a calibrated speedo) simply to avoid the hassle of court and I was guilty. However, this opens up a huge fault in the system and allows for prosecutions to be gained when there is no evidence wahtsoever, if targets of prosecutions were ever to be introduced (if they are not already albeit unofficialy) this would be very dangerous for the public.

Testimony is evidence.

[Richard C]

saaby93 said:

In many cases they are treated as being advisory
eg buffer zones outside towns village where they extend the limit an extra 1/4 mile to allow people to slow down. The people that requested them dont expect them to be enforced to the limit

That might have been the case once upon a time but in many places such as North Wales, South Wales, Cheshire, Oxfordshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire - just a few places I know about and observe - they are certainly not. Police and civilian manned camera vans specialise in catching those who are still above the limit in the first few tens of yards or speed up in the last few.

[Richard C]

vonhosen said:

saaby93 said:

vonhosen said:

saaby93 said:

In many cases they are treated as being advisory
eg buffer zones outside towns village where they extend the limit an extra 1/4 mile to allow people to slow down. The people that requested them dont expect them to be enforced to the limit

The limit means what it means, not what you would like it to mean.

I know that
but if anyone asks it seems the police often respond with waste of police time, otherwise theyd be issuing tickets to the people who requested the extension in the first place.

People do get prosecuted in those areas, when those tasked with upholding the law choose to.

You bet. its where its easier for the morons in the vans to catch more people now that so many drive below the limit now.