3 points and 100 fine for tyre on 1.5.7

[Bigends]

Mk3Spitfire said:

I would say approx 50% of my crimes are pro active, so that blows your argument out the water.

That you came across actually in progress and werent assigned to??
This part of the thread arose from my pointing out that RTA stops were to be reviewed to ensure they were carried out properly and fairly -from which Greendubber then stated the Police wouldnt be able to carry out there job and crime would rise. This wouldnt necessarily be the case - if the Home office dont feel the current regs are being abused then there wont be a problem.
Theyre just looking at bringing traffic stop accountability in line with that of all other stop /interrogate rules.

If you were serving in 1984 you'd know how we felt when PACE was introduced

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 9th December 20:52

[Mk3Spitfire]

Bigends said:

That you came across actually in progress and werent assigned to??

Correct. Perhaps 40% if you take out the ones I've come across whilst dealing with assigned calls. But easily that many from pro active stop checks. Never once conducted an illegal stop and never been tempted to. If it's there I'll find and deal with it, if there's no grounds etc, they're on their way.

[Bigends]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Correct. Perhaps 40% if you take out the ones I've come across whilst dealing with assigned calls. But easily that many from pro active stop checks. Never once conducted an illegal stop and never been tempted to. If it's there I'll find and deal with it, if there's no grounds etc, they're on their way.

Well done - you'll be one of the few that hasnt then

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 9th December 20:59

[Greendubber]

Bigends said:

Well done - you'll be one of the few that hasnt then

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 9th December 20:59

So you're saying the majority have then?

Very bold of you.

I think that sums up your attitude towards bobbies quite well. Presume they're all wrong, on the fiddle and you know better as pointed out by another poster the other day.

Edited by Greendubber on Tuesday 9th December 21:58

[Bigends]

Greendubber said:

So you're saying the majority have then?

Very bold of you.

I think that sums up your attitude towards bobbies quite well. Presume they're all wrong, on the fiddle and you know better as pointed out by another poster the other day.

Not at all - merely pointed out HMICs findings - read my posts.
27% of stop searches they reviewed were iffy
Ive been with Police since leaving school. still work with and mates with many cops and we regularly havethese discussions - off to a force do this Friday - its lack of knowledge of the rules thats wanting at the moment in many cases - not dishonesty and ive never said that was the case.
Good example on telly the other week. Car full of lads stopped - just out late -not doing anything wrong. Next thing , with no explanation theyre all out and both them and the car searched - no grounds or reason given - nothing found - - thats where the problem often lies or has GOWISELY been done away with now. If the HMIC find more problems you can guarantee you'll have more restrictions put on you - thats a fact. Im in the world of rules and compliance. Many serving cops see them as a nuisance and obstruction, theyre there for a reason. How would you like a family member stopped and turned over with no good reason -doubt you would.

Edited by Greendubber on Tuesday 9th December 21:58[/footnote]

[footnote]Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 9th December 22:44

[Mk3Spitfire]

Bigends said:

Well done - you'll be one of the few that hasnt then

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 9th December 20:59

I think that's quite an offensive assumption. I don't know where you work that is full of such corrupt officers.
And no, I'm a post PACE.
Perhaps GOWISELY isn't perfectly explained by all officers at all stops, but that doesn't necessarioy make the stop "iffy". I fear you will only read the results which back up your negative views of the police.

[ging84]

ORD said:

The second chap is almost certainly right. A statutory measurement is absolute. The accuracy of the measuring device would just tell you whether or not it can confidently be said that the limit has or has not been exceeded. If the measurement is 1.599999999999999999mm and is accurate, the tyre is illegal.

Is that a fact or an assumption
If that were a fact it would close this issue, but i'm not at all convinced it is correct.

I can find various examples in the type approval system where standard rounding is required, in some cases vehicles at the limit would fail or fall into another category had they have been measured to a higher resolution.
CO2 emissions for example is rounded to the nearest whole number, given quite how many vehicles which are right on the limits of these bands, it would be fair to say, there is a awful lot of us unwittingly committing tax fraud because we have our vehicles registered in the wrong category for ved.
There are also plenty of high performance cars which are right up to the limit on the drive by noise test, I suspect without them being rounded to the nearest integer many of then would be above the limit and therefore illegal

[Elroy Blue]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Perhaps GOWISELY isn't perfectly explained by all officers at all stops, but that doesn't necessarioy make the stop "iffy". I fear you will only read the results which back up your negative views of the police.

Precisely. Once I'd waded through his complete inability to quote correctly, I found he'd just ignored the point I made and repeated his 'statistics'.

Never in a month of sundays was this bloke ever a frontline Officer.

[Greendubber]

Elroy Blue said:

Precisely. Once I'd waded through his complete inability to quote correctly, I found he'd just ignored the point I made and repeated his 'statistics'.

Never in a month of sundays was this bloke ever a frontline Officer.

He says someone is one of the 'few' that get it right and then posts a statistic that actually shows its the majority that get it right.

Oh well.

[ORD]

ging84 said:

ORD said:

The second chap is almost certainly right. A statutory measurement is absolute. The accuracy of the measuring device would just tell you whether or not it can confidently be said that the limit has or has not been exceeded. If the measurement is 1.599999999999999999mm and is accurate, the tyre is illegal.

Is that a fact or an assumption
If that were a fact it would close this issue, but i'm not at all convinced it is correct.

I can find various examples in the type approval system where standard rounding is required, in some cases vehicles at the limit would fail or fall into another category had they have been measured to a higher resolution.
CO2 emissions for example is rounded to the nearest whole number, given quite how many vehicles which are right on the limits of these bands, it would be fair to say, there is a awful lot of us unwittingly committing tax fraud because we have our vehicles registered in the wrong category for ved.
There are also plenty of high performance cars which are right up to the limit on the drive by noise test, I suspect without them being rounded to the nearest integer many of then would be above the limit and therefore illegal

It's a fact. A statutory limit is a statutory limit. Measurement error is only relevant to whether or not you can be proven to have exceeded the limit.

[BertBert]

ORD said:

It's a fact. A statutory limit is a statutory limit. Measurement error is only relevant to whether or not you can be proven to have exceeded the limit.

But that's exactly what was being discussed. We don't know the accuracy of the measuring device. We don't know if it measures accurately to 2 DPs so the 1.57 is correct or whether (as I suspect is likely) it displays 2 DP so the reading is read accurately to 1 DP - which would be 1.6 which is not less than 1.6.

Now of course there is the measurement towards the other side of the tyre reading way below the legal limit. If say it is 1.3 at an edge and 1.6 in the middle, then it is highly likely to be less than 1.6 in the area from the middle to the 37.5% width point.

Bert

[WinstonWolf]

BertBert said:

ORD said:

It's a fact. A statutory limit is a statutory limit. Measurement error is only relevant to whether or not you can be proven to have exceeded the limit.

But that's exactly what was being discussed. We don't know the accuracy of the measuring device. We don't know if it measures accurately to 2 DPs so the 1.57 is correct or whether (as I suspect is likely) it displays 2 DP so the reading is read accurately to 1 DP - which would be 1.6 which is not less than 1.6.

Now of course there is the measurement towards the other side of the tyre reading way below the legal limit. If say it is 1.3 at an edge and 1.6 in the middle, then it is highly likely to be less than 1.6 in the area from the middle to the 37.5% width point.

Bert

If it reads to 2DP it's accurate to 2DP.

[mcford]

It must be getting on for difficult to measure something at the roadside not at a convenient working height which could be contaminated with all sorts of crap to an accuracy of 0.01mm. What precautions did the Police officer take to ensure that sort of accuracy?, was the place where the measurement taken 100% clean?,was the measurement taken in a primary groove?

After seeing a tyre where the driver was told to get it changed as it only had 500 miles left in it before it was legal and this was all done by eye, which I measured 200 miles later at 3mm at its lowest point, I wouldn't have the confidence for a Police officer to know what they were doing.

[BertBert]

WinstonWolf said:

If it reads to 2DP it's accurate to 2DP.

Do you *know* that? I'm not saying it's not, just wondering how you know.
Bert

[BertBert]

So further, this...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/39590-Brand-New-Draper-D...

Displays to 2DP (for mm) and is accurate +-.01mm, so not accurate to 2DP

BertBert said:

WinstonWolf said:

If it reads to 2DP it's accurate to 2DP.

Do you *know* that? I'm not saying it's not, just wondering how you know.
Bert

[mybrainhurts]

ORD said:

They deserve respect because they are the f+cking police

Quoted for comedy content...

[silentbrown]

BertBert said:

ORD said:

It's a fact. A statutory limit is a statutory limit. Measurement error is only relevant to whether or not you can be proven to have exceeded the limit.

But that's exactly what was being discussed.

No. Previous posters were incorrectly claiming that a tread depth of 1.59mm was *legal* (because you could "round it up" to 1.6). This is plain wrong. Even 1.5999999mm is illegal.

However, if prosecuted for a tyre with an actual tread depth of 1.59mm, you *might* succeed in introducing "reasonable doubt" that the measurement was not sufficiently accurate.

[silentbrown]

BertBert said:

So further, this...
Displays to 2DP (for mm) and is accurate +-.01mm, so not accurate to 2DP

It's ten times less accurate than that!

fleabay said:

resolution 0.01mm/0.0005''; accuracy ±0.1mm/0.0001''. Supplied with SR44 battery.

However, maybe the BiB don't get theirs from Fleabay. And can you ask for a calibration certificate?

[Starfighter]

And also assuming that the check was done at 20degC which is the standard for measurement (ISO 1).

You also need to confirm linearity of the measurement system as well as repeatability and reproducibility. Just to add interest the burden of proof is on the person providing the measurement meaning than any measurement error is in favor of the driver in this case.

[silentbrown]

fleabay said:

resolution 0.01mm/0.0005''; accuracy ±0.1mm/0.0001''. Supplied with SR44 battery.

(Not to mention a huge disparity between imperial and metric accuracy figures