Legality of slip road speed traps

[mph1977]

Mk3Spitfire said:

<snip>

So you can condemn the action, but others defending it is unnaceptable? It seems then, that you actually came on here to state it was wrong, as opposed to ask for opinions?

that seems to be the thriust of Chim's argument

[Chim]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Chim said:

No idea, perhaps none. The fact remains though that the road traffic department deem it to be such a high risk that is it completely forbidden to stop on a slip. If we take the tact that its not a safety issue you are effectively saying that the no stopping law is wrong. I am sure though if I stopped on the slip to make a quick call prior to joining the motorway I would quickly receive a ticket along with a lecture on the dangers of the practice and rightly so in my mind.

I am also now sure that I had came on here to complain about being ticketed for stopping on the slip in a bright red car I would be quickly dispatched by the same folks here that are now trying to defend the action, I can also guarantee no one would ask for pics of the slip in order to make an assessment.

So you can condemn the action, but others defending it is unnaceptable? It seems then, that you actually came on here to state it was wrong, as opposed to ask for opinions?

Over the course and given thought now, yes, I have now formulated an opinion that the action is wrong. It ss clearly an unsafe practice and as far I can see can not really be defended as there are safe alternatives that allow the police to carry out this duty. Other than quoting an arbitrary exemption though, no one here has yet provided a counter as to why this practice could be deemed acceptable

Doing it because they can does not make it right.

Ps, if someone can put a valid argument for it I am more than happy to discuss and change my opinion if I see merit in it.

Edited by Chim on Saturday 28th February 18:19

[vonhosen]

Chim said:

Mk3Spitfire said:

How many accidents have been caused by police vehicles parked on slip roads?

No idea, perhaps none. The fact remains though that the road traffic department deem it to be such a high risk that is it completely forbidden to stop on a slip. If we take the tact that its not a safety issue you are effectively saying that the no stopping law is wrong. I am sure though if I stopped on the slip to make a quick call prior to joining the motorway I would quickly receive a ticket along with a lecture on the dangers of the practice and rightly so in my mind.

I am also now sure that I had came on here to complain about being ticketed for stopping on the slip in a bright red car I would be quickly dispatched by the same folks here that are now trying to defend the action, I can also guarantee no one would ask for pics of the slip in order to make an assessment.

You'd get a ticket if it was safe to stop in the location or not.
The ticket is not dependent on there being any evidence of danger in the circumstances you decide to stop there.
It's the same with speeding. You get a ticket for exceeding the limit whether you were doing so safely or not, because they want to dissuade the behaviour, just like you get a ticket for parking on a double yellow line if you are causing an obstruction or not because they want to dissuade people stopping there.
The fact you get a ticket doesn't mean it can't be acceptably safe to do it in some circumstances.
The legislation means you can't make that assessment, but it also allows others who it exempts to make that assessment.
That's why you have to go to other legislation to prove an offence, other legislation that is more difficult to prove & will take into account each individual incidents full circumstances.
When you are doing it the full circumstances don't matter.
it's black/white for you, but not for them.
You are equating something being outlawed as the legislature saying that it can 'never' be performed with acceptable degrees of safety. That's a nonsense & it suggests no such thing. It's written the way it is so that in prosecuting you they don't need to show there was unacceptable danger caused, indeed they don't have to show there was any danger at all.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 28th February 18:28

[Phatboy317]

Mk3Spitfire said:

How many accidents have been caused by police vehicles parked on slip roads?

Probably more than the number they've prevented.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Saturday 28th February 18:32

[Mk3Spitfire]

Is it "safe" for the police to run red lights? Go right of keep left bollards? Exceed the speed limit?

Are there alternatives to them completing the above manoeuvres? Yes.

Have you seen the numerous clips of motorists spinning out and crashing when they see a speed camera van parked safely on a bridge? I've certainly seen more of those videos than of accidents caused by police cars on slip roads?

[vonhosen]

Chim said:

Mk3Spitfire said:

Chim said:

No idea, perhaps none. The fact remains though that the road traffic department deem it to be such a high risk that is it completely forbidden to stop on a slip. If we take the tact that its not a safety issue you are effectively saying that the no stopping law is wrong. I am sure though if I stopped on the slip to make a quick call prior to joining the motorway I would quickly receive a ticket along with a lecture on the dangers of the practice and rightly so in my mind.

I am also now sure that I had came on here to complain about being ticketed for stopping on the slip in a bright red car I would be quickly dispatched by the same folks here that are now trying to defend the action, I can also guarantee no one would ask for pics of the slip in order to make an assessment.

So you can condemn the action, but others defending it is unnaceptable? It seems then, that you actually came on here to state it was wrong, as opposed to ask for opinions?

Over the course and given thought now, yes, I have now formulated an opinion that the action is wrong. It ss clearly an unsafe practice and as far I can see can not really be defended as there are safe alternatives that allow the police to carry out this duty. Other than quoting an arbitrary exemption though, no one here has yet provided a counter as to why this practice could be deemed acceptable

Doing it because they can does not make it right.

Ps, if someone can put a valid argument for it I am more than happy to discuss and change my opinion if I see merit in it.

You are working on a prejudiced assumption from the outset, that it's all for speed enforcement.
You don't know it (because as you've said you haven't stopped & enquired or indeed enquired post event), you've just assumed.

[Mk3Spitfire]

Phatboy317 said:

Possibly more than the number they've prevented.

Link to stats please?

[Chim]

vonhosen said:

You'd get a ticket if it was safe to stop in the location or not.
The ticket is not dependent on there being any evidence of danger in the circumstances you decide to stop there.
It's the same with speeding. You get a ticket for exceeding the limit whether you were doing so safely or not, because they want to dissuade the behaviour, just like you get a ticket for parking on a double yellow line if you are causing an obstruction or not because they want to dissuade people stopping there.
The fact you get a ticket doesn't mean it can't be acceptably safe to do it in some circumstances.
The legislation means you can't make that assessment, but it also allows others who it exempts to make that assessment.
That's why you have to go to other legislation to prove an offence, other legislation that is more difficult to prove & will take into account each individual incidents full circumstances.
When you are doing it the full circumstances don't matter.
it's black/white for you, but not for them.

Good explanation and understand, from their point of view its black and white as you say. I think in general though this shows up the problem with the current blanket exemptions. Hard one though as taking these exemptions away or curtailing it in additional sub clauses could have the effect of hamstringing the police in the execution of their duties.

In this instance though I would imagine at some point, given the frequency of this operation now here in Scotland, an accident will occur. The inevitable enquiry will then ensue and guidance will be laid down internally on it and the practice ail end of be greatly modified to reduce the danger to the public as this seems to be the way it plays out.

[Phatboy317]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Phatboy317 said:

Possibly more than the number they've prevented.

Link to stats please?

I'm not making any assertions which require substantiation, merely expressing an opinion

[Chim]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Is it "safe" for the police to run red lights? Go right of keep left bollards? Exceed the speed limit?

Are there alternatives to them completing the above manoeuvres? Yes.

Have you seen the numerous clips of motorists spinning out and crashing when they see a speed camera van parked safely on a bridge? I've certainly seen more of those videos than of accidents caused by police cars on slip roads?

Thats not a very sound argument though, there are many alternatives to slip road speed traps that they could conduct, bridges being just one. There are of course custom built areas on Motorways for police patrols, these are again visible of course but prevention is surely the preferred option to stealth.

[Dammit]

Phatboy317 said:

I'm not making any assertions which require substantiation, merely expressing an opinion

[vonhosen]

Chim said:

Mk3Spitfire said:

Is it "safe" for the police to run red lights? Go right of keep left bollards? Exceed the speed limit?

Are there alternatives to them completing the above manoeuvres? Yes.

Have you seen the numerous clips of motorists spinning out and crashing when they see a speed camera van parked safely on a bridge? I've certainly seen more of those videos than of accidents caused by police cars on slip roads?

Thats not a very sound argument though, there are many alternatives to slip road speed traps that they could conduct, bridges being just one. There are of course custom built areas on Motorways for police patrols, these are again visible of course but prevention is surely the preferred option to stealth.

Stealth helps with prevention too.
If all prosecutions only result from conspicuous enforcement people think they only need to adhere when conspicuous enforcement is taking place.
If there's also covert enforcement they're choices will be influenced by the fact that they could be caught when offending anywhere anytime, not just conspicuous from conspicuous enforcement.
That's why it's best to have a mixture.

[Pixelpeep7r]

Was it parked in such a way that it prevented a pregnant lady pissing in one of their hats?

[Chim]

vonhosen said:

Stealth helps with prevention too.
If all prosecutions only result from conspicuous enforcement people think they only need to adhere when conspicuous enforcement is taking place.
If there's also covert enforcement they're choices will be influenced by the fact that they could be caught when offending anywhere anytime, not just conspicuous from conspicuous enforcement.
That's why it's best to have a mixture.

Yip, can see that. Unmarked cars though are the best suited for this and they operate frequently here.

[pacman1]

Chim said:

..in order for them to have the gun pointed out the window. ..

Naughty.
Actually, lazy.
And probably doesn't count.
Pretty sure the officer has to be outside of the vehicle for the gun reading to be valid in court.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

Stealth helps with prevention too.
If all prosecutions only result from conspicuous enforcement people think they only need to adhere when conspicuous enforcement is taking place.
If there's also covert enforcement they're choices will be influenced by the fact that they could be caught when offending anywhere anytime, not just conspicuous from conspicuous enforcement.
That's why it's best to have a mixture.

You're prosecuting people for technical offences.
Therefore you have to be technically correct in procedure.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Stealth helps with prevention too.
If all prosecutions only result from conspicuous enforcement people think they only need to adhere when conspicuous enforcement is taking place.
If there's also covert enforcement they're choices will be influenced by the fact that they could be caught when offending anywhere anytime, not just conspicuous from conspicuous enforcement.
That's why it's best to have a mixture.

You're prosecuting people for technical offences.
Therefore you have to be technically correct in procedure.

Prosecuting according to the law, through lawful means.

[SK425]

Chim said:

Over the course and given thought now, yes, I have now formulated an opinion that the action is wrong. It ss clearly an unsafe practice and as far I can see can not really be defended as there are safe alternatives that allow the police to carry out this duty. Other than quoting an arbitrary exemption though, no one here has yet provided a counter as to why this practice could be deemed acceptable.

I think it would depend on the circumstances. I said in a previous post that I thought parking a highly visible vehicle in lane 1 of a slip road might not necessarily be that dangerous and I stand by that. I'm surprised that you can't get a Google Streetview link to the road your daughter was on when she saw this. Without that I obviously can't decide whether I reckon that particular case was OK or not, but here are some examples that maybe illustrate my thinking. A quick caveat - none of these are two lane slip roads (although at least one clearly used to be) and some of them aren't on motorways. Please don't leap on that - imagine the same topography but with two lanes if you like. I'm just trying to illustrate that the amount of vision available - which equates to the amount of time you have to observe and plan - is different on different slip roads. And on some, I think there is more than enough vision for a highly visible parked vehicle not to pose a very great hazard.

Parking up just beyond the crest on a slip road like this or round a blind bend like this might be a bit scary. But somewhere where you can see for bloody miles, like this, I think could be fine.

As you might imagine, I've found these examples because they're roads I happen to know. If the police started making a habit of parking in the just-out-of-view spot in either of the first two examples, I think I might well consider raising my concerns with them.

[Chim]

SK425 said:

I think it would depend on the circumstances. I said in a previous post that I thought parking a highly visible vehicle in lane 1 of a slip road might not necessarily be that dangerous and I stand by that. I'm surprised that you can't get a Google Streetview link to the road your daughter was on when she saw this. Without that I obviously can't decide whether I reckon that particular case was OK or not, but here are some examples that maybe illustrate my thinking. A quick caveat - none of these are two lane slip roads (although at least one clearly used to be) and some of them aren't on motorways. Please don't leap on that - imagine the same topography but with two lanes if you like. I'm just trying to illustrate that the amount of vision available - which equates to the amount of time you have to observe and plan - is different on different slip roads. And on some, I think there is more than enough vision for a highly visible parked vehicle not to pose a very great hazard.

Parking up just beyond the crest on a slip road like this or round a blind bend like this might be a bit scary. But somewhere where you can see for bloody miles, like this, I think could be fine.

As you might imagine, I've found these examples because they're roads I happen to know. If the police started making a habit of parking in the just-out-of-view spot in either of the first two examples, I think I might well consider raising my concerns with them.

Ok, hopefully the below link will work, this is the slip road my daughter encountered them on, in this case it is a bypass. Not sure if different laws apply here though. In theory, yes there is visibility and as an observant, at least I like to think I am, driver I would agree with you, plenty of view. If you take my example of a possible situation though, and a common one on slips, the vision element is muted. The reason the rule exists for us mere mortals is because on the whole we are not great at this driving lark. My daughter is a case in question, her concentration on the road, in my opinion, is awful. She is in no way alone though, for her and many others the head is everywhere other than on the driving.

Its for this reason that these laws exist, the police may be visible, a bright orange van would also be very visible, it is though a totally unexpected hazard and as such accidents will happen as people tend to go into auto pilot when driving a common route. So to my assertion, surely the police are there to make our roads safer, in this instance they are increasing risk unnecessarily.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Irvine,+North+...

Edited by Chim on Saturday 28th February 21:31

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Stealth helps with prevention too.
If all prosecutions only result from conspicuous enforcement people think they only need to adhere when conspicuous enforcement is taking place.
If there's also covert enforcement they're choices will be influenced by the fact that they could be caught when offending anywhere anytime, not just conspicuous from conspicuous enforcement.
That's why it's best to have a mixture.

You're prosecuting people for technical offences.
Therefore you have to be technically correct in procedure.

Prosecuting according to the law, through lawful means.

And that "lawful means" covers an awful lot of ground, including means which would be unlawful for anyone else. That's what this thread is about.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Sunday 1st March 09:16