Legality of slip road speed traps

[Chim]

vonhosen said:

You are conflating completely separate issues.
I'm not saying there aren't prosecutions of Police for dangerous driving, I'm saying there aren't prosecutions for exceeding the speed limit because it wasn't done safely.

You said that a motorway regs exemption can't be claimed where it isn't used in a safe controlled manner & it therefore is illegal under that legislation as the exemption can't be claimed. That's not true.
You've got to look for & prove an offence under other legislation because the exemption under the motorways regs remains irrespective of whether it was used in a safe controlled manner.
You are imposing your own restrictions on exemptions use, restrictions that are not made in the legislation.

Ok, lets say I accept this. How then do i as a member of the public raise an objection or a case against the police for what is clearly a very unsafe practice that is putting members of the public needlessly at risk or do we have to wait until an accident actually happens before it is investigated

[Chim]

Vaud said:

Chim said:

Ok, lets say I accept this. How then do i as a member of the public raise an objection or a case against the police for what is clearly a very unsafe practice that is putting members of the public needlessly at risk or do we have to wait until an accident actually happens before it is investigated

Why not post up the location and street view and allow wider discussion?

Caveated by, you weren't actually there, it's 2nd hand info?

As I said, a few times now, this is common practice, a practice that I have seen many many times, go back and you will see that another scottish poster has observed this a lot as well. Google maps though will not let me capture an image. If you want a look at a common speed trap junctions that I have observed have a look at Junction 4 Eastbound on the M8 or junction three south southbound on the M77

[Chim]

mph1977 said:

same as you make a complaint against any other service ...

you direct it to the relevant line manager who is likely to pass it on to Professional Standards if it has sufficient merit , deal within it using disciplinary process if it has merit or politely suggest that you future involves sex and travel if the complaint is of no basis , this cof course can be taken further with a seperate compalint until such time as the CHeif officer deems you to be 'unreasonably persistant ' / 'a vexatious claimant' by which point you will probably be unemployable and have thousands of semi literate rambling posts on various forums and nonsensical you tube videos ... exactly how many you tube vids depends on whather you decide to become an agent provocateur / general intel nuisance ...

You really are a complete and utter tit

[Chim]

Vaud said:

So where did this incident happen? I'm not challenging your generic observation. But if you want to complain, you will need specifics. Google will let you share a link to the location.

The complaint may be better made by the affected party, but I would hold fire for a few days to get wider feedback?

I have no intention of complaining, I came on here to discuss it in an adult kind of way foolishly thinking that it was an interesting point that may garner a debate. I have though been met by a wall of scoffing and rolling out of a generic line that the law does not apply to the police so therefore whatever they do is fine.

Leaving it here as its more hassle than its worth and will make note to self never to visit the anal section of PH that is Speed the Plod and the Law again.

Thanks for the input though, its appreciated.

Edited by Chim on Thursday 26th February 23:31

[Chim]

mph1977 said:

Vaud said:

Truffs said:

Vaud seemed to want to cloud the issue with pointless pictures but was otherwise fine.

Just for context so that those who understand operational procedures could comment if it was within guidelines or not.

Like many of these topics the OP came hoping that their erroneous understanding of the law would be validated and/or there would be a way out of a speeding ticket because of a loophole ( back to the old the arrest / breath test wasn;t valid becasue the policeman didn;t wear his hat type scenario)

once it is pointed out that the Police ( and the traffic officer service and other emergency services ) have legal Exemptions the OP or an acolyte tries to argue otherwise or hass a Lewis Carroll crossed with a free wibbler moment and tries ot change the meanings of words or introduce other clauses ...

compounded by their refusal to acknowledge that Organisational policies restricting these exemptiosn are just that and/or fact that if the exemption was claimed (and supported) a prosecution can't take place for the exempted offence , instead another offence has to be considered i.e. there is no exemption from careless or dangerous driving for the emergency services.

Look you completely and utterly objectionable little pillock, apart from being astounded as to how such an insidious little character has managed to avoid the ban hammer for so long on PH, let me once again point out the errors in this. I am in no way whatsoever, or even remotely contemplating trying to avoid a speeding ticket and have made no such assertion. I attempted to engage with what I mistakenly thought may have been a group of people that would be happy to pass some time and discuss the various rights and wrongs of the manoeuvre the officers where undertaking. As with many things, I can accept that there is a letter of the law, at no point though does this exclude discussion on validating that law and any inherent flaws that may be perceived in it.

These types of discussion, if undertaken in openminded debate can be very interesting and the parties involved can increase their knowledge and perhaps go on to challenge their current mindset or viewpoints. Unfortunately, in your case though the discussion was dragged down to your rather limited level of intelligence, this being represented by your constant wild assertions and your complete inability to debate any aspect of the legislation as it is currently laid down. Instead you hide behind blind acceptance and represent this as fortitude to knowledge when in fact it displays nothing more than a closed and empty mind.

I will now await your empty and unintelligent repose to the above that will no doubt once again be filled with meaningless put downs and narrow minded idiocy.

[Chim]

Vaud said:

I hope that was aimed at mph1977 and not me? I was trying to be constructive...

Solely and squarely Vaud

[Chim]

mph1977 said:

Chim said:

mph1977 said:

Vaud said:

Truffs said:

Vaud seemed to want to cloud the issue with pointless pictures but was otherwise fine.

Just for context so that those who understand operational procedures could comment if it was within guidelines or not.

Like many of these topics the OP came hoping that their erroneous understanding of the law would be validated and/or there would be a way out of a speeding ticket because of a loophole ( back to the old the arrest / breath test wasn;t valid becasue the policeman didn;t wear his hat type scenario)

once it is pointed out that the Police ( and the traffic officer service and other emergency services ) have legal Exemptions the OP or an acolyte tries to argue otherwise or hass a Lewis Carroll crossed with a free wibbler moment and tries ot change the meanings of words or introduce other clauses ...

compounded by their refusal to acknowledge that Organisational policies restricting these exemptiosn are just that and/or fact that if the exemption was claimed (and supported) a prosecution can't take place for the exempted offence , instead another offence has to be considered i.e. there is no exemption from careless or dangerous driving for the emergency services.

Look you completely and utterly objectionable little pillock, apart from being astounded as to how such an insidious little character has managed to avoid the ban hammer for so long on PH, let me once again point out the errors in this. I am in no way whatsoever, or even remotely contemplating trying to avoid a speeding ticket and have made no such assertion. I attempted to engage with what I mistakenly thought may have been a group of people that would be happy to pass some time and discuss the various rights and wrongs of the manoeuvre the officers where undertaking. As with many things, I can accept that there is a letter of the law, at no point though does this exclude discussion on validating that law and any inherent flaws that may be perceived in it.

These types of discussion, if undertaken in openminded debate can be very interesting and the parties involved can increase their knowledge and perhaps go on to challenge their current mindset or viewpoints. Unfortunately, in your case though the discussion was dragged down to your rather limited level of intelligence, this being represented by your constant wild assertions and your complete inability to debate any aspect of the legislation as it is currently laid down. Instead you hide behind blind acceptance and represent this as fortitude to knowledge when in fact it displays nothing more than a closed and empty mind.

I will now await your empty and unintelligent repose to the above that will no doubt once again be filled with meaningless put downs and narrow minded idiocy.

It is quite apparent that you were unwilling or unable to accept the original explainations given to you.

As a consequence of that your original belief and assertions were NOT confirmed ,

I would suggest that you re -read the comment i made taking note of the following
1. it was phrased in general terms
2. it included an 'and /or' clause


in addition to not accepting the explanations given including reference to various legislation with regard to Motorways and it being pointed out that stopping on none motorway roads may not be restricted and/or subject to similar exemptions , you attempted to suggest there was a legal requirement for 'safety' in positioning, which is a similar techniques to that often employed by the anti Speed Camera types.


as for narrow minded idiocy i'll leave that to you...

And I thank you for validating my final assertion

[Chim]

Jon1967x said:

At the risk of stirring this up, my understanding is that exemptions to things like speeding (which I presume are part of this, but driving through red traffic lights could be another) only apply if there is good cause in the execution of the duties. There was a case where a copper took his new car out for a high speed drive but not on a call out and an attempted prosecution resulted. After some wrangling it was defeated iirc on the grounds that familiarisation under the circumstances was reasonable. The point is, yes exemption is there when conducting the duties etc, but that appears to not be the same as "the rules don't ever apply when on duty" ie a copper can't just speed when on duty or park on double yellow lines when he wants to grab a coffee.

If all that is correct, it implies there is an line where things are acceptable or not. I don't believe that helps the OP, parking at the side of the road to perform speed checks my well fall comfortably into the acceptable camp.

Edited by Jon1967x on Saturday 28th February 08:57

My issue with this practice is not really with whether some prat doing 95 on the Motorway can get off with his speeding ticket, my issue is around the practice itself and the risks involved to the public. The strictly no stopping rule on a slip road is there for reason, that reason being its a fking stupid and dangerous thing to do.Therefore I fail to see why the danger would suddenly disappear because its a police car parked there, yes it may have brighter markings, markings though do not account for the unobservant or being caught out by the unexpected

As an example, you follow a truck on to the slip road, all you can see it the trucks ass, it appears to be slow, so you pull out and begin to accelerate down the other lane of the slip past it. Totally unbeknown to you though the truck has started slowing as he has just noticed a car parked on the slip, by this time you are speeding past him and he has the choice now of slamming into the back of the parked police car or pulling out and ramming you off the road. This is just one scenario.

So to my point, whether the police have an exemption from the rules or not, in my mind and the current laws, the stopping of a vehicle on a slip is highly dangerous and all the training in the world of the officer does not change this fact. Therefore its a practice I think they should stop before an accident actually happens

[Chim]

SS2. said:

I thought your original point was concerned with the legality of police vehicles stopping on the slip-road ?

Yes but in regard to the danger it posed

Quote: it got me thinking, this does seem like a very dangerous position and I would question the legality of them sitting there

The legality has now been established, whether they have exemption or not though does not negate the danger.

[Chim]

Ian Geary said:

Browsing this thread, its funny how hypocritical people can be. For example:

Chim said:

Can I also just say that the responses, namely, arrogance and abusive replies I have received from what what appear to be serving police officers in answer to a very polite and genuine question...

Yet, a short time earlier...

Chim said:

At which point did I whine about the Police, I asked for opinions on a particular situation, if you have nothing useful to add then ps off

Chim said:

ps off

Chim said:

Please go play silly little boy elsewhere and come back when you grow up.

Chim said:

Christ on a bike, stop being so anal.

So who is in fact dishing out the abusive replies I wonder? (Clue, it's the OP) after being given an answer he didn't want to hear and therefore can't accept.


I don't recall being told the speed limit doesn't apply to slip roads when I got my license. If anything, a speed check in the slip way is arguably safer than on the main section IMO, and would send a clear message to people joining the road to watch their speed.


To conclude, the OP has invented an imaginary situation from a second hand account where the police car is parked "vertically" (?) on the slip road, preventing people from getting onto the road, and putting everyone in grave danger of their life.

Whilst I'm sure imaginary evidence is much easier to find than "real" evidence, it doesn't quite have the same weight in my view.




Ian

Yip, thanks for your input, I will discuss this with my invisible friend get back to you.

I really do give up on this thread

[Chim]

vonhosen said:

No I'm not. I asked for a google maps link (several times) so that we could see/make a judgement for ourselves on the appropriateness or not.
I provided a link for complaints to the OP should he wish to make one in relation to his question as to what one should do who felt aggrieved.

Van, your info is very factual, you do though come across very dryly in the deliver and tone. Thats not a put down of any kind just an observation really. On the maps, I have already said that google maps does not allow me to copy the content, I have though detailed the junction and the roads, its very easy to look up. That said, they are motorway slip roads and one is very much like the other regardless of where you are in the country.

I just wanted to engage in debate on the subject, as it is I have ended up constantly defending myself and countering put downs etc. In hindsight I should have just ignored and risen above but hey ho, Ph is a strange place these days.

Edited by Chim on Saturday 28th February 16:11

[Chim]

otolith said:

Seems to me that there are three independent and unrelated questions - are they allowed to do it, should they be allowed to do it, and in any given situation, is it a good idea to do it. And perhaps a fourth, which is whether any of that makes the slightest difference to someone caught committing an offence while they do it.

In the case of whether it's a good idea to do it, I guess I would ask whether the contravention they are excused from is of a proportionate magnitude to the one they aim to prevent or detect.

On the last point i would agree with that measure. You could then ask if there where alternative ways that the duty could be undertaken could be executed without the need to contravene the regulation or place the public any any danger. In this case the answer is I think yes, easily.

[Chim]

vonhosen said:

Well so we can see & make a judgement how dangerous it would be to be stopped in the actual location in question.
Whether there was a sizeable hard shoulder on the slip road etc etc.
That's before we actually get to the question of whether they were there for speed enforcement or not.

We are away again, I have already quoted the junctions where they commonly sit. Feel free to look them up on google maps.
There is no hard shoulder on these slips

This is common practice now here in Scotland, they are undertaking speed trap exercises, in fact I have witnessed them coming off the slips in pursuit of offenders and have passed them before on the slips, the reason the sit diagonally is so they can mount the camera on the passenger window and point down the motorway, people now even publish up on Facebook with warning of which slip roads they are sitting on. They also undertake the practice on bypasses slip roads commonly as well.

Short of stopping off to take a picture and interrogating them I do not know how much clearer i can be.

[Chim]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Chim]

Phatboy317 said:

Chim said:

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

Where on the slip were they parked? It seems there's nowhere to park except to block one lane completely.

Thats my point, they park across at a diagonal in the inside lane blocking it completely