Legality of slip road speed traps

[Chim]

Wow, this has moved on. I also seem to have been quoted a lot, which is nice, I think

Van, can I bring you back to my particular case, do you think its safe or unsafe in respect to the duty being carried out.

With regards to the argument surrounding the use of hand held speed cameras, there does appear to be a lot of ill-informed fairy tales out there with the officer having to outwit the vehicle being one of them, another is around calibration which is also a bit of an old wives tale.

The below link clears most of this up, if you skip to section 7 though it is very clear on the use of cameras within a vehicle.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2011...

[vonhosen]

Chim said:

Wow, this has moved on. I also seem to have been quoted a lot, which is nice, I think

Van, can I bring you back to my particular case, do you think its safe or unsafe in respect to the duty being carried out.

With regards to the argument surrounding the use of hand held speed cameras, there does appear to be a lot of ill-informed fairy tales out there with the officer having to outwit the vehicle being one of them, another is around calibration which is also a bit of an old wives tale.

The below link clears most of this up, if you skip to section 7 though it is very clear on the use of cameras within a vehicle.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2011...

Your particular case (if you mean the slip road on the A road) it would depend on lots of factors, where exactly on the slip road, time of day, weather, how busy with traffic etc etc. All can affect the level of risk (or not) & subsequently the acceptability in the circumstances.

It would be the same for Highways Agency being stopped in a lane in order to cut grass to the side of the slip road for instance. The full circumstances would determine whether it presented an unacceptable level of risk or not.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

With the sight lines yes, those sight lines in the absence of the village, cemetery, houses, & school etc.
ie parking there would still not be a problem on a faster road with those sight lines.

But that's the point.
Because of the good sight lines, you're far, far less likely to collide with a pedestrian on that stretch of road if it were clear, than you would if you were doing half that speed with the van parked there.

The very reason that people need to slow down in the first place is because of the dangers presented by poor sight lines, parked cars, etc.

You appear to subscribe to the simplistic view that everyone just zooms along at one speed, with no regard to changing conditions, and that they only react to something happening directly in front of them, and that pedestrians just blindly run into the road with no regard to the traffic, and the equally simplistic view that speed itself is the danger, and so by reducing speeds you make the danger go away.
If that were the case then the accident and casualty rates would be many orders of magnitude higher than they are.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Sunday 1st March 18:39

[Chim]

vonhosen said:

Your particular case (if you mean the slip road on the A road) it would depend on lots of factors, where exactly on the slip road, time of day, weather, how busy with traffic etc etc. All can affect the level of risk (or not) & subsequently the acceptability in the circumstances.

It would be the same for Highways Agency being stopped in a lane in order to cut grass to the side of the slip road for instance. The full circumstances would determine whether it presented an unacceptable level of risk or not.

Your butt must be getting blooming sore on that fence by now

On the highway agency, they come along with a truck that has 30ft tall flashing arrow stuck to its butt. Just in case you somehow manage to miss this though they have installed big huge train bumpers that look strong enough to spring you back to where you started your journey should you actually hit them.

Failing the availability of this behemoth though they will put out 40 miles of cones prior to the 100 yard stretch that they are actually working on.

[vonhosen]

Chim said:

vonhosen said:

Your particular case (if you mean the slip road on the A road) it would depend on lots of factors, where exactly on the slip road, time of day, weather, how busy with traffic etc etc. All can affect the level of risk (or not) & subsequently the acceptability in the circumstances.

It would be the same for Highways Agency being stopped in a lane in order to cut grass to the side of the slip road for instance. The full circumstances would determine whether it presented an unacceptable level of risk or not.

Your butt must be getting blooming sore on that fence by now

On the highway agency, they come along with a truck that has 30ft tall flashing arrow stuck to its butt. Just in case you somehow manage to miss this though they have installed big huge train bumpers that look strong enough to spring you back to where you started your journey should you actually hit them.

Failing the availability of this behemoth though they will put out 40 miles of cones prior to the 100 yard stretch that they are actually working on.

But the point is there is no one answer (that you appear to want) because these things, just like whether a speed is dangerous, depends on all the relevant circumstances.
Where a statutory offence exists such as you stopping on the motorway or exceeding the speed limit, the circumstances don't matter.
That's the whole point of the legislation the way it's written, removing the assessment.

[tapereel]

From my experience of stopping in a police car on a slip road to a dual-carrageway or motorway, a traffic officer won't do it if there is a danger to him or the public. Perhaps there are traffic officers that disragard the risk; I am yet to meet one.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

With the sight lines yes, those sight lines in the absence of the village, cemetery, houses, & school etc.
ie parking there would still not be a problem on a faster road with those sight lines.

But that's the point.
Because of the good sight lines, you're far, far less likely to collide with a pedestrian on that stretch of road if it were clear, than you would if you were doing half that speed with the van parked there.

The very reason that people need to slow down in the first place is because of the dangers presented by poor sight lines, parked cars, etc.

You appear to subscribe to the simplistic view that everyone just zooms along at one speed, with no regard to changing conditions, and that they only react to something happening directly in front of them, and that pedestrians just blindly run into the road with no regard to the traffic, and the equally simplistic view that speed itself is the danger, and so by reducing speeds you make the danger go away.
If that were the case then the accident and casualty rates would be many orders of magnitude higher than they are.

The simplistic nature being used here is you with your view of the vehicle parking there.

I'm talking about length of site lines to the parked vehicle meaning it would be in view for such a length of time that it would not be a problem for vehicles travelling towards it at speeds in excess of 30mph to see & negotiate it in the absence of other hazards.

The poorer lateral (relative to longitudinal) sight lines there & the proximity of all the aforementioned hazards (village, cemetery, houses, school etc) justify the 30mph limit.

You are conflating totally separate issues.

[Chim]

vonhosen said:

But the point is there is no one answer (that you appear to want) because these things, just like whether a speed is dangerous, depends on all the relevant circumstances.
Where a statutory offence exists such as you stopping on the motorway or exceeding the speed limit, the circumstances don't matter.
That's the whole point of the legislation the way it's written, removing the assessment.

We will need to agree to differ on this one, in fact your remarks surrounding the workers on the grass verge tend to back up my assertion of risk. The council have assessed the risk to workers and traffic and in ALL cases they will post signage well in advance and go as far as to cone of the entire lane of the slip if the workers are on the verge.

[vonhosen]

Chim said:

vonhosen said:

But the point is there is no one answer (that you appear to want) because these things, just like whether a speed is dangerous, depends on all the relevant circumstances.
Where a statutory offence exists such as you stopping on the motorway or exceeding the speed limit, the circumstances don't matter.
That's the whole point of the legislation the way it's written, removing the assessment.

We will need to agree to differ on this one, in fact your remarks surrounding the workers on the grass verge tend to back up my assertion of risk. The council have assessed the risk to workers and in ALL cases they will post signage well in advance and go as far as to cone of the entire lane of the slip if the workers are on the verge.

As would the Police if they were working outside & in the presence of more than one vehicle on the slip.

I've seen plenty of single Highways Agency vehicles stopped on motorways with far fewer markings than Police vehicles.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 1st March 18:59

[pacman1]

Chim said:

The below link clears most of this up, if you skip to section 7 though it is very clear on the use of cameras within a vehicle.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2011...

Cleared that one up then. Thanks for the link Chim.

Edited by pacman1 on Sunday 1st March 19:25

[vonhosen]

tapereel said:

From my experience of stopping in a police car on a slip road to a dual-carrageway or motorway, a traffic officer won't do it if there is a danger to him or the public. Perhaps there are traffic officers that disragard the risk; I am yet to meet one.

They'll do a dynamic risk assessment with regard to the full circumstances.

[Chim]

vonhosen said:

Chim said:

vonhosen said:

But the point is there is no one answer (that you appear to want) because these things, just like whether a speed is dangerous, depends on all the relevant circumstances.
Where a statutory offence exists such as you stopping on the motorway or exceeding the speed limit, the circumstances don't matter.
That's the whole point of the legislation the way it's written, removing the assessment.

We will need to agree to differ on this one, in fact your remarks surrounding the workers on the grass verge tend to back up my assertion of risk. The council have assessed the risk to workers and in ALL cases they will post signage well in advance and go as far as to cone of the entire lane of the slip if the workers are on the verge.

As would the Police if they were working outside & in the presence of more than one vehicle on the slip.

Exactly, that applies to stationery vehicles as well though. Occupant of broken down cars on slip roads and hard shoulders are told to leave the vehicle and position themselves behind the barriers or off to the grass verging due to the inherent dangers involved of a collision, yet here we have officers parked in the same fashion to carry out a duty that could be, and this is an important bit, carried out from a a far safer location without impeding that duty in any way.

[vonhosen]

Chim said:

vonhosen said:

Chim said:

vonhosen said:

But the point is there is no one answer (that you appear to want) because these things, just like whether a speed is dangerous, depends on all the relevant circumstances.
Where a statutory offence exists such as you stopping on the motorway or exceeding the speed limit, the circumstances don't matter.
That's the whole point of the legislation the way it's written, removing the assessment.

We will need to agree to differ on this one, in fact your remarks surrounding the workers on the grass verge tend to back up my assertion of risk. The council have assessed the risk to workers and in ALL cases they will post signage well in advance and go as far as to cone of the entire lane of the slip if the workers are on the verge.

As would the Police if they were working outside & in the presence of more than one vehicle on the slip.

Exactly, that applies to stationery vehicles as well though. Occupant of broken down cars on slip roads and hard shoulders are told to leave the vehicle and position themselves behind the barriers or off to the grass verging due to the inherent dangers involved of a collision, yet here we have officers parked in the same fashion to carry out a duty that could be, and this is an important bit, carried out from a a far safer location without impeding that duty in any way.

They weren't working outside & were one vehicle, which I am saying is different to the HA circumstances you were portraying. See my replies above in addition the quote you've just quoted & the post following it I've just made.

[Chim]

vonhosen said:

tapereel said:

From my experience of stopping in a police car on a slip road to a dual-carrageway or motorway, a traffic officer won't do it if there is a danger to him or the public. Perhaps there are traffic officers that disragard the risk; I am yet to meet one.

They'll do a dynamic risk assessment with regard to the full circumstances.

Now you are hitting on an area that I am familiar with. If they are carrying out a risk assessment the first question is as below

Can this activity be undertaken easily without the need for Risk. Answer, yes it can.

[vonhosen]

Chim said:

vonhosen said:

tapereel said:

From my experience of stopping in a police car on a slip road to a dual-carrageway or motorway, a traffic officer won't do it if there is a danger to him or the public. Perhaps there are traffic officers that disragard the risk; I am yet to meet one.

They'll do a dynamic risk assessment with regard to the full circumstances.

Now you are hitting on an area that I am familiar with. If they are carrying out a risk assessment the first question is as below

Can this activity be undertaken easily without the need for Risk. Answer, yes it can.

But does that impact adversely on their ability to then catch up with the perpetrator in a timely manner?
It may still be the best local option if it can be done acceptably safely.

[Chim]

vonhosen said:

Chim said:

vonhosen said:

tapereel said:

From my experience of stopping in a police car on a slip road to a dual-carrageway or motorway, a traffic officer won't do it if there is a danger to him or the public. Perhaps there are traffic officers that disragard the risk; I am yet to meet one.

They'll do a dynamic risk assessment with regard to the full circumstances.

Now you are hitting on an area that I am familiar with. If they are carrying out a risk assessment the first question is as below

Can this activity be undertaken easily without the need for Risk. Answer, yes it can.

But does that impact adversely on their ability to then catch up with the perpetrator in a timely manner?
It may still be the best local option if it can be done acceptably safely.

Your clutching at straws now

Safety over technical infringement. There is only one answer to this.

[Eclassy]

Chim said:

Exactly, that applies to stationery vehicles as well though. Occupant of broken down cars on slip roads and hard shoulders are told to leave the vehicle and position themselves behind the barriers or off to the grass verging due to the inherent dangers involved of a collision, yet here we have officers parked in the same fashion to carry out a duty that could be, and this is an important bit, carried out from a a far safer location without impeding that duty in any way.

This is the important bit which the sympatizers refuse to address.

There are many valid reasons for the police to block off one lane of a slip road, catching speeding motorists is not one of them.

Like I asked earlier, would these people be sympathetic with the police if an UNOBSERVANT loved one crashed into a police car that was parked up on a slip road in the course of a revenue generating exercise?

[vonhosen]

Chim said:

vonhosen said:

Chim said:

vonhosen said:

tapereel said:

From my experience of stopping in a police car on a slip road to a dual-carrageway or motorway, a traffic officer won't do it if there is a danger to him or the public. Perhaps there are traffic officers that disragard the risk; I am yet to meet one.

They'll do a dynamic risk assessment with regard to the full circumstances.

Now you are hitting on an area that I am familiar with. If they are carrying out a risk assessment the first question is as below

Can this activity be undertaken easily without the need for Risk. Answer, yes it can.

But does that impact adversely on their ability to then catch up with the perpetrator in a timely manner?
It may still be the best local option if it can be done acceptably safely.

Your clutching at straws now

Safety over technical infringement. There is only one answer to this.

Acceptable safety over potentially unacceptable safety (again you are assuming it's always about prosecuting minor speed transgressions when you see them).

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

Chim said:

vonhosen said:

Chim said:

vonhosen said:

tapereel said:

From my experience of stopping in a police car on a slip road to a dual-carrageway or motorway, a traffic officer won't do it if there is a danger to him or the public. Perhaps there are traffic officers that disragard the risk; I am yet to meet one.

They'll do a dynamic risk assessment with regard to the full circumstances.

Now you are hitting on an area that I am familiar with. If they are carrying out a risk assessment the first question is as below

Can this activity be undertaken easily without the need for Risk. Answer, yes it can.

But does that impact adversely on their ability to then catch up with the perpetrator in a timely manner?
It may still be the best local option if it can be done acceptably safely.

Your clutching at straws now

Safety over technical infringement. There is only one answer to this.

Acceptable safety over potentially unacceptable safety (again you are assuming it's always about prosecuting minor speed transgressions when you see them).

What the hell is 'unacceptable safety'?

[vonhosen]

Eclassy said:

Chim said:

Exactly, that applies to stationery vehicles as well though. Occupant of broken down cars on slip roads and hard shoulders are told to leave the vehicle and position themselves behind the barriers or off to the grass verging due to the inherent dangers involved of a collision, yet here we have officers parked in the same fashion to carry out a duty that could be, and this is an important bit, carried out from a a far safer location without impeding that duty in any way.

This is the important bit which the sympatizers refuse to address.

There are many valid reasons for the police to block off one lane of a slip road, catching speeding motorists is not one of them.

Like I asked earlier, would these people be sympathetic with the police if an UNOBSERVANT loved one crashed into a police car that was parked up on a slip road in the course of a revenue generating exercise?

If it was in an adequately safe position/circumstance (for whatever reason) the fault lays squarely with the UNOBSERVANT.
Only if the position can be shown to be unsafe in the circumstances is it the fault of that party.
If my loved ones die through their own failings, as much as I would want them to survive from the consequences of their failings I'm not going to be blaming the other party. My sympathies & regrets would be with other parties adversely affected by the failings of my UNOBSERVANT family member.