Legality of slip road speed traps

[mybrainhurts]

mph1977 said:

mybrainhurts said:

mph1977 said:

an awful lot of the complaints about exemptions are based in Jealousy,

There's only one thing worse than a psychologist, and that's an amateur psychologist.

mph1977 said:

combined with the illusionary superiority

That, coming from you, is a peach.

Care to enlighten us as to why these complaints in fora such as these aren't based in Jealousy ?

I think your grip on understanding of the finer points of learning may not be as strong as you percieve it to be.

I try not to make assumptions in the absence of certainty.

You, on the other hand, turn it into an art form.

[Truffs]

My God what a thread !

What is this forum coming to?

If mph is really aged around 37 he needs a forum ban for cloudying the issues and saying a load of unhelpful stuff that just drags the thread out and winds people up.

Likewise, 4rephill, who if really needed to inform vonhosen of the understanding of the OP could have done it in a PM. Instead he looked like some sort of wind up merchant.

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

Vonhosen - great respect there and to Chim the OP trying to have a proper discussion while numptyness was all around.

SK425 had a proper considered post.

My take, is that yes there is an exemption the police are using though it may not be in the spirit of the law in which the exemption was granted. However, untill ACPO or the politicans bring out new guidelines then this practise will continue.

If you want to start a campaign/petition against it - thats your right as a citizen of the UK. I would wait a while and see if there are any accidents caused first before backing any change though. Plenty of things can look dangerous but are safe, still perhaps a letter to ACPO or to the cheif constable of the force that you are most concerned about.

Edited by Truffs on Friday 27th February 02:09

[threadlock]

mybrainhurts said:

threadlock said:

My view: stop whining about the police

Give it a rest, Mr Predictable.

Huh? How did you predict this? Have you special powers?

[Jon1967x]

Truffs said:

My God what a thread !

What is this forum coming to?

If mph is really aged around 37 he needs a forum ban for cloudying the issues and saying a load of unhelpful stuff that just drags the thread out and winds people up.

Likewise, 4rephill, who if really needed to inform vonhosen of the understanding of the OP could have done it in a PM. Instead he looked like some sort of wind up merchant.

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

Vonhosen - great respect there and to Chim the OP trying to have a proper discussion while numptyness was all around.

SK425 had a proper considered post.

My take, is that yes there is an exemption the police are using though it may not be in the spirit of the law in which the exemption was granted. However, untill ACPO or the politicans bring out new guidelines then this practise will continue.

If you want to start a campaign/petition against it - thats your right as a citizen of the UK. I would wait a while and see if there are any accidents caused first before backing any change though. Plenty of things can look dangerous but are safe, still perhaps a letter to ACPO or to the cheif constable of the force that you are most concerned about.

Edited by Truffs on Friday 27th February 02:09

You should add to your list the OP who asks for the legality, is told it is when in the course of executing the duties of the police, then says it's not as he quotes the law the exemption applies to and not the exemption, and states if someone is prosecuted by evidence collected in this way (which to me is executing the duties of the police and hence a valid reason for exemption) this can be overturned... Then proceeded to call people arrogant or anal for quoting the law that he asked for. The OP then seems to continue to quote other legal points and points of view as if he understanding which if he had the skills would have negated the need to ask the original question.



I'll save the OP the trouble and I'll ps off now...

Edited by Jon1967x on Friday 27th February 07:42

[Vaud]

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.

[mph1977]

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.

[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.

[Vaud]

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

[Chim]

Vaud said:

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

Solely and squarely Vaud

[mph1977]

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...

[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

[SK425]

mph1977 said:

...you attempted to suggest there was a legal requirement for 'safety' in positioning

Are we sure there isn't any such requirement? For example, if the officer in the car were considered still to be 'driving' then presumably the laws on careless and dangerous driving might apply. I've no idea whether that would be the case, although I am aware that the law's definition of when one is and is not 'driving' is not always what one would think it might be.

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree there, but it wouldn't particulalry surprise me to learn that there was some sort of safety requirement.

[mph1977]

SK425 said:

mph1977 said:

...you attempted to suggest there was a legal requirement for 'safety' in positioning

Are we sure there isn't any such requirement? For example, if the officer in the car were considered still to be 'driving' then presumably the laws on careless and dangerous driving might apply. I've no idea whether that would be the case, although I am aware that the law's definition of when one is and is not 'driving' is not always what one would think it might be.

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree there, but it wouldn't particulalry surprise me to learn that there was some sort of safety requirement.

as a matter of operational policy there probably will be, but there isn't something written in statute law, asme as S19 Road safety act seems ot require something but would require secondary legislation to actually make the claiming of the exemption enforceable ... instead the training requirements are written by general principles in PUWER and Corporate Manslaughter legislation ...

[vonhosen]

SK425 said:

mph1977 said:

...you attempted to suggest there was a legal requirement for 'safety' in positioning

Are we sure there isn't any such requirement? For example, if the officer in the car were considered still to be 'driving' then presumably the laws on careless and dangerous driving might apply. I've no idea whether that would be the case, although I am aware that the law's definition of when one is and is not 'driving' is not always what one would think it might be.

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree there, but it wouldn't particulalry surprise me to learn that there was some sort of safety requirement.

I'd already said much earlier that the contention that was being made (i.e. that as the OP considered it to be dangerous it meant that the exemption could not lawfully be claimed) was false. I explained that if you wanted to look for an offence then you had to look at a different offence that was being committed for which there was no exemption as they couldn't be prosecuted for the offence for which they had been exempted in legislation.

[Jon1967x]

vonhosen said:

I'd already said much earlier that the contention that was being made (i.e. that as the OP considered it to be dangerous it meant that the exemption could not lawfully be claimed) was false. I explained that if you wanted to look for an offence then you had to look at a different offence that was being committed for which there was no exemption as they couldn't be prosecuted for the offence for which they had been exempted in legislation.

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

[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

[SS2.]

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

[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.

[Cliftonite]

Chim said:

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

Brilliant! Spot on! Thank you!

[vonhosen]

Jon1967x said:

vonhosen said:

I'd already said much earlier that the contention that was being made (i.e. that as the OP considered it to be dangerous it meant that the exemption could not lawfully be claimed) was false. I explained that if you wanted to look for an offence then you had to look at a different offence that was being committed for which there was no exemption as they couldn't be prosecuted for the offence for which they had been exempted in legislation.

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.

With regards to speed the exemption exists where it's for a Police purpose & if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion. A Police purpose is extremely wide ranging. The law is more generous in that than an officer's internal policy/regs would be.

For instance
The courts have held that an officer driving his own private car to court who was late for court & got caught speeding on way to it was using the exemption lawfully. The court applied the letter of the law, it was a Police purpose & observing the limit would have hindered that purpose. His colleagues didn't think it was and put him before a court (unsuccessfully), but such behaviour would be in breach of internal policy and result in discipline proceedures (it being a specific example in the driving regs of being an inappropriate use).

In relation to motorways
The exemption exists in the exercise of his duty as a constable.
Was the reason he was stopped there part of his duties as a constable.
That's even more of an open door than the speed exemption. I've seen nothing to suggest that the courts would apply a stricter interpretation than the wide open one that is written (of course if anyone wants to cite a case I'm listening).
If however if he is in breach of internal policy/regs then he could still be dealt with under discipline proceedures, but despite asking for images of the location etc insufficient detail has been forthcoming on that score.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 28th February 10:37