Legality of slip road speed traps
Discussion
Elroy Blue said:
I don't normally watch Police programmes, but saw this one. I hope their knowledge of speed equipment is better than their knowledge of TPAC. Their attempts to stop a car were absolutely woeful.
I've often thought that about these programmes. Also, when chasing an X5 or whatever, the chav chucks it in reverse, and 2 mins later the pursuit car realises they're gonna get rammed. Duh. They don't seem to have quick reactions or common sense. If they pulled up bumper to bumper upon realising the chav wants to ram them, the the car in front would have no momentum to f
k the police car up. etcCoolHands said:
I've often thought that about these programmes. Also, when chasing an X5 or whatever, the chav chucks it in reverse, and 2 mins later the pursuit car realises they're gonna get rammed. Duh. They don't seem to have quick reactions or common sense. If they pulled up bumper to bumper upon realising the chav wants to ram them, the the car in front would have no momentum to fk the police car up. etc
There's a dilemma about pulling right up someone's backside because it puts you in range of any weapons they may have. However, there's a specific way to make tactical contact. None of the examples on that programme came anywhere close.k the police car up. etcvonhosen said:
Mopar440 said:
Hey, give the OP a break! He's posted a very valid question and just received the usual PH bo||ocks from the usual suspects, including "of the trousers".
But someone please explain why a police car would be situated on a slip road on to a (presumably) NSL road, apparently trying to catch people speeding? Are the slip roads not designed for drivers to accelerate up to an appropriate speed to enter the NSL carriageway?
The situation re the law has been posted.But someone please explain why a police car would be situated on a slip road on to a (presumably) NSL road, apparently trying to catch people speeding? Are the slip roads not designed for drivers to accelerate up to an appropriate speed to enter the NSL carriageway?
Was their position preventing people accelerating down the slip road?
I guess not.
I doubt they were blocking people getting down the slip road & on, he doesn't like the fact they were stopped there.
At a guess, I reckon 95 per cent of drivers I see, if they spot a cop car parked up/waiting/whatever, rarely, if ever, accelerate!
So whilst correct in the assumption that their position would not prevent drivers accelerating down that slip road, I bet you anything you like, it damn well does!
CoolHands said:
I've often thought that about these programmes. Also, when chasing an X5 or whatever, the chav chucks it in reverse, and 2 mins later the pursuit car realises they're gonna get rammed. Duh. They don't seem to have quick reactions or common sense. If they pulled up bumper to bumper upon realising the chav wants to ram them, the the car in front would have no momentum to fk the police car up. etc
They need some MR/RR police cars k the police car up. etc
I am surprised that at no point is there any evidence produced, showing that the Police vehicle was actually involved in speed detection and enforcement. It is only the OP's daughters opinion which is hearsay.
Any parked police vehicle is often called a 'speed trap' by the uneducated because they don't know the full facts as to why it may be have stopped there; often, they insert their own opinions and blow things up out of all proportion as in this case.
Also worrying is the reluctance to show the location of the 'incident' by the OP. Just why was this? And when a google map was eventually posted, after many, many requests, there was no highlighting of the position of the vehicle concerned.
The vehicle involved, from recollection, has not been mentioned at all, apart from it being a Police vehicle.
However,
The Police vehicle could have been parked there for a number of reasons:
1. protecting the scene of a collapsed slip road, man hole cover, lamp post, etc. whilst awaiting for the local authority to arrive. This would have been deemed to be a danger to the public, hence the need to park the vehicle if a fend off type position protecting the public from such danger.
2. protecting the public from an oil spillage which had come from a broken down vehicle, which itself had been recovered, but the spillage was still awaiting action from the local authority.
3. the vehicle could have been parked there as a result of a requirement to check the speed of traffic following a previous serious or fatal collision where excessive speed was a factor.
Three very simple, very plausible reasons for why the vehicle could have been placed there, and all three, totally legal!.
The use of a speed detection device, if indeed there was one there, could have been worthwhile to assess the speed of oncoming traffic for all three examples above, bearing in mind the local authority workers would be engaged in repairing the road surface, could be at risk from the speed of the oncoming traffic.
The list is almost endless.
If the legality of the placement of the vehicle clearly concerns the OP that much; I wonder if he thought of writing to the Police Force concerned and asked them why it was there, instead of going on a crusade of name calling and lets knock the old bill yet again thread.
He then could have posted the reply on here for all to see and then offer apologies as necessary to the other posters from there.
So Chim,
it's totally unacceptable for the Police to stop on the slip roads in the cases above? Is it really?
And just how do you know they were not engaged in a similar incident?
FF
"Don't profess your innocence, by trying to prove the guilt of others"
Any parked police vehicle is often called a 'speed trap' by the uneducated because they don't know the full facts as to why it may be have stopped there; often, they insert their own opinions and blow things up out of all proportion as in this case.
Also worrying is the reluctance to show the location of the 'incident' by the OP. Just why was this? And when a google map was eventually posted, after many, many requests, there was no highlighting of the position of the vehicle concerned.
The vehicle involved, from recollection, has not been mentioned at all, apart from it being a Police vehicle.
However,
The Police vehicle could have been parked there for a number of reasons:
1. protecting the scene of a collapsed slip road, man hole cover, lamp post, etc. whilst awaiting for the local authority to arrive. This would have been deemed to be a danger to the public, hence the need to park the vehicle if a fend off type position protecting the public from such danger.
2. protecting the public from an oil spillage which had come from a broken down vehicle, which itself had been recovered, but the spillage was still awaiting action from the local authority.
3. the vehicle could have been parked there as a result of a requirement to check the speed of traffic following a previous serious or fatal collision where excessive speed was a factor.
Three very simple, very plausible reasons for why the vehicle could have been placed there, and all three, totally legal!.
The use of a speed detection device, if indeed there was one there, could have been worthwhile to assess the speed of oncoming traffic for all three examples above, bearing in mind the local authority workers would be engaged in repairing the road surface, could be at risk from the speed of the oncoming traffic.
The list is almost endless.
If the legality of the placement of the vehicle clearly concerns the OP that much; I wonder if he thought of writing to the Police Force concerned and asked them why it was there, instead of going on a crusade of name calling and lets knock the old bill yet again thread.
He then could have posted the reply on here for all to see and then offer apologies as necessary to the other posters from there.
So Chim,
it's totally unacceptable for the Police to stop on the slip roads in the cases above? Is it really?
And just how do you know they were not engaged in a similar incident?
FF
"Don't profess your innocence, by trying to prove the guilt of others"
Edited by FlyingFin on Saturday 21st March 22:30
FlyingFin said:
The use of a speed detection device, if indeed there was one there, could have been worthwhile to assess the speed of oncoming traffic for all three examples above, bearing in mind the local authority workers would be engaged in repairing the road surface, could be at risk from the speed of the oncoming traffic.
What a load of bks you are spouting. There are no LA workers mending anything. There is no subsidence. If the workers were at risk from oncoming traffic travelling too quickly, the last thing plod would be doing is measuring it. You are talking claptrap.Bert
BertBert said:
FlyingFin said:
The use of a speed detection device, if indeed there was one there, could have been worthwhile to assess the speed of oncoming traffic for all three examples above, bearing in mind the local authority workers would be engaged in repairing the road surface, could be at risk from the speed of the oncoming traffic.
What a load of bks you are spouting. There are no LA workers mending anything. There is no subsidence. If the workers were at risk from oncoming traffic travelling too quickly, the last thing plod would be doing is measuring it. You are talking claptrap.Bert
"whilst awaiting for the local authority to arrive. This would have been deemed to be a danger to the public, hence the need to park the vehicle if a fend off type position protecting the public from such danger."
AND
"but the spillage was still awaiting action from the local authority."
But that would be difficult to understand wouldn't it...
My examples were feasible suggestions as to why the car could have been there. Examples which had not been considered or discussed.
Since you were obviously there as you have know there was no subsidence and no local authority workers on scene or on their way, what did really happen? What was the make and model of the police vehicle? How many people in it? How many people were inconvenienced by the positioning of the police vehicle?
You don't know the answers to the questions? Why is that then??
You are obviously only out for an argument.
Go take a look in a mirror, you might find someone who will listen to you there.
BertBert said:
FlyingFin said:
The use of a speed detection device, if indeed there was one there, could have been worthwhile to assess the speed of oncoming traffic for all three examples above, bearing in mind the local authority workers would be engaged in repairing the road surface, could be at risk from the speed of the oncoming traffic.
What a load of bks you are spouting. There are no LA workers mending anything. There is no subsidence. If the workers were at risk from oncoming traffic travelling too quickly, the last thing plod would be doing is measuring it. You are talking claptrap.Bert
"whilst awaiting for the local authority to arrive. This would have been deemed to be a danger to the public, hence the need to park the vehicle if a fend off type position protecting the public from such danger."
AND
"but the spillage was still awaiting action from the local authority."
But that would be difficult to understand wouldn't it...
My examples were feasible suggestions as to why the car could have been there. Examples which had not been considered or discussed.
Since you were obviously there as you have know there was no subsidence and no local authority workers on scene or on their way, what did really happen? What was the make and model of the police vehicle? How many people in it? How many people were inconvenienced by the positioning of the police vehicle?
You don't know the answers to the questions? Why is that then??
You are obviously only out for an argument.
Go take a look in a mirror, you might find someone who will listen to you there.
FlyingFin said:
You obviously cannot read sufficiently well to understand what was being said, I clearly said:
"whilst awaiting for the local authority to arrive. This would have been deemed to be a danger to the public, hence the need to park the vehicle if a fend off type position protecting the public from such danger."
AND
"but the spillage was still awaiting action from the local authority."
But that would be difficult to understand wouldn't it...
My examples were feasible suggestions as to why the car could have been there. Examples which had not been considered or discussed.
Since you were obviously there as you have know there was no subsidence and no local authority workers on scene or on their way, what did really happen? What was the make and model of the police vehicle? How many people in it? How many people were inconvenienced by the positioning of the police vehicle?
You don't know the answers to the questions? Why is that then??
You are obviously only out for an argument.
Go take a look in a mirror, you might find someone who will listen to you there.
Do you practice being an obnoxious condescending t"whilst awaiting for the local authority to arrive. This would have been deemed to be a danger to the public, hence the need to park the vehicle if a fend off type position protecting the public from such danger."
AND
"but the spillage was still awaiting action from the local authority."
But that would be difficult to understand wouldn't it...
My examples were feasible suggestions as to why the car could have been there. Examples which had not been considered or discussed.
Since you were obviously there as you have know there was no subsidence and no local authority workers on scene or on their way, what did really happen? What was the make and model of the police vehicle? How many people in it? How many people were inconvenienced by the positioning of the police vehicle?
You don't know the answers to the questions? Why is that then??
You are obviously only out for an argument.
Go take a look in a mirror, you might find someone who will listen to you there.
t at the mirror in the morning or does it just come naturally to you. BertBert said:
What a load of bks you are spouting. There are no LA workers mending anything. There is no subsidence. If the workers were at risk from oncoming traffic travelling too quickly, the last thing plod would be doing is measuring it. You are talking claptrap.
Bert
ks you are spouting. There are no LA workers mending anything. There is no subsidence. If the workers were at risk from oncoming traffic travelling too quickly, the last thing plod would be doing is measuring it. You are talking claptrap.Bert
Chim said:
Do you practice being an obnoxious condescending tt at the mirror in the morning or does it just come naturally to you.
Nothing lined a sensible and reasonable line of argument, free from personal insults when someone posts an alternative point of view you don't agree with.t at the mirror in the morning or does it just come naturally to you. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff