How to spot an unmarked police car

[frankenstein12]

vonhosen said:

frankenstein12 said:

Greendubber said:

Are drivers totally void of any responsibility then?

Of course they are responsible. As a rule of thumb its likely that in the scenario of rear enders caused by mobile or fixed speed cam late brakers the person who runs into the back of them is clearly either not maintaining a decent following distance or just not paying attention. It is also fair to blame the idiot panic braking to a ticket.

It does not however change the fact that the speed cameras cause accidents rather than reduce them as they do not teach people to drive safely. All they do is teach people to resent police and to continue to drive like utter pillocks.

Easiest answer is for them to hide the cameras & use more unmarked cars instead.
The uneasier I am about knowing where they are, the wider the influence on my choices.

This is very true. If they were hidden there would be less accidents caused by them and as such the amount of road traffic collisions would be reduced however it would teach people nothing more than to fear being caught speeding rather than people learning about appropriate speed and driving behaviour.

[frankenstein12]

vonhosen said:

frankenstein12 said:

The point of police should be to educate motorists and where necessary enforce the rules.

I'm not brainwashed. I don't see speed as dangerous per se, but that's irrelevant to the threat it poses to my licence.
I'm quite happy that I could drive to what I consider an acceptably safe standard at speeds often far in excess of our speed limits. I also accept that would require me to travel at times far below the prevailing limit.

The Police are not educators, they are not trained to be educators & they shouldn't be educators.
The two roles don't go together.

If the people who choose not to alter their behaviour get points or get banned I've little/no sympathy for them. They get enough chances.

Von in some ways you are right I suppose. It is a good debate to have on whether they should simply enforce the rules or whether they should educate motorists.

Personally I see no reason they should not do both. As described above in how I would like to see the police operate I would rather they worked as a dual role where they tried to educate and where that failed punish.

While you and I see speeding mostly the same ( I virtually never drive below the limit on the motorway but stick near rigidly to the speed limit through residential/pedestrianised areas) I think in fact a lot of the members on this forum see speed the same.

We however are not the average motorist. We like driving. We take the time to learn and try to be better drivers (mostly). The average motorist does not. They do not care about driving so give it little attention but they also see it as a right to be allowed to do so.

They will adopt an "it will never happen to me attitude" until they are actually at risk of losing their license. For that to happen they either need to be caught at such a high speed they face an instant ban or they need to tot up enough points over time.

What this in practice then means is someone who could and should be taught why their speed was inappropriate at the time they were caught never is. They therefore keep driving badly till they are forced for a period to either drive like a saint or of course take as it were a time out and serve their ban. They will then go back to bad old habits potentially.

Granted this is mitigated by speed awareness courses but even those have limited use. Speed is contextual. On a clear dry warm night on a wide open well maintained motorway it would be perfectly safe to do 100mph but if its very cold and rainy and there is lots of traffic that speed would be dangerous.

[frankenstein12]

Mandalore said:

How do unmarked Police Cars choose their next random victims.

Speed significantly in excess of the other vehicles around them
Inconsiderate (to other motorists) driving.
Erratic driving.
st plates (if only!)
Statistics relating to the model of car, age of driver and time of day.
Other statistics- often called an -ism.


Not getting tugged, whilst still making good progress is incredibly easy.
You just do everything sensible not to stand out from the herd.

Well then mostly I do it ALL WRONG.

I sit well over the speed limit on motorways. I observe lane discipline. I must stick out like a sore thumb.

Like Friday evening. I had a horrid experience with a unicorn (police car). I came bombing down the motorway late in the evening to find an unusally bunching of cars mostly all keeping left so I slowed down a bit. I then spotted a police car out front. I promptly dropped my speed to a speedo indicated 78-80 ish mph and went past everyone including the police car.

Well you wont believe it but the utter sod of a police officer did NOTHING!!! Totally ignored me even though i could only have stuck out more if I had a huge neon sign on my roof saying PULL ME!!. He just sat there with everyone else sat behind him while I dissapeared into the distance.

I love my local plod they are awesome.

[frankenstein12]

Countdown said:

Why do some people seem to get stopped so often?

HEY!! I have only been stopped 2 or is it 3 times in 12 years and over half a million miles and I have never received a ticket. I think my numbers are pretty domn good considering i spend most of my time over the speed limit.

[Who me ?]

Countdown said:

Why do some people seem to get stopped so often?

Likewise- I don't know. In coming up to now 51 years of licence and at a rough estimate at least 2 Million miles , probably a lot more, I've been stopped once, had a ticket once for a few MPH over ( on a zero tolerance road with trucks tailgating , in my defence) .When the need arises, I don't hang around. I've don Midlands( J3/M6) to 150 miles north of Glasgow in 6.5 hours- all right ,that's 63, but then pencil in toilet/coffee and fuel stops in a 70BHP derv car, and it's moving. Well 82 at least. Add in speed around Loch Lomond section where 40 can be dodgy ,and you get the idea. Possibly luck. possibly being able to spot Politzie wagons in drag. Possibly not driving to find my next prang, with around 40 % NCB ( if the Insurance companies would honour it) and 49 years accident and 35 years points free.

[Snowdrop_]

Dunno if it's been mentioned but in Yorkshire - Leeds area all police cars are YJ registrations so when I see one, BMW etc when visiting family - 99% it will be the cops

[Derek Smith]

vonhosen said:

Derek Smith said:

vonhosen said:

Of course it makes a difference, it will potentially change behaviour &/or ban from the roads those that don't change behaviour.

My behaviour choices are certainly influenced by the possibility of prosecution. If there was zero potential for it I'd be driving around a lot quicker than I do.

Research suggests otherwise.

The only significant deterrent is if there is a strong likelihood of getting caught. That has been confirmed many, many times. This is particularly evident in crimes as well.

As you said 'influenced by the possibility of prosecution'. While police patrols are low, the likelihood is very low if you avoid speed cameras.

Another significant trigger for a change in behaviour is if the legislation is supported. I have a friend who ran a business where his salesperson was banned for minor infringements. He went from a supporter of rods policing to a person who knows the behaviour which will be unlikely to gain a ticket.

Of course, as I've said before, it's about both the likelihood of detection & the severity of the punishment.

If you were definitely going to be caught every time, but there was no penalty, then you aren't going to care about getting caught.
If the penalty was really harsh but there was zero chance of getting caught, again you aren't going to care abut the severity of the punishment.

It requires an element of both to have an effect & there is sufficient element of both to influence my & plenty of others behavioural choices.
The sales person didn't change his behaviour & there was obviously sufficient chance of him being detected (he was after all on multiple occasions), so he got banned. I don't want to get banned so my choices will be influenced by that.

The severity of the punishment has little effect. In fact, heavy punishments can, and often does, have the opposite effect.

There has been an overwhelming number of examples where severe punishment can be shown to have the directly opposite result to what was suggested. Despite the fug of age, I can still remember a couple of youngsters who were hit by something along the lines of the 'short, sharp shock', or similarly named pathetic attempt to gain votes, who were changed to habitual criminals and drug takers after being hit by a punishment out of all proportion to the crime.

The only proven method of deterring offenders is the likelihood of being caught. It doesn't have to be every time, just a significant percentage.

There's lots on this online. Mind you, there was lots on this in the 80s but no one took any notice of the inconvenient truth. It is so much easier to dish out the old mantra of putting the boot in and then the rest of us suffering the consequences.

If they put average speed cameras on every motorway, dual carriageway or similar, speeding would plummet, at least that's what the evidence supports, overwhelmingly so. There would be no need to increase the penalty, and even if it was increased, it would, the evidence shows, have little additional effect.

[Targarama]

I'm not so sure, sometimes a stronger penalty works. Now the penalty for being caught using a mobile while driving is 6 points I take extra care not to look at my phone in the car unless using it for navigation, it goes into the closed armrest storage on charge instead. My licence is worth more than a quick read of a message (I never did anything too bad but did read message notifications sometimes - I always have used car bluetooth system for any call in/out.

Regarding speeding, I think the main issue is the covert way of catching speeding drivers which angers many. Also, we all know that speeding doesn't kill in itself, but inappropriate speed/not paying attention/racing/dangerous driving does. Thus we get angry at being told speeding is what is being checked. I guess it is not practical to control the rest with automated systems (yet).

[Derek Smith]

Targarama said:

I'm not so sure, sometimes a stronger penalty works. Now the penalty for being caught using a mobile while driving is 6 points I take extra care not to look at my phone in the car unless using it for navigation, it goes into the closed armrest storage on charge instead. My licence is worth more than a quick read of a message (I never did anything too bad but did read message notifications sometimes - I always have used car bluetooth system for any call in/out.

Regarding speeding, I think the main issue is the covert way of catching speeding drivers which angers many. Also, we all know that speeding doesn't kill in itself, but inappropriate speed/not paying attention/racing/dangerous driving does. Thus we get angry at being told speeding is what is being checked. I guess it is not practical to control the rest with automated systems (yet).

The evidence is clear but the reasons are open to interpretation. However, one point which has a lot of support - which I accept doesn't mean it is right - is that most people, when it is shown that their behaviour is antisocial, will try and keep to the law. As, indeed, you seem to be doing with regards phones. Increasing the penalty has done nothing to stop your offending. The question is whether those who are antisocial will continue to offend. The suggestion is that they will unless the chance of being caught increases.

I take your point in the second para. If a law is thought to be unfair, unjust and unjustifiable, people will ignore it when they think they can get away with it. We all know know 40 limit roads where there is little safety justification for it and visibility is good. This is the length of road that normally law-abiding people will push the limits. Stick a speed camera along it and speeding offences will be fewer. Increase the frequency of speed traps and people will drive within the limit, or probably lower, if there's a parked van.

It is the likelihood of being caught that deters.

It is received wisdom, and obviously logical, that an increase in penalty will reduce offending. Statistically this has been proved incorrect time and again.

One example of illogical behaviour is the way people maintain normal speeds in reduced visibility. The'penalty' for this is to be involved in a multiple accident with the possibility of being seriously injured, disfigured and perhaps killed. This, the suggestion is, deters only those who would have driven slower in any case.

Anecdotal evidence, ie what the responses have been from drivers involved in such accidents, is clear: drivers did not expect to be involved in an accident.

Logic fail there.

[frankenstein12]

Derek Smith said:

Targarama said:

I'm not so sure, sometimes a stronger penalty works. Now the penalty for being caught using a mobile while driving is 6 points I take extra care not to look at my phone in the car unless using it for navigation, it goes into the closed armrest storage on charge instead. My licence is worth more than a quick read of a message (I never did anything too bad but did read message notifications sometimes - I always have used car bluetooth system for any call in/out.

Regarding speeding, I think the main issue is the covert way of catching speeding drivers which angers many. Also, we all know that speeding doesn't kill in itself, but inappropriate speed/not paying attention/racing/dangerous driving does. Thus we get angry at being told speeding is what is being checked. I guess it is not practical to control the rest with automated systems (yet).

The evidence is clear but the reasons are open to interpretation. However, one point which has a lot of support - which I accept doesn't mean it is right - is that most people, when it is shown that their behaviour is antisocial, will try and keep to the law. As, indeed, you seem to be doing with regards phones. Increasing the penalty has done nothing to stop your offending. The question is whether those who are antisocial will continue to offend. The suggestion is that they will unless the chance of being caught increases.

I take your point in the second para. If a law is thought to be unfair, unjust and unjustifiable, people will ignore it when they think they can get away with it. We all know know 40 limit roads where there is little safety justification for it and visibility is good. This is the length of road that normally law-abiding people will push the limits. Stick a speed camera along it and speeding offences will be fewer. Increase the frequency of speed traps and people will drive within the limit, or probably lower, if there's a parked van.

It is the likelihood of being caught that deters.

It is received wisdom, and obviously logical, that an increase in penalty will reduce offending. Statistically this has been proved incorrect time and again.

One example of illogical behaviour is the way people maintain normal speeds in reduced visibility. The'penalty' for this is to be involved in a multiple accident with the possibility of being seriously injured, disfigured and perhaps killed. This, the suggestion is, deters only those who would have driven slower in any case.

Anecdotal evidence, ie what the responses have been from drivers involved in such accidents, is clear: drivers did not expect to be involved in an accident.

Logic fail there.

The Bovey is why I am so against speed limits on motorways and DC's. The majority of people are utterly ignorant of the risks associated with their surroundings as they are constantly battered with the mantra speed kills.

Psychologically their brain therfore thinks providing I am within or around the speed limit I am driving safely.

The problem is that's simply not the case.

People should be taught to drive to the conditions not to an arbitrary speed.

Northern territory Road trial proved in practice removal of speed limits reduced accidents as people drive at speeds where they are comfortable and they take more care as they have to decide for themselves what speed is safe.

[vonhosen]

Derek Smith said:

vonhosen said:

Derek Smith said:

vonhosen said:

Of course it makes a difference, it will potentially change behaviour &/or ban from the roads those that don't change behaviour.

My behaviour choices are certainly influenced by the possibility of prosecution. If there was zero potential for it I'd be driving around a lot quicker than I do.

Research suggests otherwise.

The only significant deterrent is if there is a strong likelihood of getting caught. That has been confirmed many, many times. This is particularly evident in crimes as well.

As you said 'influenced by the possibility of prosecution'. While police patrols are low, the likelihood is very low if you avoid speed cameras.

Another significant trigger for a change in behaviour is if the legislation is supported. I have a friend who ran a business where his salesperson was banned for minor infringements. He went from a supporter of rods policing to a person who knows the behaviour which will be unlikely to gain a ticket.

Of course, as I've said before, it's about both the likelihood of detection & the severity of the punishment.

If you were definitely going to be caught every time, but there was no penalty, then you aren't going to care about getting caught.
If the penalty was really harsh but there was zero chance of getting caught, again you aren't going to care abut the severity of the punishment.

It requires an element of both to have an effect & there is sufficient element of both to influence my & plenty of others behavioural choices.
The sales person didn't change his behaviour & there was obviously sufficient chance of him being detected (he was after all on multiple occasions), so he got banned. I don't want to get banned so my choices will be influenced by that.

The severity of the punishment has little effect. In fact, heavy punishments can, and often does, have the opposite effect.

There has been an overwhelming number of examples where severe punishment can be shown to have the directly opposite result to what was suggested. Despite the fug of age, I can still remember a couple of youngsters who were hit by something along the lines of the 'short, sharp shock', or similarly named pathetic attempt to gain votes, who were changed to habitual criminals and drug takers after being hit by a punishment out of all proportion to the crime.

The only proven method of deterring offenders is the likelihood of being caught. It doesn't have to be every time, just a significant percentage.

There's lots on this online. Mind you, there was lots on this in the 80s but no one took any notice of the inconvenient truth. It is so much easier to dish out the old mantra of putting the boot in and then the rest of us suffering the consequences.

If they put average speed cameras on every motorway, dual carriageway or similar, speeding would plummet, at least that's what the evidence supports, overwhelmingly so. There would be no need to increase the penalty, and even if it was increased, it would, the evidence shows, have little additional effect.

You could say 3 points is not a heavy penalty.
Getting them multiple times happens because you are not changing behaviour despite there being clear evidence that the odds of detection are high enough for you personally (after all you'd have been caught enough times for it to be a problem).
I don't intend to get banned from totting up lots of small penalties.

The odds of getting caught on motorways/DCs at levels that attract minor penalties are still enough to deter me from taking part.
The heavier penalties of an immediate ban for 100+ speeds on motorways don't come into it for me, because I won't do the 79+ speeds that will see me getting 3 points, let alone motorway speeds that are likely to result in an immediate ban. They are enough to influence me to not go there & I won't be alone in that.

Heavier penalties than we currently have wouldn't make a difference to me, because I don't do those speeds on motorways/DCs already with the current enforcement levels/penalties.

Of course if there was no punishment if caught (just a please don't letter) I wouldn't give a toss about being caught & it wouldn't influence my behaviour at all. It's the consequences now of being caught at current enforcement levels on our motorways/DCs/arterial routes that does.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 20th March 20:57

[Sa Calobra]

Yesterday I saw two 16plate white transits dicking about, one drove the wrong way down a short section dual carriage way. I was in the process of noting their reg's to call it in when....A black 3series estate behind them suddenly lit up it's blues

Thank goodness for plain clothes cars

[donkmeister]

Biker 1 said:

I'd like to turn this topic on its head so to speak:
How can I convince other road users that I am undercover old bill, without doing anything illegal? I don't want to go the whole hog & install blue LED strobes/flashing lights & sirens, or carry a fake warrant card or anything like that, but it would be really nice to somehow get one over on some of the muppets who cut you up on the motorway, & when hooted, simply give you the middle finger & mouth 'fk off'....

Surely the effect of pretending to be police is a bit lost when they flip you off and you just pout back at them grumpily - I'm pretty sure if you cut up a policecar and then tell them to eff off they put the blues on and go over your car and attitude with a fine-toothed comb.

Try a bit of prevention instead: I fitted truck airhorns to a previous car of mine, vertically behind the rad so not visible with the bonnet closed - if you really want to make someone s**t themselves give them a blast of angry truck as they're changing lane, you'd be surprised how quickly people abort a dodgy manoeuvre when their subconscious is screaming "YOU'RE ABOUT TO GET SQUASHED BY A LORRY!!!"

[Targarama]

donkmeister said:

Biker 1 said:

I'd like to turn this topic on its head so to speak:
How can I convince other road users that I am undercover old bill, without doing anything illegal? I don't want to go the whole hog & install blue LED strobes/flashing lights & sirens, or carry a fake warrant card or anything like that, but it would be really nice to somehow get one over on some of the muppets who cut you up on the motorway, & when hooted, simply give you the middle finger & mouth 'fk off'....

Surely the effect of pretending to be police is a bit lost when they flip you off and you just pout back at them grumpily - I'm pretty sure if you cut up a policecar and then tell them to eff off they put the blues on and go over your car and attitude with a fine-toothed comb.

Try a bit of prevention instead: I fitted truck airhorns to a previous car of mine, vertically behind the rad so not visible with the bonnet closed - if you really want to make someone s**t themselves give them a blast of angry truck as they're changing lane, you'd be surprised how quickly people abort a dodgy manoeuvre when their subconscious is screaming "YOU'RE ABOUT TO GET SQUASHED BY A LORRY!!!"

How about a black childs toy walkie talkie handpiece with a bit of black curly cable on it. Pretend to talk into it while pointing at the to55er with a 'you naughty boy, you're in trouble now' look. Should do the job

[rxe]

Countdown said:

Why do some people seem to get stopped so often?

I honestly think it is because a lot of them aren't looking out of windscreen.

I will cheerfully admit to not being the slowest driver on the motorway - 10 over is routine, 20 over is pretty normal (assuming conditions are appropriate etc). A few months ago I was in a group of cars doing a scratch under 90 on a fairly quiet M4. About 4 or 5 cars in the group, outside lane clear, the fast group was mainly in the middle lane.

About 300 yards ahead, I spot an estate car with a reflective boot doing about 70 in the inside lane. Off the power - it might be a womble, it might be plod. No braking, just off the power and the car drops to 80 fairly quickly. The other cars keep going, and the guy behind me overtakes. About 150 yards from the car, its clear its plod, so I drop to about 75 - safe enough. The first car of the group is now drawing level with the plod car at 90, and only just realises that it is plod. Hard on the brakes. The whole lot are driving way too close to each other, the last two have great difficulty not stuffing into the car in front.

Luckily for them, plod appeared to not to notice the near 4 car pile up that had only just been avoided, but you do have to wonder about people who are paying so little attention that they only spot a BMW covered in battenburg stickers with "POLICE" on the side of it when they are about 20 yards from it.

My general rule on the motorway is to avoid being the fastest, and drive better than most. Given the quality of driving on most motorways, I work on the assumption that plod (marked or otherwise) is already dealing with worse miscreants than me.

[cramorra]

edited as possible guilty of highjacking thread- new one started......????

Edited by cramorra on Wednesday 5th April 14:00

[br1anuk]

For the proper covert stuff they use London Black cabs.

[Dibble]

br1anuk said:

For the proper covert stuff they use London Black cabs.

Thread resurrection for this?

[Riley Blue]

Would stand out a mile here, there are no London cabs of any colour.

[Dixy]

br1anuk said:

For the proper covert stuff they use London Black cabs.

Some people will post anything just to keep their daily post count up.