Disgracing the Uniform.
Discussion
I think the main gripe here is that the BIB blatently lied. It is very worrying if we can't trust people in positions of power to have integrity - after all, if it went to court whos word would they believe.
So what if Dave was doing 40 in a 30 - he admitted it right away and would have probably grudgingly accepted an FPN for this figure. The BIB lying could have cause him to get a greater punishment for a crime he didn't commit...
So what if Dave was doing 40 in a 30 - he admitted it right away and would have probably grudgingly accepted an FPN for this figure. The BIB lying could have cause him to get a greater punishment for a crime he didn't commit...
IaHa said:
If he thought you were exceeding the speed limit, and his speedo evidence suggested you were doing 53, then he certainly could do something about it.
Just some cautionary advice, please do not be over confident that because they haven't a calibrated speed detection device in the motor, you are safe.
IaHa - can you confirm the process for issuing a NIP with a single occupant without a calibrated speedo - I had assumed that a producer was the worst he could do.
I assume if he gets a confession, he can go for the NIP.
Thanks for any clarification.
planetdave said:
My sole issue is that he has decided I'm doing 53 when I'm tops doing 37. It's a blatent lie. I have no proof. He has no recording device.
Why should the general public put up with this shit? It may intimidate someone who wasn't paying attention. I was.
Lying coppers just undermine the trust in the system.
I now have less respect for the BiB than I did.
Bad result.
Don't know how old you are but the older I get the more of this I experience. I guess there are bad plod just like there are bad Doctors, but I seem to find a few of them but I am assured by Silverback Mike that they are not all like this . . .
egomeister said:
I think the main gripe here is that the BIB blatently lied. It is very worrying if we can't trust people in positions of power to have integrity - after all, if it went to court whos word would they believe.
So what if Dave was doing 40 in a 30 - he admitted it right away and would have probably grudgingly accepted an FPN for this figure. The BIB lying could have cause him to get a greater punishment for a crime he didn't commit...
Ja - can see his argument - the higher speed could result in extra point or bigger fine if challenged at court. Also 53 mph in 30 mph - threshold for apaerance before the beak? (having a "senior moment"
) But trying to make out thing ist worst than actual und trying to bully into admitting something worse ist really a 
As for this dual carriageway - ja
I know this one by the airport. Used to be a few duals around there which were 50 mph - now 30 mph 
But I may be recalling incorrectly but am sure the siongle carriageway which run almost parallel - Ringway Road? It lead to Styal Road und the country park und that nice NT Quarry Bank Mill which my kittens have enjoyed visiting ist 40 mph and NSL at one point. Does seem strange that the duals around there are set so low when the other road ist one with the more obvious hazards... egomeister said:
I think the main gripe here is that the BIB blatently lied. It is very worrying if we can't trust people in positions of power to have integrity - after all, if it went to court whos word would they believe.
I agree, that is the main gripe.
I also have experience of plod blatantly lying in order to intimidate at the roadside (following entrapment manouvre), then spouting further lies under oath in court when challenged. It sucks. It destroys any sense of faith or belief in the justice system that the victim may previously have had.
trev r said:
I think the main gripe here is that the BIB blatently lied. It is very worrying if we can't trust people in positions of power to have integrity - after all, if it went to court whos word would they believe.
I agree, that is the main gripe.
I also have experience of plod blatantly lying in order to intimidate at the roadside (following entrapment manouvre), then spouting further lies under oath in court when challenged. It sucks. It destroys any sense of faith or belief in the justice system that the victim may previously have had.
I agree. The outcome from my previous post from the three 'made up' statements was that I could not believe that it was happening.
The good thing is, it was not hard for me to choose my line of questioning in court to trip them up into admitting the truth. I was just glad that the judge was good enough to see through the fact that I was 25 with a fast car, and see the truth in the matter.
He did make a point of adding that 'no further action would be taken against the police officers'. This was interesting as at least he must have considered it!
As has been said before, I do not believe every police officer has been a 'bad apple'. In my experience in being pulled over for whatever reason, I have always been polite and courteous. The main problem I have found is that when a coherent explanation is offered for the reason I had been pulled, rather than admitting defeat, I have to wait while I am checked for a criminal record, whether my car is stolen, check all the lights, tyres, tax etc to hope to find a reason to vindicate the decision to stop me.
The reason why I say not all of the BiB are like this, as it would take a certain type of person to pull you over for having your fog lights on on a foggy night!
Those type of people are in all walks of life!
A common response to this thread seems to be that if you admit to speeding anyway, why whinge about it?
However, the underlying question must surely be that if this copper was prepared to lie about PlantDave's speed, what if he actually HAD been obeying the speed limit, ie doing 30mph? Dave's got absolutely no protection. How many other "victims" have already been through the courts based on this guy's "evidence"?
Is this excuse for a policeman to be allowed to make up offences as he sees fit? If, as already implied, he now needs no corroboration, he can decide to do you for driving an offensive car, so to speak.
I understand the BiB's on this site responding the way that they do, but bear in mind, MOST of us have the utmost respect for you guys, and saying things like "live with it" merely undermines our faith in justice, let alone our respect for the uniform.
I am sure that if the copper had said that Dave was doing 40, have a ticket, there would be no issue at all.
Perverting the course of justice is the term that should be applied here.
Just remember, as technology improves, the public will be able to back up their own defence with solid data on speed (recordable GPS or somesuch). Whether admissible in court remains to be seen, but the day will surely come, and "bent" coppers will be found out. Tachographs have already been used in one or two cases.
However, the underlying question must surely be that if this copper was prepared to lie about PlantDave's speed, what if he actually HAD been obeying the speed limit, ie doing 30mph? Dave's got absolutely no protection. How many other "victims" have already been through the courts based on this guy's "evidence"?
Is this excuse for a policeman to be allowed to make up offences as he sees fit? If, as already implied, he now needs no corroboration, he can decide to do you for driving an offensive car, so to speak.
I understand the BiB's on this site responding the way that they do, but bear in mind, MOST of us have the utmost respect for you guys, and saying things like "live with it" merely undermines our faith in justice, let alone our respect for the uniform.
I am sure that if the copper had said that Dave was doing 40, have a ticket, there would be no issue at all.
Perverting the course of justice is the term that should be applied here.
Just remember, as technology improves, the public will be able to back up their own defence with solid data on speed (recordable GPS or somesuch). Whether admissible in court remains to be seen, but the day will surely come, and "bent" coppers will be found out. Tachographs have already been used in one or two cases.
JoolzB said:But at least a scamera would have clocked him for doing 40 in a 30 and not come up with a load of bull about doing 53. I think that is the point, the bull about 53 which was entirely guesswork on the officers part, not the doing 40 in a 30.
Yet alot of people would rather have scameras replaced with more cops on the road, it would have to take a big change in police attitudes and policies before I could support this.
Either way, you got off and didnt get a ticket whereas a scamera would be sending you a nip, makes JoolzB's point doesnt it, even an arsy officer is better than a scamera, so quit whining
Dwight VanDriver said:
Dave you said:
"The limit is 30.
I normally do 50-60 along this road since it's so open/good viz. "
.... and you still beef?
dvd
This kind of response is truly pathetic. Nursery school time: two wrongs don't make a right.
The cop involved was either an idiot or a liar. Telling someone they were doing 53 when they were doing 40 is not OK even if the limit is 30.
To try to make some sense out of this, I believe that planetdave was pulled because the Bib could see that Dave was exceeding the limit. Now this might not be an unsafe speed, and it certainly does not seem unsafe according to peoples accounts of the road and hazard type, but fact remains Bib was following someone who is breaking the law. This person (planetdave) knows that Bib is behind and Bib knows that.
So in the mind of Bib, he has other motorists on the road who may have been ticketed themselves, and they are watching him tolerate a speeder, and he can’t hide from that, so he decides to pull and advise.
Now he may or may not have been trafpol, but he decides to check dave’s speed. Lo and behold his speedo is reading between 50 and 55 miles per hour. He might think that he is following at a steady pace but he could be closing slightly. His mistake is that he has not conducted the check for long enough or at a fixed distance, but he thinks, I’m going to have to pull this chap, I can’t be seen to condone this kind of speed.
So he tugs planetdave, and gets what he sees as the usual reply,”Yes officer, my speed was actual speed – 20%
”
So he retorts with what he believes is the correct speed, which causes some consternation, and a discussion ensues. Bib probably now realises that his accuracy was off the mark, but still believes that the speed was more than 40, so he doesn’t back down, he’s not going to ticket anyway, so what’s the problem.
So off he goes, satisfied that he has stopped and spoken to the person whose blatant disregard for the posted limit was causing him some embarrassment.
I’d agree that there is a real possibility that this Bib has been mistaken about the speed, but I think that’s a bit removed from lying. As I’ve said before there is really no need to lie about speed offences. If you want to bag a speeder they’re ten a penny.
So in the mind of Bib, he has other motorists on the road who may have been ticketed themselves, and they are watching him tolerate a speeder, and he can’t hide from that, so he decides to pull and advise.
Now he may or may not have been trafpol, but he decides to check dave’s speed. Lo and behold his speedo is reading between 50 and 55 miles per hour. He might think that he is following at a steady pace but he could be closing slightly. His mistake is that he has not conducted the check for long enough or at a fixed distance, but he thinks, I’m going to have to pull this chap, I can’t be seen to condone this kind of speed.
So he tugs planetdave, and gets what he sees as the usual reply,”Yes officer, my speed was actual speed – 20%
” So he retorts with what he believes is the correct speed, which causes some consternation, and a discussion ensues. Bib probably now realises that his accuracy was off the mark, but still believes that the speed was more than 40, so he doesn’t back down, he’s not going to ticket anyway, so what’s the problem.
So off he goes, satisfied that he has stopped and spoken to the person whose blatant disregard for the posted limit was causing him some embarrassment.
I’d agree that there is a real possibility that this Bib has been mistaken about the speed, but I think that’s a bit removed from lying. As I’ve said before there is really no need to lie about speed offences. If you want to bag a speeder they’re ten a penny.
7db said:
If he thought you were exceeding the speed limit, and his speedo evidence suggested you were doing 53, then he certainly could do something about it.
Just some cautionary advice, please do not be over confident that because they haven't a calibrated speed detection device in the motor, you are safe.
IaHa - can you confirm the process for issuing a NIP with a single occupant without a calibrated speedo - I had assumed that a producer was the worst he could do.
I assume if he gets a confession, he can go for the NIP.
Thanks for any clarification.
First, form the opinion that the vehicle is exceeding the limit.
Equate your vehicle's speed with that of the target vehicle.
Check your speedo regularly throughout the check while maintaining a constant distance between the vehicles.
Once you have the range of speeds, it's often good practice to set your vhicle's speed at the lower of the range of speeds recorded and watch as the target vehicle moves away from you.
It's normal practice to back all that up by a run through with a traffic car at one of the speeds in the range to check the correct speed using vascar.
Driver can be ticketed or reported for summons,
In practice this is not used very often, usually only when speeds are ridiculously excessive.
The case law on this is Nicholas v Penny 1950 where it was accepted that an officers evidence of excess speed could be corroborated by an uncalibrated device eg a speedo.
ya55erm said:
plod have no common sense mate dont try to fight them get even with the law!
You're hurting mate.
You've paid a penalty for a car which on your own admission was not fully roadworthy, and you were not wearing a belt.
The penalty was down to the mags, not plod.
Try to be big enough to take it on the chin and not throw pointless comments like this around.
Dwight VanDriver said:dvd, we know the score about what BiB post here but we all know that speed limits stopped bearing any relation to a safe speed - as opposed to a legal speed - long ago. Thanks to transport mismanagers there's roads round here that were apparently safe to drive along for decades at 70mph or 60mpgh that are now 50mph or 40 mph. Why the sudden danger? There's a triple carriageway out of London with no houses alongside and a 30 on it ffs. I don't know the road in question and i wasn't there to see the driving but it sounds like the guy wasn't driving at an unsafe speed 'just' an illegal one, and the law on this matter is past help.
Dave you said:
"The limit is 30.
I normally do 50-60 along this road since it's so open/good viz. "
.... and you still beef?
dvd
The business of catch-up speed being portrayed as following at a fixed distance is enough to make anyone hacked off. Surely there's enough speed fodder out there driving fast and tw@ttish to keep you boys busy
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff