Disgracing the Uniform.

[JoolzB]

Balmoral Green said:

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

On the contrary I was trying to suggest the opposite, I'd rather slow for a scamera that I know is there than some sneaky copper hiding in a bush or unmarked car. To be honest I'd rather have something more flexible in place - the government/police just adopt a policy for prosecuting bad driving, maybe keeping the current laws in place to help with prosecutions if excessive speed etc was the cause of bad driving. What's the point of having skilled TrafPol out there who are mailnly stopping people who exceed a limit that they know is not dangerous? This is what can make a "pull" so annoying.

Back on topic I'd agree with IaHa that the copper was under pressure to stop you and probly had no choice, his view of your speed was obviously wrong but at the end of the day he let you off for whatever reason, which was clearly the correct outcome.

[IaHa]

7db said:

Thanks IaHa. May go and check that reference out. Seems odd that there would be challenges to the use of LTI 20-20 and its home office approval if they can use an uncalibrated instrument just as easily -- for example an unapproved LTI 20-20...

Additionally it's sufficient for 2 officers to corroborate each others belief that a vehicle was speeding.
Again, only ever used in cases of excessive speed.

[Dwight VanDriver]

ATG
Turbobloke.

I made no comment as to the safety factors relevant or not on that stretch of road but merely point out that this is not a case of someone doing his best to conform to the law. He knew the limit and openly admits
driving at up to twice that limit at what would appear to be a regular basis. Even on the pull he admits over the limit.

Rightly or wrongly its a 30. To exceed then you can expect to be pulled. Under that speed then your journey is not interupted.

Good attempt Iaha but (and with respect to the inbitial poster) we only have one side of the story and not likely to be privy to what exactly went on.

dvd

[TOPTON]

[quote=planetdave]You know this isn't going to be good.

@ a few minutes before 20.00 tonight I got a pull.

The situation. Me driving along the dual carriageway outside T2 @Manchester airport. Doing a very strict 40. Coz I'm monitoring the plod van catching and coming alongside me. The limit is 30.

I normally do 50-60 along this road since it's so open/good viz.


Seems to me you were openly flouting the law because you thought you could get away with it for whatever reason. I drive on many roads that open/good viz but still 30. I, like thousands of others don't make our own speed limits up because "I know better". Its a shame you didn't get a ticket, regardless of what the copper said or done. Maybe next time you get pulled you will be doing your normal speed of 50-60. Maybe you think we should all drive at whatever speed we want if we think it's safe. Strange dangerous world that would be

[gh0st]

TOPTON said:

Maybe next time you get pulled you will be doing your normal speed of 50-60. Maybe you think we should all drive at whatever speed we want if we think it's safe. Strange dangerous world that would be

Yes beacuse if you drive at the speed limits the government set to the letter and dont bother thinking for themselves at all because only speed and speed alone kills - there are never any accidents ever at all beacuse its only speed that kills....?

What a strange and dangerous world YOU live in...

[planetdave]

TOPTON said:

[quote=planetdave]You know this isn't going to be good. @ a few minutes before 20.00 tonight I got a pull. The situation. Me driving along the dual carriageway outside T2 @Manchester airport. Doing a very strict 40. Coz I'm monitoring the plod van catching and coming alongside me. The limit is 30. I normally do 50-60 along this road since it's so open/good viz. Seems to me you were openly flouting the law because you thought you could get away with it for whatever reason. I drive on many roads that open/good viz but still 30. I, like thousands of others don't make our own speed limits up because "I know better". Its a shame you didn't get a ticket, regardless of what the copper said or done. Maybe next time you get pulled you will be doing your normal speed of 50-60. Maybe you think we should all drive at whatever speed we want if we think it's safe. Strange dangerous world that would be

To quote yourself.....I, like thousands of others don't make our own speed limits up because "I know better".
If you don't have the brains to know what the safe limits are then you'd better stick to what the government tells you. Really was a waste of time of you learning to drive.....that poor instructor struggling to get you to interpret how to cope with changing conditions/traffic patterns.
It's people like you that made me retire.

[IaHa]

7db said:

Thanks IaHa. May go and check that reference out. Seems odd that there would be challenges to the use of LTI 20-20 and its home office approval if they can use an uncalibrated instrument just as easily -- for example an unapproved LTI 20-20...

Here's a direct lift from Wilkinson's (Road Traffic Bible)

6.90 By the RTRA1984 s89(2) a person prosecuted for driving a motor vehicle at a speed exceeding the limit imposed by or under any enactment shall not be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the defendant was driving at a speed exceeding that limit. A like provision applies to offences of not attaining the minimum speed limits (1985 Act, s88(7)).

These corroboration requirements do not apply to motorway speeding offences contrary to section17(4) of the 1984 Act (overall speed limit on motorways) as section 17(2) is specifically excluded from the effects of section 89 by section 89(3) but they do apply to the motorway speed limits for special classes.

6.91 The corroborative witness must speak as to speeding at the same moment of time as the first witness, so one police officer who saw the defendant on one part of the road did not corroborate another who saw him some moments later at a place further along the same road (Brighty v Pearson [1938] 4 All E.R. 127).
Corroboration is usually provided nowadays by the speedometer of a police vehicle, radar equipment, or Vascar, or by the speed testing device being used.
In Nicholas v Penny [1950] 2 All E.R. 89 it was held that a person could be convicted on the evidence of one police officer supported by evidence by him of the reading of a speedometer or other mechanical means, even though there was no evidence that the speedometer had been tested. In that case the defendant was said to be going 10mph in excess of the limit, and the court commented on the amount of the excess; had the speed been only, say 2mph in excess of the limit they might have called for evidence of the accuracy of the speedometer. In any case, it is in the discretion of the magistrates to accept or reject evidence tendered in speeding as in all other cases. Applying Nicholas v Penny it was held in Swain v Gillett [1974] R.T.R. 446 that for the purposes of section 89(2) a speedometer reading was capable of amounting to corroboration of a police officer’s opinion of evidence about the speed of a vehicle without proof of testing of the accuracy of the speedometer. The magistrates, who had dismissed a case of speeding on accepting a submission of no case to answer on the ground that the officer’s evidence as to speeding was not corroborated by a speedometer for which no
evidence as to its accuracy had been produced, were directed to continue the hearing of the case.

[turbobloke]

Dwight VanDriver said:

ATG Turbobloke. I made no comment as to the safety factors relevant or not on that stretch of road but merely point out that this is not a case of someone doing his best to conform to the law. He knew the limit and openly admits driving at up to twice that limit at what would appear to be a regular basis. Even on the pull he admits over the limit...and with respect to the inbitial poster we only have one side of the story...

Agreed. My point was that, just maybe, our mancunian BiB would do more for road safety, and more for good relations with generally law abiding motorists (not including nonsensical speed limits) to ignore speed limit violations where the motorist is driving 'safely' for the conditions, but target the real idiots who use speed inappropriately. They represent the danger, and I was suggesting that there are enough of them about to keep the sergeant happy over speeding quotas or targets. Then everyone is better off surely.

[planetdave]

Dwight VanDriver said:

ATG Turbobloke. I made no comment as to the safety factors relevant or not on that stretch of road but merely point out that this is not a case of someone doing his best to conform to the law. He knew the limit and openly admits driving at up to twice that limit at what would appear to be a regular basis. Even on the pull he admits over the limit. Rightly or wrongly its a 30. To exceed then you can expect to be pulled. Under that speed then your journey is not interupted. Good attempt Iaha but (and with respect to the inbitial poster) we only have one side of the story and not likely to be privy to what exactly went on. dvd

You may only have one side of the story here. But I'm a strong witness. I wasn't bimbling along not knowing what I was doing..I was driving @ 100% using the systematic approach. I therefore know exactly what speeds I was doing where and why.

So IMO the pull was fair.
A NIP for 40 in 30 would be justice.
But an officer not being able to judge speed and forming an opinion that the velocity was @ least 13MPH over actual is either deceitful or grossly incompetant.

Either way we have a wayward officer. He needs pulling up on this. It might be a simple error not to be repeated but if a prosecution had followed then a miscarriage would (likely) have happened. Anyone judging the case and taking the facts as read might have taken an extremely dim view and penalised me accordingly. As a professional driver that could cause me immense damage.

[TOPTON]

I won't rise to the fact that you got personal and insultive. But I will say, being a profesional driving instructor (grade 5), I teach people all the time to read the road and conditions and adjust their speed accordingly. Not to speed just because they disagree with the limit of the particular road. Which is what you seem to say. We don't live in a lawless society. Some laws I aggree with, some I don't. But I don't just ignore the ones I don't like.

On your profile it says--ex driving instructor. I am not surprised it is "ex" if your attitude to teaching people was the same as how you drive and respond to comments

[7db]

Thanks for that IaHa - knew that two plod could corroborate, but wasn't aware that uncalibrated and untested and unapproved equipment could be used for corroboration of a single police witness, provided the magistrate, in his opinion, thinks that it's good enough.

I wonder if plod can look at speedo at *exactly* the same time as looking at target vehicle at *exactly* the same time as maintaining an accurate following distance, as required. Presumably only in the contact position

[tvrgit]

I always think it's a damn good idea to argue with policemen when they speak to you for whatever reason. I find that they are always grateful that you take such an interest in helping them to do their job properly, and will almost immediately back down and let you off as a result.

Some are even so grateful that they tell all their mates so that they can stop you for a lesson in policing as well, before letting you on your way with a cheery wave and a glowing tip. There is no greater accolade than to be recognised for your acerbic and/or comedic genius.

On-the job training, yes, that's exactly what they need.

[turbobloke]

TOPTON said:

We don't live in a lawless society. Some laws I aggree with, some I don't. But I don't just ignore the ones I don't like.

You say you were insulted before, so I'll be careful to point out it's your viewpoint, not you, that's insulting to decent free-thinking people who don't like to live under the heel of muppets and their totalitarian nanny statism.

Martin Luther King Jr said:

Just as it is the duty of all men to obey just laws, so it is the duty of all men to disobey unjust laws.

The actions of a reasonable and prudent person under normal circumstances should be considered lawful. Any law that makes the actions of reasonable and prudent people unlawful is a total ass, and unworthy of obedience by reasonable, prudent thinking people.

[justinp1]

tvrgit said:

I always think it's a damn good idea to argue with policemen when they speak to you for whatever reason. I find that they are always grateful that you take such an interest in helping them to do their job properly, and will almost immediately back down and let you off as a result. Some are even so grateful that they tell all their mates so that they can stop you for a lesson in policing as well, before letting you on your way with a cheery wave and a glowing tip. There is no greater accolade than to be recognised for your acerbic and/or comedic genius. On-the job training, yes, that's exactly what they need.

I agree. I have heard similar too. Apparantly back at the station they have great bacon sandwiches for lunch.
Apparantly if you are 'invited' into the police car to be spoken to about the error of your ways, if you make a sniffing sound and say 'I smell bacon' as soon as you sit down, *apparantly* psychologically it reminds them they have a better place to be than the side of a cold wet motorway and they just let you on your way! They would much rather be reminded of the better things in life, rather than just face your impending abuse of the fact they are there to to their jobs...

>> Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 29th September 13:42