One law for them again?
Discussion
scuffham said:
Discuss
Last year, there were 65,000 incidents recorded whereby a police vehicle was recorded as speeding without being on an emergency call (no sirens, no lights).
Less than 175 were prosecuted.
(from an article in 'Bike' this month)
Read similar in papers recently, but just for the record, they dont need to have lights and sirens on responding to an emergency call, they do of course when deemed necessary, which is 99.9% of the time, just clarifying that point, yes but how many were just nipping home for their lunch......
Bout time they sorted this. Wasnt there one incident whereby they did check it out, and couldnt find out who was driving at the time.......... just sucks.
gone said:
Maybe 65000 minus 175 had justifiable reasons!
/predictable post/
How can you possibly even attempt to justify this?
to my mind it make you just as guilty as the 'bad apples' that this always get's blamed on.
either admit that the speed limits are wrong or apply the same rules to yourselves as are applied to us...
and you wonder why there is a growing resentment of the police in this country?
hedders said:
gone said:
How could anyone possibly justify risking 64,825 childrens lives???
Is that number of children still being allowed out on the roads these days??
Probably not, given the number of speeding police cars razzing round.
But it's a non issue, other than the fact that we have created a feeling of public resentment as they are justifiably aggrieved at this perceived unfairness.
But I speed legally possibly 50 times per week, maybe more, at least half of those ioccasions without blues and twos.
If there are 10,000 patrol cars operating nationally, and they all do the same, then that's 25 million occasions of legal excess speed.
Now, if I am speeding legally, why should I bother with a camera activation, I have more important things to worry about.
So it would be quite easy to see how such a high figure (65,000) could be achieved.
In fact I am very surprised this figure is not a lot higher, given that it only represents 0.26% of all the estimated legal breaks of the limit.
>> Edited by IaHa on Monday 10th October 10:40
IaHa said:
Is that number of children still being allowed out on the roads these days??
No, it's just one very mad yob
IaH said:
Probably not, given the number of speeding police cars razzing round.
But it's a non issue, other than the fact that we have created a feeling of public resentment as they are justifiably aggrieved at this perceived unfairness.
I think that's the problem. We all know cops have to drive fast sometimes, that they are trained etc.
Many of the reasons put forward are valid.
It's just the Scumera Mobs don't take any notice of anyone else's.
There are also doubtless many occasions where BiB may need to get a move on without it being a strict emergency.
I suspect, as ever, it's to do with money. It's easier to simply discount every Police Car caught (you can do this automatically) than try and solve every case.
autismuk said:
I suspect, as ever, it's to do with money. It's easier to simply discount every Police Car caught (you can do this automatically) than try and solve every case.
They don't discount all offences though. I think Gone mentioned a while ago he had to fill in a form and justify every speeding offence for which he was caught on camera. An administrative waste of time, which could be better used IMHO.
Agree with the comment about this being a big issue due to Mr & Mrs Joe Public feeling shafted for making safe progress in a similar manner.
DAZ
>> Edited by dazren on Monday 10th October 11:17
The law states that vehicles on police business are exempt from speeding legislation. There is no mention of them having to be marked up, on a shout, blues & twos, having to be driven by a policeman or any of the other things mentioned here;
Section 87, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984:
'No statutory provision imposing a speed limit ... shall apply to any
vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or
police purposes, if the observation of that provision would be likely to
hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose to which it is being put at
the time'.
Section 87, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984:
'No statutory provision imposing a speed limit ... shall apply to any
vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or
police purposes, if the observation of that provision would be likely to
hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose to which it is being put at
the time'.
Okay, it's legal for the Police to use excess speed at any time they feel like it, without any immediate reason or emergency situation of any kind.
Which is fine.
However, some people are under the strange perception that one role for the Police is to act as an example to others of good behaviour, fairness, adhering to laws they inflict on others and encourage others to abide by the laws that exist as they do.
Which is quite obviously not in their agenda.
Which is fine.
However, some people are under the strange perception that one role for the Police is to act as an example to others of good behaviour, fairness, adhering to laws they inflict on others and encourage others to abide by the laws that exist as they do.
Which is quite obviously not in their agenda.
Darth Viper said:
Okay, it's legal for the Police to use excess speed at any time they feel like it, without any immediate reason or emergency situation of any kind.
Ermm no...
But if you mean they can speed for a legitimate reason which is not immediately obvious to you, then that is fine.
Perhaps we should have a LED sign in our rear windows saying, the reason I'm exceeding the speed limit on this occasion is....x,y,z.
It may yet come to that!!
Darth Viper said:
However, some people are under the strange perception that one role for the Police is to
* act as an example to others of good behaviour, fairness, ....
** adhering to laws they inflict on others......
Which is quite obviously not in their agenda.
* That is the description of a good citizen.
** And you will doubtless have evidence of us breaking the law by speeding, other than in these 175 cases which have been dealt with?
Quite a lot of front-line police work necessitates a speedy response. A lot of offence detection requires driving at excess speed. When we are not doing this our routine patrol speed is generally significantly below limits on the motorway, or on the limit if appropriate in town.
The vast, vast majority of speeding police vehicles are doing so for a legitimate reason.
Yet we get castigated for it.
It certainly does help to have broad shoulders in this job.
scuffham said:
err - no it's not 'fine'
based on this, explin why the number of deaths and injories invoiving police cars etc is increasing at an alarming rate then?
Because they stopped training the Police.
How long does it take nowadays to be classified as class 1 in comparison to 20 years+ ago.
Sean
NugentS said:
err - no it's not 'fine'
based on this, explin why the number of deaths and injories invoiving police cars etc is increasing at an alarming rate then?
Because they stopped training the Police.
And many more scrotes have cars.
And many more scrotes have faster cars.
And many more are on drugs.
And many believe that if they drive like ar
les at the start of a pursuit, we are likely to abandon it. And many more will fail to stop, believing we are more likely to abandon.
NugentS said:
How long does it take nowadays to be classified as class 1 in comparison to 20 years+ ago.
Sean
I've had 9 weeks driver training plus refreshers to take me to class 1 advanced, and about three weeks total pursuit training.
Wasn't in the job 20 years ago, but I believe we do get more training now than then.
We keep on hearing how police drivers are completely safe when driving over the limit because they are 'specially trained'.
So, how good are they in real-life situations?
Would they be better at high-speed car control than, for example, a holder of an International Race or Rally Licence? Would they be better than an IAM Instructor/Examiner?
If exceeding a speed limit is so VERY, VERY dangerous, where is the judgement that makes it OK for police drivers, but not OK for anyone else. The emphasis now is on driving over the speed limit being seen as 'unsafe', if the publicity is to be believed, not just 'illegal'. Lots of things are illegal but, since the results are largely victimless, no real action is taken. Not so with driving, as speeding is deemed 'dangerous'. If it's dangerous for one driver, then it's dangerous for all, police officers included. A police driver cannot stop in a shorter distance, or carry more 'G' through a corner than the tyres allow. He/she cannot alter the laaws of physics.
That's why it's so hypocrital.
I've nothing against police drivers exceeding the speed limits, although my experience is that they are not all 'Captain Perfect' in terms of driving ability or aptitude. The question is the acceptability of the danger posed by police drivers above the limits when balanced against the 'need-for-speed'.
My gripe is that some police officers take the attitude that all breaking of speed limits, except for other police officers, is dangerous (as opposed to unlawful) and they then advocate the perceived benefits of the cash-cameras, so long as this is not applied to them.
If speeding is dangerous, then it's as dangerous for the 'Old Bill' in real terms. If speeding, in itself, is not dangerous, then we need to be more pragmatic in how we all view it, police officers included.
So, how good are they in real-life situations?
Would they be better at high-speed car control than, for example, a holder of an International Race or Rally Licence? Would they be better than an IAM Instructor/Examiner?
If exceeding a speed limit is so VERY, VERY dangerous, where is the judgement that makes it OK for police drivers, but not OK for anyone else. The emphasis now is on driving over the speed limit being seen as 'unsafe', if the publicity is to be believed, not just 'illegal'. Lots of things are illegal but, since the results are largely victimless, no real action is taken. Not so with driving, as speeding is deemed 'dangerous'. If it's dangerous for one driver, then it's dangerous for all, police officers included. A police driver cannot stop in a shorter distance, or carry more 'G' through a corner than the tyres allow. He/she cannot alter the laaws of physics.
That's why it's so hypocrital.
I've nothing against police drivers exceeding the speed limits, although my experience is that they are not all 'Captain Perfect' in terms of driving ability or aptitude. The question is the acceptability of the danger posed by police drivers above the limits when balanced against the 'need-for-speed'.
My gripe is that some police officers take the attitude that all breaking of speed limits, except for other police officers, is dangerous (as opposed to unlawful) and they then advocate the perceived benefits of the cash-cameras, so long as this is not applied to them.
If speeding is dangerous, then it's as dangerous for the 'Old Bill' in real terms. If speeding, in itself, is not dangerous, then we need to be more pragmatic in how we all view it, police officers included.
I was being sarcastic when I said it's okay for the police to do what they like regards driving.
I have no problem with the Police zooming all over the place, at whatever speed, chasing cars, responding to emergencies etc - what those here object to is 'casual' excess speed, when Police cars seem to veer all over the place, lights go on, lights go off, speed up, slow down - and no sign of any kind of crime detection / car pursued / emergency responce to etc etc - basically speeding because they can, and by example appearing to rub their face in it and have a good time while everyone else crawls along.
I'm sure most Bib are fine and dandy, and don't do this sort of thing, but those that do are the ones that get noticed and stick out - and hence give all the same reputation.
I have no problem with the Police zooming all over the place, at whatever speed, chasing cars, responding to emergencies etc - what those here object to is 'casual' excess speed, when Police cars seem to veer all over the place, lights go on, lights go off, speed up, slow down - and no sign of any kind of crime detection / car pursued / emergency responce to etc etc - basically speeding because they can, and by example appearing to rub their face in it and have a good time while everyone else crawls along.
I'm sure most Bib are fine and dandy, and don't do this sort of thing, but those that do are the ones that get noticed and stick out - and hence give all the same reputation.
Cooperman said:
We keep on hearing how police drivers are completely safe when driving over the limit because they are 'specially trained'.
So, how good are they in real-life situations?
Would they be better at high-speed car control than, for example, a holder of an International Race or Rally Licence? Would they be better than an IAM Instructor/Examiner?
If exceeding a speed limit is so VERY, VERY dangerous, where is the judgement that makes it OK for police drivers, but not OK for anyone else. The emphasis now is on driving over the speed limit being seen as 'unsafe', if the publicity is to be believed, not just 'illegal'. Lots of things are illegal but, since the results are largely victimless, no real action is taken. Not so with driving, as speeding is deemed 'dangerous'. If it's dangerous for one driver, then it's dangerous for all, police officers included. A police driver cannot stop in a shorter distance, or carry more 'G' through a corner than the tyres allow. He/she cannot alter the laaws of physics.
That's why it's so hypocrital.
I've nothing against police drivers exceeding the speed limits, although my experience is that they are not all 'Captain Perfect' in terms of driving ability or aptitude. The question is the acceptability of the danger posed by police drivers above the limits when balanced against the 'need-for-speed'.
My gripe is that some police officers take the attitude that all breaking of speed limits, except for other police officers, is dangerous (as opposed to unlawful) and they then advocate the perceived benefits of the cash-cameras, so long as this is not applied to them.
If speeding is dangerous, then it's as dangerous for the 'Old Bill' in real terms. If speeding, in itself, is not dangerous, then we need to be more pragmatic in how we all view it, police officers included.
I believe that a reasonable percentage of trafpol have always and will always directly associate speed with danger, and will enforce fairly rigidly.
But we probably wouldn't have this discussion or this part of the forum if there were only 400,000 speeding convictions annually, not somewhere nearer 4 million!
I have, over the years, known many Police Officers as personal friends. A Chief Police Driving Instructor in a certain county used to navigate my rally car many years ago and once or twice I took a couple of his trainees out to show them how to drive an unfamiliar road, in the wet, at night, without crashing - all unofficial, you understand, but my friend thought that they should see how others do it.
The problem is that many Trafpol attend bad crashes in which 'inappropriate speed' was the direct cause. Thus the speed, in itself, is rightly branded as the cause. This may well not be speed in excess of the speed limit, just, as my police instructor friend used to call it 'Driving Faster than he/she knows how to' - a lovely expression IMHO.
The vast majority of Police Officers I've known over the 45 years I've been driving have been most professional, courteous and pragmatic with a good sense of humour. Sure I've been 'nicked' a couple of times, but only once did I feel it unfair. That was when I was doing 42 in a 30 limit which was due to go to a 40 limit 26 hours later (yes, really). Other than that, I've no complaints.
However, if breaking speed limits is as dangerous as the current 'spin' would have us believe, then everyone, police included, should do it only in real emergency cases and then only after considering how necessary it is.
Of course, that is not the case - it's not that dangerous at all for police or public to exceed the speed limit within reason and subject to the conditions. The real problem with speed is that some do 'drive faster than they know how to', and that includes both police and public. Then they crash.
The problem is that many Trafpol attend bad crashes in which 'inappropriate speed' was the direct cause. Thus the speed, in itself, is rightly branded as the cause. This may well not be speed in excess of the speed limit, just, as my police instructor friend used to call it 'Driving Faster than he/she knows how to' - a lovely expression IMHO.
The vast majority of Police Officers I've known over the 45 years I've been driving have been most professional, courteous and pragmatic with a good sense of humour. Sure I've been 'nicked' a couple of times, but only once did I feel it unfair. That was when I was doing 42 in a 30 limit which was due to go to a 40 limit 26 hours later (yes, really). Other than that, I've no complaints.
However, if breaking speed limits is as dangerous as the current 'spin' would have us believe, then everyone, police included, should do it only in real emergency cases and then only after considering how necessary it is.
Of course, that is not the case - it's not that dangerous at all for police or public to exceed the speed limit within reason and subject to the conditions. The real problem with speed is that some do 'drive faster than they know how to', and that includes both police and public. Then they crash.
Durham Chief Constable Paul Garvin said:If 'speeding' is such a minor issue in crash prevention why is there such a focus on speed limit enforcement, apart from the fact that it's easier to make important what you can measure rather than measure what's important...which is inappropriate speed either side of the limit...
Exceeding the speed limit related to just 60 collisions per year out of a total of 1,900 collisions in the Durham area — that’s about 3%
The March 1999 edition of The Metropolitan Police Federation magazine METLINE said:So, from the BiB themselves, we have the 'Full SP' on this.
Speed cameras have their limitations...but when these matters can be overcome they will be a sure winner for raising revenue
It's rarely dangerous for BiB to break the limit, and they should not be castigated for doing so. As pointed out already, the number of plod limit violation detections is itself surprisingly small even though the number looks big. Equally there needs to be much more honesty and less greed in political circles, including particularly the 'politicians' in ACPO.
scuffham said:
Last year, there were 65,000 incidents recorded whereby a police vehicle was recorded as speeding without being on an emergency call (no sirens, no lights).
Less than 175 were prosecuted.
gone said:I don't have any figures, but I suspect that a similar proportion of such recorded incidents involving civilian vehicles were not prosecuted either. i.e. The driver simply paid up and accepted his points without going to court.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff