calibrated speedometers
Discussion
Colonial said:
And if a giant asteroid was heading to earth I might view it a little differently.
Your analogy is about the same. Small scale speeding, with a monetary fine (not to mention that fact he wanted a cash payment as an "early payment discount) is a crime, yes, but it does not involve property damage. Without the speed reading on a radar there is no evidence of any crime ever being committed, unlike your ludicrus slippery slope brake fluid analogy.
It's no different (as far as veracity is concerned).Your analogy is about the same. Small scale speeding, with a monetary fine (not to mention that fact he wanted a cash payment as an "early payment discount) is a crime, yes, but it does not involve property damage. Without the speed reading on a radar there is no evidence of any crime ever being committed, unlike your ludicrus slippery slope brake fluid analogy.
Because in court the veracity of your evidence is not judged on what the allegation is against the accused. It's judged on your integrity & the believability of what you are saying.
Your integrity & believability doesn't rest on whether it's a traffic or non traffic matter.
If you can't believe someone for crime/property matters, you can't believe them for traffic either.
If you can believe them for crime/property matters, you can also for traffic.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 2nd May 20:07
I was on traffic in the early 1980's when we were using Granada and SD1 Rover cars. The Rover 3500 V8 had two speedometers. The calibrated one was in the middle of the dashboard between the two occupants in a separate box above the gear lever. The box was mounted on top of the dash and was indeed just that, a box of about 4 inches square face and oblong extending back towards the windscreen with a circular calibrated speedo dial. The factory fitted Rover speedo was wildly inaccurate from the drivers perspective so imagine what it was like from the passengers side and view!
The Granada had only one calibrated speedo and this was an IRS device that had replaced the Ford standard speedometer in its natural place next to the tachometer.
Rovers were the standard motorway patrol car because they had greater capacity for carrying kit than the Granada, especially if a full slip road closure was required and they were generally much faster being capable of on average 130mph (the vitesse about 135-140mph) whilst the Granada was capable of only about 115-120mph and took a while longer to get there.
The Granada had only one calibrated speedo and this was an IRS device that had replaced the Ford standard speedometer in its natural place next to the tachometer.
Rovers were the standard motorway patrol car because they had greater capacity for carrying kit than the Granada, especially if a full slip road closure was required and they were generally much faster being capable of on average 130mph (the vitesse about 135-140mph) whilst the Granada was capable of only about 115-120mph and took a while longer to get there.
Edited by Mg6b on Monday 11th May 00:01
Hi all
Not sure if this has already been discussed or if it is relevant to this topic. It is related though.
How do I know that the speedo in my car is accurate? As far as I am aware there is no requirement for the accuracy of a speedo to be checked as part of an MOT test and I have never seen anyone offering a speedo calibration service. I do know that when I compare the speedo in my car (530d BMW 54 plate, possibly relying on the built in GPS and electronics??) with a Garmin GPS there is a discrepancy of about 2mph at 70 mph i.e. the car reads 70mphg whlst Garmin reports 72.6). If I accept that the Garmin is correct then I break the law by driving my car at an indicated 70mph.
How am I breaking a law if I am driving within the proscribed limit according to the only piece of equipment with which I have been provided? Am I expected under the law to have the speedo calibrated? If so where may this be done?
Please let me know if ths should be in a new thread and apologies if so.
Regards
Mole
Not sure if this has already been discussed or if it is relevant to this topic. It is related though.
How do I know that the speedo in my car is accurate? As far as I am aware there is no requirement for the accuracy of a speedo to be checked as part of an MOT test and I have never seen anyone offering a speedo calibration service. I do know that when I compare the speedo in my car (530d BMW 54 plate, possibly relying on the built in GPS and electronics??) with a Garmin GPS there is a discrepancy of about 2mph at 70 mph i.e. the car reads 70mphg whlst Garmin reports 72.6). If I accept that the Garmin is correct then I break the law by driving my car at an indicated 70mph.
How am I breaking a law if I am driving within the proscribed limit according to the only piece of equipment with which I have been provided? Am I expected under the law to have the speedo calibrated? If so where may this be done?
Please let me know if ths should be in a new thread and apologies if so.
Regards
Mole
the_mole said:
Hi all
Not sure if this has already been discussed or if it is relevant to this topic. It is related though.
How do I know that the speedo in my car is accurate? As far as I am aware there is no requirement for the accuracy of a speedo to be checked as part of an MOT test and I have never seen anyone offering a speedo calibration service. I do know that when I compare the speedo in my car (530d BMW 54 plate, possibly relying on the built in GPS and electronics??) with a Garmin GPS there is a discrepancy of about 2mph at 70 mph i.e. the car reads 70mphg whlst Garmin reports 72.6). If I accept that the Garmin is correct then I break the law by driving my car at an indicated 70mph.
How am I breaking a law if I am driving within the proscribed limit according to the only piece of equipment with which I have been provided? Am I expected under the law to have the speedo calibrated? If so where may this be done?
Please let me know if ths should be in a new thread and apologies if so.
Regards
Mole
You don't need to worry about it because there is a prosecution tolerance to allow for various innacuracies, which means you wouldn't be prosecuted at 72.6 anyway.Not sure if this has already been discussed or if it is relevant to this topic. It is related though.
How do I know that the speedo in my car is accurate? As far as I am aware there is no requirement for the accuracy of a speedo to be checked as part of an MOT test and I have never seen anyone offering a speedo calibration service. I do know that when I compare the speedo in my car (530d BMW 54 plate, possibly relying on the built in GPS and electronics??) with a Garmin GPS there is a discrepancy of about 2mph at 70 mph i.e. the car reads 70mphg whlst Garmin reports 72.6). If I accept that the Garmin is correct then I break the law by driving my car at an indicated 70mph.
How am I breaking a law if I am driving within the proscribed limit according to the only piece of equipment with which I have been provided? Am I expected under the law to have the speedo calibrated? If so where may this be done?
Please let me know if ths should be in a new thread and apologies if so.
Regards
Mole
Mg6b said:
I was on traffic in the early 1980's when we were using Granada and SD1 Rover cars. The Rover 3500 V8 had two speedometers. The calibrated one was in the middle of the dashboard between the two occupants in a separate box above the gear lever. The box was mounted on top of the dash and was indeed just that, a box of about 4 inches square face and oblong extending back towards the windscreen with a circular calibrated speedo dial. The factory fitted Rover speedo was wildly inaccurate from the drivers perspective so imagine what it was like from the passengers side and view!
The Granada had only one calibrated speedo and this was an IRS device that had replaced the Ford standard speedometer in its natural place next to the tachometer.
Rovers were the standard motorway patrol car because they had greater capacity for carrying kit than the Granada, especially if a full slip road closure was required and they were generally much faster being capable of on average 130mph (the vitesse about 135-140mph) whilst the Granada was capable of only about 115-120mph and took a while longer to get there.
I know we've crossed swords on here on a few occasions Mg, but thanks for your input, it really helps. You are right about the Rovers; very quick and quite reliable, totally unlike the rebadged Honda in the shape of the 827 that followed.The Granada had only one calibrated speedo and this was an IRS device that had replaced the Ford standard speedometer in its natural place next to the tachometer.
Rovers were the standard motorway patrol car because they had greater capacity for carrying kit than the Granada, especially if a full slip road closure was required and they were generally much faster being capable of on average 130mph (the vitesse about 135-140mph) whilst the Granada was capable of only about 115-120mph and took a while longer to get there.
Edited by Mg6b on Monday 11th May 00:01
This case is becoming extremely interesting, but what I really need are photographs of the interiors of any of these vehicles with calibrated speedometers. If any of the BiB out there can help I would be much obliged.
Mail me if you want to remain anonymous.
Edited by jith on Monday 11th May 20:38
Perhaps one of these sites might be able to supply the pics that you are after:
http://www.pvec.net/
http://www.ukpolicevehicles.co.uk/
http://www.pvec.net/
http://www.ukpolicevehicles.co.uk/
vonhosen said:
It's no different (as far as veracity is concerned).
Because in court the veracity of your evidence is not judged on what the allegation is against the accused. It's judged on your integrity & the believability of what you are saying.
Your integrity & believability doesn't rest on whether it's a traffic or non traffic matter.
If you can't believe someone for crime/property matters, you can't believe them for traffic either.
If you can believe them for crime/property matters, you can also for traffic.
But because traffic offences are a summary offence and, I fully expect you to fly off the handle at this, a victimless “crime” then there is no proof of the offence apart from the hard empirical data. With you break a window example there is a broken window/brake fluid. With speeding there is nothing. If there is no proof of a crime being committed then why the hell should anyone be charged with the crime? Because in court the veracity of your evidence is not judged on what the allegation is against the accused. It's judged on your integrity & the believability of what you are saying.
Your integrity & believability doesn't rest on whether it's a traffic or non traffic matter.
If you can't believe someone for crime/property matters, you can't believe them for traffic either.
If you can believe them for crime/property matters, you can also for traffic.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 2nd May 20:07
A radar reading is proof of this. A police officer with a chip on his shoulder and an uncalibrated speedo is not anywhere near the level of evidence for a conviction in my book.
Oh, and for what its worth, if I was on a jury I could never convict only based on what an officer claimed to have seen. I would need additional proof. Simple as that. You have an issue with that take it up with a detective based in the Brisbane Water LAC. Officers statement plus, using your example, fingerprints from a brake fluid container, yes. Officer only? No.
jith said:
This case is becoming extremely interesting, but what I really need are photographs of the interiors of any of these vehicles with calibrated speedometers.
Jaguar did a factory version of the XJ40 (the 'PS' variant) designed for police use. The 'PS' (Police Service) had, among other things, a second calibrated speedo built into (IIRC) the centre of the dashboard.herewego said:
You don't need to worry about it because there is a prosecution tolerance to allow for various innacuracies, which means you wouldn't be prosecuted at 72.6 anyway.
Really? What is this?I know of the APCO guidelines, but all they are is guidelines, not rules (although most forces adhere to the guidelines but they don't HAVE to AFAIK).
Well, this is the rather interesting conclusion to this case.
Since last I wrote in May, the case called back in Paisley magistrates court. This is my home town and I am fortunate enough not to have appeared in this court that often, I say fortunate because it is one of the worst I have found. The prejudice and ignorance is staggering. In Scotland there is only one mag and an assistant to guide them on points of law. It became clear to me that the assistant was actually running the court.
The case was continued on no less than five occasions due to the crown being unable to proceed. In the interim, due to serious problems with the court attempting to prevent me representing this man, I found a seriously good solicitor who took the case up, with myself as a technical witness.
The case called for the last time on Tuesday last week when, yet again, the Fiscal asked for a continuance, and this is the interesting part. Both the officers who were in the vehicle on the night were present, but the other two who allegedly checked the speedo calibration and signed the certificate had failed to turn up yet again.
The solicitor simply explained the concept of no material evidence and the fact that the crown had ample opportunity to present the case on several occasions and had failed to do so, and the case was dismissed. Young man on cloud 9 after months of worry and time off work.
Now, the following is why I decided to pursue this matter and it clearly was well worth the effort. On the day of the inspection I photographed the police vehicle, a BMW 530D on a 05 plate. What I found was nothing short of disgraceful, but I will start by comparing it to an older vehicle with the aforementioned extra speedo.
With the compliments of the wonderful Museum of Transport in Glasgow, this is a 1986 Granada, ex Strathclyde Police Traffic Dept and in virtually new condition; a credit to them as they were then.
This is a view of the interior showing the extra calibrated speedo mounted in the centre of the dash giving clear site to both the driver and the passenger. This vehicle is also equipped with early Vascar shown on the extreme left of the picture. Apologies for the quality, but I had to take these through the reflection of the glass because the person who had the keys was on holiday!
These Fords incidentally, were supplied as police specials complete with the extra speedo but it was normally on the left hand side beside the Vascar; I assume this one has been moved to accomodate the VLS which was probably fitted at some time into the vehicles life. It is clear from these pictures that the passenger was in control of the actual business of speed detection, but that the driver could simply corroborate this at the appropriate time. This view demonstrates that virtually all of the equipment is in front of the passenger.
It is also clear that the only evidence that the accused could be shown in this car would be the Vascar reading, the speedo would show nothing. Hence no material evidence.
Now let's look at the very latest gizmo-bristling hi-tech police special.
This is beyond doubt the worst installation I have ever come across in a police vehicle. There are cables everywhere, including in the footwells where they can be caught and damaged. The long box you see with a telephone cable attached lying on the floor is the control unit for the Provida: lying face down in the dirt on the floor! Just above it and to the right is the control joystick for the camera, hanging by its cable attached to nothing. You will notice that the speedo is housed in a binnacle and is on the left, virtually out of sight of the passenger. How deeply it is recessed is shown here.
It was calibrated by IRS when the vehicle was new, but has never been removed and bench checked since; remember it is electronic.
This next picture is a close up of the equipment showing the control unit for the blues and twos with a huge roll of cable wrapped around the back of it; the VDU for the Provida screwed on over the heater controls!!;behind this the dash is melted and damaged from some past attempt at fitting god knows what; to the left the camera cable just lies down over the dash. If you look to the bottom right you can see the driver's floor mat which is filthy, like the rest of the interior.
If any of my lads would have left even one item installed like this they would have been straight out the door. Just compare it to the 23 year old Granada. The next picture is the VCR unit installed in the boot: the front cover has been snapped off exposing some of the maintenance sockets. This is a 24 hour time lapse VCR made by Sanyo and is designed to run continuously in time lapse mode for 24 hours on just one 180 minute tape. Remember that.
What, I hear you say does this have to do with evidential proof? I'll tell you what: do you honestly expect any member of the public who is accused of speeding by the drivers of this vehicle to take them seriously as competent and professional members of the Roads Policing unit? Would you accept their word for your speed when they put you in a vehicle like this and tell you they used the speedometer.
A resume of the case. The accused was driving from Greenock in the West coast of Scotland to Glasgow Airport to pick up his fiance. He used the A8 running onto the M8 at around 9pm. The road was very quiet and driving conditions were perfect. As he entered the large roundabout at the start of the dual carriageway at Port Glasgow he noticed the police vehicle sitting at the side of one of the entry roads. They sit here all the time and he immediately recognised it. He drove onto the carriageway and accelerated to motorway speeds, overtaking only 3 other slow moving vehicles, returning to his nearside lane as he completed the overtakes.
Almost 3 miles on he noticed the police vehicle coming up behind him very fast with blues and twos on and flashed for him to stop; he did so immediately. He was invited to sit in the rear of the vehicle and was told he was being charged with speeding at 100 MPH. All the equipment in the police vehicle was switched off. When he asked how they detected his speed, one of the officers said, "This is your lucky day son, we have run out of tape, so had to use the speedometer." There is no logic or reason to this remark and it puzzles both myself and the accused to this day.
They then complimented him on his style of driving and informed him he would be reported to the Procurator Fiscal.
The conclusion to this is that these two officers, driving a vehicle that should have been capable of providing absolutely crystal clear evidnce of any offence that was committed totally failed in their duty to actually produce anything in the way of evidence. Their vehicle was in an apalling state and should not have been out on duty. Their ridiculous assertion about running out of tape is simply unbelievable, particularly considering the type of VCR fitted to this vehicle. You do not go out on duty in an unmarked car without enough tape to last the shift: why on earth would you? Anything could happen on that shift and the evidence could be utterly crucial in the conviction of a serious offence.
The Fiscal who attempted to prosecute this case was completely devoid of any knowledge of this vehicle and how the systems operate. He was not interested in the misgivings or the fact that no material evidence existed. Had this lad simply held his hands up he would have lost his licence and his job. It has cost him some £1700 in court fees, none of which are recoverable in Scotland, even when you win.
This kind of policing is totally unacceptable, disingenuous and shabby and there is no place for it in a police force that claims to be overworked and undermanned. This young man learned only one thing from it. He has lost all trust in the police.
Since last I wrote in May, the case called back in Paisley magistrates court. This is my home town and I am fortunate enough not to have appeared in this court that often, I say fortunate because it is one of the worst I have found. The prejudice and ignorance is staggering. In Scotland there is only one mag and an assistant to guide them on points of law. It became clear to me that the assistant was actually running the court.
The case was continued on no less than five occasions due to the crown being unable to proceed. In the interim, due to serious problems with the court attempting to prevent me representing this man, I found a seriously good solicitor who took the case up, with myself as a technical witness.
The case called for the last time on Tuesday last week when, yet again, the Fiscal asked for a continuance, and this is the interesting part. Both the officers who were in the vehicle on the night were present, but the other two who allegedly checked the speedo calibration and signed the certificate had failed to turn up yet again.
The solicitor simply explained the concept of no material evidence and the fact that the crown had ample opportunity to present the case on several occasions and had failed to do so, and the case was dismissed. Young man on cloud 9 after months of worry and time off work.
Now, the following is why I decided to pursue this matter and it clearly was well worth the effort. On the day of the inspection I photographed the police vehicle, a BMW 530D on a 05 plate. What I found was nothing short of disgraceful, but I will start by comparing it to an older vehicle with the aforementioned extra speedo.
With the compliments of the wonderful Museum of Transport in Glasgow, this is a 1986 Granada, ex Strathclyde Police Traffic Dept and in virtually new condition; a credit to them as they were then.
This is a view of the interior showing the extra calibrated speedo mounted in the centre of the dash giving clear site to both the driver and the passenger. This vehicle is also equipped with early Vascar shown on the extreme left of the picture. Apologies for the quality, but I had to take these through the reflection of the glass because the person who had the keys was on holiday!
These Fords incidentally, were supplied as police specials complete with the extra speedo but it was normally on the left hand side beside the Vascar; I assume this one has been moved to accomodate the VLS which was probably fitted at some time into the vehicles life. It is clear from these pictures that the passenger was in control of the actual business of speed detection, but that the driver could simply corroborate this at the appropriate time. This view demonstrates that virtually all of the equipment is in front of the passenger.
It is also clear that the only evidence that the accused could be shown in this car would be the Vascar reading, the speedo would show nothing. Hence no material evidence.
Now let's look at the very latest gizmo-bristling hi-tech police special.
This is beyond doubt the worst installation I have ever come across in a police vehicle. There are cables everywhere, including in the footwells where they can be caught and damaged. The long box you see with a telephone cable attached lying on the floor is the control unit for the Provida: lying face down in the dirt on the floor! Just above it and to the right is the control joystick for the camera, hanging by its cable attached to nothing. You will notice that the speedo is housed in a binnacle and is on the left, virtually out of sight of the passenger. How deeply it is recessed is shown here.
It was calibrated by IRS when the vehicle was new, but has never been removed and bench checked since; remember it is electronic.
This next picture is a close up of the equipment showing the control unit for the blues and twos with a huge roll of cable wrapped around the back of it; the VDU for the Provida screwed on over the heater controls!!;behind this the dash is melted and damaged from some past attempt at fitting god knows what; to the left the camera cable just lies down over the dash. If you look to the bottom right you can see the driver's floor mat which is filthy, like the rest of the interior.
If any of my lads would have left even one item installed like this they would have been straight out the door. Just compare it to the 23 year old Granada. The next picture is the VCR unit installed in the boot: the front cover has been snapped off exposing some of the maintenance sockets. This is a 24 hour time lapse VCR made by Sanyo and is designed to run continuously in time lapse mode for 24 hours on just one 180 minute tape. Remember that.
What, I hear you say does this have to do with evidential proof? I'll tell you what: do you honestly expect any member of the public who is accused of speeding by the drivers of this vehicle to take them seriously as competent and professional members of the Roads Policing unit? Would you accept their word for your speed when they put you in a vehicle like this and tell you they used the speedometer.
A resume of the case. The accused was driving from Greenock in the West coast of Scotland to Glasgow Airport to pick up his fiance. He used the A8 running onto the M8 at around 9pm. The road was very quiet and driving conditions were perfect. As he entered the large roundabout at the start of the dual carriageway at Port Glasgow he noticed the police vehicle sitting at the side of one of the entry roads. They sit here all the time and he immediately recognised it. He drove onto the carriageway and accelerated to motorway speeds, overtaking only 3 other slow moving vehicles, returning to his nearside lane as he completed the overtakes.
Almost 3 miles on he noticed the police vehicle coming up behind him very fast with blues and twos on and flashed for him to stop; he did so immediately. He was invited to sit in the rear of the vehicle and was told he was being charged with speeding at 100 MPH. All the equipment in the police vehicle was switched off. When he asked how they detected his speed, one of the officers said, "This is your lucky day son, we have run out of tape, so had to use the speedometer." There is no logic or reason to this remark and it puzzles both myself and the accused to this day.
They then complimented him on his style of driving and informed him he would be reported to the Procurator Fiscal.
The conclusion to this is that these two officers, driving a vehicle that should have been capable of providing absolutely crystal clear evidnce of any offence that was committed totally failed in their duty to actually produce anything in the way of evidence. Their vehicle was in an apalling state and should not have been out on duty. Their ridiculous assertion about running out of tape is simply unbelievable, particularly considering the type of VCR fitted to this vehicle. You do not go out on duty in an unmarked car without enough tape to last the shift: why on earth would you? Anything could happen on that shift and the evidence could be utterly crucial in the conviction of a serious offence.
The Fiscal who attempted to prosecute this case was completely devoid of any knowledge of this vehicle and how the systems operate. He was not interested in the misgivings or the fact that no material evidence existed. Had this lad simply held his hands up he would have lost his licence and his job. It has cost him some £1700 in court fees, none of which are recoverable in Scotland, even when you win.
This kind of policing is totally unacceptable, disingenuous and shabby and there is no place for it in a police force that claims to be overworked and undermanned. This young man learned only one thing from it. He has lost all trust in the police.
Edited by jith on Wednesday 20th January 11:02
Could the young chap be lying about his actual speed?
If you think grave miscarriages of justice are taking place why don't you try to convince people of that, club together and buy a covertly equipped car with calibrated speedo and await a 'wrongful' prosecution.
I can't honestly see what other options you have.
Do you really think that Police Officers would put their job, pension and liberty at stake for the sake of catching a speeding motorist, who did not seem to endanger anyone in the process?
If you think grave miscarriages of justice are taking place why don't you try to convince people of that, club together and buy a covertly equipped car with calibrated speedo and await a 'wrongful' prosecution.
I can't honestly see what other options you have.
Do you really think that Police Officers would put their job, pension and liberty at stake for the sake of catching a speeding motorist, who did not seem to endanger anyone in the process?
Edited by ipsg.glf on Monday 28th September 22:59
ipsg.glf said:
Do you really think that Police Officers would put their job, pension and liberty at stake for the sake of catching a speeding motorist, who did not seem to endanger anyone in the process?
Afraid that for whatever reason, heat of moment, bored, trouble at home, it happens - but rarely hopefully. You're lucky if you've not been close to being on the wrong end of it, but it is just the luck of the draw. Once it's happened sometime they'll quietly drop it other times continue with it to try to save face.It's a reason to keep judge and jury separate from evidence gathering.
Having completed 30 years in 'the job', perhaps I could just add a few comments.
Most of my service was completed on traffic which later became roads policing and thats where the problems seemed to start. I am old enough to have driven Triumph 2.5's and later Jags with the seperate calibratsd speedometers and, in those days everybody on the TRAFFIC department, took a great pride in their vehicles and also their training.I agree that the BMW car in the photograph was in a deplorable condition and I personally would have refused to use it and would have some serious words with the officers who had used it previously. It was not unknown for me to clean a car at the beginning of a shift and empty any rubbish left into the previous drivers baskets.This usually got the message across.
In relation to the training issue, I would say that this is not really the fault of the individual officer but a problem with todays policing in general with budget constraints limiting training and all officers expected to perform all roles to the detriment of speciallist roles, although some could make more of an effort to know basic requirements.
As the original post refers to double crewed cars I would also like to add that, when the cars are single crewed, as they invariably are in this area, it is far safer especially when travelling at high speed, to use the callibrated speedometer as opposed to taking your eyes off the road and operating two switches on the vascar at two seperate fixed points. As somebody previously said, following a speeding vehicle for a relatively short distance and keeping an equal distance behind on certain roads is very easy. Again, we are not talking of just a couple of mph over the limit but then again, the offence is absolute and even one mph over is an offence. When you are charged/summoned, you are not summoned for travelling at 100mph but for exceeding 70,60 50 or whatever.
Just to end my rant I would like to add that after 30 years, retiring last year and driving video equipped cars most days, I was never trained to use the video equipment.
Most of my service was completed on traffic which later became roads policing and thats where the problems seemed to start. I am old enough to have driven Triumph 2.5's and later Jags with the seperate calibratsd speedometers and, in those days everybody on the TRAFFIC department, took a great pride in their vehicles and also their training.I agree that the BMW car in the photograph was in a deplorable condition and I personally would have refused to use it and would have some serious words with the officers who had used it previously. It was not unknown for me to clean a car at the beginning of a shift and empty any rubbish left into the previous drivers baskets.This usually got the message across.
In relation to the training issue, I would say that this is not really the fault of the individual officer but a problem with todays policing in general with budget constraints limiting training and all officers expected to perform all roles to the detriment of speciallist roles, although some could make more of an effort to know basic requirements.
As the original post refers to double crewed cars I would also like to add that, when the cars are single crewed, as they invariably are in this area, it is far safer especially when travelling at high speed, to use the callibrated speedometer as opposed to taking your eyes off the road and operating two switches on the vascar at two seperate fixed points. As somebody previously said, following a speeding vehicle for a relatively short distance and keeping an equal distance behind on certain roads is very easy. Again, we are not talking of just a couple of mph over the limit but then again, the offence is absolute and even one mph over is an offence. When you are charged/summoned, you are not summoned for travelling at 100mph but for exceeding 70,60 50 or whatever.
Just to end my rant I would like to add that after 30 years, retiring last year and driving video equipped cars most days, I was never trained to use the video equipment.
saaby93 said:
ipsg.glf said:
Do you really think that Police Officers would put their job, pension and liberty at stake for the sake of catching a speeding motorist, who did not seem to endanger anyone in the process?
Afraid that for whatever reason, heat of moment, bored, trouble at home, it happens - but rarely hopefully. You're lucky if you've not been close to being on the wrong end of it, but it is just the luck of the draw. Once it's happened sometime they'll quietly drop it other times continue with it to try to save face.It's a reason to keep judge and jury separate from evidence gathering.
Judge and Jury? what are you on about? Police gather evidence. Courts determine guilt.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff