5,000 police cars speeding in Essex - no prosecutions
Discussion
'Essex Police vehicles were caught on speed cameras more than 5,000 times in the first six months of 2005, a BBC Look East investigation has revealed. During that time there are no recorded cases of Essex officers being disciplined for speeding offences.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4506470.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4506470.stm
Saw the Essex feature on TV just a few minutes ago.
Northants refused to give any figures, and Norfolk police said they had no records.
One police area said it would take 300 hours to get the statistics for police vehichles getting caught by scameras.
Paul, from Safespeed was on there doing his bit
Keep up the good work Paul
Northants refused to give any figures, and Norfolk police said they had no records.
One police area said it would take 300 hours to get the statistics for police vehichles getting caught by scameras.
Paul, from Safespeed was on there doing his bit
Keep up the good work Paul
^Slider^ said:
And the rest of the storey says that they investigated the reasons for the camera activations and they all were justifed to use the excemption except for a few which were prosicuted.
Do you really believe that? No Essex police drivers were prosecuted, and as for the forces that 'don't keep records', how can they investigate?
Still, as they can do 184mph and get away with it, I suppose 40 in a 30 is merely warming up.
So how do you know that they were not justified.
I am justified each time i set one off on a blue light run and i have to do a report on each time justifying the activation.
We do get stuck on if we were not on immediate or dont have a justifiable reason for the activation.
Im not going to comment on the other point as its pointless.
edited to add: just because records are not kept historically doesnt mean that they are not dealing. Like i say each time i set of a camera i have to do a report on why it was activated even if my lights are visible on the picture. This has to relate to the job i have attended.
I may be getting the wrong end of the stick here, if so i do apologise, i am taking this to read "why can plod get away with speeding when we cant"
>> Edited by ^Slider^ on Wednesday 7th December 19:01
I am justified each time i set one off on a blue light run and i have to do a report on each time justifying the activation.
We do get stuck on if we were not on immediate or dont have a justifiable reason for the activation.
Im not going to comment on the other point as its pointless.
edited to add: just because records are not kept historically doesnt mean that they are not dealing. Like i say each time i set of a camera i have to do a report on why it was activated even if my lights are visible on the picture. This has to relate to the job i have attended.
I may be getting the wrong end of the stick here, if so i do apologise, i am taking this to read "why can plod get away with speeding when we cant"
>> Edited by ^Slider^ on Wednesday 7th December 19:01
I went on a blue light call yesterday at work and must have set off about 7 speed cameras ..... so if say they all had cameras/film in I would be 7 'speeding police drivers' ..... terrible. The fact that there were three arrests for attempted burglary is lost in the figures as everyone wants to believe we just speed round for the hell of it. 5,000 police cars speeding without prosecution actually seems a bit low to me .....
)"Don't keep records" is one of the statutory get-outs for non-disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Another is that it would take an unreasonalby long amount of time. I don't know if the estimate of how long it will take is audited, but seems like an easy get out.
"What's this embarrassing fact?"
"We don't keep that"
"Yes you do"
"Ok, it'll take 90 years to work it out"
I know that one Government department is now encouraging staff to use MSN messenger (non-diclosable) rather than emails (disclosable).
Why bring the frickin' law in if you are then going to work round it?
"What's this embarrassing fact?"
"We don't keep that"
"Yes you do"
"Ok, it'll take 90 years to work it out"
I know that one Government department is now encouraging staff to use MSN messenger (non-diclosable) rather than emails (disclosable).
Why bring the frickin' law in if you are then going to work round it?
john57 said:
I went on a blue light call yesterday at work and must have set off about 7 speed cameras ..... so if say they all had cameras/film in I would be 7 'speeding police drivers' ..... terrible. The fact that there were three arrests for attempted burglary is lost in the figures as everyone wants to believe we just speed round for the hell of it. 5,000 police cars speeding without prosecution actually seems a bit low to me .....
Very true, but by the same reckoning if a 'civilian' motorist passed 7 cameras he would have 7 tickets and the 'Catch' count would increase by 7 not 1.
Just goes to show how figures can be made to lie.
One other point to remember is in my force is i am excempt from speeding if by adhering to the speed limit would hinder its purpose.
If i go through a camera at double the speed limit then i need a bloody good justification for doing so (and saying it was an immediate is not good enough) as we have to justify why using the exemption at that level was necessary.
We have exemptions in law to 3 offences, speeding - keep left signs and red traffic lights, we are also exempt from all other road laws provided it can be justified except for one which is wrong way down a duel carrigway.
If i go 60 in a 30 and cannot justify the speed then my exemption for that rule can be removed, as they may say given the traffic, time of day, road conditions, visibility etc 40 mph is justifiable but not 60.
My force works quite hard and is very quick to stick us on for road traffic rules.
As one other said, 5000 activations is actually quite low in reality considering the number of immediate jobs we can goto and the number of cameras.
I know there has been a debate about the quality of police drivers in the past, but we are trained to drive on immediate, something the general public do not get trained in, you can have IAM training but that will never encompass immediate response.
I am quite happy to admit that there are drivers in the police who may not make the standard, but they in reality are in the minority. The majority "Drive to arrive" end of the day best to get there safe than not at all!
End of the day we have legal exemption, thats why there are not 5000 police drivers getting ticketed.
If i go through a camera at double the speed limit then i need a bloody good justification for doing so (and saying it was an immediate is not good enough) as we have to justify why using the exemption at that level was necessary.
We have exemptions in law to 3 offences, speeding - keep left signs and red traffic lights, we are also exempt from all other road laws provided it can be justified except for one which is wrong way down a duel carrigway.
If i go 60 in a 30 and cannot justify the speed then my exemption for that rule can be removed, as they may say given the traffic, time of day, road conditions, visibility etc 40 mph is justifiable but not 60.
My force works quite hard and is very quick to stick us on for road traffic rules.
As one other said, 5000 activations is actually quite low in reality considering the number of immediate jobs we can goto and the number of cameras.
I know there has been a debate about the quality of police drivers in the past, but we are trained to drive on immediate, something the general public do not get trained in, you can have IAM training but that will never encompass immediate response.
I am quite happy to admit that there are drivers in the police who may not make the standard, but they in reality are in the minority. The majority "Drive to arrive" end of the day best to get there safe than not at all!
End of the day we have legal exemption, thats why there are not 5000 police drivers getting ticketed.
^Slider^ said:
End of the day we have legal exemption, thats why there are not 5000 police drivers getting ticketed.
Confirmation, then, that it's one rule for the police and another for the poor bloody people who pay them.
I don't have a problem with Plod breaking speed limits when on a call, by which I mean blues and twos. However, at all other times, especially with the CRAP that's talked about 'speeding', they should be SETTING A BLOODY EXAMPLE, not taking the piss and thereby further alienating the public. If I catch Plod breaking the law, I'll have his reg number on his Chief Constables desk by return post.
I didn't used to feel that way. Back in the 80's, the police were there to catch the bad guys and protect me. Now they're out to get ME by enforcing limits that privately they know to be ridiculous (as witnessed by your sentence above).
I will not defend all of them, but please remember that 'Plod' works to the parameters set up by The Boy Tony and all of his totally anti-motorist dribbler side-kicks. In order to keep their jobs, they have to satisfy criteria set down by idiot politicians and Fascist Police Chiefs who are responding to the latest drivel uttered by the Nanny State.
I would like to see a Top Gear program in which B.Liar and his cabinet are sent round the track in the 'reasonably-priced car', pursued by armed officers who have permission to shoot them if they can stop them, then we would truly see if 'Speed Kills'! (The officers in question being provided with a whaling harpoon for that lard-arse, Prescott).
As in all life, there are some officers that are t
ts, but most are like the rest of us - taxed shitless and trying to put food in our family's mouths. Let's cut them a bit of slack, eh?
>> Edited by MGBGT on Thursday 8th December 01:13
I would like to see a Top Gear program in which B.Liar and his cabinet are sent round the track in the 'reasonably-priced car', pursued by armed officers who have permission to shoot them if they can stop them, then we would truly see if 'Speed Kills'! (The officers in question being provided with a whaling harpoon for that lard-arse, Prescott).
As in all life, there are some officers that are t
ts, but most are like the rest of us - taxed shitless and trying to put food in our family's mouths. Let's cut them a bit of slack, eh? >> Edited by MGBGT on Thursday 8th December 01:13
simpo two said:
End of the day we have legal exemption, thats why there are not 5000 police drivers getting ticketed.
Confirmation, then, that it's one rule for the police and another for the poor bloody people who pay them.
Well, yes. That's why they're the police. They're also allowed to break down your door, forcibly take you to a police station, and to take your children away.
It's all about the circumstances.
Of course, if you'd rather the police (and other emergency services) strictly adhere to the speed limit whilst en route to an incident...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff