Crappy Motorway Policing
Discussion
...although those starting the job in the next few years might have to start looking towards private pensions..gone said:
An arbitary limit is no indication of safety therefore logically speed should not be an absolute offence!
But by your very post above, this shows a reason for an average which is safe for everyone. Those that are capable will be capable at the average. Those that are notso good will also be capable.
The problem is when those that are not so good get in they way (intentionally or not) of those that are good when those that are good are not being quite as good as they should be because of some other distraction!
But as I am sure you remember from your school days any average has a standard deviation.
An average is just that and it seems somewhat folly to make judgements that directly effect peoples lives over some arbitary value.
I appreciate that this is the way the law of the land says it should be done, I would just like to see safety focus on more than this one issue as it is just causing ill will towards the Police AND reducing overall road safety.
Jesus, some toys got thrown out of some prams here, didn't they! 
For what it's worth, my 2p:-
- Overtaking a marked car in a sensible manner at a sensible speed (i.e. <80mph indicated) SHOULD NOT be cause for a pull, and certainly not for the BiB to get apoplectic as in our original story, unless the car in question has a visible defect/issue, or unless conditions are crappy (heavy rain/fog/ice/snow).
- Speed limits, when set, were ARBITRARY figures. Further, this was up to 40 years ago. Since then, I would suspect most limits that have been changed have been REDUCED!
- In these 40 years, cars have progressed immeasurably in terms of braking, manouevering, and safety. Accepted that so has road traffic, however.
- If speed limits are set to average levels (and I don't believe this for a second - as said above, they're just arbitrary numbers), then there will clearly be people above and below the average. These people DESERVE a judgemental approach to speed enforcement, not a blanket "one-size-fits-all" approach, which may be cheap and simple, but is unrealistic. I'm not calling for different limits for different people, just for flesh-and-blood BiB to excercise observation and discretion when deciding whether someone's driving is too fast.
For what it's worth, my 2p:-
- Overtaking a marked car in a sensible manner at a sensible speed (i.e. <80mph indicated) SHOULD NOT be cause for a pull, and certainly not for the BiB to get apoplectic as in our original story, unless the car in question has a visible defect/issue, or unless conditions are crappy (heavy rain/fog/ice/snow).
- Speed limits, when set, were ARBITRARY figures. Further, this was up to 40 years ago. Since then, I would suspect most limits that have been changed have been REDUCED!
- In these 40 years, cars have progressed immeasurably in terms of braking, manouevering, and safety. Accepted that so has road traffic, however.
- If speed limits are set to average levels (and I don't believe this for a second - as said above, they're just arbitrary numbers), then there will clearly be people above and below the average. These people DESERVE a judgemental approach to speed enforcement, not a blanket "one-size-fits-all" approach, which may be cheap and simple, but is unrealistic. I'm not calling for different limits for different people, just for flesh-and-blood BiB to excercise observation and discretion when deciding whether someone's driving is too fast.
gone said:
At least the pension's better than the private sector
At the moment
I believe that Tone and Gordon are tinkering at the moment
It won't be any worse than the private sector.
The problem is that (i) it is basically a giant handout and (ii) the increase in various civil servants (which includes BiB, in the sense of public employees) because of NuLab's obsession with control, measurement and bureaucracy in general.
Thus your pension is simply not affordable.
There are a whole range of issues no gov't will deal with. Pensions in general (the OAP state pension) has the same problem at a different level. People kid themselves that they pay for their pension. It's a pyramid scheme.
I was discussing this with a Sarge elsewhere, who said he paid 11% of his £30k salary. This would give him an annual pension of about £8-9k without the lump sum or the inflation-proofing.
It simply isn't going to work. I *suspect* that much of the increases are for pensions.
This isn't particular to BiB ; it's every public pension.
Personally I don't have a problem with the Police pension so much - it's the masses of useless wasters both in the Police (i.e. those not doing "Police Work") and elsewhere that irritate me.
These people appear to be unsackable however incompetent they are, and get a massive handout. It's madness.
gone said:
An arbitary limit is no indication of safety therefore logically speed should not be an absolute offence!
But by your very post above, this shows a reason for an average which is safe for everyone. Those that are capable will be capable at the average. Those that are notso good will also be capable.
The problem is when those that are not so good get in they way (intentionally or not) of those that are good when those that are good are not being quite as good as they should be because of some other distraction!
Averages in speed will not work.
Two reasons ; one there is a bottom end below which even the worst numpties won't drive ; say about 25mph (unless there are traffic jams or similar).
Two, one lunatic boy racer can push the average up spectacularly.
Streetcop said:
I think our combined pension will be something in the region of £185,000 lump sum and £2000 per month for life.
[Without assuming you don't know this already, just pointing it out in general:]
But how many years away is that...and how much will inflation have affected it's value? e.g. 15 years, say 50% cumulative inflation. So your £185k will be £120k at today's prices, and the £2k will be £1,333.
THAT's the thing many people forget:-
"You've 40 years to retirement, but you'll get £3,000 per month."
"Wow, that's far more than I'm on now, I'll reduce my contributions!"
Streetcop said:
I work hard...as does Mrs Streetcop....
I think our combined pension will be something in the region of £185,000 lump sum and £2000 per month for life.
However, in the meantime we pay 11% of our wages towards it, but as we've both done it since first joining....we don't miss it.
I've no doubt you do, Street, as do many other people, but nonetheless your joint payments will have to be massively topped up out of public funds.
autismuk said:
I work hard...as does Mrs Streetcop....
I think our combined pension will be something in the region of £185,000 lump sum and £2000 per month for life.
However, in the meantime we pay 11% of our wages towards it, but as we've both done it since first joining....we don't miss it.
I've no doubt you do, Street, as do many other people, but nonetheless your joint payments will have to be massively topped up out of public funds.
For which I'm thankful...
....
To be fair, public sector tend to get paid noticeably less than their oppo's in the private sector. The two compensations for this are:-
1) Good pension, (currently) guaranteed;
2) If so inclined, the ability to slack for years and not get sacked. Both parents are civil servants, and they have so many horror stories about people who've worked for them it makes you glad when you've only a couple of idiots in your dep't!
1) Good pension, (currently) guaranteed;
2) If so inclined, the ability to slack for years and not get sacked. Both parents are civil servants, and they have so many horror stories about people who've worked for them it makes you glad when you've only a couple of idiots in your dep't!
havoc said:
I think our combined pension will be something in the region of £185,000 lump sum and £2000 per month for life.
[Without assuming you don't know this already, just pointing it out in general:]
But how many years away is that...and how much will inflation have affected it's value? e.g. 15 years, say 50% cumulative inflation. So your £185k will be £120k at today's prices, and the £2k will be £1,333.
THAT's the thing many people forget:-
"You've 40 years to retirement, but you'll get £3,000 per month."
"Wow, that's far more than I'm on now, I'll reduce my contributions!"
The figures are of course should we retire today....The pension is index linked..
Plotloss said:
...why do we have speed limits?
We have speed limits because we cant have people travelling at what speed they like because it is supposedly unsafe.
Some people are perfectly comfortable at 120mph whereas some get scared at 60mph on the same road.
Therefore the relative safety of someone travelling at a given speed is defined by their ability to drive and react.
An arbitary limit is no indication of safety therefore logically speed should not be an absolute offence!
Well said. I had a bit of a debate with a bod on another forum a few weeks ago.
He was saying that he now keeps within the 70 limit on motorways and finds it much more relaxing, whereas previously when using higher speeds he was all tense, and his foot was frequently hovering over the brake pedal. To me this suggested that there was something wrong with his technique, and that until this could be corrected he was not suited to high speed driving.
I don't believe that driving fast should produce feelings of tension and anxiety. It needs doing right, but it can not be safely sustained unless a state of reasonable relaxation can be achieved and maintained.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
.....previously when using higher speeds he was all tense, and his foot was frequently hovering over the brake pedal. To me this suggested that there was something wrong with his technique...
Tends to suggest he doesn't leave a big enough gap. If I go anywhere near the brake pedal on a motorway cruise I view it as a bit of a f**k up
einion yrth said:Slightly harsh on yourself, but I agree with the spirit. My wife's always saying "they're breking up ahead, so should you" and I reply, "Yes, I know they are, that's why I lifted off the accelerator gradually over the last ten seconds".
.....previously when using higher speeds he was all tense, and his foot was frequently hovering over the brake pedal. To me this suggested that there was something wrong with his technique...
Tends to suggest he doesn't leave a big enough gap. If I go anywhere near the brake pedal on a motorway cruise I view it as a bit of a f**k up
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff