Police Snipers

[Martin_S]

Driving down the M40 near Oxford recently at typical fast lane speeds, I noticed an unusual object on a bridge parapet.

I didn't get the chance to clock it properly, so since I was in no rush I turned round at the next exit to have another look.

As I passed the bridge from the other direction, I could see a police motorcycle parked on the 'downstream' side of the bridge (therefore not visible from my original direction of travel). Returning the way I had originally come, at a nice, slow speed, and looking carefully at the bridge, I found that the 'object' I had seen was the head and shoulders of a police officer, with his crash helmet beside him, laying prone and 'sniping' through the bottom of the guardrails on the bridge, presumably with a lazer.

Is this sort of behaviour now legal/appropriate and if so, can we expect the BiB to apply the same ingenuity and cunning to catching criminals?

[Streetcop]

You're either naive or just wanting to wind up...I don't know..

The cop in question was a traffic cop...that's his remit and it role...

There are other cops who do the same thing in surveillance units who follow criminals around the UK and employ similar methods of capturing evidence..Far more money is spent on detecting 'criminal' activity than is every spent on road polcing...I can tell you.

It's not 'illegal' in the slightest... for goodness sake...

Have a look at this news story I've just read...try posting a few things of positive note of policing and not whining all the time...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/3948703.stm

Street

>> Edited by Streetcop on Sunday 24th October 12:19

[Martin_S]

I was under the impression that the guidelines were that mobile speed traps had to be in clearly visible positions, though?

Clearly, I am being naive - I believed Police claims that it was about deterence and safety, not revenue. What deterence/safety value is there in clocking traffic at a steady state speed on a mororway, in good conditions, when the people 'caught' don't get to know about it until a week or too later?

Edited to add that if there was anything positive to add about current traffic policing, I'd be the first to post. Still, nice to see from your link that someone got their own back!

>> Edited by Martin_S on Sunday 24th October 12:25

[Streetcop]

The police officer, if out of the vehicle, must wear hi-viz jacket...but that's about it as far as being visible goes...

I don't know the layout of the road in question, but if it was a pro-laser, and a vehicle's speed registered enough for the BiB to be concerned, he would have gone after the vehicle.

I don't think it will be a recording device for a later NIP/Summons.

Street

[WildCat]

Ach Liebchen

There ist difference between copping a real criminal by undercover detecting und lying in undergrowth in hedges along M4 with intent to entrap someone who is not criminally minded but who has just strayed above a speed limit.

If whole point of speed cams ist to slow us down - und get message across to slow down - then hiding in bushes in "catchin' terrorist" gear ist not the way to do it.

A visible patrol car would have slowed traffic down and prevented the " potential accident" from occurring - nicht?

Anyways - gotta go - more urgent "nip"-pers to deal with..

Shall probably not be on here as frequently as in run up in maternity .... babies are 24/7....

[Streetcop]

>> Edited by Streetcop on Sunday 24th October 12:35

[gone]

Martin_S said:

I was under the impression that the guidelines were that mobile speed traps had to be in clearly visible positions, though?

He wasn't mobile, he was stationary !

Martin_S said:

Clearly, I am being naive - I believed Police claims that it was about deterence and safety, not revenue. What deterence/safety value is there in clocking traffic at a steady state speed on a mororway, in good conditions, when the people 'caught' don't get to know about it until a week or too later?

So that in future, having received a brown envelope containing 1/4 of the allowed misdemeanors, the driver concerned will modify his behaviour so that he/she does not get another one

Martin_S said:

Edited to add that if there was anything positive to add about current traffic policing, I'd be the first to post. Still, nice to see from your link that someone got their own back!

It might interest you to know that most Traffic Police objectives are centred around reducing crime such as Burglary/robbery/car theft etc.
When not engaged in that type of work, they are expected to go and fulfill other objectives such as road safety issues.

[turbobloke]

Two important points to be borne in mind with stuff like this, one - guidelines are just that, guidelines, and they need not always be followed, two - exceeding a speed limit, for better or worse depending on your viewpoint, is an absolute offence.

There is no legal requirement to stick up warning signs or wave an arm about from behind a vantage point. If we're nicked, we're nicked. Better to write to MPs, SCAMPs, newspapers, join the ABD, and use your vote, not the BiBs fault 99 times out of 100. It would be a better and safer thing for our roads if, like Canada, our politicians admitted that arbitrary and blanket speed enforcement has no safety benefits and decided on a new road safety policy based on the three E's and more trained traffic patrols. Til then...

>> Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 24th October 14:47

[gh0st]

you know, i am sure that faaaaarrrr less people would compain about the police and even current anti-speeding tactics if that was the only thing left to worry about.

While we have drivers that cannot use indicators, change lanes without warning, tailgate, agressive drivers, road rage incidents however outstanding, how can anyone see it as reasonsable to pick people off doing 33 in a 30

If anyone on this forum wishes to challenge me on this one by saying that the above does not go on and thats why they are concentrating on speeding, I invite you to come on a days driving with me on one of my field engineering days. Usually see about 10 or 12 actually dangerours incidents, mostly caused by the elderly and mid-life-crisis-3-series's round here, which pose a FAR greater risk than simply exceeding the speed limit by 2 or 3 MPH (and dont say it doesnt happen - I still have a copy of the nip somewhere for 77 in a 70 duel carrageway (A449 as it happens))

Gh0st,

[Mad Moggie]

Perhaps the Prats should concentrate on the latest letter sent by my wife to a Pratnership. It was unfortunate that she composed the letter after a nappy change at the time .... slight Freudian slip in the letter she sent to them with the heading...

Re. C C R A P.
rofl:

I have only just noticed this as I was putting it into a file for her

Concentration/Courtesy/ Responsibility/ Anticipation/Patience

Think I prefer COAST!

But on the other hand - fairly neat summing up of their real activities regarding improvement of driving standards

[Streetcop]

But this 33mph in a 30zone business..is so few and far between..it's not worth thinking about...

I mean...my force is 10% + 4mph and one of the neighbouring forces is the same..

Having said that...the road policing unit that I work in doesn't for example, 'do' people in a 30mph zone unless they reach 40mph....

I mean..how lenient should we be and still do our duty?

Street

[gh0st]

Streetcop said:

But this 33mph in a 30zone business..is so few and far between..it's not worth thinking about... I mean...my force is 10% + 4mph and one of the neighbouring forces is the same.. Having said that...the road policing unit that I work in doesn't for example, 'do' people in a 30mph zone unless they reach 40mph.... I mean..how lenient should we be and still do our duty? Street

Thanks for replying St

What my main point was that once the road is free of doddery / dangerous / ignorant and violent people though ANPR checks, visible road POLICING (NOT scameraing), THEN the public will accept the minor offenses being looked at IF NEEDED becasue the road will be a much safer place from the previous efforts.

It always annoys me that just after a in an "insert marque here" cuts me up on a roundabout forcing onto the island or worse, there is a safety camera van just down the road to make sure that I dont exceed the speed limit by a tiny margin. Doesnt matter that lives could have been lost by being pushed off the roundabout onto a pavement or anything, its just not easy enough to measure so its just not bothered with

As has been said, will continue to be said, and will be said for a long time to come, as long as one is travelling under the speed limit no matter how they drive, its gotta be safe hasnt it

[Mad Moggie]

Streetcop said:

But this 33mph in a 30zone business..is so few and far between..it's not worth thinking about... I mean...my force is 10% + 4mph and one of the neighbouring forces is the same.. Having said that...the road policing unit that I work in doesn't for example, 'do' people in a 30mph zone unless they reach 40mph.... I mean..how lenient should we be and still do our duty? Street

Street - up until recently Lancs were prosecuting at those tolerances. Think the BiBs themselves were more tolerant - but all scams issued NIPS at crazy overspeeds. They say "letter" up to 10% plus 2 now an 10% plus 4/5 earns Speed Course the first time. Still would not like to hedge my bets on this though.....

Case of the V sign numpty (Cumbria's Steve states otherwise) but tabloid press say guy was originally done at 44 mph in 40 mph which was why he drove past scamerati at 20 mph "hands free" whilst doing a "Churchill" Easily verified one way or the other - and Prats did not challenge "false reporting" at the time.....

It does happen mate... sad but true .... and there will be more of it if Tone and his crones continue in their merry way

[turbobloke]

Fair play Street but the law doesn't really let you make a more powerful contribution to road safety - - it may be that a 'new' 30mph limit is on what had been for many decades a 50mph limit road, why is it suddenly OK to be 'done' for 42mph on that road? If the road was a death trp it would have had attention long before the councillors set the new limit. If that road had an 85% of speed at around 50mph, you should be told that, and lacking any other reasonable excuse, leave the road alone.

[diesel ed]

gone said:

So that in future, having received a brown envelope containing 1/4 of the allowed misdemeanors, the driver concerned will modify his behaviour so that he/she does not get another one

So how does that work when, for example in the Welsh Rally, when they spot and film people supposedly travelling at dangerous speeds, don't stop them, let them carry on their way, return, spot and film them supposedly travelling at dangerous speeds again, still don't stop them, let them carry on their way, return half a dozen more times, then send them a brown envelope saying you are banned, matey, twice?

[gone]

gh0st said:

you know, i am sure that faaaaarrrr less people would compain about the police and even current anti-speeding tactics if that was the only thing left to worry about. While we have drivers that cannot use indicators, change lanes without warning, tailgate, agressive drivers, road rage incidents however outstanding, how can anyone see it as reasonsable to pick people off doing 33 in a 30

Eh? Its against the law. Reasonable or not its the bib job to do just that! (until the law is changed to state otherwise)

ghOst said:

If anyone on this forum wishes to challenge me on this one by saying that the above does not go on and thats why they are concentrating on speeding,

If you drive at 3mph under the limits, you will be left alone (unless of course you happen to be driving dangerously at the same time )

ghOst said:

I invite you to come on a days driving with me on one of my field engineering days. Usually see about 10 or 12 actually dangerours incidents, mostly caused by the elderly and mid-life-crisis-3-series's round here, which pose a FAR greater risk than simply exceeding the speed limit by 2 or 3 MPH (and dont say it doesnt happen - I still have a copy of the nip somewhere for 77 in a 70 duel carrageway (A449 as it happens)) Gh0st,

Generalising here ghOst?

[gone]

gh0st said:

It always annoys me that just after a in an "insert marque here" cuts me up on a roundabout forcing onto the island or worse, there is a safety camera van just down the road to make sure that I dont exceed the speed limit by a tiny margin. Doesnt matter that lives could have been lost by being pushed off the roundabout onto a pavement or anything, its just not easy enough to measure so its just not bothered with

How do you know it is not bothered with?

Fact.

1.Report the incident and it will be dealt with.
2.That requires you to give a statement of witness.
3.That may result in counter allegations against you.
4.That may end up with you having to take time off work to attend court as a witness or even a defendant.
5. Most people just cannot be arsed to get involved!

I have offered to deal with just such a case through this forum last year over someone posting about bad driving in my area. When I threw my cards on the table, the offer was rejected outright.

Lots of bluster but no backbone is the problem.
As 'Brucie' would say, "All mouth and no trousers"!!!

ghOst said:

As has been said, will continue to be said, and will be said for a long time to come, as long as one is travelling under the speed limit no matter how they drive, its gotta be safe hasnt it

And when it is seen, it is dealt with. I do it and so do my colleagues. If it is bad enough I will even deal with it when I witness such incidents when I am off duty!

[gone]

diesel ed said:

gone said: So that in future, having received a brown envelope containing 1/4 of the allowed misdemeanors, the driver concerned will modify his behaviour so that he/she does not get another one So how does that work when, for example in the Welsh Rally, when they spot and film people supposedly travelling at dangerous speeds, don't stop them, let them carry on their way, return, spot and film them supposedly travelling at dangerous speeds again, still don't stop them, let them carry on their way, return half a dozen more times, then send them a brown envelope saying you are banned, matey, twice?

You have answered your own question!

Drivers in the Welsh Rally know what the rules are
If they chose to ignore them, then they will attract the very situation you have penned above.

[turbobloke]

If my interpretation of recent posts is right, it wasn't that rally drivers don't know the rules, but that if the 'authorities' really thought what was going on was that dangerous, the cars involved should be stopped. Of course, what was happening may or may not have been dangerous, a speed limit and a camera are hopeless at telling us this. All they can say is that it is illegal, and that's the issue - safety and the law a world apart.

[gh0st]

gone said:

gh0st said: It always annoys me that just after a in an "insert marque here" cuts me up on a roundabout forcing onto the island or worse, there is a safety camera van just down the road to make sure that I dont exceed the speed limit by a tiny margin. Doesnt matter that lives could have been lost by being pushed off the roundabout onto a pavement or anything, its just not easy enough to measure so its just not bothered with How do you know it is not bothered with? Fact. 1.Report the incident and it will be dealt with. 2.That requires you to give a statement of witness. 3.That may result in counter allegations against you. 4.That may end up with you having to take time off work to attend court as a witness or even a defendant. 5. Most people just cannot be arsed to get involved! I have offered to deal with just such a case through this forum last year over someone posting about bad driving in my area. When I threw my cards on the table, the offer was rejected outright. Lots of bluster but no backbone is the problem. As 'Brucie' would say, "All mouth and no trousers"!!! ghOst said: As has been said, will continue to be said, and will be said for a long time to come, as long as one is travelling under the speed limit no matter how they drive, its gotta be safe hasnt it And when it is seen, it is dealt with. I do it and so do my colleagues. If it is bad enough I will even deal with it when I witness such incidents when I am off duty!

Fair point gone.

However since I drive around 30 - 40,000 miles per year, how long do you think it would be before the police stopped responding to me?

Even if I put it down to the more dangerous incidents that I see per day it would probably amount to 5-6 per day raising to 10-12 in bad weather.

Today (sunday) for example, I drove from my house to my dads house, a total of 32 miles, half of that duel c/way half motorway.

In that time I say

1) Pensioner driving at 35 on the motorway, cars literally swerving out of its way (it was also in the middle lane...)

2) Suzuki Swift with a P plate swerve stright out of the entrace slip road on the M5 almost taking me and the car in front out (no indicators no nothing)

3) 5 Series reversing down a sliproad from Jct30 of the M5

4) On the way home a car pulling stright out across 4 lanes of steep uphill traffic without indicating causing a van to nearly go into the outside barrier


4 near serious incidents in 60 miles in one quiet day!! I would be regarded as a hoax caller by the end of the week!

I did not see a SINGLE traffic car or police vehicle on the roads today. I did see 3 Gatsos however.

So you see my situation is a tricky one. Report everything and risk getting done for wasting police time (?) or do nothing and hope that one fine day, we will see more trafpol on the roads and out of the laser vans.

I hope this explains my position.

Ps - aside from the P plate almost taking me and other car out, the other incidents were observed from a distance and not caused or instigated by myself.

Gh0st