Unusual Enigma - One for the BiB!!
Discussion
Alright gentlemen, what do the BiB think of this?
It's a true event, but the driver wishes to remain anonymous.
He was driving through Glasgow at night, light traffic, good road conditions.
A Transit pulls up beside him at the lights and when they change the Transit accelerates to try and beat him to the next junction in true white van man style.
As it pulls ahead he notices it is a hired van with the hirer's livery on it; he simply floors the throttle and surges past the van and proceeds on his way.
As he goes through the next junction, the lights start to change and he is a good bit ahead of the Transit.
After several yards he glances in the mirror to see to his horror, the Transit crash straight through the red light, and pursue him.
He assumes, as most of us would, that this is a regular nutter in the van and turns up a side street and accelarates away.
The van does the same and is obviously pursuing him.
He gets stopped at the next junction at a red light and the van pulls alongside and it's only then he sees it is a police officer that is driving.
They tell him to pull in and the driver alledges that he went through the first junction on a red light and that if he would have been a traffic cop, he would have done him for speeding.
The guy is seriously upset by this and is utterly positive the light was not red when he went through it, but is even more appalled at the fact that the police did several seconds after it had turned red in a hired van that quite clearly could not be identified as a police vehicle.
He has a clean licence and is quite determined to fight this.
And before the wise cracks start, it's not me, but the guy is a PHr.
The questions I would put to you before I make any comment myself are, is it legal for a police officer who is not a trained traffic officer driving a vehicle not owned by the police and not in any manner specially equipped, to break the speed limit in a pursuit and crash a red light?
Do most of you agree that if they had been traffic police in a marked vehicle, then the incident would most definitely never have taken place?
I'll tell you what I think after some of your comments.
>>> Edited by IOLAIRE on Thursday 27th January 20:20
It's a true event, but the driver wishes to remain anonymous.
He was driving through Glasgow at night, light traffic, good road conditions.
A Transit pulls up beside him at the lights and when they change the Transit accelerates to try and beat him to the next junction in true white van man style.
As it pulls ahead he notices it is a hired van with the hirer's livery on it; he simply floors the throttle and surges past the van and proceeds on his way.
As he goes through the next junction, the lights start to change and he is a good bit ahead of the Transit.
After several yards he glances in the mirror to see to his horror, the Transit crash straight through the red light, and pursue him.
He assumes, as most of us would, that this is a regular nutter in the van and turns up a side street and accelarates away.
The van does the same and is obviously pursuing him.
He gets stopped at the next junction at a red light and the van pulls alongside and it's only then he sees it is a police officer that is driving.
They tell him to pull in and the driver alledges that he went through the first junction on a red light and that if he would have been a traffic cop, he would have done him for speeding.
The guy is seriously upset by this and is utterly positive the light was not red when he went through it, but is even more appalled at the fact that the police did several seconds after it had turned red in a hired van that quite clearly could not be identified as a police vehicle.
He has a clean licence and is quite determined to fight this.
And before the wise cracks start, it's not me, but the guy is a PHr.
The questions I would put to you before I make any comment myself are, is it legal for a police officer who is not a trained traffic officer driving a vehicle not owned by the police and not in any manner specially equipped, to break the speed limit in a pursuit and crash a red light?
Do most of you agree that if they had been traffic police in a marked vehicle, then the incident would most definitely never have taken place?
I'll tell you what I think after some of your comments.
>>> Edited by IOLAIRE on Thursday 27th January 20:20
Firstly, this highlights the dangers of racing other drivers or engaging in such 'exchanges'...the fear and regret in the mind of the car driver is easy to imagine...(almost thanking God that it turned out to be BiB in the van..)
Moving on;
Firstly; this hire van; Is the BiB off duty, or is the van being hired by police for a reason? (surveillance?????)
The police driver might have accellerated away for a reason...but then realised the the car driver might be 'up to no good' etc and turned his interests to him.
Such things are a bit of a cock up really; as I always say...I like to know that I'm fully in the right and the 'punter' I stop has only himself to blame for whatevery I've stopped him for..and he/she isn't able to start pointing the finger at anybody..(especially me)...
ANY vehicle being used for police purposes can exceed the speed limit, treat red lights as Give Ways etc...However, it must be done 'as safe as possible'..
Moving on;
Firstly; this hire van; Is the BiB off duty, or is the van being hired by police for a reason? (surveillance?????)
The police driver might have accellerated away for a reason...but then realised the the car driver might be 'up to no good' etc and turned his interests to him.
Such things are a bit of a cock up really; as I always say...I like to know that I'm fully in the right and the 'punter' I stop has only himself to blame for whatevery I've stopped him for..and he/she isn't able to start pointing the finger at anybody..(especially me)...
ANY vehicle being used for police purposes can exceed the speed limit, treat red lights as Give Ways etc...However, it must be done 'as safe as possible'..
Balmoral Green said:
Eee its a reet rum do and no mistake int it.
If hes not been nicked, I would tell him to forget it and move on. It was still a Policeman, rental van or not, and he was having a bit of a dice with him. He has come out even, not a bad result.
He has been nicked; the Fiscal has offered him an FP but with three points.
The van contained two coppers in uniform, I would doubt if it was survellance, because they were just driving along the road.
Sorry Gary, I want to see statutes about this, I think it's too important to just offer an opinion on.
Remember, the copper was the one who accelerated away hard, not the guy.
IOLAIRE said:
Eee its a reet rum do and no mistake int it.
If hes not been nicked, I would tell him to forget it and move on. It was still a Policeman, rental van or not, and he was having a bit of a dice with him. He has come out even, not a bad result.
He has been nicked; the Fiscal has offered him an FP but with three points.
The van contained two coppers in uniform, I would doubt if it was survellance, because they were just driving along the road.
Sorry Gary, I want to see statutes about this, I think it's too important to just offer an opinion on.
Remember, the copper was the one who accelerated away hard, not the guy.
[Devil's Advocate]
I realise you do not want opinions, but if it's gone to the fiscal, then surely it's no more a straight policing matter. The fiscal has the evidence and will prosecute under said legislation. Unless the fiscal's office sees fit to drop the case, then he's up shit creek on this one.
Now to the facts. Turn this around, what if the two police officers were standing by the side of the road on a dark alley and saw the alleged incident and took his details. The officers would be within their rights to press summary charges.
In other news, could they not claim at the sherrif's court that they were pursuing the defendant within the limits of their remit provided by the lawmakers, irrespective of their hard acceleration prior to the alleged incident.
[/Devil's Advocate]
It is alleged your friend committed an offence. The rpeort has been sent to the Fiscal who has made a decision. The options are now obvious for your friend!
If he thinks the officers are mistaken, then he can ask for a court to review what both sides say and then ome to a decision. If the officers are mistaken, then he will be vindicated.
The chasing of vehicles through red lights is dangerous whatever vehicle the Police officer happens to be driving, liveried or not. Extra care must be taken if the vehicle is not liveried.
There is nothing in law that says a hired vehicle cannot be used for Police purposes. Therefore the officers must use their discretion to deal with incidents such as your friends when they see them occur. If they had come unstuck by running the red light or exceeding the limit, then they would have had an awful lot of explaining to do!
My force have a policy about such incidents. That is that unless the circumstances are critical and a very serious offence (criminal offence) has been witnessed, then private vehicles without warning equipment fitted will not be used to attempt to stop motorists whether the officers are in uniform or not.
There were other avenues available to the officers to deal with this other than the way they did BUT, that is the choice they made at the time. Its all down to their own discretion about the incident and how it should be dealt with. Fortunately for them, it did not go belly up on them!
I was not there nor were any of the other Bib who may comment on this story so it is a little hard to judge without hearing both sides of it!
If he thinks the officers are mistaken, then he can ask for a court to review what both sides say and then ome to a decision. If the officers are mistaken, then he will be vindicated.
The chasing of vehicles through red lights is dangerous whatever vehicle the Police officer happens to be driving, liveried or not. Extra care must be taken if the vehicle is not liveried.
There is nothing in law that says a hired vehicle cannot be used for Police purposes. Therefore the officers must use their discretion to deal with incidents such as your friends when they see them occur. If they had come unstuck by running the red light or exceeding the limit, then they would have had an awful lot of explaining to do!
My force have a policy about such incidents. That is that unless the circumstances are critical and a very serious offence (criminal offence) has been witnessed, then private vehicles without warning equipment fitted will not be used to attempt to stop motorists whether the officers are in uniform or not.
There were other avenues available to the officers to deal with this other than the way they did BUT, that is the choice they made at the time. Its all down to their own discretion about the incident and how it should be dealt with. Fortunately for them, it did not go belly up on them!
I was not there nor were any of the other Bib who may comment on this story so it is a little hard to judge without hearing both sides of it!
gone said:
It is alleged your friend committed an offence. The rpeort has been sent to the Fiscal who has made a decision. The options are now obvious for your friend!
If he thinks the officers are mistaken, then he can ask for a court to review what both sides say and then ome to a decision. If the officers are mistaken, then he will be vindicated.
The chasing of vehicles through red lights is dangerous whatever vehicle the Police officer happens to be driving, liveried or not. Extra care must be taken if the vehicle is not liveried.
There is nothing in law that says a hired vehicle cannot be used for Police purposes. Therefore the officers must use their discretion to deal with incidents such as your friends when they see them occur. If they had come unstuck by running the red light or exceeding the limit, then they would have had an awful lot of explaining to do!
My force have a policy about such incidents. That is that unless the circumstances are critical and a very serious offence (criminal offence) has been witnessed, then private vehicles without warning equipment fitted will not be used to attempt to stop motorists whether the officers are in uniform or not.
There were other avenues available to the officers to deal with this other than the way they did BUT, that is the choice they made at the time. Its all down to their own discretion about the incident and how it should be dealt with. Fortunately for them, it did not go belly up on them!
I was not there nor were any of the other Bib who may comment on this story so it is a little hard to judge without hearing both sides of it!
Gone, for once I fully agree with you.
Incidentally, he's not actually my friend, he's a PHr that frequently reads the posts on here and simply feels really hard done to over this incident.
I am too long in the tooth, and you probably are as well to rise to the bait of what transpired here, but that of course does not make it right.
Your point about the risks taken by the police in crashing a red light in a non police vehicle and the consequences if it goes wrong are to me the most important aspect of this.
If the police truly believed that it warranted prosecution, all they had to do was take his number and either track him down later at his address, or put out a request to have him stopped; no risks to the public and no dangers to themselves.
At worst, this guy just might, and it is a large might, just have caught a red light at the very last split second, and that by accident; the police driver deliberately and at speed crashed the red light with no visible warnings to other drivers, and he did it in a Transit van.
I have to tell you Gone, I have a real problem dealing with the "white van man" scenario in this country.
Mercedes inadvertently elevated it with the introduction of the five cylinder turbo diesel Sprinter vans. These vans when unladen will easily attain 110MPH and feel perfectly stable at that speed.
They are not of course; an unladen van at speed is a death trap, and something like a blowout or a swerve to avoid an accident will usually result in complete devastation. Being in direct competition Ford responded with the new generation Transit, but this quite frankly is utter garbage and has serious handling problems and suspension defects.
So you will perhaps understand why I find it totally unacceptable for the police to be involved in a pursuit of any kind for any reason in a Transit van.
This is elevated even further by the fact that it was a hired vehicle, i.e. it wasn't checked or serviced by police mechanics, who I have found are the best in the business.
I am meeting this guy tomorrow to find out exactly what happened and I'll come back on and bring you up to date.
Thanks for your input.
Oh IOLAIRE you do open a can of worms either way simply because we were not there to witness events.
Irrespective of the fact that the PH to all appearances is whiter than white then all that you are reporting and going to is still HEARSAY.
Initial thoughts on reading 'floored the throttle...'
Have the local Bib intelligence on suspect vans and this action drew their attention? 'Lights started to change' looked round bib through at red. What was the time interval? Must have been low as light crashing observed. So what are the chances your man ran the Amber?
On face value much to critise BiB for but I am not going to cast the gauntlet either way because I was not there.
The PF will have all the evidence before him and as a result has made the decision to prosecute.If you are going to say yet more Scottish Bibs are going to lie on oath then you do seem, from previous posts, to get involved with a lot that don't tell the truth?
Incidentally I know friends do tell porkies at times.
They tend to go over and over an incident and put themselves in the best possible light. I think Gone and Dibble will support this from the numerous statements taken from people involved in RTA's.
Looks as if BiB involved and the PH'er is going to get a hammering at Court. As to how they stand up to this
will either impress the Magistrates or not.
DVD
Irrespective of the fact that the PH to all appearances is whiter than white then all that you are reporting and going to is still HEARSAY.
Initial thoughts on reading 'floored the throttle...'
Have the local Bib intelligence on suspect vans and this action drew their attention? 'Lights started to change' looked round bib through at red. What was the time interval? Must have been low as light crashing observed. So what are the chances your man ran the Amber?
On face value much to critise BiB for but I am not going to cast the gauntlet either way because I was not there.
The PF will have all the evidence before him and as a result has made the decision to prosecute.If you are going to say yet more Scottish Bibs are going to lie on oath then you do seem, from previous posts, to get involved with a lot that don't tell the truth?
Incidentally I know friends do tell porkies at times.
They tend to go over and over an incident and put themselves in the best possible light. I think Gone and Dibble will support this from the numerous statements taken from people involved in RTA's.
Looks as if BiB involved and the PH'er is going to get a hammering at Court. As to how they stand up to this
will either impress the Magistrates or not.
DVD
acknowleging the initial report is hearsay:
the police are not lucky it didn't go wrong, the poor sods coming across the junction on green lights are very lucky, side impacts are by far the most dangerous despite the best efforts of car designers there just isn't the room to absorb impacts.
this doesn't make the charges go away though. would a pair of policemen be so upset by being beaten off the line to go to all the trouble and risk they have?
the police are not lucky it didn't go wrong, the poor sods coming across the junction on green lights are very lucky, side impacts are by far the most dangerous despite the best efforts of car designers there just isn't the room to absorb impacts.
this doesn't make the charges go away though. would a pair of policemen be so upset by being beaten off the line to go to all the trouble and risk they have?
Dwight VanDriver said:
Oh IOLAIRE you do open a can of worms either way simply because we were not there to witness events.
Irrespective of the fact that the PH to all appearances is whiter than white then all that you are reporting and going to is still HEARSAY.
Initial thoughts on reading 'floored the throttle...'
Have the local Bib intelligence on suspect vans and this action drew their attention? 'Lights started to change' looked round bib through at red. What was the time interval? Must have been low as light crashing observed. So what are the chances your man ran the Amber?
On face value much to critise BiB for but I am not going to cast the gauntlet either way because I was not there.
The PF will have all the evidence before him and as a result has made the decision to prosecute.If you are going to say yet more Scottish Bibs are going to lie on oath then you do seem, from previous posts, to get involved with a lot that don't tell the truth?
Incidentally I know friends do tell porkies at times.
They tend to go over and over an incident and put themselves in the best possible light. I think Gone and Dibble will support this from the numerous statements taken from people involved in RTA's.
Looks as if BiB involved and the PH'er is going to get a hammering at Court. As to how they stand up to this
will either impress the Magistrates or not.
DVD
Sorry DVD, I think you're picking this up wrong.
It wasn't the suspect that was driving the van, it was the police.
And can I say yet again, this chap is not a friend, I have never met him, but will be doing so tonight.
He is a fellow PHr who wants some advice, that is why I posted this so that we can all chip in our thoughts.
Any incident like this is hearsay until it is proven or accepted into evidence, so that is irrelevant.
I think there is more to this than the police are letting on.
I know the operations of this force fairly well, and they have a significant fleet of vehicles; I find it very strange that they were driving a hired van.
You're right about the can of worms DVD, but it's not me that's opening it, it's the police with their actions, I'm just relating to you what happened.
By the way the guy doesn't claim to be whiter than white, because he must have exceeded the speed limit.
But he flatly denies crashing a red light and feels very strongly about this.
This particular stretch of road is a dual carriageway and used to have a fifty limit incidentally, then forty, and now thirty; a common tactic nowadays for local authorities.
gone said:
If the officers are mistaken, then he will be vindicated.
You are toking the p**s aren't you??? This statement on it's own assumes that the CPS are competent and non-biased! This is a motoring offence, not some scrote caught theiving, therefore guilt is automatically assumed.
Even if the officers are mistaken all he will be told is "bend over, this is going to hurt!"
Guilty or innocent he should just roll over and accept the 3 points, put it down to B.lairs Justice!
jesusbuiltmycar said:
If the officers are mistaken, then he will be vindicated.
You are toking the p**s aren't you??? This statement on it's own assumes that the CPS are competent and non-biased! This is a motoring offence, not some scrote caught theiving, therefore guilt is automatically assumed.
Even if the officers are mistaken all he will be told is "bend over, this is going to hurt!"
Guilty or innocent he should just roll over and accept the 3 points, put it down to B.lairs Justice!
Well Mark,
your last two paragraphs precisely highlight the crux of the matter and is also what ignites my instincts about this.
The really significant thing is the copper said to him, "if I were a traffic cop I would do you for speeding!"
But he wasn't, and what's more he couldn't because he was in a hired van, very difficult to prove with a Transit speedo!! AND easily arguable in court, because the copper, by his own admission, isn't a trained traffic cop.
But the copper knows that if he says that the guy was running a red light he doesn't have to prove a thing, the likelyhood is the court will believe him, and we all sadly know that's true.
This guy was prepared to hold his hand up and say he was speeding, and that's what he thought would happen when he was stopped, there is no way he's going to accept that he crashed a red light, because he is certain he didn't.
Once again we are down to what is or is not acceptable as evidence in a motoring conviction, because make no mistake, the courts are accepting evidence for motoring convictions of a quality that they would not dream of doing for other criminal matters.
The question is why?
And if we keep on accepting it, taking it on the chin, bending over, etc, how bad is it going to get.
Dare I mention once again the lady with the apple, the helicopter evidence and ten motions to get to trial??!!
IOLAIRE - unfortunately that is all too true!
One rule for scrotes, one for the rest of us.....
As posted on another thread BlairOuts Magna Carta thread - the punishments should fit the crime.
With motoring offences it boils my blood to think that scrotes get away almost scot-free for driving uninsured, while I pay about £1500 a year in insurance, (with full no claims and as of yesterday no points on my licence).
One rule for scrotes, one for the rest of us.....
As posted on another thread BlairOuts Magna Carta thread - the punishments should fit the crime.
With motoring offences it boils my blood to think that scrotes get away almost scot-free for driving uninsured, while I pay about £1500 a year in insurance, (with full no claims and as of yesterday no points on my licence).
IOLAIRE,
Are we discussing the driver committing the offence of driving through a red light here ? I presume we are..surely the circumstances of how he was spotted by the BiB are not relevent. He either drove through the red light or not (his word against 2 BiB). It would also appear that at the time of the supposed offence he didn't fear for his safety or any other mitigating circumstances.
If we are considering failing to stop: then I would imagine there are mitigating circumstances here due to unmarked hire van. But unless I'm missing something that is not in question.
He obviously can plead that he did not immediately stop due to being unaware that there were police officers in the van etc. But no defence to red light.
Got to question the BiB's reasoning here: unmarked hire van, uniformed officers, traffic offence (interesting)...but as not there - can't really comment what they were up to.
Are we discussing the driver committing the offence of driving through a red light here ? I presume we are..surely the circumstances of how he was spotted by the BiB are not relevent. He either drove through the red light or not (his word against 2 BiB). It would also appear that at the time of the supposed offence he didn't fear for his safety or any other mitigating circumstances.
If we are considering failing to stop: then I would imagine there are mitigating circumstances here due to unmarked hire van. But unless I'm missing something that is not in question.
He obviously can plead that he did not immediately stop due to being unaware that there were police officers in the van etc. But no defence to red light.
Got to question the BiB's reasoning here: unmarked hire van, uniformed officers, traffic offence (interesting)...but as not there - can't really comment what they were up to.
nutskie.. said:
IOLAIRE,
Are we discussing the driver committing the offence of driving through a red light here ? I presume we are..surely the circumstances of how he was spotted by the BiB are not relevent. He either drove through the red light or not (his word against 2 BiB). It would also appear that at the time of the supposed offence he didn't fear for his safety or any other mitigating circumstances.
If we are considering failing to stop: then I would imagine there are mitigating circumstances here due to unmarked hire van. But unless I'm missing something that is not in question.
He obviously can plead that he did not immediately stop due to being unaware that there were police officers in the van etc. But no defence to red light.
Got to question the BiB's reasoning here: unmarked hire van, uniformed officers, traffic offence (interesting)...but as not there - can't really comment what they were up to.
Nutskie,
in my experience all the circumstances in these sort of cases are relevant, simply because they can give you an insight into what actually was going on and the motivations behind the police behaviour.
There can be absolutely no question of this guy failing to stop, he had no idea he was being pursued by the police.
This was a Friday night by the way in Glasgow, as far as he was concerned it was Bob the Builder in his white transit with a drink in him going mental, so yes, he did fear for his safety, wouldn't you?
That is something that a Glasgow court most definitely would find feasible.
Your last paragraph highlights my sentiments exactly, I want to find out what the BiB were up to with that van.
IOLAIRE,
I am still unsure as to what is in question here. Did he 'jump' the red or not ? It is surely his word against the 2 BiB's. They saw him do it. He says he didn't.
What the police were doing in an unmarked van has got nothing to do with the alledged offence. Nor is it really of consequence. They were in uniform so have the right to pull a motorist (if I remember the law correctly).
Did he drve away at speed because of fear ? (this was not the case according to your initial description of events). Just because a van speeds past you does not give you the right to 'floor it'. Also the offence is not careless driving anyway. The question still remains did he jump a red or not ? If he did then perhaps he has mitigating circumstance to put to a court. But there is no indication that he was worried until after he had gone through the light and he saw the van follow on a red. According to your version of events I don't see the problem with the evidence of two BiB's stating what they saw. I know we can all question the truthfulness of this but I am simply taking the facts given.
He is simply saying that the BiB were mistaken or lying.
Or am I missing something here ?
I am still unsure as to what is in question here. Did he 'jump' the red or not ? It is surely his word against the 2 BiB's. They saw him do it. He says he didn't.
What the police were doing in an unmarked van has got nothing to do with the alledged offence. Nor is it really of consequence. They were in uniform so have the right to pull a motorist (if I remember the law correctly).
Did he drve away at speed because of fear ? (this was not the case according to your initial description of events). Just because a van speeds past you does not give you the right to 'floor it'. Also the offence is not careless driving anyway. The question still remains did he jump a red or not ? If he did then perhaps he has mitigating circumstance to put to a court. But there is no indication that he was worried until after he had gone through the light and he saw the van follow on a red. According to your version of events I don't see the problem with the evidence of two BiB's stating what they saw. I know we can all question the truthfulness of this but I am simply taking the facts given.
He is simply saying that the BiB were mistaken or lying.
Or am I missing something here ?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff