The things you see ... (2)
Discussion
If a policecar stops me, and there is something wrong with it ( burned out headlamp, taillight or bald tyres - all of which I have seen.... )
Is any evidence from it/officers assumed to be wrong ?
Obviously if you were being arrested this would not work as a line of defence...but does it affect speeding charges ?
Is any evidence from it/officers assumed to be wrong ?
Obviously if you were being arrested this would not work as a line of defence...but does it affect speeding charges ?
Yep, looks crap and sets a bad example....
I always like to check all the lights before a shift and I must admit..it's one of the mundane jobs that I actually do complete properly...
This includes strobes lights, rear reds etc etc...
Afterall, they are the things that might save my life, later in the shift.
I wonder if it was a Panda car or a traffic car that was seen with the infringment.
I say this, as the condition of the two departments vehicles seem to be vastly different in my force.
The Panda cars are often left in a dirty state, half full of fuel at end of shift etc etc.
Where as the traffic cars have to be washed and fuelled at the end of the shift. Every time. Without fail.
I always like to check all the lights before a shift and I must admit..it's one of the mundane jobs that I actually do complete properly...
This includes strobes lights, rear reds etc etc...
Afterall, they are the things that might save my life, later in the shift.
I wonder if it was a Panda car or a traffic car that was seen with the infringment.
I say this, as the condition of the two departments vehicles seem to be vastly different in my force.
The Panda cars are often left in a dirty state, half full of fuel at end of shift etc etc.
Where as the traffic cars have to be washed and fuelled at the end of the shift. Every time. Without fail.
A policeman pulled me in MK last year. He was a bit of an idiot in that I pulled away from the same set of lights as him, accelerated to 70mph (Dual c/way), and then kept a steady speed. Because of the lack of acceleration of his patrol car, he dropped behind and then had to do 85mph to catch me... and so by his reckoning I must have been doing at least 80mph!! ... he needed a physics lesson me thinks. But anyway, he pulled alongside me at a roundabout and started having a go. I told him I wasn't speeding (I wasn't), but he didn't seem to be able to grasp the logic of it, and kept telling me to shut up unless I wanted him to arrest me!! He then got even more shirty when I pointed out that one of his brake lights wasn't working!!
I really wanted to report him for his arrogance/idiocy, but decided that generally I have only ever met reasonable policemen, and that upsetting one that I could possibly meet in the future would not be a good idea! (even if I was right).
>> Edited by jolley on Tuesday 22 March 20:44
I really wanted to report him for his arrogance/idiocy, but decided that generally I have only ever met reasonable policemen, and that upsetting one that I could possibly meet in the future would not be a good idea! (even if I was right).
>> Edited by jolley on Tuesday 22 March 20:44
It's a shame Jolley that you had to encounter such a person...
Thankfully, as you state, they are few and far between..
On a personal note, I find the fact that what I say in my vehicle is constantly being recorded, makes me more professional than previously.
I'm not saying that I would have acted in the way you describe, far from it. It's just that, at one time I might have used certain language and manner in explaining certain things, to certain people. Nowadays, that flexibility is gone.
It's like the old fashioned bollocking v fixed penalty debate. I can't really tear a strip of someone, in leu of a ticket....because if that person later complains about my behaviour (despite not prosecuting them at the time)...and my gaffers review my video tape...I might be looking at a disciplinary hearing under the charge of 'politeness and tolerance'.
Thankfully, as you state, they are few and far between..
On a personal note, I find the fact that what I say in my vehicle is constantly being recorded, makes me more professional than previously.
I'm not saying that I would have acted in the way you describe, far from it. It's just that, at one time I might have used certain language and manner in explaining certain things, to certain people. Nowadays, that flexibility is gone.
It's like the old fashioned bollocking v fixed penalty debate. I can't really tear a strip of someone, in leu of a ticket....because if that person later complains about my behaviour (despite not prosecuting them at the time)...and my gaffers review my video tape...I might be looking at a disciplinary hearing under the charge of 'politeness and tolerance'.
Aye. It is a shame really. I understand there are situations where that can both help or hinder you. It is just a sad state for us to get into where criminals are all too eager to lie aqbout an officers conduct to deflect from the real issue of them being an arse!! (I'm sure there are situations where the officer is an arse, but I would expect them to be fewer in number).
I was assulted by a girl and her boyfriend last year. I admit I was rude to her, but then she started hitting me (even bit me), and he then started to hit me also. I knew them (small community), but I made a statement straight away so that they would be questioned and hopefully wake up to the way they were behaving. Anyway, she said she was going to try to charge me for my verbal abuse that set her off!!! Now, I do not condone my behavior, but to my mind, no-one has any reason to hit another person just because they have said something you do not like. It made my blood boil to the point where I nearly decided to press charges (not my original intention) just because of her blatent nerve. Anyway, the good news at the end of this is that the guy was charged (community service and a fine), and I think he has learnt his lesson and sorted his life out.
I do not envy you guys one bit!!
I was assulted by a girl and her boyfriend last year. I admit I was rude to her, but then she started hitting me (even bit me), and he then started to hit me also. I knew them (small community), but I made a statement straight away so that they would be questioned and hopefully wake up to the way they were behaving. Anyway, she said she was going to try to charge me for my verbal abuse that set her off!!! Now, I do not condone my behavior, but to my mind, no-one has any reason to hit another person just because they have said something you do not like. It made my blood boil to the point where I nearly decided to press charges (not my original intention) just because of her blatent nerve. Anyway, the good news at the end of this is that the guy was charged (community service and a fine), and I think he has learnt his lesson and sorted his life out.
I do not envy you guys one bit!!
St
- it was not a 'Panda', but not obviously a traffic car either. Not the local Area Car, might have been from another force 'passing through' Had a passenger in the rear seat - couldn't tell their status.
jolley - regarding physics lessons. The magistrates need them too. A good friend of mine is a magistrate. He is also a keen driver and has a PhD in physics. He has closely questioned many police witnesses regarding their speed and that of the accused - usually to the complete incomprehension of his colleagues on the bench and to (some) discomforture on the part of the officer giving evidence. Too many magistrates hear "110mph" and fail to realise that the police car was accelerating from stationary and had to reach and then held that speed in order to catch up with the 'offender'. [See: www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=103696&f=10&h=0 for some simple calculations (that no-one challenged/corrected).] The BiB in the witness box is often unacustomed to being questioned in detail about speed differentials, distances travelled, acceleration times, duration that certain speeds were held, etc. by a magistrate. A few stabs of his finger on a calculator and my friend is back with more searching questions. He is an exception (perhaps THE exception); many (read 'most') magistrates simply hear the police 'evidence' and assume the accused was driving at that speed. That's how the press report it too.
Of course, upon being caught up, if the accused was then followed and their speed was observed over the appropriate distance to be above the speed limit by whatever margin is being applied, then the issue of speed should become merely a question of the highest observed. However, the problem can easily be, that some (read 'many') magistrates have noted the police car's speed and apply that when considering sentencing.
Streaky
PS - note that the above does not apply in the case of a absolute speeding offence recorded by a totally accurate 'safety camera' or video
- S
- it was not a 'Panda', but not obviously a traffic car either. Not the local Area Car, might have been from another force 'passing through' Had a passenger in the rear seat - couldn't tell their status. jolley - regarding physics lessons. The magistrates need them too. A good friend of mine is a magistrate. He is also a keen driver and has a PhD in physics. He has closely questioned many police witnesses regarding their speed and that of the accused - usually to the complete incomprehension of his colleagues on the bench and to (some) discomforture on the part of the officer giving evidence. Too many magistrates hear "110mph" and fail to realise that the police car was accelerating from stationary and had to reach and then held that speed in order to catch up with the 'offender'. [See: www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=103696&f=10&h=0 for some simple calculations (that no-one challenged/corrected).] The BiB in the witness box is often unacustomed to being questioned in detail about speed differentials, distances travelled, acceleration times, duration that certain speeds were held, etc. by a magistrate. A few stabs of his finger on a calculator and my friend is back with more searching questions. He is an exception (perhaps THE exception); many (read 'most') magistrates simply hear the police 'evidence' and assume the accused was driving at that speed. That's how the press report it too.
Of course, upon being caught up, if the accused was then followed and their speed was observed over the appropriate distance to be above the speed limit by whatever margin is being applied, then the issue of speed should become merely a question of the highest observed. However, the problem can easily be, that some (read 'many') magistrates have noted the police car's speed and apply that when considering sentencing.
Streaky
PS - note that the above does not apply in the case of a absolute speeding offence recorded by a totally accurate 'safety camera' or video
- SGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff