Norfolk Police, protecting us all
Discussion
My congrats to the two police officers manning a speed gun on the A134 yesterday.
I am quite sure that sitting down behind the hedges was perfectly reasonable and not in any way designed to prevent you from being spotted.
And my thanks to the numerous car drivers coming the other way who gave us plenty of warnings !! (I was actually within the limit anyway)
I am quite sure that sitting down behind the hedges was perfectly reasonable and not in any way designed to prevent you from being spotted.
And my thanks to the numerous car drivers coming the other way who gave us plenty of warnings !! (I was actually within the limit anyway)
FunkyNige said:
The sneakiest thing I've seen them do is to reverse the squad car up a small track so only the bonnet is visible, then crouch down behind the bonnet with just the officer's head and laser poking over.
What a way to earn a living! ...and to think they do this by choice.
I regularly use covert enforcement methods, and I see no problem with that. In some areas it is the only option.
In doing so however I like to make sure that the manner of driving which I report is worthy of enforcement.
And the penalties paid from these offences do not feature in any police force's profit and loss account.
In doing so however I like to make sure that the manner of driving which I report is worthy of enforcement.
And the penalties paid from these offences do not feature in any police force's profit and loss account.
IaHa said:
I regularly use covert enforcement methods, and I see no problem with that. In some areas it is the only option.
In doing so however I like to make sure that the manner of driving which I report is worthy of enforcement.
And the penalties paid from these offences do not feature in any police force's profit and loss account.
Fine, a good method of catching speeding & dangerous motoring.
But, if you were clearly visible, might these offences be prevented & as such improve road safety.
IMO better to stop the offence ever happening, than to penalise an offence!
A57 HSV said:
I regularly use covert enforcement methods, and I see no problem with that. In some areas it is the only option.
In doing so however I like to make sure that the manner of driving which I report is worthy of enforcement.
And the penalties paid from these offences do not feature in any police force's profit and loss account.
Fine, a good method of catching speeding & dangerous motoring.
But, if you were clearly visible, might these offences be prevented & as such improve road safety.
IMO better to stop the offence ever happening, than to penalise an offence!
They may well be prevented in the area of the overt enforcement. Prior to and post the enforcement zone the driver may return to his high risk motoring. Covert detection means that the offender, once caught is going to be more aware that he could be caught again at any time.
But, as I emphasised, the offences prosecuted have to be appropriate for prosecution. If the driver's illegal act carries no added risk, then covert detection is a negative pointless exercise.
IaHa said:
IaHa said:
I regularly use covert enforcement methods, and I see no problem with that. In some areas it is the only option.
In doing so however I like to make sure that the manner of driving which I report is worthy of enforcement.
And the penalties paid from these offences do not feature in any police force's profit and loss account.
Fine, a good method of catching speeding & dangerous motoring.
But, if you were clearly visible, might these offences be prevented & as such improve road safety.
IMO better to stop the offence ever happening, than to penalise an offence!
They may well be prevented in the area of the overt enforcement. Prior to and post the enforcement zone the driver may return to his high risk motoring. Covert detection means that the offender, once caught is going to be more aware that he could be caught again at any time.
But, as I emphasised, the offences prosecuted have to be appropriate for prosecution. If the driver's illegal act carries no added risk, then covert detection is a negative pointless exercise.
Thereagain when i got done for my incredibly dangerous - in fact I can barely post for the sheer remorse that I feel - 77 in a 70 zone
by a scamera van in a layby on a clear dry day with no other traffic around, I merely kitted myself out with some excellent gadgets thus avoiding the next 6 or 7 times they may well have hypothetically tried to get me... So now you have yet another member of the public who is no fan of the police because of this and will be much less willing to help the police if required.
But hey ho - at least I know that the world is safe from people breaking a marginal speed limit.
Gh0st
Before people start wibbling on about the SCP not being the police - While I get NIPS issued by the local police station, they are the police. Its all the same face and if the individual policepersons are unwilling to distance themselves publicly then they are all the same group im afriad
I'm totally in favour of more (sensible) TrafPol on the roads & better training/initial instruction for drivers. IMO the only way forward for safer roads.
IMO hiding behind hedges etc. smacks of revenue raising, regardless of whom benefits from the revenue & causes ill feeling between the motoring public & the TrafPol.
The amount of people I know with multiple points on their licenses would suggest that getting penalised has little if any long term detterent.
Feelings are running high with inappropriately sited Cameras & Vans, the last thing we need is TrafPol hiding themselves.
These are just my opinions & as already stated I would be very happy to SEE more TrafPol on our roads.
IMO hiding behind hedges etc. smacks of revenue raising, regardless of whom benefits from the revenue & causes ill feeling between the motoring public & the TrafPol.
The amount of people I know with multiple points on their licenses would suggest that getting penalised has little if any long term detterent.
Feelings are running high with inappropriately sited Cameras & Vans, the last thing we need is TrafPol hiding themselves.
These are just my opinions & as already stated I would be very happy to SEE more TrafPol on our roads.
Covert enforcement as you describe is really no different from patrolling in an unmarked car, or sitting at a motorway slip road discretely observing traffic.
The important part, which has been largely lost in the propaganda overspill to support speed cameras, is that the offences have to be appropriate for covert detection to be beneficial.
I'm not looking for support or otherwise, I'm simply telling you why I will continue to use covert enforcement.
If I witness someone from a covert position aggressively tailgating, perhaps undertaking aggressively while trying to attain a speed of around 110mph despite conditions and traffic volumes, then surely reporting that person for offences revealed is likely to be much more productive than simply being sat overtly on a hard standing giving the same motorist adequate opportunity to slow to a sedate 75mph, nodding politely as he passes, then roar off out of site to his ultimate destiny.
The important part, which has been largely lost in the propaganda overspill to support speed cameras, is that the offences have to be appropriate for covert detection to be beneficial.
I'm not looking for support or otherwise, I'm simply telling you why I will continue to use covert enforcement.
If I witness someone from a covert position aggressively tailgating, perhaps undertaking aggressively while trying to attain a speed of around 110mph despite conditions and traffic volumes, then surely reporting that person for offences revealed is likely to be much more productive than simply being sat overtly on a hard standing giving the same motorist adequate opportunity to slow to a sedate 75mph, nodding politely as he passes, then roar off out of site to his ultimate destiny.
Still not convinced that fining a dangerous or speeding driver has a great deal of affect in preventing repeat offences. If these drivers saw more TrafPol on the roads they might not cause the offences in the first place.
Tailgating is a massive problem & I believe could be reduced by an increase in marked patrol cars.
IMO the lack of marked patrol cars on the roads has lead to a big decline in driving standards.
You will catch dangerous drivers by using "Covert" tactics but all you will achieve is an alienation between the motorist & yourself. IMO you will not be greatly improving road safety.
At the end of the day, we all have our opinions on what will make our roads safer & perhaps mine are different from others.
P.S Just spent a week in the North Lakes area & only saw one Camera, it was refreshing to be able to concentrate on driving, not just my speed, which was often at well below posted limits due to the challenging roads around the Lakes!
>> Edited by A57 HSV on Tuesday 30th August 14:49
Tailgating is a massive problem & I believe could be reduced by an increase in marked patrol cars.
IMO the lack of marked patrol cars on the roads has lead to a big decline in driving standards.
You will catch dangerous drivers by using "Covert" tactics but all you will achieve is an alienation between the motorist & yourself. IMO you will not be greatly improving road safety.
At the end of the day, we all have our opinions on what will make our roads safer & perhaps mine are different from others.
P.S Just spent a week in the North Lakes area & only saw one Camera, it was refreshing to be able to concentrate on driving, not just my speed, which was often at well below posted limits due to the challenging roads around the Lakes!
>> Edited by A57 HSV on Tuesday 30th August 14:49
IaHa said:
Covert enforcement as you describe is really no different from patrolling in an unmarked car, or sitting at a motorway slip road discretely observing traffic.
I would much prefer an unmarked car with someone in it to make an assessment of the standard of my driving rather than a "snap he was speeding" from some one in a hedge, and as such I don't think its quite the same at all.
Case in point, last Saturday I had to drive from J22 of the M5, to London to pick up my sister. (student, so I get to pay for her to come home
) The traffic was heavy in places, and I was travelling at a sedate 70-75mph, in lanes 1-2, allowing the nose to tail tailgaters to carry on in their lane three queue. Then, before the elevated section it all cleared, and the outside lane was empty. Since it was safe to do so, I increased my speed to around 90MPH and pulled into the third lane to overtake the slower vehicles in lane 2. As I did so I spotted a very white vectra (IIRC) also pull out into lane three a fair distance back, and then gain on me at great speed. (I just knew it was an unmarked, it looked too clean to be anything else) Knowing if they wanted to pull me for the speed they could already do so, I carried on at the same speed until they got a bit closer, then lifted off slightly to allow myslef to merge with the slower traffic to my left. As they passed, I could see the lights behind the grille, and a sidways glance meant I could see the (are they called lapels?) on their shoulders. After they passed I pulled back out into lane three and resumed passing the slower cars, it seemed as though they eased off a bit, They remained in my veiw for quite some time.
I think they came steaming up behind me to see if either a) i was going to try to race them, or b) I wasn't paying attention.
Result: I demonstrated appropriate use of speed, and good observation in seeing them, and letting them past, so they weren't bothered that I was 20mph over the limit, I get a reminder that the law is about, and to keep an eye on my rear view mirror, everyone goes home happy.
Compare that to (theoretically) sitting behind a hedge on the side of the motorway and two weeks later I get a letter in the post...Result: I am deeply annoyed, feel zero remorse and lose some of the respect for the hard working trafpol.
Regards,
Chris
>> Edited by chris1roll on Tuesday 30th August 19:51
IaHa said:
IaHa said:
I regularly use covert enforcement methods, and I see no problem with that. In some areas it is the only option.
In doing so however I like to make sure that the manner of driving which I report is worthy of enforcement.
And the penalties paid from these offences do not feature in any police force's profit and loss account.
Oh! so your'e a good gy then?
Yeh. Right!
Fine, a good method of catching speeding & dangerous motoring.
But, if you were clearly visible, might these offences be prevented & as such improve road safety.
IMO better to stop the offence ever happening, than to penalise an offence!
They may well be prevented in the area of the overt enforcement. Prior to and post the enforcement zone the driver may return to his high risk motoring. Covert detection means that the offender, once caught is going to be more aware that he could be caught again at any time.
But, as I emphasised, the offences prosecuted have to be appropriate for prosecution. If the driver's illegal act carries no added risk, then covert detection is a negative pointless exercise.
IaHa said:
If I witness someone from a covert position aggressively tailgating, perhaps undertaking aggressively while trying to attain a speed of around 110mph despite conditions and traffic volumes, then surely reporting that person for offences revealed is likely to be much more productive than simply being sat overtly on a hard standing giving the same motorist adequate opportunity to slow to a sedate 75mph, nodding politely as he passes, then roar off out of site to his ultimate destiny.
If you are seen the motorist will slow down? Which is what you want, isn't it? If he doesn't see you then he continues to speed. He just has to pay later.
So its not about raising money then?
wee man said:
If I witness someone from a covert position aggressively tailgating, perhaps undertaking aggressively while trying to attain a speed of around 110mph despite conditions and traffic volumes, then surely reporting that person for offences revealed is likely to be much more productive than simply being sat overtly on a hard standing giving the same motorist adequate opportunity to slow to a sedate 75mph, nodding politely as he passes, then roar off out of site to his ultimate destiny.
If you are seen the motorist will slow down? Which is what you want, isn't it? If he doesn't see you then he continues to speed. He just has to pay later.
So its not about raising money then?
No it's not.
And it's not all about speed.
There is a need for both methods of road policing - both covert and overt. I'm sure if you give it some thought, you'd agree.
gh0st said:
A57 HSV said:
IaHa said:
I regularly use covert enforcement methods, and I see no problem with that. In some areas it is the only option.
In doing so however I like to make sure that the manner of driving which I report is worthy of enforcement.
And the penalties paid from these offences do not feature in any police force's profit and loss account.
Fine, a good method of catching speeding & dangerous motoring.
But, if you were clearly visible, might these offences be prevented & as such improve road safety.
IMO better to stop the offence ever happening, than to penalise an offence!
They may well be prevented in the area of the overt enforcement. Prior to and post the enforcement zone the driver may return to his high risk motoring. Covert detection means that the offender, once caught is going to be more aware that he could be caught again at any time.
But, as I emphasised, the offences prosecuted have to be appropriate for prosecution. If the driver's illegal act carries no added risk, then covert detection is a negative pointless exercise.
Thereagain when i got done for my incredibly dangerous - in fact I can barely post for the sheer remorse that I feel - 77 in a 70 zone
So now you have yet another member of the public who is no fan of the police because of this and will be much less willing to help the police if required.
But hey ho - at least I know that the world is safe from people breaking a marginal speed limit.
Gh0st
Before people start wibbling on about the SCP not being the police - While I get NIPS issued by the local police station, they are the police. Its all the same face and if the individual policepersons are unwilling to distance themselves publicly then they are all the same group im afriad
Perhaps if you read my post on this thread (bottom of the page), you'll get an idea where I'm coming from on the great camera debate.
IaHa said:You do show some elements of understanding and sense, but I do have to ask what is so special about 110mph? And do how you ascertain that someone is trying to attain that speed?
...while trying to attain a speed of around 110mph despite conditions and traffic volumes...
I think that there may be a place for quantative speed enforcement - but without the impact of someone in authority (who knows the situation) giving the reason why such a speed is dangerous it loses all impact and becomes persecuion of the motorist (at least to the driver involved).
A camera record an instant in time. That is not enough to judge the context in which the picture is taken. That, together with the patenetly obvious fact that exceeding the speed limit does not (as singular factor) cause any harm to anyone - in fact, given Einstein's equations the acceleration and de-acceleration increase the lifespan of the car's occupants relative to everyone else - lead many to conclude that static speed enforcement is bunk! Exacerbate this by reducing police costs (we all know that scamera funds don't appear on the P&L because the pratnerships pay for the time) and it looks to most as if the police are out to fleeece the motorist for cash.
Of course, they want the cash to help fund other - no doubt, worthy - objectives, but in the mind of many motorists they could achieve the same by robbing a bank every couple of months.
Policing is not about pulling everybody onto the centre line. It's about keeping everybody on the same road, stopping people from falling (or being pushed) into the ditch or taking the wrong turning at the crossroads.
IaHa said:<snip!>
The important part, which has been largely lost in the propaganda overspill to support speed cameras, is that the offences have to be appropriate for covert detection to be beneficial.
If I witness someone from a covert position aggressively tailgating, perhaps undertaking aggressively while trying to attain a speed of around 110mph despite conditions and traffic volumes
Spot on, I think this would probably be in accord with most PHers' views but they're confusing the covert camera use with your covert patrolling in an unmarked car...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff