Speeding police
Discussion
Coming home today and heading toward a well known Gatso (approaching from the front) a Police 4x4 going in the opposite direction triggered the camera. It's a 30mph zone, he didn't have any flashing blue lights and whilst he didn't appear to be going excessively quickly, it was obviously above whatever limit the camera is set to trigger at. Now assuming that there was any film in the camera, what are the chances of the driver being prosecuted for speeding?
Where's the tongue in cheek smiley?
Where's the tongue in cheek smiley?
Just because the auxiliary warning equipment wasn't in use, doesn't necessarily mean that the officer wasn't on a "shout". I can't speak for other forces, but my employer requires that speed camera activations are recorded on the computersied incident log of whichever incident the officer was attending. If not, and the officer has no reason for exceeding the speed limit, and can be identified, then they should (in theory) get the same £60/3point penalty as everyone else.
In Layman's terms, the exemption from speed limits for Police (and certain other emergency service) vehicles goes along the lines of "speed limits can be exceeded if to obey them would hinder the use of the vehicle at the time being used for Police purposes". There is no statutory definition of what "Police purposes" is. Some would be obvious eg responding to emergency call, but there may be others that wouldn't be as easy to define.
I am not so naive to suggest that there aren't some officers who may fabricate an incident in an attempt to get off a speeding ticket, but I would say they will be in a very small minority.
In Layman's terms, the exemption from speed limits for Police (and certain other emergency service) vehicles goes along the lines of "speed limits can be exceeded if to obey them would hinder the use of the vehicle at the time being used for Police purposes". There is no statutory definition of what "Police purposes" is. Some would be obvious eg responding to emergency call, but there may be others that wouldn't be as easy to define.
I am not so naive to suggest that there aren't some officers who may fabricate an incident in an attempt to get off a speeding ticket, but I would say they will be in a very small minority.
Dibble said:
"speed limits can be exceeded if to obey them would hinder the use of the vehicle at the time being used for Police purposes". There is no statutory definition of what "Police purposes" is.
So what you're saying is that it's likely that someone back at the station had just put the kettle on! Forgive me for being cynical, but he just didn't appear to be on any sort of shout, blue lights or no.
Lambochick said:
So what you're saying is that it's likely that someone back at the station had just put the kettle on! Forgive me for being cynical, but he just didn't appear to be on any sort of shout, blue lights or no.
No, I'm not saying that at all.
There are loads of scenarios where an officer could legitimately be exceeding the limit, but without blues and twos.
There are frequent "observations requested for..." given out over the radio. Sometimes the obs are for vehicles that have been, or are suspected of having been, involved in firearms incidents. Unarmed officers won't stop them, but they may try to follow to pass location and direction of the subject vehicle. The officer may have to exceed the limit to get closer to the vehicle.
The officer may be trying to catch up with a vehicle he or she wants to stop, but the officer may have decided on a safe stopping location away from the place they are at the moment, so doesn't use the lights, as they don't want the driver to stop just yet - indeed, they may even be waiting for the result of a PNC check.
The officer may have thought the driver was someone he or she recognised, and was waiting for the result of a PNC check to see if they were a disqualified driver, so no lights activated at that point.
Of course, the officer may just be breaking the speed limit without reason.
Lambochick said:
"speed limits can be exceeded if to obey them would hinder the use of the vehicle at the time being used for Police purposes". There is no statutory definition of what "Police purposes" is.
So what you're saying is that it's likely that someone back at the station had just put the kettle on! Forgive me for being cynical, but he just didn't appear to be on any sort of shout, blue lights or no.
If he has a valid excuse he'll be able to make use of the exemption. If not, he won't.
Dibble said:
So what you're saying is that it's likely that someone back at the station had just put the kettle on! Forgive me for being cynical, but he just didn't appear to be on any sort of shout, blue lights or no.
No, I'm not saying that at all.
There are loads of scenarios where an officer could legitimately be exceeding the limit, but without blues and twos.
Yep, I agree, although the general public will always be cynical when they see police driving at speed without the lights/sirens.
Funny, we had this conversation an hour ago at lunch, everyone is quite ready to jump and say 'he's late for his Krispy Kreme doughnuts' but once you give people a few scenarios the pack mentality subsides a little.
The scenario I always quote is the drugs bust; you dont want to give them any warning you are 1/2 a mile away, right?
Dibble said:
If not, and the officer has no reason for exceeding the speed limit, and can be identified, then they should (in theory) get the same £60/3point penalty as everyone else.
Surely the police have the same statutory duty as every other organisation which has cars, vans etc? That is they keep a record of who is driving at all times. In a company the company secretary can be given the points if the driver can’t be identified. One would suggest that the appropriate person to receive the points in a police force if a driver can’t be identified is the Chief Constable
plasticpig said:
If not, and the officer has no reason for exceeding the speed limit, and can be identified, then they should (in theory) get the same £60/3point penalty as everyone else.
Surely the police have the same statutory duty as every other organisation which has cars, vans etc? That is they keep a record of who is driving at all times. In a company the company secretary can be given the points if the driver can’t be identified. One would suggest that the appropriate person to receive the points in a police force if a driver can’t be identified is the Chief Constable
DvD might be the one to answer this one with reference to the legal requirements, but since time immemorial, there have always been problems getting officers to fill in vehicle log books.
There is no statutory duty, other than vehicles on Tacho, for the name of a driver to be recorded, although at a Divisional Court where a person escaped prosecution because he could not name the driver of a particular vehicle, the Judge mentioned that records should be kept where multi use occurs.
As far as most Police are concerned then it is Force Policy for every use of a vehicle to be recorded (HO/RT/10 if memory serves me right) but as Dibble states entries can be missed by design or accident.
Last year CC of a Force down South (reported and commented on in this Forum)was fined for failing to name after a CID vehicle tripped the light fantastic and enquiries within the Force failed to come up with the driver.
dvd
As far as most Police are concerned then it is Force Policy for every use of a vehicle to be recorded (HO/RT/10 if memory serves me right) but as Dibble states entries can be missed by design or accident.
Last year CC of a Force down South (reported and commented on in this Forum)was fined for failing to name after a CID vehicle tripped the light fantastic and enquiries within the Force failed to come up with the driver.
dvd
Dibble said:
DvD might be the one to answer this one with reference to the legal requirements, but since time immemorial, there have always been problems getting officers to fill in vehicle log books.
S172 RTA said:my emphasis
(6) Where the alleged offender is a body corporate, or in Scotland a partnership or an unincorporated association, or the proceedings are brought against him by virtue of subsection (5) above or subsection (11) below, subsection (4) above shall not apply unless, in addition to the matters there mentioned, the alleged offender shows that no record was kept of the persons who drove the vehicle and that the failure to keep a record was reasonable.
It may well be that problems exist getting officers to complete the log forms but, as far as the law is concerned, would a statement of 'We just can't get anyone to fill the book in' be acceptable as a reasonable excuse for not doing so ??
Just a bit of devil's advocacy, Dibble..
>> Edited by SS2. on Thursday 9th February 21:13
I suppose (as with many things) it would be down to the Courts to determine what is, or is not, reasonable.
I think it would be a much better idea if there was some way of ensuring that the driver of a Police vehicle was in some way recorded - it might encourage better driver behaviour by Police drivers' if they thought there was a greater chance of any "misdemeanours" being detected.
We have our own logins on the firm's computers, but this is only your ID number and a password, so although there is some sort of audit trail, it's not infallible. I know of forces where the warrant card also doubles as a swipe card, not only for access to buildings, but also to log on to any computer. If this was extended to Police vehicles, that might be a step in the right direction (it could even be used to make sure that drivers only used vehicels they were qualified to drive). However, knowing the state most forces IT systems are in, it wouldn't be too long before someone tried to use a vehicle, their swipe card wouldn't let them, and MoP ends up injured or worse because of a delayed Police response...
Again, even the use of swipe cards for IT vehicles isn't infallible, but what is? Biometric data? But then, the more complicated the technology, the greater the chance of failure.
I think it would be a much better idea if there was some way of ensuring that the driver of a Police vehicle was in some way recorded - it might encourage better driver behaviour by Police drivers' if they thought there was a greater chance of any "misdemeanours" being detected.
We have our own logins on the firm's computers, but this is only your ID number and a password, so although there is some sort of audit trail, it's not infallible. I know of forces where the warrant card also doubles as a swipe card, not only for access to buildings, but also to log on to any computer. If this was extended to Police vehicles, that might be a step in the right direction (it could even be used to make sure that drivers only used vehicels they were qualified to drive). However, knowing the state most forces IT systems are in, it wouldn't be too long before someone tried to use a vehicle, their swipe card wouldn't let them, and MoP ends up injured or worse because of a delayed Police response...
Again, even the use of swipe cards for IT vehicles isn't infallible, but what is? Biometric data? But then, the more complicated the technology, the greater the chance of failure.
Sorry it just doesn't wash. The other day I was stopped under S44 of the Terrorism Act which allows stop and search at random. The record of this pointless exercise will be kept forever as far as I can see. Twenty minuts of my time and that of two police and a couple of steet avenger jonies or whatever they are called totally wasted; and you can't get policemen to fill in their car logs. If they cannot do their jobs they hould be disciplined and if recidivists sacked. At least the Shropshie 150+ loonie has to face a retrial.
I have also when working near Snow Hill police station in hte City sen what counts as police business. car came screeching round the corner lights and siren on , slammedd to a stop outside teh station and senior office gets out and saunters into the station. Time? about 1300.. I wonder what police business he was on.
I have also when working near Snow Hill police station in hte City sen what counts as police business. car came screeching round the corner lights and siren on , slammedd to a stop outside teh station and senior office gets out and saunters into the station. Time? about 1300.. I wonder what police business he was on.
Dibble said:
I think it would be a much better idea if there was some way of ensuring that the driver of a Police vehicle was in some way recorded - it might encourage better driver behaviour by Police drivers' if they thought there was a greater chance of any "misdemeanours" being detected.
I think that's a very good point. But at the same time, how about the possibility that some drivers deliberately avoid signing the logs for this very reason ?? Don't feel obliged to answer that one
Dibble said:
We have our own logins on the firm's computers, but this is only your ID number and a password, so although there is some sort of audit trail, it's not infallible. I know of forces where the warrant card also doubles as a swipe card, not only for access to buildings, but also to log on to any computer. If this was extended to Police vehicles, that might be a step in the right direction (it could even be used to make sure that drivers only used vehicels they were qualified to drive). However, knowing the state most forces IT systems are in, it wouldn't be too long before someone tried to use a vehicle, their swipe card wouldn't let them, and MoP ends up injured or worse because of a delayed Police response...
Probably a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Surely a physical log-in, log-out system (be it book or computer) would be more than sufficient to ensure compliance with the law. The problem, as you have pointed out, is ensuring drivers are prepared to do a bit of basic form filling..
Believe me, if you get caught not booking out a car (marked or unmarked), you get into serious poop. Each time you take a car you have to check it for damage, tyre pressures, equipment carried, mileage tallies etc. If there is a discrepency on the mileage, i.e there is 3000 miles on the odemeter but the book says 2997 miles, the first thing you do is walk away and report it to a supervisor. If they then find extra damage (and sometimes if they don't), they will look at surveillance footage to find out who took the vehicle.
Booking cars in and out is probably one of the best kept records at any station.
Booking cars in and out is probably one of the best kept records at any station.
It gets really boring reading threads like this ..... it seems people just love to assume the worst of police officers - all the time. There may be loads of reasons they were breaking the speed limit - and there may not. It is for the driver to quantify if or when he receives an NIP at work.
And before someone rattles on about the officer doing 159 - that was one officer in one force and he is now deep in the sh**e.
>> Edited by john57 on Thursday 9th February 23:10
And before someone rattles on about the officer doing 159 - that was one officer in one force and he is now deep in the sh**e.
>> Edited by john57 on Thursday 9th February 23:10
Dwight VanDriver said:
There is no statutory duty, other than vehicles on Tacho, for the name of a driver to be recorded, although at a Divisional Court where a person escaped prosecution because he could not name the driver of a particular vehicle, the Judge mentioned that records should be kept where multi use occurs.
Thats how I got on of my taxi drivers off of a ticket. I was given the same advice by the Mags. Am I now obliged to do this, or can I disregard their advice?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff