M23 - New unmarked cars in bid to cut deaths
Discussion
taken from the Argus website
"Signs warn of unmarked police cars on deadly stretch of A23
Signs alerting motorists to unmarked police cars operating on a dangerous stretch of road in Sussex were unveiled today.
Sussex Police said the initiative has been prompted by the deaths of 23 people on the A23 in the past three years.
Police patrol the road 24 hours a day but, as part of a renewed effort to cut the number of deaths, the force has bought three unmarked cars.
Signs stating "police unmarked cars operating" will alert drivers to the scheme, which is the first of its kind in England."
Surely a more visible presence in the way of marked cars would have more impact?
"Signs warn of unmarked police cars on deadly stretch of A23
Signs alerting motorists to unmarked police cars operating on a dangerous stretch of road in Sussex were unveiled today.
Sussex Police said the initiative has been prompted by the deaths of 23 people on the A23 in the past three years.
Police patrol the road 24 hours a day but, as part of a renewed effort to cut the number of deaths, the force has bought three unmarked cars.
Signs stating "police unmarked cars operating" will alert drivers to the scheme, which is the first of its kind in England."
Surely a more visible presence in the way of marked cars would have more impact?
But marked cars wouldn't catch so many and thus would not be 'cash-positive'. It's nothing to do with road safety otherwise, as you say, they would use marked cars.
The question is, if you were a female and an unmarked car attempted to stop you sometime ater midnight, would you stop? I would certainly advisemy daughter not to do so if she wwas alone, but to drive to the nearest service area or town and find a marked police car, use her mobile to call 999 to check the validity of the unmarked car, or to find a police station (not easy these days). Unmarked cars could be anyone.
The question is, if you were a female and an unmarked car attempted to stop you sometime ater midnight, would you stop? I would certainly advisemy daughter not to do so if she wwas alone, but to drive to the nearest service area or town and find a marked police car, use her mobile to call 999 to check the validity of the unmarked car, or to find a police station (not easy these days). Unmarked cars could be anyone.
There has been a few rather nasty incidents in recent years with multiple fatalities. I believe in one incident alone there was 7 fatalities. Car travelling south lost control and crossed onto northbound carriageway. 5 Occupants of 3 series killed and 2 in a Freelander.
This part of the road in not unsafe. There is a section higher up called Handcross Hill which sees accidents on an extremely regular basis. It is where the M23 goes down to 2 lanes and the surface is very poor and downhill with tightish bends.
This part of the road in not unsafe. There is a section higher up called Handcross Hill which sees accidents on an extremely regular basis. It is where the M23 goes down to 2 lanes and the surface is very poor and downhill with tightish bends.
Edited by r6blacky on Wednesday 17th January 16:55
Also discussed at www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?t=343948&f=10&h=0 although from a different slant.
The 7 deaths referred to above involved a teenage driver driving other teenagers in a borrowed BMW, possibly 7 series. I think you'll find he was driving at a truly excessive speed and he went through the central reservation collecting a Discovery (I think) coming the other way.
Handcross Hill can be dangerous although I think the real danger is caused by very slow lorries going up the hill, and people pulling out to pass them without realising the speed of traffic coming up behind them.
But the rest of the raod should be easily drivable at a speed in excess of the limit. One advantage of this policy is the chance to get off if stopped. Other areas would have introduced speed cameras!
The 7 deaths referred to above involved a teenage driver driving other teenagers in a borrowed BMW, possibly 7 series. I think you'll find he was driving at a truly excessive speed and he went through the central reservation collecting a Discovery (I think) coming the other way.
Handcross Hill can be dangerous although I think the real danger is caused by very slow lorries going up the hill, and people pulling out to pass them without realising the speed of traffic coming up behind them.
But the rest of the raod should be easily drivable at a speed in excess of the limit. One advantage of this policy is the chance to get off if stopped. Other areas would have introduced speed cameras!
cj_eds said:
Never been on this road, but surely a number of fatalities like that means theres also something wrong with the road design?
Nope. It's a perfectly ordinary piece of 70 mph dual carraigeway.
A few folks recently haven't been able to keep their
cars on the tarmac, including one particularly unskilled
driver, a youngster, who went on tragically to kill some
innocent folks travelling in the opposite direction.
Local folks have campaigned for a speed camera [ FFS! ],
but seemingly there aren't enough deaths to justify it.
I think it is only a matter of time before a speed
camera is installed on this road.
chrisgr31 said:
Also discussed at www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?t=343948&f=10&h=0 although from a different slant.
The 7 deaths referred to above involved a teenage driver driving other teenagers in a borrowed BMW, possibly 7 series. I think you'll find he was driving at a truly excessive speed and he went through the central reservation collecting a Discovery (I think) coming the other way.
Handcross Hill can be dangerous although I think the real danger is caused by very slow lorries going up the hill, and people pulling out to pass them without realising the speed of traffic coming up behind them.
But the rest of the raod should be easily drivable at a speed in excess of the limit. One advantage of this policy is the chance to get off if stopped. Other areas would have introduced speed cameras!
The 7 deaths referred to above involved a teenage driver driving other teenagers in a borrowed BMW, possibly 7 series. I think you'll find he was driving at a truly excessive speed and he went through the central reservation collecting a Discovery (I think) coming the other way.
Handcross Hill can be dangerous although I think the real danger is caused by very slow lorries going up the hill, and people pulling out to pass them without realising the speed of traffic coming up behind them.
But the rest of the raod should be easily drivable at a speed in excess of the limit. One advantage of this policy is the chance to get off if stopped. Other areas would have introduced speed cameras!
Pretty sure it was a 3 series and he hit a Freelander (killed father and very young son IIRC). Driver turned out to be the grandson of one of my father's neighbours (never met him)
I was going to post this myself as its my daily commute. Surely it would be better for more marked cars and/or (cant believe Im about to say this) 2 or 3 fixed cameras? Unmarked cars (especially one in particular that is known for 'goading' speeders) will increase convictions but surely wont slow the traffic/make the A23 safer?
Police officers doing enforcement in unmarked cars don't give a hoot about any cash from fines. The money goes straight into court funds, the Police don't see it.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
r6blacky said:
Surely a more visible presence in the way of marked cars would have more impact?
Ah, but doing that wouldn't breed 'the fear' in people that the government and authorities at large seems determined to instill in all of us at every given opportunity.
If they wanted a deterent, visible cars.
If they wanted compliance through fear, unmarked.
I really can't believe the country I live in sometimes
cooperman said:
But marked cars wouldn't catch so many and thus would not be 'cash-positive'. It's nothing to do with road safety otherwise, as you say, they would use marked cars.
The question is, if you were a female and an unmarked car attempted to stop you sometime ater midnight, would you stop? I would certainly advisemy daughter not to do so if she wwas alone, but to drive to the nearest service area or town and find a marked police car, use her mobile to call 999 to check the validity of the unmarked car, or to find a police station (not easy these days). Unmarked cars could be anyone.
The question is, if you were a female and an unmarked car attempted to stop you sometime ater midnight, would you stop? I would certainly advisemy daughter not to do so if she wwas alone, but to drive to the nearest service area or town and find a marked police car, use her mobile to call 999 to check the validity of the unmarked car, or to find a police station (not easy these days). Unmarked cars could be anyone.
someone always raises this issue
if stopped there is no reason to get out, a point clearly demonstrated on the labour party voice piece when they filmed cheshire police
society is no more dangerous than it ever was - it just gets reported more - as a way of keeping you down
vonhosen said:
Police officers doing enforcement in unmarked cars don't give a hoot about any cash from fines. The money goes straight into court funds, the Police don't see it.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
That's a text book description of oppression.
vonhosen said:
Police officers doing enforcement in unmarked cars don't give a hoot about any cash from fines. The money goes straight into court funds, the Police don't see it.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
The philosophy behind this is very simple: if you want to detect and convict a crime AFTER it is committed you will use unmarked cars.
If you want lower conviction rates but much more visible police presence and therefore true deterrence, you will use marked cars.
If you deter, you will undoubtedly influence, and hopefully reduce, accident rates.
You will also accrue a reputation for doing so as ALL drivers, not just the ones that are stopped, will be aware of a constant, visible police presence, simply because it is there.
The classic example of this was Manhattan after Rudolph Guiliani was elected: he virtually eliminated street crime simply by having a big Chevy police car with lights, gun racks and police badges on the side on every other corner.
Two cops either inside or standing by the vehicle ready to deal with anything.
The last set of figures I had for the contrast between marked and unmarked was that the conviction rate for the unmarked was almost three times that of the marked.
The deterrent effect of the unmarked was utterly dismal; but they brought in the revenue.
Incidentally VH, I don't think the average driver gives a toss who gets the fines; it still comes out of their pockets!
The point Cooperman makes is extremely pertinent: I was involved in a case not long ago where the driver of an unmarked car almost scared a young mother to death tailgating her at night on a single carriageway.
When I demanded the tape from the Provida as evidence, the case was mysteriously dropped!
vonhosen said:
Police officers doing enforcement in unmarked cars don't give a hoot about any cash from fines. The money goes straight into court funds, the Police don't see it.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
George Orwell, 1984, ring any bells.
IT SHOULD!
vonhosen said:
Police officers doing enforcement in unmarked cars don't give a hoot about any cash from fines. The money goes straight into court funds, the Police don't see it.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
That's the sad part, isn't it? - the fundamental objective being to get people to "moderate" their driving (that is, their speed), rather than to get them to drive better.
Then when they moderate their speed they moderate their alertness and involvement, because they won't be nicked for compromising actions that must be judged, only for those that can be measured.
andmole said:
vonhosen said:
Police officers doing enforcement in unmarked cars don't give a hoot about any cash from fines. The money goes straight into court funds, the Police don't see it.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
George Orwell, 1984, ring any bells.
IT SHOULD!
So perhaps we should have no plain clothed officers for robbery patrols etc ?
It doesn't matter what the offence is, those who are pre-disposed to offend aren't stopped by marked patrols, they are displaced by them to where there isn't a marked patrol. Marked patrols reassure the public, because offending is less likely where there is one, but you can't simply flood large areas with them, there are insufficient resources.
Unmarked patrols deal with those who are pre-disposed to offending & where it is known that they do patrol, they can still have a deterrent effect (hence the advertising in this case).
Can you tell me what there is to fear from an unmarked patrol, where you are doing no wrong ?
There will always be a need for both marked & unmarked vehicles. As it stands trafpol marked fleets far outsize their unmarked fleets.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 17th January 22:06
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
Police officers doing enforcement in unmarked cars don't give a hoot about any cash from fines. The money goes straight into court funds, the Police don't see it.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
That's the sad part, isn't it? - the fundamental objective being to get people to "moderate" their driving (that is, their speed), rather than to get them to drive better.
Then when they moderate their speed they moderate their alertness and involvement, because they won't be nicked for compromising actions that must be judged, only for those that can be measured.
I didn't mention speed.
The same can apply for distance they keep from others, aggressive behaviour, manner of over/undertakinga etc.
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
Police officers doing enforcement in unmarked cars don't give a hoot about any cash from fines. The money goes straight into court funds, the Police don't see it.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
That's the sad part, isn't it? - the fundamental objective being to get people to "moderate" their driving (that is, their speed), rather than to get them to drive better.
Then when they moderate their speed they moderate their alertness and involvement, because they won't be nicked for compromising actions that must be judged, only for those that can be measured.
I didn't mention speed.
The same can apply for distance they keep from others, aggressive behaviour, manner of over/undertakinga etc.
Well...
We know that there might be unmarked cars on any road at any time. Nonetheless one regularly sees all manner of aggressive behaviour.
The following might be an exaggeration, vh, but I don't think so.
Apart from when the weather is poor, I literally cannot recall the last time I saw someone driving outside a built-up area at an inappropriate speed.
Yet I am bound to say that every single day I see morons who run red lights flagrantly (not just marginally), take short cuts across roundabouts, intimidate pedestrians and cyclists, tailgate like there's no tomorrow, drive in the wrong lane, and undertake dangerously.
It really and truly does seem that these examples of aggressive, selfish, incompetent driving are vastly more common and vastly more dangerous to innocent bystanders than speeding is.
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
Police officers doing enforcement in unmarked cars don't give a hoot about any cash from fines. The money goes straight into court funds, the Police don't see it.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
That's the sad part, isn't it? - the fundamental objective being to get people to "moderate" their driving (that is, their speed), rather than to get them to drive better.
Then when they moderate their speed they moderate their alertness and involvement, because they won't be nicked for compromising actions that must be judged, only for those that can be measured.
I didn't mention speed.
The same can apply for distance they keep from others, aggressive behaviour, manner of over/undertakinga etc.
Well...
We know that there might be unmarked cars on any road at any time. Nonetheless one regularly sees all manner of aggressive behaviour.
The following might be an exaggeration, vh, but I don't think so.
Apart from when the weather is poor, I literally cannot recall the last time I saw someone driving outside a built-up area at an inappropriate speed.
Yet I am bound to say that every single day I see morons who run red lights flagrantly (not just marginally), take short cuts across roundabouts, intimidate pedestrians and cyclists, tailgate like there's no tomorrow, drive in the wrong lane, and undertake dangerously.
It really and truly does seem that these examples of aggressive, selfish, incompetent driving are vastly more common and vastly more dangerous to innocent bystanders than speeding is.
But the advertising of these unmarked cars gives the deterrent value (as it is being made aware that Police are actively watching this area), over a wider area (as it isn't confined to just where they can see a marked car) & will provide detections where those who commit offences still do., whatever facet of poor driving they display.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 17th January 22:41
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
Police officers doing enforcement in unmarked cars don't give a hoot about any cash from fines. The money goes straight into court funds, the Police don't see it.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
If it's marked cars, people only have to moderate their driving infront of 3 easy to spot vehicles.
If it's 3 unmarked cars, they have to moderate their driving over greater periods because they can feel less comfortable offending infront of cars they are not sure about.
That's the sad part, isn't it? - the fundamental objective being to get people to "moderate" their driving (that is, their speed), rather than to get them to drive better.
Then when they moderate their speed they moderate their alertness and involvement, because they won't be nicked for compromising actions that must be judged, only for those that can be measured.
I didn't mention speed.
The same can apply for distance they keep from others, aggressive behaviour, manner of over/undertakinga etc.
Well...
We know that there might be unmarked cars on any road at any time. Nonetheless one regularly sees all manner of aggressive behaviour.
The following might be an exaggeration, vh, but I don't think so.
Apart from when the weather is poor, I literally cannot recall the last time I saw someone driving outside a built-up area at an inappropriate speed.
Yet I am bound to say that every single day I see morons who run red lights flagrantly (not just marginally), take short cuts across roundabouts, intimidate pedestrians and cyclists, tailgate like there's no tomorrow, drive in the wrong lane, and undertake dangerously.
It really and truly does seem that these examples of aggressive, selfish, incompetent driving are vastly more common and vastly more dangerous to innocent bystanders than speeding is.
But the advertising of these unmarked cars gives the deterrent value (as it is being made aware that Police are actively watching this area), over a wider area (as it isn't confined to just where they can see a marked car) & will provide detections where those who commit offences still do., whatever facet of poor driving they display.
You might be right, but the evidence - at least the evidence before my eyes - suggests otherwise.
As I say, I see a shedload of disgraceful driving every single day. I am certain that you do as well.
The fact that there is no more than a slim chance of being spotted and pulled by a Trafpol appears to be discounted by drivers to no chance whatsoever of being pulled.
I'd submit that for unmarked cars to improve shitty driving to a meaningful degree, there must be a substantial chance of being pulled for shitty driving, which would require, for a guess, at least five times as many unmarked cars as we have at present, rather than a token three more cars.
It is obvious at present that most people presume that, unless they speed, go into a bus lane, or maybe run a red light, they can drive however they like with impunity.
Therefore the choice is between three marked cars that provide both a bit of deterrent immediately and a residual deterrent for some period thereafter ("I wonder if he's still behind me?"
) and three unmarked cars which, because of their simple disproportionality, have no actual effect on almost anyone. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff