speed gun controversy

[nigel_bytes]

A traffic policeman in York was filmed hiding behind a tree - apparently trying to catch speeding motorists. Lawyers say the officer was breaking national police guidelines.
see it here,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/looknorthyorkslincs/latest_st...

[Jasandjules]

Still won't affect whether or not the motorist was breaking the speed limit though?

[mark69sheer]

No but it does add weight to the argument that speed cameras are simply to collect cash

By hiding the policeman is not indicating to motorists that this is a dangerous piece of road where speed is important.

He is not proactively slowing the traffic down

In fact he is deliberately allowing it to go fast.

[JustinP1]

mark69sheer said:

No but it does add weight to the argument that speed cameras are simply to collect cash

By hiding the policeman is not indicating to motorists that this is a dangerous piece of road where speed is important.

He is not proactively slowing the traffic down

In fact he is deliberately allowing it to go fast.

It is a nice touch that one of the coppers thought that for health and safety reasons a hi-vis jacket was necessary, but the one with the gun behind the tree is all in black...!

I don't think anyone is in any illusion (police included) that they are there to encourage people to *slow down*. They are there to *catch people*.

[Dibble]

I've used LTI 20-20 at the roadside, in a 30mph limit, next to a marked traffic car with lights going, camera signs 400 metres away, wearing white hat, yellow coat and yellow overtrousers, and still checked people at way more than 30 within a couple of hundred metres.

You don't need to hide behind a tree to catch people.

[JustinP1]

Dibble said:

I've used LTI 20-20 at the roadside, in a 30mph limit, next to a marked traffic car with lights going, camera signs 400 metres away, wearing white hat, yellow coat and yellow overtrousers, and still checked people at way more than 30 within a couple of hundred metres.

You don't need to hide behind a tree to catch people.

...but it helps!

[Dibble]

JustinP1 said:

Dibble said:

I've used LTI 20-20 at the roadside, in a 30mph limit, next to a marked traffic car with lights going, camera signs 400 metres away, wearing white hat, yellow coat and yellow overtrousers, and still checked people at way more than 30 within a couple of hundred metres.

You don't need to hide behind a tree to catch people.

...but it helps!

I've had roads closed off, traffic cars parked perpendicular to the carriageway, cones, signs, lights going, the works. But you still get people trying to drive through!

Or when you step out in front of a car (the only car on the road, in either direction...) to stop it, and when they eventually do stop, they say "I didn't realise you meant me..."

[vonhosen]

mark69sheer said:

No but it does add weight to the argument that speed cameras are simply to collect cash

By hiding the policeman is not indicating to motorists that this is a dangerous piece of road where speed is important.

He is not proactively slowing the traffic down

In fact he is deliberately allowing it to go fast.

The preventative measure in stopping people driving at higher speeds there is the set speed limit.
The enforcement bit is the Police officer.

[andmole]

vonhosen said:

mark69sheer said:

No but it does add weight to the argument that speed cameras are simply to collect cash

By hiding the policeman is not indicating to motorists that this is a dangerous piece of road where speed is important.

He is not proactively slowing the traffic down

In fact he is deliberately allowing it to go fast.

The preventative measure in stopping people driving at higher speeds there is the set speed limit.
The enforcement bit is the Police officer.

But he is still in breach of the APCO "guidelines".

Oh just "guidelines" are they, well what happens if those that apply to behaviour in custody suites are broken?

Von, you are right in your distinction between prevention and enforcement, (up to a point), but even you have to agree that this behaviour can only further harm the image of the police in the eyes of the ordinary motorist. And who does that benefit?

I would also question the accuracy of the device when used in this manner, certainly makes it a lot harder to use. For heavens sake if he's hiding behind a tree at least he could have leant against the tree to steady his aim, not try to keep the device hidden when he wasn't pointing it. In fact watching the clip on News 24, I can understand how someone catching sight of his behaviour could mistake the LTI 20-20 for a firearm.

[Brother Mycroft]

Dibble said:

JustinP1 said:

Dibble said:

I've used LTI 20-20 at the roadside, in a 30mph limit, next to a marked traffic car with lights going, camera signs 400 metres away, wearing white hat, yellow coat and yellow overtrousers, and still checked people at way more than 30 within a couple of hundred metres.

You don't need to hide behind a tree to catch people.

...but it helps!

I've had roads closed off, traffic cars parked perpendicular to the carriageway, cones, signs, lights going, the works. But you still get people trying to drive through!

Or when you step out in front of a car (the only car on the road, in either direction...) to stop it, and when they eventually do stop, they say "I didn't realise you meant me..."

Your 'apochryphal' tales of how [apparently] stupid the general driver is is just a fog.

The plain fact is that you see a 'colleague'/'fellow officer' behaving shabbily and knowing you can't justify the action you fog the issue by saying recounting clap-trap.

Are you familiar with the term 'apologist'?

[Brother Mycroft]

vonhosen said:

mark69sheer said:

No but it does add weight to the argument that speed cameras are simply to collect cash

By hiding the policeman is not indicating to motorists that this is a dangerous piece of road where speed is important.

He is not proactively slowing the traffic down

In fact he is deliberately allowing it to go fast.

The preventative measure in stopping people driving at higher speeds there is the set speed limit.
The enforcement bit is the Police officer.

Enforcement of the speed limit would merely require the presence of a copper visible to all, to skulk in the bushes is to just dumb down the driving in this country further.

[allaway]

ACPO guidelines refer to photographic traps IE ticket thru the post and are not a legal requirement. Was the officer waving drivers in? If so this doesnt apply.

[vonhosen]

Brother Mycroft said:

vonhosen said:

mark69sheer said:

No but it does add weight to the argument that speed cameras are simply to collect cash

By hiding the policeman is not indicating to motorists that this is a dangerous piece of road where speed is important.

He is not proactively slowing the traffic down

In fact he is deliberately allowing it to go fast.

The preventative measure in stopping people driving at higher speeds there is the set speed limit.
The enforcement bit is the Police officer.

Enforcement of the speed limit would merely require the presence of a copper visible to all, to skulk in the bushes is to just dumb down the driving in this country further.

But you should always be adhering to the limit, not just in the presence of the officer.
There is a place for covert enforcement.

[Brother Mycroft]

vonhosen said:

Brother Mycroft said:

vonhosen said:

mark69sheer said:

No but it does add weight to the argument that speed cameras are simply to collect cash

By hiding the policeman is not indicating to motorists that this is a dangerous piece of road where speed is important.

He is not proactively slowing the traffic down

In fact he is deliberately allowing it to go fast.

The preventative measure in stopping people driving at higher speeds there is the set speed limit.
The enforcement bit is the Police officer.

Enforcement of the speed limit would merely require the presence of a copper visible to all, to skulk in the bushes is to just dumb down the driving in this country further.

But you should always be adhering to the limit, not just in the presence of the officer.
There is a place for covert enforcement.

Yes, but enforcement is what this is about and a better bit of enforcement would be to slow the cars not penalise those that drive through unimpeded.

So, tell me Mr. Vonhosen which is better?

To [a] penalise a driver but not slow him until he sees you or [b] stand out conspicuously and slow the drivers with your presence?

[Broccers]

I'm more bothered that we are paying for two people playing hide and seek generating revenue.

I'd care but I'm currently fighting for my right to drink 20 pints a day of fresh non uht milk which have made me so obese that I've had to consume 2 bottles of wine a night to console myself- all this however is not my fault and I'm currently awaiting a law to solve the problem.

[Yoda954]

Brother Mycroft said:

Dibble said:

JustinP1 said:

Dibble said:

I've used LTI 20-20 at the roadside, in a 30mph limit, next to a marked traffic car with lights going, camera signs 400 metres away, wearing white hat, yellow coat and yellow overtrousers, and still checked people at way more than 30 within a couple of hundred metres.

You don't need to hide behind a tree to catch people.

...but it helps!

I've had roads closed off, traffic cars parked perpendicular to the carriageway, cones, signs, lights going, the works. But you still get people trying to drive through!

Or when you step out in front of a car (the only car on the road, in either direction...) to stop it, and when they eventually do stop, they say "I didn't realise you meant me..."

Your 'apochryphal' tales of how [apparently] stupid the general driver is is just a fog.

The plain fact is that you see a 'colleague'/'fellow officer' behaving shabbily and knowing you can't justify the action you fog the issue by saying recounting clap-trap.

Are you familiar with the term 'apologist'?

Are you familiar with the term ad hominem?

[vonhosen]

Brother Mycroft said:

vonhosen said:

Brother Mycroft said:

vonhosen said:

mark69sheer said:

No but it does add weight to the argument that speed cameras are simply to collect cash

By hiding the policeman is not indicating to motorists that this is a dangerous piece of road where speed is important.

He is not proactively slowing the traffic down

In fact he is deliberately allowing it to go fast.

The preventative measure in stopping people driving at higher speeds there is the set speed limit.
The enforcement bit is the Police officer.

Enforcement of the speed limit would merely require the presence of a copper visible to all, to skulk in the bushes is to just dumb down the driving in this country further.

But you should always be adhering to the limit, not just in the presence of the officer.
There is a place for covert enforcement.

Yes, but enforcement is what this is about and a better bit of enforcement would be to slow the cars not penalise those that drive through unimpeded.

So, tell me Mr. Vonhosen which is better?

To [a] penalise a driver but not slow him until he sees you or [b] stand out conspicuously and slow the drivers with your presence?

Best is to slow him down & where you consider it necessary report them for the offence. That then is a visible reminder on their licence (long after they've left the Police officer & whenever none are visible) that there is a penalty applicable for failing to observe the limit & if you keep doing it you run out of points. Of course if you learn the lesson then you won't run out of points.

It's not just about getting people to observe limits in the presence of the Police officer. They've just demonstrated they break it where they can't see one before they saw you.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 17th October 22:43

[Brother Mycroft]

Yoda954 said:

Brother Mycroft said:

Dibble said:

JustinP1 said:

Dibble said:

I've used LTI 20-20 at the roadside, in a 30mph limit, next to a marked traffic car with lights going, camera signs 400 metres away, wearing white hat, yellow coat and yellow overtrousers, and still checked people at way more than 30 within a couple of hundred metres.

You don't need to hide behind a tree to catch people.

...but it helps!

I've had roads closed off, traffic cars parked perpendicular to the carriageway, cones, signs, lights going, the works. But you still get people trying to drive through!

Or when you step out in front of a car (the only car on the road, in either direction...) to stop it, and when they eventually do stop, they say "I didn't realise you meant me..."

Your 'apochryphal' tales of how [apparently] stupid the general driver is is just a fog.

The plain fact is that you see a 'colleague'/'fellow officer' behaving shabbily and knowing you can't justify the action you fog the issue by saying recounting clap-trap.

Are you familiar with the term 'apologist'?

Are you familiar with the term ad hominem?

Yes!.. and my question is not an ad hominem, I have not used the statement as a diversion FROM the argument but as a CONCLUSION drawn from it.

Edited by Brother Mycroft on Wednesday 17th October 22:43

[Brother Mycroft]

vonhosen said:

Brother Mycroft said:

vonhosen said:

Brother Mycroft said:

vonhosen said:

mark69sheer said:

No but it does add weight to the argument that speed cameras are simply to collect cash

By hiding the policeman is not indicating to motorists that this is a dangerous piece of road where speed is important.

He is not proactively slowing the traffic down

In fact he is deliberately allowing it to go fast.

The preventative measure in stopping people driving at higher speeds there is the set speed limit.
The enforcement bit is the Police officer.

Enforcement of the speed limit would merely require the presence of a copper visible to all, to skulk in the bushes is to just dumb down the driving in this country further.

But you should always be adhering to the limit, not just in the presence of the officer.
There is a place for covert enforcement.

Yes, but enforcement is what this is about and a better bit of enforcement would be to slow the cars not penalise those that drive through unimpeded.

So, tell me Mr. Vonhosen which is better?

To [a] penalise a driver but not slow him until he sees you or [b] stand out conspicuously and slow the drivers with your presence?

Best is to slow him down & where you consider it necessary report them for the offence. That then is a visible reminder on their licence (long after they've left the Police officer & whenever none are visible) that there is a penalty applicable for failing to observe the limit & if you keep doing it you run out of points. Of course if you learn the lesson then you won't run out of points.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 17th October 22:40

So the actions in the video do not meet with your approval as either good traffic policing or a way to engender a high regard for traffic policing?

[Yoda954]

Brother Mycroft said:

Yoda954 said:

Brother Mycroft said:

Dibble said:

JustinP1 said:

Dibble said:

I've used LTI 20-20 at the roadside, in a 30mph limit, next to a marked traffic car with lights going, camera signs 400 metres away, wearing white hat, yellow coat and yellow overtrousers, and still checked people at way more than 30 within a couple of hundred metres.

You don't need to hide behind a tree to catch people.

...but it helps!

I've had roads closed off, traffic cars parked perpendicular to the carriageway, cones, signs, lights going, the works. But you still get people trying to drive through!

Or when you step out in front of a car (the only car on the road, in either direction...) to stop it, and when they eventually do stop, they say "I didn't realise you meant me..."

Your 'apochryphal' tales of how [apparently] stupid the general driver is is just a fog.

The plain fact is that you see a 'colleague'/'fellow officer' behaving shabbily and knowing you can't justify the action you fog the issue by saying recounting clap-trap.

Are you familiar with the term 'apologist'?

Are you familiar with the term ad hominem?

Yes!.. and my question is not an ad hominem, I have not used the statement as a diversion FROM the argument but as a CONCLUSION drawn from it.

Edited by Brother Mycroft on Wednesday 17th October 22:43

Jolly good...just keeping you on your toes