Thursday 8th December 2005

Essex police don't cop it

Limit-busting coppers escape scot-free

---

Essex police don't cop it

Following our story yesterday about the mobile copshop caught by a speed camera (see link below), the BBC revealed yesterday that "Essex Police vehicles were caught on speed cameras more than 5,000 times in the first six months of 2005".

Yet there have been no cases recorded of any officers being disciplined for speeding while in other forces, Suffolk and Beds in particular, licence endorsements and fixed penalties were handed out to 19 officers. Essex Police said that its officers' triggering of speed cameras was for "legitimate purposes".

Reports from other forces show that the numbers of officers being disciplined remain are also small.

One law for them...?

Links

• BBC story: Figures reveal 'speeding police'
• PH story: Mobile copshop Gatsoed

[zumbruk]

Actually, it isn't "one law for them and another for us ..."

It's "One law for them and a dozen for us."

[james_j]

"...the BBC revealed yesterday that "Essex Police vehicles were caught on speed cameras more than 5,000 times in the first six months of 2005..."

More than 5000 times exceeding the speed limit? ...and none of them crashed? How does Brunstrom describe exceeding the speed limit? Something like "akin to driving a knife into someone"?

[trackcar]

I thought they *were on official business* for almost all the cases, and those that weren't *did* get prosecuted though ...

[voyds9]

trackcar said:

I thought they *were on official business* for almost all the cases, and those that weren't *did* get prosecuted though ...

But being on official business could just be taken to mean at work.

[bridgland]

I would love to see the images of each of the 5000, just to prove that the blue lights were really on. If there are no lights, surely it must be assumed that they weren't on official business and the case can be taken on.



>> Edited by bridgland on Thursday 8th December 10:36

[^Slider^]

www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=227239&f=10&h=0

[njwcat7]

Obviously they can drive safely a few mph over the posted limit, whereas us ordinary mortals are incapable of doing so

If they and the Safety Pratnerships applied the same discretion to us as they do to themselves, maybe we'd all be a little less fed up with the way the roads are currently policed

[mjdriver]

One rule for them, one for us the people that pay their wages. B*stards!

[^Slider^]

For christ sake. read the other thread.

[^Slider^]

mjdriver said:

One rule for them, one for us the people that pay their wages. B*stards!

Yes it is.

Ive already covered it in the other thread

[njwcat7]

^Slider^ said:

For christ sake. read the other thread

Turn the blue lights off please , maybe we were composing our posts while you posted the link to the other thread - I certainly was

[^Slider^]

njwcat7 said:

^Slider^ said: For christ sake. read the other thread Turn the blue lights off please , maybe we were composing our posts while you posted the link to the other thread - I certainly was

[bridgland]

Seen the other thread and to be honest as long as there is an impartial observer for these exemptions, such as Paul from SafeSpeed, so that they can be paid for their time and fund impartial websites to advertise the best and worst of these cases, then I am all for this sort of news release. The point is that there isn't anyone outside the police force who can validate these claims and therefore we are all left to assume the worst.

A weekly/monthly staus report of something like: -
100 police attributed camera activations
99 of them on Police Business
- 40 Civil Disturbance (15 of which resulted in prosecution)
- 39 Road Traffic incidents
- - 10 Chasing driving offences (all drivers caught)
- - 15 Stolen vehicle pursuit (10 caught, 5 escaped as public safety was hight priority in built up area)
- - 14 responding to emergency accidents (1 fatality, 3 serious injuries, 10 no injuries)
- 20 Suspected Burglaries
1 of them under investigation (42 MPH in and 30 MPH area)

You have this data but it isn't collated and distributed for general public consumption, and that is what we all really need and gets us off your case in the majority of instances.

I'm climbing down now

>> Edited by bridgland on Thursday 8th December 11:28

[^Slider^]

Bridgland.

Thats a fair point and i dont have a problem with the stats being revealed. As i have said on t'other thread, if its justifiable then exemption applies.

I dont know what i can say about someone impartial as in reality there are no impartial bodies to assess.

Lets face it if some other agent did the exempions there would be possible a stats thing justifying their existance.

Hmmm 50000 justifed, we need to improve our hit rate so lets get tougher on the requirements to seem impartial.

Catch my drift?

[Jonleeper]

bridgland said:

Seen the other thread and to be honest as long as there is an impartial observer for these exemptions, such as Paul from SafeSpeed, so that they can be paid for their time and fund impartial websites to advertise the best and worst of these cases, then I am all for this sort of news release. The point is that there isn't anyone outside the police force who can validate these claims and therefore we are all left to assume the worst. A weekly/monthly staus report of something like: - 100 police attributed camera activations 99 of them on Police Business - 40 Civil Disturbance (15 of which resulted in prosecution) - 39 Road Traffic incidents - - 10 Chasing driving offences (all drivers caught) - - 15 Stolen vehicle pursuit (10 caught, 5 escaped as public safety was hight priority in built up area) - - 14 responding to emergency accidents (1 fatality, 3 serious injuries, 10 no injuries) - 20 Suspected Burglaries 1 of them under investigation (42 MPH in and 30 MPH area) You have this data but it isn't collated and distributed for general public consumption, and that is what we all really need and gets us off your case in the majority of instances. I'm climbing down now >> Edited by bridgland on Thursday 8th December 11:28

I have no difficulties without seeing a breakdown of more detailed data, the more data you reveal the more likely someone is to ask a difficult question, but even in your example 1 was under investigation. For Essex none were out of 5,269! It just seems wrong, maybe I am wrong and every single incident was legit and maybe all members of the RLC are child abusers who go to Deepcut for a busmans. It is all about perceptions and not the reality.

[bridgland]

Jon,

Right now we have nothing to hang our hat on without the data, so we all start bitching about everything. Yes, many of us feel that we drive safely at speed. Yes, we feel that cameras have no ability to be sensible, unlike police officers who, from personal experience, have proven themselves to use discretion based on factors such as time of day and road conditions (I enjoyed the scrolling sign in the back of one patrol car as it went past me saying '70MPH Please' after a quick blast on the A3).

The poilce are in the same boat by being caught by these phlegmatic (thesaurus is a wonderful thing!) devices, and due to this we know that they have in theory done something wrong in our eyes unless they are able to justify their actions. "In the call of Duty" doesn't cut it for anyone anymore....ask Monica Lewinski!

I just keep having to get off this thing...dammit!

[Jonleeper]

bridgland said:

Jon, Right now we have nothing to hang our hat on without the data, so we all start bitching about everything. Yes, many of us feel that we drive safely at speed. Yes, we feel that cameras have no ability to be sensible, unlike police officers who, from personal experience, have proven themselves to use discretion based on factors such as time of day and road conditions (I enjoyed the scrolling sign in the back of one patrol car as it went past me saying '70MPH Please' after a quick blast on the A3). The poilce are in the same boat by being caught by these phlegmatic (thesaurus is a wonderful thing!) devices, and due to this we know that they have in theory done something wrong in our eyes unless they are able to justify their actions. "In the call of Duty" doesn't cut it for anyone anymore....ask Monica Lewinski! I just keep having to get off this thing...dammit!

We don't really need the data if the headline stats appear to be reasonable. 5,269 instances captured by speed cameras and 13 (unlucky for some) NIP's issued would do it for me, and I suspect most of the posters here. The limit set is another issue and I agree that to many are set to low and therefore it is safe to exceed the posted limit. Having more BiB on patrol is the best way to promote safer roads, being given some "friendly" advice by a BiB early in my driving career has, probably, saved my own and possibly an innocent third parties life! The call of duty line has never worked, see the Nuremburg trials and should never work but I, for one, have a deep seated need to be able to believe a BiB whenever they speak. It is just a part of my upbringing that they, you, the BiB are the arbiters of the law and are there to protect me, from myself if required, and everyone else’s best interests. When these sort of statistics are touted, probably by people who have never been on a beat in their entire lives, they serve to break down that bond of trust and this is catastrophic for society IMHO.

[Big_M]

What bugs me is that us taxpayers are probably paying the salary of at least a couple or three administrators who have to check each and everyone of the 10,000 incidents each year.

If we can't trust the police then what is the point.

Interesting interview on BBC Essex this morning from some daft duck from BRAKE saying that all emergency services should adhere to the speed limits at all times. Almost without exception, the listeners were phoning/texting to say what a load of rubbish being spouted from BRAKE.

[sgt^roc]

james_j said:

"...the BBC revealed yesterday that "Essex Police vehicles were caught on speed cameras more than 5,000 times in the first six months of 2005..." More than 5000 times exceeding the speed limit? ...and none of them crashed? How does Brunstrom describe exceeding the speed limit? Something like "akin to driving a knife into someone"?

So I call on Paul Smith to check how many accidents occured during these 5000 odd high speed dashes and if the date say ZERO then how does that qualify the statement speeding kills?

[sgt^roc]

james_j said:

"...the BBC revealed yesterday that "Essex Police vehicles were caught on speed cameras more than 5,000 times in the first six months of 2005..." More than 5000 times exceeding the speed limit? ...and none of them crashed? How does Brunstrom describe exceeding the speed limit? Something like "akin to driving a knife into someone"?

So I call on Paul Smith to check how many accidents occured during these 5000 odd high speed dashes and if the date say ZERO then how does that qualify the statement speeding kills?