I observed BIB north bound M23 10.00am 30th Dec
Discussion
As I travelled southbound on the M23 the motorway was very light in both directions.
I then observe BIB, standing next to the police car, on the slope part of the Police ramp, waving his laser gun.
I thought he should have had it on a tripod to get an accurate reading, BUT the road was so clear that I expect they would have caught somebody at 80mph.
With these conditions .. all I could think was what *ods
I then observe BIB, standing next to the police car, on the slope part of the Police ramp, waving his laser gun.
I thought he should have had it on a tripod to get an accurate reading, BUT the road was so clear that I expect they would have caught somebody at 80mph.
With these conditions .. all I could think was what *ods
fluffnik said:
ipsg.glf said:
Are you able to work out what his trigger speed was?
Almost certainly much, much lowere than would be safe and reasonable in the conditions described.
So why are they wasting their expensive time doing it?
But we don't know what the trigger speed, or whether they did anyone at all! They might have been there just to catch those who really were taking the piss, and at the same time their presence would have reminded all drivers who weren't caught to watch their speed!
alphadog said:
Never confuse Trafpol with Scamera Partnerships.
why not?
the scamera partnerships exist with the support of the police who are part of the partnership. until senior police have the balls to take on the road safety muppets publicly and contribute some sense to the proceedings i consider them both road hazards
Edited by FRANCISB on Tuesday 2nd January 18:26
FRANCISB said:
alphadog said:
Never confuse Trafpol with Scamera Partnerships.
why not?
the scamera partnerships exist with the support of the police who are part of the partnership. until senior police have the balls to take on the road safety muppets publicly and contribute some sense to the proceedings i consider them both road hazards
Career suicide, sadly. The police are part of the civil service, and if anyone speaks out against current policy they'll find themselves reassigned to an unpleasant assignment or otherwise shafted by the establishment.
Tend to agree - the point is not who fast you go but how you go.
If they're driving up the M1 in an unmarked car and someone on a clear day passes them a 100mph in a modern tidy car they shouldn't bat an eyelid equally, if someone is undertaking at 65MPH in the Rain and Fog they should wake up the next day without a license. The problem is not one of speed but one of responsible action.
If they're driving up the M1 in an unmarked car and someone on a clear day passes them a 100mph in a modern tidy car they shouldn't bat an eyelid equally, if someone is undertaking at 65MPH in the Rain and Fog they should wake up the next day without a license. The problem is not one of speed but one of responsible action.
blakeypj said:
Just remember the multi fatal crash on that stretch of road (although some time ago, it is still in peoples memory) due to excess speed and how the emergency services had to deal with that. Then you might be able to work out why he was there.
At a guess anyway!
At a guess anyway!
the Sussex camera partnership doesn;t appear as bad as some. There have been a couple of accidents causing death on the A23 where excessive speed was too blame. I believe that many Parterships would have immeditaely erected cameras but not Sussex. The accidents are usually exceptional involving truly excessive speed. With the exception of Handcross Hill the M23/A23 is not a particularly difficult stretch of road to drive on, and it should be possible to navigate it safely at speeds in excess of the limit without crashing
andyuk911 said:
I thought he should have had it on a tripod to get an accurate reading...
I was lasered in 2004 by a copper through the windscreen (supposedly not allowed), free hand at 603 metres (max is 609m) and they denied me access to the video evidence at all points of the process (apparently illegally). They can do what they like and it makes no difference.
Their 'guidelines' for example contain entries about not pointing the lasers at passing aircraft (a Tornado used ECM measures against a copper in Scotland trying to measure its speed - when the police asked for compensation for the destroyed laser camera the RAF apparently told them to sod off as the policeman was lucky to be alive).
What I want to know is if the ACPO document is full of 'guidelines' then presumably the police can target civilian or military aircraft as much as they like just for a bit of fun to pass the time? Or are those 'guidelines' in fact rules that should be adhered to? If so, where do the guidelines end and the rules begin?
Has anyone challenged their methods in court? And has anyone been successful?
nobleguy said:
a Tornado used ECM measures against a copper in Scotland trying to measure its speed - when the police asked for compensation for the destroyed laser camera the RAF apparently told them to sod off as the policeman was lucky to be alive
That story is just that, A STORY, for many technical reasons its not true and could not be.
Edited by richard sails on Wednesday 3rd January 17:40
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff