Dibble gets done... (Well, not really. Not at all, in fact).
Discussion
...so I'm off duty in my own car, and I drive past the marked Police Transit. I'm doing an indicated 70mph on a dual NSL, and pass the Transit with a speed differential of maybe 15mph. I'm following (at a constant distance) a motorcycle that has done the same, and is three seconds in front of me.
I open up a gap of several hundred yards over the Transit, and then I see that the Transit is "making progress" after I am several hundred yards in front, and I am still travelling at an indicated 70mph (which, according to TomTom* is more like 67mph), and I am still 3s behind the bike.
I slow down to the speed limit in plenty of time for the roadworks (ie before the limit signs and the cone taper), and move back into lane 1, having passed a couple of slower vehicles travelling at ~50mph on the DC NSL. The Transit comes hammering up lane two, and pulls in behind me into lane one. Heavy braking action, as I can see the front end dip sharply. My deceleration is all done on the throttle.
Through the traffic lights, and on come the blue lights on the Transit. Not the best place to stop a vehicle, just through a traffic light in L1 of a 2x2 lane SC, but then, what do I know...?
I mean, it's not like it's rush hour (Sorry, yes it is). And there wasn't realy anywhere else to stop me (apart from the huuuuuuuge pub car park another 400yds along the road...).
I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't been there myself...
Him "Do you know why I've stopped you"
Me "Not really... [but think to myself 'I bet he's going to say I was speeding...']"
Him "You were speeding."
Me "No I wasn't, I was travelling at an indicated 70mph on my speedo, which I know overreads by about 3 mph at an indicated 70 anyway, so in fact I was below the limit."
Him "Well you were, because I had to do 80-85 to catch you up..."
I went on to point out that he would have had to go faster than 70mph to catch me up, because he never would have if he had remained at a constant 70...
He went on to tell me that he would be putting my vehicle details onto the intelligence databse to say that he'd warned me about speeding, and that if he wanted to, he could get his speedo calibrated and "Do" me.
I wasn't asked for any form of ID, and no checks were done, so I could have been anyone using my details.
It all went rather downhill when I pointed out to him after he'd cautioned me about three quarters of the way through our "meeting" that he should really have cautioned me from the off, had he suspected me of an offence. He did say that he wasn't interviewieng me, but I did point out that he had asked me questions, which may amount to an interview, and in any case, itis best practice to administer the caution as soon as you suspect an offence may have been committed... Like me failing to produce my documents to him at the roadside...
The end result was I became the proud owner of form HOT1, to produce my documents (despite the fact my car is shown as insured and MOT'd on PNC, and he could quite easily have checked my driving licence at the roadside via PNC. To be fair, I'm exactly the kind of arsey know it all I can never bear dealing with, but when I was on Traffic, at least I got my bit right!
There was a little more verbal jousting (no rudness) which I feel I came out of on top of, so the "punishment" of a producer just made3 me think that I really should get round to sorting the filing out at home, instead of always having to rely on Mrs D to tell me where I've left stuff!
*And also LTI 20-20, FWIW!
I open up a gap of several hundred yards over the Transit, and then I see that the Transit is "making progress" after I am several hundred yards in front, and I am still travelling at an indicated 70mph (which, according to TomTom* is more like 67mph), and I am still 3s behind the bike.
I slow down to the speed limit in plenty of time for the roadworks (ie before the limit signs and the cone taper), and move back into lane 1, having passed a couple of slower vehicles travelling at ~50mph on the DC NSL. The Transit comes hammering up lane two, and pulls in behind me into lane one. Heavy braking action, as I can see the front end dip sharply. My deceleration is all done on the throttle.
Through the traffic lights, and on come the blue lights on the Transit. Not the best place to stop a vehicle, just through a traffic light in L1 of a 2x2 lane SC, but then, what do I know...?
I mean, it's not like it's rush hour (Sorry, yes it is). And there wasn't realy anywhere else to stop me (apart from the huuuuuuuge pub car park another 400yds along the road...). I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't been there myself...
Him "Do you know why I've stopped you"
Me "Not really... [but think to myself 'I bet he's going to say I was speeding...']"
Him "You were speeding."
Me "No I wasn't, I was travelling at an indicated 70mph on my speedo, which I know overreads by about 3 mph at an indicated 70 anyway, so in fact I was below the limit."
Him "Well you were, because I had to do 80-85 to catch you up..."
I went on to point out that he would have had to go faster than 70mph to catch me up, because he never would have if he had remained at a constant 70...
He went on to tell me that he would be putting my vehicle details onto the intelligence databse to say that he'd warned me about speeding, and that if he wanted to, he could get his speedo calibrated and "Do" me.
I wasn't asked for any form of ID, and no checks were done, so I could have been anyone using my details.
It all went rather downhill when I pointed out to him after he'd cautioned me about three quarters of the way through our "meeting" that he should really have cautioned me from the off, had he suspected me of an offence. He did say that he wasn't interviewieng me, but I did point out that he had asked me questions, which may amount to an interview, and in any case, itis best practice to administer the caution as soon as you suspect an offence may have been committed... Like me failing to produce my documents to him at the roadside...
The end result was I became the proud owner of form HOT1, to produce my documents (despite the fact my car is shown as insured and MOT'd on PNC, and he could quite easily have checked my driving licence at the roadside via PNC. To be fair, I'm exactly the kind of arsey know it all I can never bear dealing with, but when I was on Traffic, at least I got my bit right!
There was a little more verbal jousting (no rudness) which I feel I came out of on top of, so the "punishment" of a producer just made3 me think that I really should get round to sorting the filing out at home, instead of always having to rely on Mrs D to tell me where I've left stuff!
*And also LTI 20-20, FWIW!
Dibble, he was therfore according to your evidence prepared to attempt to pervert the course of justice by claiming you had exceeded the speed limit when in fact you hadn't.
What would you have done if he had followed up on his threat to check his calibrated speedo and had then reported you for the offence?
Why are you not reporting the incident to your or his superiors?
What would you have done if he had followed up on his threat to check his calibrated speedo and had then reported you for the offence?
Why are you not reporting the incident to your or his superiors?
rewc said:
Dibble, he was therfore according to your evidence prepared to attempt to pervert the course of justice by claiming you had exceeded the speed limit when in fact you hadn't.
What would you have done if he had followed up on his threat to check his calibrated speedo and had then reported you for the offence?
Why are you not reporting the incident to your or his superiors?
What would you have done if he had followed up on his threat to check his calibrated speedo and had then reported you for the offence?
Why are you not reporting the incident to your or his superiors?
I believe he made a mistake, through zeal/enthusiasm rather than malice.
Had I been reported for the offence (and I suppose technically I still could be, better watch the post for another few days to see if I get a written NIP, as no verbal one given), I would plead "Not Guilty", and we can all spend some time together at the local Magistrates' Court.
The matter has already been dealt with by me through other means than reporting him to his supervisor, which I don't feel would have been of any benefit to him, me, or the public in general.* Had he been rude to me or assaulted me (unlikely), I may have taken a different stance on the matter.
And I should probably have mentioned that at no point during the stop show my warrant card, or otherwise identify myself as a Police officer, although he may have worked that out for himself before the end of our exchange.
*Someone I may or may not know who may or may not be in the traffic department may or may not be having a potentially hypothetical discussion with him about speeding, safe stopping places and cautioning suspects. Or not. I don't know.
Edited by Dibble on Friday 9th February 18:08
ashes said:
Ah but was it a chariot or a mere conveyance? Envy?
Volvo. V70. Automatic, too... Sorry. You decide...
ashes said:
Why is a transit bothering with a 'speeder'?
Maybe he wants to get onto traffic. Maybe he was affronted that I (legally) overtook him. Maybe he was just exercising his powers under s163RTA 1988...
Edited by Dibble on Friday 9th February 18:08
cptsideways said:
Well thats a perfect case of fabrication or mal gained evidence, report the 
for yours & all our own good please. Also let the press know too.
Did at any point, you point out your status in all this?
for yours & all our own good please. Also let the press know too. Did at any point, you point out your status in all this?
Edited by cptsideways on Friday 9th February 17:53
Agreed.
I think that this proves a little point here. Myself and others have reported 'questionable' behaviour with regard to evidence gathering especially to do with speeding and matching speeds with speedos etc, and some posters reactions are, "Why would a police officer want to pick out you to create evidence of speeding?"
My contention is that is does happen. Of course I am not for one second saying that every police officer is like this, but with a bit of inexperience, bias and 'authority syndrome' things can quickly become a situation where a member of the public then has to fight to prove their innocence over the opinion of an 'expert witness'.
In a sense although it is unfair that Dibble was pulled, I think that the court case would become interesting if the officer had felt it necessary to offer the 3 points!
Dibble said:
Balmoral Green said:
I'm amazed you didnt just tell him you were bib, get a 'sorry mate' and on your way?
I don't expect to be treated any differently (ie better OR worse) than any other member of the public in my dealings with the BiB.
Fair play, but the upward direction of my 'respect-o-meter' is having a bit of a battle with the downward forces of my 'mug-o-meter'
Pickled Piper said:
...had you not been so well versed in the procedure what do you think would have been the course of events?...
I shall just get my crystal ball, chicken bones, tea leaves and rune stones out...
Sorry, still no idea. I suspect that it would have been the same as I got, ie "bollocking" and producer, because the majority of response officers don't "do" traffic. Those that do, tend to get it right.
Balmoral Green said:
Dibble said:
Balmoral Green said:
I'm amazed you didnt just tell him you were bib, get a 'sorry mate' and on your way?
I don't expect to be treated any differently (ie better OR worse) than any other member of the public in my dealings with the BiB.
Fair play, but the upward direction of my 'respect-o-meter' is having a bit of a battle with the downward forces of my 'mug-o-meter'
Fair enough. I can see why the Police/public relationship is suffering in places. However, I don't make, or even influence, policy...
7db said:
Are you suggesting that a good opening gambit is:-
Him "Do you know why I've stopped you"
You "Are you conducting an interview without caution?"
Him "Do you know why I've stopped you"
You "Are you conducting an interview without caution?"
IANAL...
Although an Officer in uniform has a power to stop any vehicle using s163 RTA 1988, I never stopped a vehicle for no reason - I just can't see the point.
So whenever I did stop a vehicle, my first question was always "Do you have your driving licence, insurance (and MOT*) with you?"
If not, I would ALWAYS caution the driver before doing anything else, then explain the meaning of the caution, and then the reason for it (ie because the driver technically commits offences by failing to produce the documents to me).
If I had stopped the driver for a con & use offence, or for speeding or red light offences (for example), I'd always start with a caution, even before asking about the documents.
*Where relevant to the particluar vehicle.
Dibble said:
7db said:
Are you suggesting that a good opening gambit is:-
Him "Do you know why I've stopped you"
You "Are you conducting an interview without caution?"
Him "Do you know why I've stopped you"
You "Are you conducting an interview without caution?"
IANAL...
Although an Officer in uniform has a power to stop any vehicle using s163 RTA 1988, I never stopped a vehicle for no reason - I just can't see the point.
So whenever I did stop a vehicle, my first question was always "Do you have your driving licence, insurance (and MOT*) with you?"
If not, I would ALWAYS caution the driver before doing anything else, then explain the meaning of the caution, and then the reason for it (ie because the driver technically commits offences by failing to produce the documents to me).
If I had stopped the driver for a con & use offence, or for speeding or red light offences (for example), I'd always start with a caution, even before asking about the documents.
*Where relevant to the particluar vehicle.
and +3 (with caution) ?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff