Flawed police speeding procedure
Discussion
The formation of the new Scottish Police Force should be viewed as the ideal time to implement change for the better for all of us. I am not however, naive enough to believe that this will happen without substantial input in the form of pressure from the public, and with relevance to most of us on here, the motorist.
I have been driving for a very long time, longer than most of you on here, and my career and experience I believe gives me a much greater insight into the problems of driving the motor car in peace and safety in this country, with relation to how the law intrudes into this.
At this moment the policies implemented by the Roads Policing Department are sadly letting us all down. The standard of driving is deteriorating by the week, as are the roads. By this I mean aggressive, selfish driving is becoming the norm. We all experience it every time we undertake a journey.
In the past week there has been an unusually high police presence on the road with many sitings of motorists being stopped. Sadly, almost all of these are most likely to have been stopped for speeding. The drivers I have spoken to recently certainly verified this.
There is constantly huge debate on many forums as to the justification for the level of speeding enforcement in this country, and I would argue to the death that it is a total waste of time and resources as the real causation of accidents lies in bad or dangerous driving; there can be virtually no doubt about this.
However, if we are going to have speed enforcement by police officers in cars I am sure we would all agree it has to be seen to be carried out with absolute integrity: it is not. I would urge you to read this post very carefully and think about the implications. Please note that I wrote this in 2009 and that we won the case.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
This is still going on to this day. I have been told about 2 cases just this weekend where exactly the same procedure was used. It would appear the police are using this method on a regular basis.
It is totally unacceptable. So that you realise the implications fully I will once again highlight them. The police are stopping drivers and accusing them of a certain speed above the limit that will result in either an FP containing a fine and points on your licence, or you will be reported to the Fiscal for a higher speed which then could also be followed by a careless or dangerous driving charge depending on how the Fiscal views the report.
In every single case I have been involved in the police are switching off the detection equipment, which includes a video of the incident, and claiming they used a calibrated speedometer to detect your speed. When they do this, not only do they have no evidence of either the actual offence or the alleged speed, but they also deny both you and the court the evidence that could be viewed to prove not only your guilt, but also your innocence.
This is sloppy, offensive and could be construed as deliberately witholding evidence in a criminal trial. It has to stop.
I need as many interested parties to contact me who have been stopped and accused by the police using this method. Even if you have paid the FP because you don't have the time or money to defend it I still want to hear from you, as I am trying to build a database to discover how prevalent this is.
As an active member of the SNP I will be discussing the matter with the MSP for my area, and also writing to the new Chief Constable for Scotland, Steven House. I would appreciate everyone else doing the same.
As time rolls on the courts are imposing ever more punitive sentences for motoring offences. It is therefore vital that the evidence is crystal clear and unambiguous.
I would also like to hear from solicitors to get their take on the subject and any experience they want to share. Those wishing to remain anonymous can PM me on my profile.
Many thanks in advance.
J
I have been driving for a very long time, longer than most of you on here, and my career and experience I believe gives me a much greater insight into the problems of driving the motor car in peace and safety in this country, with relation to how the law intrudes into this.
At this moment the policies implemented by the Roads Policing Department are sadly letting us all down. The standard of driving is deteriorating by the week, as are the roads. By this I mean aggressive, selfish driving is becoming the norm. We all experience it every time we undertake a journey.
In the past week there has been an unusually high police presence on the road with many sitings of motorists being stopped. Sadly, almost all of these are most likely to have been stopped for speeding. The drivers I have spoken to recently certainly verified this.
There is constantly huge debate on many forums as to the justification for the level of speeding enforcement in this country, and I would argue to the death that it is a total waste of time and resources as the real causation of accidents lies in bad or dangerous driving; there can be virtually no doubt about this.
However, if we are going to have speed enforcement by police officers in cars I am sure we would all agree it has to be seen to be carried out with absolute integrity: it is not. I would urge you to read this post very carefully and think about the implications. Please note that I wrote this in 2009 and that we won the case.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
This is still going on to this day. I have been told about 2 cases just this weekend where exactly the same procedure was used. It would appear the police are using this method on a regular basis.
It is totally unacceptable. So that you realise the implications fully I will once again highlight them. The police are stopping drivers and accusing them of a certain speed above the limit that will result in either an FP containing a fine and points on your licence, or you will be reported to the Fiscal for a higher speed which then could also be followed by a careless or dangerous driving charge depending on how the Fiscal views the report.
In every single case I have been involved in the police are switching off the detection equipment, which includes a video of the incident, and claiming they used a calibrated speedometer to detect your speed. When they do this, not only do they have no evidence of either the actual offence or the alleged speed, but they also deny both you and the court the evidence that could be viewed to prove not only your guilt, but also your innocence.
This is sloppy, offensive and could be construed as deliberately witholding evidence in a criminal trial. It has to stop.
I need as many interested parties to contact me who have been stopped and accused by the police using this method. Even if you have paid the FP because you don't have the time or money to defend it I still want to hear from you, as I am trying to build a database to discover how prevalent this is.
As an active member of the SNP I will be discussing the matter with the MSP for my area, and also writing to the new Chief Constable for Scotland, Steven House. I would appreciate everyone else doing the same.
As time rolls on the courts are imposing ever more punitive sentences for motoring offences. It is therefore vital that the evidence is crystal clear and unambiguous.
I would also like to hear from solicitors to get their take on the subject and any experience they want to share. Those wishing to remain anonymous can PM me on my profile.
Many thanks in advance.
J
jith said:
The formation of the new Scottish Police Force should be viewed as the ideal time to implement change for the better for all of us. I am not however, naive enough to believe that this will happen without substantial input in the form of pressure from the public, and with relevance to most of us on here, the motorist.
I have been driving for a very long time, longer than most of you on here, and my career and experience I believe gives me a much greater insight into the problems of driving the motor car in peace and safety in this country, with relation to how the law intrudes into this.
wibble hatstand fishcake, Jith or is it jith because sometimes Words have Two meanings >I have been driving for a very long time, longer than most of you on here, and my career and experience I believe gives me a much greater insight into the problems of driving the motor car in peace and safety in this country, with relation to how the law intrudes into this.
Thank you for taking the time to address an issue so close to many of our hearts.
As a result, we have to trust the integrity and judgement of the officers at the time.
Perhaps "the system" is the greater problem, as opposed to the actual officers who are simply using the system as they see fit.
Don't hate the playa', as our American friends might say.
P.S. - I've got a clean licence; only ever been stopped once by a Police Officer and it wasn't for speeding; no axes to grind other than wanting our roads to be a safer, fairer place.
jith said:
In every single case I have been involved in the police are switching off the detection equipment, which includes a video of the incident, and claiming they used a calibrated speedometer to detect your speed. When they do this, not only do they have no evidence of either the actual offence or the alleged speed, but they also deny both you and the court the evidence that could be viewed to prove not only your guilt, but also your innocence.
This is sloppy, offensive and could be construed as deliberately witholding evidence in a criminal trial. It has to stop.
I was under the impression that if an officer sees you, and thinks you're speeding, and testifies in court, then you're going to do very well to discredit his evidence? (I.E. perhaps you'll need your own video to "prove your innocence".)This is sloppy, offensive and could be construed as deliberately witholding evidence in a criminal trial. It has to stop.
As a result, we have to trust the integrity and judgement of the officers at the time.
Perhaps "the system" is the greater problem, as opposed to the actual officers who are simply using the system as they see fit.
Don't hate the playa', as our American friends might say.
P.S. - I've got a clean licence; only ever been stopped once by a Police Officer and it wasn't for speeding; no axes to grind other than wanting our roads to be a safer, fairer place.
I used to reckon the cops performed a necessary evil but they now seem to be on a bunus hunt every day. Every wet day a pair of dicks on bikes hide at the roundabout at Kinning Park desperately handing out tickets for no.seatbelts. All day. But never a purge on a sunny day? Usually accompanied by a traffic car hiding on the wee 6'6"" width slip back onto the M8. Now I know why it says 6'6". Even tho 2 artics can pass when one is pulled over they can make money out of the sign.
Anyone been let off with a warning lately? Not likely.
I.see examples of bad/dangerous driving every day. So if you want to get away with that do it on a rainy day, the cops will be hiding in the dry giving out easy tickets.
Anyone been let off with a warning lately? Not likely.
I.see examples of bad/dangerous driving every day. So if you want to get away with that do it on a rainy day, the cops will be hiding in the dry giving out easy tickets.
Humper said:
I used to reckon the cops performed a necessary evil but they now seem to be on a bunus hunt every day. Every wet day a pair of dicks on bikes hide at the roundabout at Kinning Park desperately handing out tickets for no.seatbelts. All day. But never a purge on a sunny day?
Not wearing your seatbelt is something can cost the state tens of millions of pounds - fighting withthe windscreen or being ejected is a sure fire way to incur hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of acute and rehab care bills and millions of ongoing care costs - unless you take the cheap option and manage to kill yourself ... I'd suspect that tasking priorities for Police bikes change depending on the weather - especially if there are stretches which are known to attract leisure bikers in good weather - where as 'normal for britain' overcast and drizzle means a focus on seatbelt,s phones and the other othet 'trivia' of routine traffic enforcement
Humper said:
Usually accompanied by a traffic car hiding on the wee 6'6"" width slip back onto the M8. Now I know why it says 6'6". Even tho 2 artics can pass when one is pulled over they can make money out of the sign.
Anyone been let off with a warning lately? Not likely.
as usual PHer demands firm action from Plod and that people shouldn;t be let off , and in the next hypocritical breath bemoans the no discretion for fear from Plod of being accused of corruption /being a mason / applying the 'attitude test' Anyone been let off with a warning lately? Not likely.
Humper said:
I.see examples of bad/dangerous driving every day. So if you want to get away with that do it on a rainy day, the cops will be hiding in the dry giving out easy tickets.
or you could just be a responsible adult and provide intel via 101 / call it in on the 9s if it's truely dangerous ? Edited by mph1977 on Tuesday 23 April 16:03
mph1977 said:
Humper said:
I used to reckon the cops performed a necessary evil but they now seem to be on a bunus hunt every day. Every wet day a pair of dicks on bikes hide at the roundabout at Kinning Park desperately handing out tickets for no.seatbelts. All day. But never a purge on a sunny day?
Not wearing your seatbelt is something can cost the state tens of millions of pounds - fighting withthe windscreen or being ejected is a sure fire way to incur hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of acute and rehab care bills and millions of ongoing care costs - unless you take the cheap option and manage to kill yourself ... I'd suspect that tasking priorities for Police bikes change depending on the weather - especially if there are stretches which are known to attract leisure bikers in good weather - where as 'normal for britain' overcast and drizzle means a focus on seatbelt,s phones and the other othet 'trivia' of routine traffic enforcement
[quote]
Usually accompanied by a traffic car hiding on the wee 6'6"" width slip back onto the M8. Now I know why it says 6'6". Even tho 2 artics can pass when one is pulled over they can make money out of the sign.
Anyone been let off with a warning lately? Not likely.
[quote]
I.see examples of bad/dangerous driving every day. So if you want to get away with that do it on a rainy day, the cops will be hiding in the dry giving out easy tickets.
[quote]
The issue of wearing a seat belt or not has nothing whatever to do with road safety or dangerous driving. If you are in a position where your seat belt is being deployed it is too late to consider road safety; you are in an accident. It is an injury limitation device and should not be seen as anything else.
Treating it as a priority at this time is inappropriate and a waste of precious resources. We need to be stopping bad drivers and educating them or removing them from the road if they are dangerous. But the police need to prove that they really are dangerous, i.e. video evidence.
J
Edited by jith on Tuesday 23 April 15:59
jith said:
The issue of wearing a seat belt or not has nothing whatever to do with road safety or dangerous driving. If you are in a position where your seat belt is being deployed it is too late to consider road safety; you are in an accident. It is an injury limitation device and should not be seen as anything else.
Treating it as a priority at this time is inappropriate and a waste of precious resources. We need to be stopping bad drivers and educating them or removing them from the road if they are dangerous. But the police need to prove that they really are dangerous, i.e. video evidence.
J
If this is the level of your understanding of the links between the driver behaviour it's not surprising that your posts make so little sense , and adds further weight to the suggestion you are Mr Jith of the family Hatstand, Fishcake, Wibble ...Treating it as a priority at this time is inappropriate and a waste of precious resources. We need to be stopping bad drivers and educating them or removing them from the road if they are dangerous. But the police need to prove that they really are dangerous, i.e. video evidence.
J
Edited by jith on Tuesday 23 April 15:59
Yes, seatbelts are primarily about injury limitation in that their correct use is a significant factor in improving survivability in none trival RTCs, but the fact that people don;t wear them shows an awful lot about their attitudes towards risk management and their belief they are invincible when in their car ... while many people on PH dispute it the evidence fro mthe police suggests that those who do not care about seatbelts or blown bulbs are likely tobe engaged in other more serious offences whether that is motoring or in general.
Scottish law is fixated on corroboration - yet you claim that they don;t provide evidence - are these vehicles double crewed - as it has been suggested elsewhere that the previous to Merger policies of Scottish forces towards a higher level of double crewing than English forces was due to the corroboration requirements of Scots law and the stipulations of the Fiscal.
mph1977 said:
jith said:
The issue of wearing a seat belt or not has nothing whatever to do with road safety or dangerous driving. If you are in a position where your seat belt is being deployed it is too late to consider road safety; you are in an accident. It is an injury limitation device and should not be seen as anything else.
Treating it as a priority at this time is inappropriate and a waste of precious resources. We need to be stopping bad drivers and educating them or removing them from the road if they are dangerous. But the police need to prove that they really are dangerous, i.e. video evidence.
J
If this is the level of your understanding of the links between the driver behaviour it's not surprising that your posts make so little sense , and adds further weight to the suggestion you are Mr Jith of the family Hatstand, Fishcake, Wibble ...Treating it as a priority at this time is inappropriate and a waste of precious resources. We need to be stopping bad drivers and educating them or removing them from the road if they are dangerous. But the police need to prove that they really are dangerous, i.e. video evidence.
J
Edited by jith on Tuesday 23 April 15:59
Yes, seatbelts are primarily about injury limitation in that their correct use is a significant factor in improving survivability in none trival RTCs, but the fact that people don;t wear them shows an awful lot about their attitudes towards risk management and their belief they are invincible when in their car ... while many people on PH dispute it the evidence fro mthe police suggests that those who do not care about seatbelts or blown bulbs are likely tobe engaged in other more serious offences whether that is motoring or in general.
Scottish law is fixated on corroboration - yet you claim that they don;t provide evidence - are these vehicles double crewed - as it has been suggested elsewhere that the previous to Merger policies of Scottish forces towards a higher level of double crewing than English forces was due to the corroboration requirements of Scots law and the stipulations of the Fiscal.
I have no idea who you are, what you do or how qualified you are because your profile in true S,P&L style is anonymous. I can assure you I have more than sufficient knowledge of vehicle engineering and driver behaviour to advance the opinions that I do, without resorting to ridiculous comments like yours. When I test drive some of the cars I work on they have no seat belts because of their age. Would you therefore imply that this negatively affects my driving and that I am guilty of other offences by association? In actual fact the reverse is true, I drive as carefully as I possibly can and compensate for the fact that there are no belts.
My posts are all founded on years of experience and make a great deal of sense to a great many people. Perhaps you need to find your own audience if you get nothing from what is written here.
Scottish Law has no "fixation" about corroboration: it is part of the legal process in Scotland that helps to prevent some of the disgraceful abuse of process that is prevalent in England due to the acceptance as fact of the testimony of only one officer.
All patrol cars that stop and report are double crewed to conform with the statutes. This of course makes it all the more inexcusable that the equipment is not used properly.
J
mph1977 said:
Humper said:
Usually accompanied by a traffic car hiding on the wee 6'6"" width slip back onto the M8. Now I know why it says 6'6". Even tho 2 artics can pass when one is pulled over they can make money out of the sign.
Anyone been let off with a warning lately? Not likely.
as usual PHer demands firm action from Plod and that people shouldn;t be let off , and in the next hypocritical breath bemoans the no discretion for fear from Plod of being accused of corruption /being a mason / applying the 'attitude test' Anyone been let off with a warning lately? Not likely.
[footnote]Edited by mph19
77 on Tuesday 23 April 16:03[/footnote]
k did you learn to read? Cos I cant for the life of me see where I wrote about demanding action?Will I put it into little words for easier understanding?
Are you one of the idle b
ds who just give out bonus tickets all day?Are you trolling?
For the hard of learning, the point is the obsession with targets means most traffic cops now focus on trivia to get the figures up. On a pissing wet day where they could provide a service to the motoring public( surely not.....) they sit for most of their shift waiting for seatbelts.
Please note. Nowhere have I mentioned masons attitude test etc
jith said:
I will respond to this, but this will be the last time I respond to your posts because of the silly, negative nonsense that contributes nothing to the debate.
I have no idea who you are, what you do or how qualified you are because your profile in true S,P&L style is anonymous. I can assure you I have more than sufficient knowledge of vehicle engineering and driver behaviour to advance the opinions that I do, without resorting to ridiculous comments like yours. When I test drive some of the cars I work on they have no seat belts because of their age. Would you therefore imply that this negatively affects my driving and that I am guilty of other offences by association? In actual fact the reverse is true, I drive as carefully as I possibly can and compensate for the fact that there are no belts.
You are putting words in my mouth there and appear to be furthering your own agenda ... and then you wonder why i suspect you have FotL tendencies - are you disputing the well documented observation that poorly cared for poorly driven cars and other criminality have an association ?I have no idea who you are, what you do or how qualified you are because your profile in true S,P&L style is anonymous. I can assure you I have more than sufficient knowledge of vehicle engineering and driver behaviour to advance the opinions that I do, without resorting to ridiculous comments like yours. When I test drive some of the cars I work on they have no seat belts because of their age. Would you therefore imply that this negatively affects my driving and that I am guilty of other offences by association? In actual fact the reverse is true, I drive as carefully as I possibly can and compensate for the fact that there are no belts.
jith said:
My posts are all founded on years of experience and make a great deal of sense to a great many people. Perhaps you need to find your own audience if you get nothing from what is written here.
So you are in fact a self professed expert, who takes no account of the backgrounds of others ? and does not accept evidence ... and then you wonder why I suggest you have FotL tendencies ...jith said:
Scottish Law has no "fixation" about corroboration: it is part of the legal process in Scotland that helps to prevent some of the disgraceful abuse of process that is prevalent in England due to the acceptance as fact of the testimony of only one officer.
despite the fact it in fact places less value on the testimony of a Constable, despite the fact that the consequences of any thing they do less than by the book has huge potential consequences and the the fact they are trained to observe and investigate ? jith said:
All patrol cars that stop and report are double crewed to conform with the statutes. This of course makes it all the more inexcusable that the equipment is not used properly.
J
Ironically if there was NOT the fixation on corroboration by two Constables, you might find that the equipment is used properly as then the police would have to provided evidence to corroborate the opinion of the single crewed constable ( i.e. video and speed and time equipment report) rather than just the evidence of 2 constables corroborating ( or is that colluding with ?) each other - this is the rule on unintended consequences in action .J
Aw Eric, I'm not having you getting depressed on one of my posts, so just for you here's 2 pics of my grandson, who is the ultimate micro petrolhead. The first is him driving my Mercedes into the workshop, (with help from his dad on the pedals). The next is his favourite E Type that he's just not quite big enough to drive, but assures me he will when he's 5!
Enjoy.
J
Enjoy.
J
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff