Discussion
Are the ACPO a joke or what?
The Telegraph said:
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has called for motorcycling to be banned from certain areas of the country in evidence it submitted to the recent House of Commons Transport Select Committtee report, entitled "Ending the Scandal of Complacency: Road Safety beyond 2010".
The ACPO submission said: "There is a need for radical thinking in respect of motorcycles, including consideration of engine capability and the creation of protection zones where all motorcycles other than those specifically permitted, would be prohibited." This apparent call for power restrictions on motorcycles and their prohibition in some areas of the country flies in the face of substantial independent evidence that there is no correlation between a motorcycle's power output and its likelihood of being involved in an accident. Indeed, the EU Commission rejected a move by Commissioner Martin Bangemann in the early 1990s to restrict motorcycle power outputs for exactly this reason.
In a press release responding to concerns about the ACPO submission, David Griffin, Deputy Chief Constable of Humberside, stated: "It is nonsense to suggest that ACPO is seeking a ban on motorcycles," even though it is clear in the report that ACPO suggests prohibiting motorcycles from some roads. The press release also said that ACPO does not have a position on imposing specific power limits on motorcycles, yet they appear to have a position in the submission to the Transport Committee.
David Griffin said, "ACPO's evidence to the Select Committee referred to consideration of restrictions on the use of off-road motorcycles in environmentally sensitive areas where noise and environmental damage have arisen as a significant concern to local communities." Yet the ACPO evidence does not mention either off-road motorcycles or environmental concerns.
Another strange claim by ACPO to the committee is that motorcycling presents a problem of "Vehicle Excise Duty evasion on a massive scale." This appears to be based on a DVLA report published at the beginning of this year suggesting that almost 40 per cent of motorcycles are untaxed, even though an apology was later issued by the Commons public accounts committee when it was discovered the figures were wrong, and the true number was only slightly greater for motorcycles than cars, at about six per cent. In its submission, ACPO used the 40 per cent figure to suggest that motorcycles should be fitted with electronic chips to allow automatic vehicle identification. ACPO did not respond to The Daily Telegraph's query about this.
A further inaccuracy presented to the committee by ACPO is that, "Production machines are readily available for use on our roads with top speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour." In fact there are no production bikes capable of more than 200mph, even without the motorcycle industry's voluntary 186mph speed limitation.
That ACPO can present such nonsense brings into question its suitability as a source of reliable information for the Transport Committee. ACPO so far has failed to respond to the Telegraph's question of whether it will retract or correct any of the erroneous information and opinion, but meanwhile, the Transport Select Committee needs to be made aware that ACPO's submission is, in respect of motorcycles, demonstrably unreliable.
The ACPO submission said: "There is a need for radical thinking in respect of motorcycles, including consideration of engine capability and the creation of protection zones where all motorcycles other than those specifically permitted, would be prohibited." This apparent call for power restrictions on motorcycles and their prohibition in some areas of the country flies in the face of substantial independent evidence that there is no correlation between a motorcycle's power output and its likelihood of being involved in an accident. Indeed, the EU Commission rejected a move by Commissioner Martin Bangemann in the early 1990s to restrict motorcycle power outputs for exactly this reason.
In a press release responding to concerns about the ACPO submission, David Griffin, Deputy Chief Constable of Humberside, stated: "It is nonsense to suggest that ACPO is seeking a ban on motorcycles," even though it is clear in the report that ACPO suggests prohibiting motorcycles from some roads. The press release also said that ACPO does not have a position on imposing specific power limits on motorcycles, yet they appear to have a position in the submission to the Transport Committee.
David Griffin said, "ACPO's evidence to the Select Committee referred to consideration of restrictions on the use of off-road motorcycles in environmentally sensitive areas where noise and environmental damage have arisen as a significant concern to local communities." Yet the ACPO evidence does not mention either off-road motorcycles or environmental concerns.
Another strange claim by ACPO to the committee is that motorcycling presents a problem of "Vehicle Excise Duty evasion on a massive scale." This appears to be based on a DVLA report published at the beginning of this year suggesting that almost 40 per cent of motorcycles are untaxed, even though an apology was later issued by the Commons public accounts committee when it was discovered the figures were wrong, and the true number was only slightly greater for motorcycles than cars, at about six per cent. In its submission, ACPO used the 40 per cent figure to suggest that motorcycles should be fitted with electronic chips to allow automatic vehicle identification. ACPO did not respond to The Daily Telegraph's query about this.
A further inaccuracy presented to the committee by ACPO is that, "Production machines are readily available for use on our roads with top speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour." In fact there are no production bikes capable of more than 200mph, even without the motorcycle industry's voluntary 186mph speed limitation.
That ACPO can present such nonsense brings into question its suitability as a source of reliable information for the Transport Committee. ACPO so far has failed to respond to the Telegraph's question of whether it will retract or correct any of the erroneous information and opinion, but meanwhile, the Transport Select Committee needs to be made aware that ACPO's submission is, in respect of motorcycles, demonstrably unreliable.
Saddle bum said:
I have often been puzzled by ACPO, which is a the collective voice of a group of public servants. Why are they allowed to voice an opinion on public policy?
Another puzzle is where do they get their funding from?
swanky ofices in Victoria St can't be cheap. I think there are about 250-350 eligible members and they can't be paying for the staff ACPO have in Victoria st unlesss their subs are large four figures and I guess they are not. So they must get funding from Central Govt too (?) although they do run some pretty successful conferences?Another puzzle is where do they get their funding from?
I guess like the CBI, EF, Police Fed., Unions, etc they feel they have a right to comment on things which affect their job and member Often peopl;e who have certain portfolios can be loose cannons and I am not sure ACPO endorse all the mad mullah pronouncements that individual portfolio holder make.
AND...looking at the ACPO site;
Following the publication of evidence submitted to the Transport Select Committee on behalf of ACPO and recent media reports, David Griffin, Deputy Chief Constable of Humberside Police and ACPO lead on motorcycle safety said:
“ACPO does not advocate the prohibition of motorcycle use on public roads. It is nonsense to suggest that ACPO is seeking a ban on motorcycles, given that most police forces in the UK actively deploy and consider motorcycles to be a key part of their transport infrastructure."
Edited by Brown and Boris on Sunday 16th November 17:45
Brown and Boris said:
“ACPO does not advocate the prohibition of motorcycle use on public roads. It is nonsense to suggest that ACPO is seeking a ban on motorcycles, given that most police forces in the UK actively deploy and consider motorcycles to be a key part of their transport infrastructure."
Ah yes, but police do not have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. They could quite easily ban the public but retain them themselves.Simpo Two said:
Brown and Boris said:
“ACPO does not advocate the prohibition of motorcycle use on public roads. It is nonsense to suggest that ACPO is seeking a ban on motorcycles, given that most police forces in the UK actively deploy and consider motorcycles to be a key part of their transport infrastructure."
Ah yes, but police do not have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. They could quite easily ban the public but retain them themselves.
catso said:
Simpo Two said:
Brown and Boris said:
“ACPO does not advocate the prohibition of motorcycle use on public roads. It is nonsense to suggest that ACPO is seeking a ban on motorcycles, given that most police forces in the UK actively deploy and consider motorcycles to be a key part of their transport infrastructure."
Ah yes, but police do not have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. They could quite easily ban the public but retain them themselves.Includes the option to use lethal force at will with little or no chance of being held accountable.
Saddle bum said:
catso said:
Simpo Two said:
Brown and Boris said:
“ACPO does not advocate the prohibition of motorcycle use on public roads. It is nonsense to suggest that ACPO is seeking a ban on motorcycles, given that most police forces in the UK actively deploy and consider motorcycles to be a key part of their transport infrastructure."
Ah yes, but police do not have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. They could quite easily ban the public but retain them themselves.Includes the option to use lethal force at will with little or no chance of being held accountable.
I suppose youd just take your keyboard?Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff