Speeding? behind plod
Discussion
I was driving around on saturday and ended up following a police van down a road with a 30mph limit.
The van was obviously exceeding the speed limit with no lights/siren on. The road was wide, with little other traffic clear dry conditions.
I followed the van at their speed but wondered what would happen if they tried to pull me for speeding.
Paul
As a general rule non traffic officers do not deal with speed offences, they can however choose to do so but would have to get the speedo checked by a traffic patrol, so be warned. As for following a traffic patrol they can do you by using the VASCAR unit. Just because they are speeding it dos'nt mean you can,
quote:This raises an interesting point if the police car im following records me exceeding the limit then they must also be exceeding the limit other wise I would run into them. I think it would be worth taking this to court, ie if its safe for the police to exceed the limit then it is ok for me. I also remember a story from way back, my dad was driving and were overtaken by a police Range Rover on the motorway, my dad put his foot down and we followed the police at aprox 85mph in the outside lane. The police car moved into the middle lane hoping we would pass him. My dad pulled in behind and we continued to follow them. When we turned off the motorwar the lights went on and they pulled us over, they said that they should not have been speeding but that is no excuse for us to follow and let us off.
As a general rule non traffic officers do not deal with speed offences, they can however choose to do so but would have to get the speedo checked by a traffic patrol, so be warned. As for following a traffic patrol they can do you by using the VASCAR unit. Just because they are speeding it dos'nt mean you can,
Paul
I was once driving home from Nottingham late at night in a Ford Probe down a deserted A (but not double-carriageway) road when a police senator came hurtling past, overtook me and hightailed it into the distance. What ho, thinks I, and proceed to follow him. Both doing about 85-90, until it screeched to a halt, put on its flashers and a Very Senior Office jumped out and proceeded to bollock me. The gist was "just because I am in a hurry doesn't mean you can speed..." I didn't much feel like arguing, but IT WASN'T FAIR.
Thought that this might raise a few comments,(one rule for one........etc) but we don't just use it for speeders, drugs units use undercover officers to buy drugs, football inteligence use undercover officers so on and so forth, as I have said before, certainly in the force I work zero tolerance is not used, you may be advised for minor infringements not booked, so just don't go daft and you will keep a clean licence, I have and it is NOT because I am a copper.
Understand where you are coming from John, but don't undercover police buy drugs in very controlled (i.e. authorised) circumstances? And also, you can't exactly accidently kill some innocent bystander buying undercover drugs, whereas an unmarked or unflashing car going like the clappers through accident black spots is a little more dangerous methinks. Overall, I'm NOT a great supporter of this "one rule for you, one for us" philosophy
I can see many instances where John is correct and this is one where Police officers do need to speed occassionally. I would also say there will be times they are in unmarked cars and don't have claxons/lights blazing. Thing is, they will generally be trained to a higher level than the general public and therefore are supposedly better skilled because of it. The question should be that surely the higher-skills of certain drivers should also be recognised. I don't see why we can't have a higher level driving test which, once passed (And it would be DIFFICULT to pass) would allow the advanced license holder to drive at a higher speed on say.. dual carriageways and motorways. e.g, 70mph limit on motorways but Advanced license holder is allowed to do 90mph in lane 3 only. Something like that...possibly? I passed my IAM test years ago and still use much of what I learned during daily driving... thing is I get no recognition from either the law or insurance companies (in the main) for this additional achievement. Personally I feel the main test should be as difficult as the IAM test. It would at least stop all these dumb drivers scraping through.
quote:Good for reducing congestion too as so many drivers (and hence cars) would no longer be on the road. Come to think of it it'd be better for the environment too. And If a CAR needs an annual MOT why don't we insist on a 'refresher' test annually (or bi-annually) for drivers? To check they're still 'roadworthy'? I'm only half taking the p*** too
Personally I feel the main test should be as difficult as the IAM test. It would at least stop all these dumb drivers scraping through.
It'd be a sure-fire vote loser though....
Well, I have to comment on Police driving as I've just come home from the pub in a V6 Police Vectra, and no, I didnt commit a crime, my mate (who I went drinking with) is in the force and he rang up his mate who drives the area car, it ended up the area car gave me a lift home, but only after they got called out to a shout for a fight.
All I can say that the drive there (with the two-tones blazing) was the most safest drive I've had (??????) It's hard to explain, but even when we were going the wrong way round the bollards at 80mph, I never felt, sitting in the back at risk. I know the driver which proberbly helped, as a stranger putting me through this would most likely make me say otherwise. But these guys are highly trained.
I never thought I'd ever say this about a Vectra, but the V6's (believe me!!) handle very well!!
I was nicked once for doing 64 in a temporary 40 limit. No lectures please, I was there, you were not.
Thing is the unmarked Vectra I passed after the start of the 40 restriction had a video camera. When pulled, I got the usual "come see how naughty you are" invite. The video evidence clearly showed the police car doing 53 mph before I came into shot passing him.
My brief told me not to mention this in court; it would not help my case, and would probably harm it. I'd have thought it excellent corroborative evidence as to how inappropriate the 40 limit was to the prevailing conditions. Apparently not.
The really nasty part to swallow though was the lecture from the upstanding officer as to why the 40 limits were necessary in the first place. Bare faced, unashamed hypocrisy.
I was behind a volvo on Saturday coming back from Scotland, which had an unusual addition to it's rear view mirror, so I sat behind him just in case he was plod. I was behind him for about 8 miles in which time he made several overtaking manouvres and not once did he indicate.
Two goons in a corolla came steaming past at about 80 (in a 60), and surely enough the sirens came on and plod took off after them nearly hitting an oncoming landrover in the process. about 500 metres up the road we came across both vehicles - the corolla had pulled off the road, but plod had stopped right in the middle of the carraigeway. Now I'm no road safety expert, but it did seem a little dangerous to be sat in the middle of a main road holding all the traffic up behind him while he gave the other driver the third degree.
Jim
Just to nit pick re the indicators, part of the training both for Police and also when I did my IAM test, you only indicate when someone would benefit from a signal, That way it gets you out of the habit of 'I want to turn left, indicator on and go' without checking. I can't comment on your particular example but if you were some distance behind and not catching up, a signal would be of no use to you, so unless there was someone else about who needed a signal, why signal?. Can't really add much about the other points though.
Edited by john robson on Monday 23 April 13:20
quote:Interested to get your take on this John. The RoSPA trainers do the same thing. I was never that happy about it, it seems to me that a redundant signal might be a final warning to the person you didn't see, before you turn into them or whatever. Granted, there should never been anyone around that you didn't see. But it's an imperfect world and I'm an imperfect driver. It just seems like the real problem is making a manoeuver without checking, and 'don't signal unless necessary' is the wrong solution. Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)
Just to nit pick re the indicators, part of the training both for Police and also when I did my IAM test, you only indicate when someone would benefit from a signal, That way it gets you out of the habit of 'I want to turn left, indicator on and go' without checking. I can't comment on your particular example but if you were some distance behind and not catching up, a signal would be of no use to you, so unless there was someone else about who needed a signal, why signal?. Can't really add much about the other points though. Edited by john robson on Monday 23 April 13:20
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff