"I NEVER get out of the way for Police cars..."
Discussion
Dibble said:
a few more valid points, adding "I would mount the pavement as I am sure the policeman would not do me for driving on the pavement in those circumstances"
Believe me gh0st, you would have my personal guarantee that I would sort it for you properly, and you'd not be getting anything through the post.
Dibble, if every cop was like you there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
But they aren't. If you were to break the law in this scenario, would you get a "Dibble" or would you get one like the "Knife/Baton" idiot ?
Would people take that risk - say they already had 9 points - even with your support would it get revoked - remember the bloke who got done when moving transplant organs ?
I do remember winding down the window and yelling once at one idiot who wouldn't move for a fire engine "I hope it's your f**king house that's on fire".
So whats the difference between police, fire and ambulance when on a blue light run.
Fire crews would be going to save life or property.
Ambulance crews would be going to save life.
Police crews could also be going to save life or property, or trying to catch a crime in progress with offender on scene.
I know you say we prosicute you for motoring offences, but we dont just deal with motorists. We deal with many other offences. Fights, Murders, Burglaries et al. If its your house on fire you want the crews to get there asap and not have them held up by some self ritious motorist. If its your house being burgled or a relative getting a kicking, wouldent you want the same?
Fire crews would be going to save life or property.
Ambulance crews would be going to save life.
Police crews could also be going to save life or property, or trying to catch a crime in progress with offender on scene.
I know you say we prosicute you for motoring offences, but we dont just deal with motorists. We deal with many other offences. Fights, Murders, Burglaries et al. If its your house on fire you want the crews to get there asap and not have them held up by some self ritious motorist. If its your house being burgled or a relative getting a kicking, wouldent you want the same?
ohopkins said:
Tough.
If the goverment contines to persecute the motorist, and the Police continue to be complict in this, what were you expecting ?
Motorists to line the way for you cheering ? More likey everyone who has been scammed sees this as small way to stick it back to the man for the injustices they have suffered.
The Police think the have a right to expect co-operation from the public, but the public can and will withdraw this co-operation.
I feel this is so sad and small minded......re-read the beginning of the thread and think again of what my colleague is saying, the police car you are letting through could make the difference of saving life! maybe you should think that before 'sticking it back to them'....what an unbelievable comment that is
I think you should get your priorities right.
^Slider^ said:
So whats the difference between police, fire and ambulance when on a blue light run.
Fire crews would be going to save life or property.
Ambulance crews would be going to save life.
Police crews could also be going to save life or property, or trying to catch a crime in progress with offender on scene.
I know you say we prosicute you for motoring offences, but we dont just deal with motorists. We deal with many other offences. Fights, Murders, Burglaries et al. If its your house on fire you want the crews to get there asap and not have them held up by some self ritious motorist. If its your house being burgled or a relative getting a kicking, wouldent you want the same?
That's the problem.
People believe - and there are numerous cases to support them - that if you call the Police in these sort of cases it'll take three hours for them to turn up at best if they do so, and there's a distinct possibility they'll do nothing. Part of the "improvements" touted by Bliar I think are down to "what's the point, they won't bother to turn up".
Then you see what I saw today for example ; a copper hiding on the down exit slip speed trapping people on a dead straight safe empty dual carriageway.
Then the Police wonder why the public won't help them, and why they laugh when they say they are short of manpower.
Thats utter rubbish. I work as part of a rective shift. Our force policy is if there is immediate risk to life or property, or offenders are on scene then an immediate response is required.
We have strict rules as to when blues and twos can be used so needless to say if they are on then there is a bloody good reason for this.
Depending on where the nearest car is it may take some time to get to you but we will get there as fast as we can (thats a numbers of officers problem). The number of times my crew has been delayed by anything between a few minutes and 10 minutes because of drivers not getting out of the way is countless so far. And in some cases this delay can cause lives to be lost or offenders making off.
Thats not a dramatisation, as where we have had fear for life calls before from ambulance crews who will not force entry into a property untill police arrive and gain acess for them, people have died due to the delay, and that is me and my crewmate deploying to the call immediately. Burglars who were in a house have made off because of the delay in getting there through no fault of our own but by being held up by idiots who think its just tho police. Sometimes makes me wander why we travel so quickly and have to take risks to make up time lost due to these idiots.
>> Edited by ^Slider^ on Monday 6th December 18:52
We have strict rules as to when blues and twos can be used so needless to say if they are on then there is a bloody good reason for this.
Depending on where the nearest car is it may take some time to get to you but we will get there as fast as we can (thats a numbers of officers problem). The number of times my crew has been delayed by anything between a few minutes and 10 minutes because of drivers not getting out of the way is countless so far. And in some cases this delay can cause lives to be lost or offenders making off.
Thats not a dramatisation, as where we have had fear for life calls before from ambulance crews who will not force entry into a property untill police arrive and gain acess for them, people have died due to the delay, and that is me and my crewmate deploying to the call immediately. Burglars who were in a house have made off because of the delay in getting there through no fault of our own but by being held up by idiots who think its just tho police. Sometimes makes me wander why we travel so quickly and have to take risks to make up time lost due to these idiots.
>> Edited by ^Slider^ on Monday 6th December 18:52
I just can't believe the number of people who've presumably read Dibble's post and yet still say they wouldn't get out of the way.
As someone else posted, if I was flashed trying to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle I would positively enjoy discrediting the scamerati in court.
As someone else posted, if I was flashed trying to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle I would positively enjoy discrediting the scamerati in court.
yeah i understand that but, seeing a car sat on a bridge, and seeing one travelling with blues and twos is completely different.
Can noone tell the difference between a stationary car and one traveling with light and noise. How can that justification be valid, just because one day it is taking speed readings and another it is racing to get to an immediate.
Can noone tell the difference between a stationary car and one traveling with light and noise. How can that justification be valid, just because one day it is taking speed readings and another it is racing to get to an immediate.
DJFish said:
Slider
I can understand your frustration but often the only time the general public see the police in action is on a motorway bridge, they don't get to see the other side of it, this is perhaps why they form the opinions they do.
>> Edited by DJFish on Monday 6th December 18:52
You're right......
There is a saying which says 'You can't educate tripe'....
If people really need everything explaining to them before they are able to even begin to see things from the other side...is there really hope?
DJFish said:
just because one day it is taking speed readings and another it is racing to get to an immediate.
Maybe that's just it, they remember the plod in the hedge/on the bridge and you've just lost another supporter.
Pretty small minded if that is the case though.
That's always the case, always has been, always will be...>
The police will only be as good as the last job they do...
The copper that catches your burglar is the Star in your eyes and welcome round for dinner anytime. Same bobby might do you for speeding later in the year and is everything for a
to a dog... C'est la vie....
I've given up trying to please the public nowadays....
I just remain professional and do my job...If someone falls foul of the law...whether it's the first time they've done it or the 1000th time...they will be dealt with...That's why we have laws.
Street
That may well be your policy, but it isn't apparently a universal one.
The public believe the Police abuse blues and twos.
This may well not be the case ; much of the criticism may be unjustified ; but that misses the point.
The Police, as an entity, are throwing the public goodwill on the bonfire for short term gain. Goodwill which IMO is essential for them to continue to operate effectively.
The management appear to be stupid enough to believe that by issuing press releases saying "All Cameras are correctly sited and there are hundreds of coppers patrolling" that anyone will believe them, for example. No-one does.
As a result of this nonsense they are not getting the benefit of the doubt any more, people assume the worst of them, and the stories in the Mail et al are assumed to be true and typical (most of them *are* true I suspect but they are not representative which is the important thing).
The "good cops" are tarred by the actions of the "bad cops". And the ratio between the two is about 999:1.
But this is how it is ; the damage done by one disaster is not repaired by half an hour of public relations.
People are not that gullible ; they know PR departments bulls**t and cheat the figures. No-one believes the "103% of people think Speed Cameras are brilliant and there should be eight times as many" crap. People who are pro-camera are in the minority, and usually either very slow drivers or cyclists.
This is *not* the fault of your average plod. But they get the backlash. This may be "unfair" but it is a predictable reality.
There is a huge "number of officers" problem.
I have difficulty rationalising the number of officers employed with the number employed to an extent unexplainable by admin, shifts, illness, doubling up, emergencies etc etc.
Dibble's "what should I do tonight?" thread shows the point perfectly. Him and a mate, for 100 square miles of at best moderately dense population.
*But* you will get the blame for this as well.
Your PR units are repeatedly in our press (if not nationally) whining about how little money they have and how the Police tax bit needs to go up 60% or whatever.
The public see, almost literally here, *NO* Police except for speedtrappers. Ever. This is not an exaggeration or a joke. I have *never* seen a copper on foot in Norwich City Centre (I have seen a car twice, once with a pair of cops dealing with a drunk, the other time empty).
Our local plod admitted to having *TWO* coppers for West Norwich at night. This is almost useless, I feel sorry for them, they probably do the work of five, and have enough work for twenty.
Would I do 60 in a 40mph limit with cameras if there was no other way to get out of the way. Sadly, I suspect not. I don't doubt Dibble is straight when he says he'd get the paperwork sorted. But I doubt he would be able to do it.
I'm not saying people shouldn't get out of the way. I would - bar the above.
I'm trying to explain why I think they don't.
The public believe the Police abuse blues and twos.
This may well not be the case ; much of the criticism may be unjustified ; but that misses the point.
The Police, as an entity, are throwing the public goodwill on the bonfire for short term gain. Goodwill which IMO is essential for them to continue to operate effectively.
The management appear to be stupid enough to believe that by issuing press releases saying "All Cameras are correctly sited and there are hundreds of coppers patrolling" that anyone will believe them, for example. No-one does.
As a result of this nonsense they are not getting the benefit of the doubt any more, people assume the worst of them, and the stories in the Mail et al are assumed to be true and typical (most of them *are* true I suspect but they are not representative which is the important thing).
The "good cops" are tarred by the actions of the "bad cops". And the ratio between the two is about 999:1.
But this is how it is ; the damage done by one disaster is not repaired by half an hour of public relations.
People are not that gullible ; they know PR departments bulls**t and cheat the figures. No-one believes the "103% of people think Speed Cameras are brilliant and there should be eight times as many" crap. People who are pro-camera are in the minority, and usually either very slow drivers or cyclists.
This is *not* the fault of your average plod. But they get the backlash. This may be "unfair" but it is a predictable reality.
There is a huge "number of officers" problem.
I have difficulty rationalising the number of officers employed with the number employed to an extent unexplainable by admin, shifts, illness, doubling up, emergencies etc etc.
Dibble's "what should I do tonight?" thread shows the point perfectly. Him and a mate, for 100 square miles of at best moderately dense population.
*But* you will get the blame for this as well.
Your PR units are repeatedly in our press (if not nationally) whining about how little money they have and how the Police tax bit needs to go up 60% or whatever.
The public see, almost literally here, *NO* Police except for speedtrappers. Ever. This is not an exaggeration or a joke. I have *never* seen a copper on foot in Norwich City Centre (I have seen a car twice, once with a pair of cops dealing with a drunk, the other time empty).
Our local plod admitted to having *TWO* coppers for West Norwich at night. This is almost useless, I feel sorry for them, they probably do the work of five, and have enough work for twenty.
Would I do 60 in a 40mph limit with cameras if there was no other way to get out of the way. Sadly, I suspect not. I don't doubt Dibble is straight when he says he'd get the paperwork sorted. But I doubt he would be able to do it.
I'm not saying people shouldn't get out of the way. I would - bar the above.
I'm trying to explain why I think they don't.
Pigeon said:
I just can't believe the number of people who've presumably read Dibble's post and yet still say they wouldn't get out of the way.
As someone else posted, if I was flashed trying to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle I would positively enjoy discrediting the scamerati in court.
You could probably prove there was an emergency in the area ; unless the picture showed it you'd find it hard to prove you were getting out of the way ; they may not accept it anyway.
I must say I have always felt that doing almost anything to get out of the way of a vehicle with lights on and siren going was the right thing to do.
However a post elsewhere by someone who appeared to be a fine upstanding citizen of mature years, who had been done for crossing a red light to get out of the way of an ambulance suddenly made me think about it. Certainly it appeared that, try as he might, with no Dibble about to confirm the story and no picture of the ambulance either, he was stuffed. Points, fine and increased insurance premiums all for being a good citizen.
Ok, so you can fight any threatened prosecution - but why should you have to? Most ESV's are tracked and monitored these days - proving the timings should not be difficult. Is the lack of joined up processing deliberate?
And in the sad example with which Dibble started the thread, and bear with me when you read the next section, should there have been an emergency response at all if those at the scene had already largely concluded that it was a lot cause?
In a pure risk analysis sense - did the potential benefit outweigh the added risks to others - both the emergency personnel and uninvolved members of the public who just happened to be along the route used?
Now I would understand if anyone, no matter how experienced, found that a tough call to make and one can never be certain of an outcome, but I suspect that in the current safety is all philosophy which the state encourages us to believe in, a high risk journey related to a lost cause is probably not a very suitable course of action. After all if a young woman who is known to have only hours to live and wished to die at home cannot be supplied with any form of hospital transport to get home, what possible justification can there be for the additional risks of high speed transport for someone else already considered beyond help?
If you fnd this an unpallatable point I tend to agree, but that should not stop it being discussed as a reference point.
In the early hours of Sunday morning I was leaving the village to go to town to pick up my daughter and some friends after their night out. As I reached the main road through the village the only vehicle I coould see was an ambulance with lights on heading my way. So I waited for it to pass. As it left the village it had to slow for a fairly humped bridge over a railway. Then slow a lot for a tight roundabout which was introduced a few years ago. And then almost stop at some temporary traffic lights just after the roundabout where the maintenance team decided to close one sode of the road for the weekend despite appreaing to have almost finished there work. I bet that also caused havoc with the traffic on Sunday - often a busy day. Ambulance could not squeeze past a large coach waiting at the lights (no traffic coming the other way) until the car in front of the coach had moved up a little - and of course the car probably could not see the ambulance. All got sorted in the end and the ambulance passed through the red light - for about 20feet of roadworks. It took the next roundabout quite slowly - I have never worked out why there is a roundabout there - its original purpose was obsolete before it was completed - then up a short dual carriageway to the next roundabout and then slowly took the first exit onto the main road.
So it was obviously in a hurry but needed to take corners very gently for whatever reason. Quite typical really. So why do we insist in managing roads and road design in such a way ESV's have additional problems negotiating them. Worse in many towns and cities as others have pointed out - including the ambulance service in London in relation to speed bumps.
If obstacles like that are considered to be acceptable even though they may increase response and carriage times, what possible argument can be put forward to justify high-speed-in-town progress for a patient already considered to be a lost cause? Sorry if that sounds hard but put the emotion to one side and just consider it as presented.
So, speaking as a potential obstruction, yes I do want to make the passage of every ESV as easy as possible. I am prepared to get out of the way where it is possible to do so providing it does not put me or others in what looks like an unreasonable risk situation. I expect to be believed and removed from persecution actions should the circumstances result in any sort of prosection. This should happen with no effort, or very little effort, on my part. I would really not like to think that any such situations existed if the victim's chances of survival were very small and the risk of causing injury of one sort or another to others was very high.
I would feel the same way if I was the victim.
If the problem was clearly self inflicted I would be even less inclined to support risk taking.
I will now don my fireproofed suit whilst I await responses.
However a post elsewhere by someone who appeared to be a fine upstanding citizen of mature years, who had been done for crossing a red light to get out of the way of an ambulance suddenly made me think about it. Certainly it appeared that, try as he might, with no Dibble about to confirm the story and no picture of the ambulance either, he was stuffed. Points, fine and increased insurance premiums all for being a good citizen.
Ok, so you can fight any threatened prosecution - but why should you have to? Most ESV's are tracked and monitored these days - proving the timings should not be difficult. Is the lack of joined up processing deliberate?
And in the sad example with which Dibble started the thread, and bear with me when you read the next section, should there have been an emergency response at all if those at the scene had already largely concluded that it was a lot cause?
In a pure risk analysis sense - did the potential benefit outweigh the added risks to others - both the emergency personnel and uninvolved members of the public who just happened to be along the route used?
Now I would understand if anyone, no matter how experienced, found that a tough call to make and one can never be certain of an outcome, but I suspect that in the current safety is all philosophy which the state encourages us to believe in, a high risk journey related to a lost cause is probably not a very suitable course of action. After all if a young woman who is known to have only hours to live and wished to die at home cannot be supplied with any form of hospital transport to get home, what possible justification can there be for the additional risks of high speed transport for someone else already considered beyond help?
If you fnd this an unpallatable point I tend to agree, but that should not stop it being discussed as a reference point.
In the early hours of Sunday morning I was leaving the village to go to town to pick up my daughter and some friends after their night out. As I reached the main road through the village the only vehicle I coould see was an ambulance with lights on heading my way. So I waited for it to pass. As it left the village it had to slow for a fairly humped bridge over a railway. Then slow a lot for a tight roundabout which was introduced a few years ago. And then almost stop at some temporary traffic lights just after the roundabout where the maintenance team decided to close one sode of the road for the weekend despite appreaing to have almost finished there work. I bet that also caused havoc with the traffic on Sunday - often a busy day. Ambulance could not squeeze past a large coach waiting at the lights (no traffic coming the other way) until the car in front of the coach had moved up a little - and of course the car probably could not see the ambulance. All got sorted in the end and the ambulance passed through the red light - for about 20feet of roadworks. It took the next roundabout quite slowly - I have never worked out why there is a roundabout there - its original purpose was obsolete before it was completed - then up a short dual carriageway to the next roundabout and then slowly took the first exit onto the main road.
So it was obviously in a hurry but needed to take corners very gently for whatever reason. Quite typical really. So why do we insist in managing roads and road design in such a way ESV's have additional problems negotiating them. Worse in many towns and cities as others have pointed out - including the ambulance service in London in relation to speed bumps.
If obstacles like that are considered to be acceptable even though they may increase response and carriage times, what possible argument can be put forward to justify high-speed-in-town progress for a patient already considered to be a lost cause? Sorry if that sounds hard but put the emotion to one side and just consider it as presented.
So, speaking as a potential obstruction, yes I do want to make the passage of every ESV as easy as possible. I am prepared to get out of the way where it is possible to do so providing it does not put me or others in what looks like an unreasonable risk situation. I expect to be believed and removed from persecution actions should the circumstances result in any sort of prosection. This should happen with no effort, or very little effort, on my part. I would really not like to think that any such situations existed if the victim's chances of survival were very small and the risk of causing injury of one sort or another to others was very high.
I would feel the same way if I was the victim.
If the problem was clearly self inflicted I would be even less inclined to support risk taking.
I will now don my fireproofed suit whilst I await responses.
Pigeon said:
I just can't believe the number of people who've presumably read Dibble's post and yet still say they wouldn't get out of the way.
Let us be clear about this. Only a constable in unfirm or a traffic warden (any maybe a few others) can 'direct' you in your motor car. A person driving an ambulance or a fire engine does NOT have that power.
I find it ironic that some police want motorists to obey the letter of the law in some respects but then to ignore it at other times.
As I've already said, I do my best to assist an ESV but it might be different if I was on 9 points and in an area frequented by scamera vans.
The trafic rule of cause and effect.
Rules are for the onservance of fools and the guidance of wise men.
You answer to your own conscience. If people's behaviour is really governed by the tit-for-tat logic of the playground, then I begin to despair. So sometimes coppers act like prats. Does that make it OK for us to act like prats too?? You should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. If we only treat people as well as they treat us then we will all spiral down to the lowest common denominator of behaviour. Some future that offers.
future that offers.ATG said:
You answer to your own conscience. If people's behaviour is really governed by the tit-for-tat logic of the playground, then I begin to despair. So sometimes coppers act like prats. Does that make it OK for us to act like prats too?? You should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. If we only treat people as well as they treat us then we will all spiral down to the lowest common denominator of behaviour. Some
No, in the past it didn't.
Look at it from an "injustice" point of view.
There have been and always will be bent coppers who cheat to get people done, for whatever reasons. But most people didn't come in contact with them. They found the Police to be fair and just. In 20 odd years driving I've been stopped by trafpol maybe 5 times. Even though I might have grumbled to myself "go catch some criminals" I knew at the time that actually I was bang to rights, I was going fast and I deserved to be ticked off.
Now, injustice in this situation is different. Suppose the police instead of being sensible, lurked at conveniently set ludicrously low speed limits and ticketed everyone over the limit irrespective of .... well anything. (Streetcop and others have stated their views on catching speeders, and it's not literalistic).
Suppose these police then enforced every rule to a ludicrous extremity - so everyone carrying a penknife was prosecuted, or a screwdriver. So the police stopped everyone, caused a nuisance, and generally pissed people off. They check everyone's car every five minutes. They stop people on a whim.
People would begin to think "well, stuff them".
This is what the Cameras are doing to Police Officers.
They are behaving in this way - and many people, who normally would support the Police , get done for doing 35 in a 30 on a new speed limit at 3 AM and think "well stuff them".
The plod here are used to having the support of the public, and expecting at worst cooperation. And it is disappearing rapidly - and this will get worse.
In any motoring discussion ten years ago people would have been crucified for these views. I remember once tearing down a road in almost identical circs. The *only* thing in my mind was "get out of the Cops way asap".
But it's not there anymore. People do not believe, people do not trust.
The instinctive "cops are straight and honest" is replaced by mistrust "the bastards will get you if they can" - because their bastard cousins, the camera partnerships, do.
Rather than seeing every snappee as £60 quid in the pocket of whatever, see it as one more member of the public who will not help the police - and encourage other people to not do so either.
The cameras behave, in your metaphor, like a legalistic playground monitor - tit for tat. Yes, you should rise above it. People won't.
>> Edited by autismuk on Monday 6th December 20:58
I 've been reading this and i can still say that i will always get out of the way of an EV, even if it means rolling through a redlight which i have done a few times, each the copper has given a thumps up. Even though i only seem to see police by speed cameras these days or putting abusive drunks in vans. When i ever i see a EV with blues and twos going i always make sure its not going towards anywhere i know a friend or family is. I rekon people what ever their opinon is should remember that ev could going to save their life some day!!
>> Edited by paddy27 on Monday 6th December 21:12
>> Edited by paddy27 on Monday 6th December 21:12
At a slight tangent, a friend of mine was travelling (at night)down a very narrow lane through a thickly wooded area. He saw a police car with blues and twos rapidly close up on him. He knew the area well and was aware that there was no safe passing spot or place for him to pull off the road for about 4 miles. With the police car on his rear bumper, head lights flashing, he did what he thought was the right thing. He floored it and because of his familiarity with the road nearly lost the police car. As the road opened up onto a common, he pulled over to let the police car pass. Regrettably they didn't pass, but stopped behind him and then proceeded to throw the book at him. Apparently they had been parked up, saw him pass at what they considered excessive speed. They decided to give chase and formed the view that they were dealing with a drunk driver or 'runner' when he took off.
Finally, the matter never got to court.
Finally, the matter never got to court.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff