Police Aggression at Car Meets

[recaroroadster_oli]

Greendubber said:

I think that looks fantastic, not been a fan of those but yours looks spot on.

Thank you! Much appreciated. There’s readers rides thread on it somewhere with more pics

[xjay1337]

The problem is that even "peaceful" car meets are treated with contempt by the Fifty.

You can be as good as gold literally parked up and stood outside your cars talking about world peace and nearly in every instance, at some point throughout the night some member of the law will turn up and start threatening S59 this and that.

It creates a really horrible atmosphere between car enthusiasts (many of whom are local residents) and the police service.

I have no problem if an officer wants to come along, and ensure everyone's safety. Most traffic cops like cars. Maybe they could chat to some people, take an interest in their cars , and get known as the "local friendly bobby" perhaps?

Where as I've only ever seen that once.

What I have seen countless times is police officers come to a meet (that is being held with the permission of the land owner and being conducted in a peaceful manner) and start going around actively looking for things to fine people for.
This includes typical things like "Air ride is too low" and "Metal numberplate is illegal" (despite them fully meeting the requirements of the law).

Personally I have no time for that attitude and just creates tension between people.

I went to one car meet a week for the best part of 3 years at Krispy Kreme in Kingston, Cobham Services and Beaconsfield Services and only twice in 3 years did we ever have to ban anyone from coming back.

[recaroroadster_oli]

Countdown said:

Who should decide whether something is or isn't anti-social?

Very few people accept that what “they” personally are doing is anti-social, whether it be driving like a complete phallus or something as simple as having a noisy exhaust. (The latter is one of the most irritating wky pointless things and yet plenty of people seem to have one and also seemingly think that other people appreciate them).

Point being – just because you/I/somebody else thinks that something is “fine” doesnt actually mean the wider public think it’s fine.

The thing is. Having a noisy exhaust or even a noisy standard car isn’t enough to warrant an s59, redlining it through a quiet village at night however, would be which is fair enough. The problem with a law that requires no evidence and is purely based on opinion has obvious negatives. Just cause you have had no negative experience with police doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen

[Pegscratch]

Countdown said:

I never assumed I was. However somebody has to be and I'm happy for that to be the Police.

I'm appalled at the thought that the police should be arbiter of what is acceptable. That is for courts to view objectively. I may be part of a minority here (although it does look more 50/50) but having a piece of legislation that effectively translates to a "do whatever you want" cart is horrific and very totalitarian. If the police need some of the powers that come about from it then that legislation should be put forward enabling them to stop the behaviours they're looking to prevent with immediate effect but allowing people to then be tried and convicted as with any other crime or perceived crime; but they should be written specifically for the vehicles that do not fall under already pre-existing legislations. Donutting in a car and revving it whilst stationary is already pretty much covered by Careless Driving if not Dangerous for the former; the Section 59 just allows an officer to act on it without any evidence.

As the victim of some fairly abrupt treatment because some yobs in stty Vauxhall Corsas were busy being tts in McDonalds - as I was waiting for my meal before driving off and leaving the police to turn up looking for the "loud cars making a lot of noise" to see me sat there in a 700bhp estate car, I have a hell of a problem with that legislation. "I was here whilst they were being tts" just resulted in accusations of knowing them; because in their eyes of course owners of nearly £100k of estate car regularly hang around with kids in Corsa VXRs. It took the staff of McDonalds showing them the CCTV of me turning up after them, driving straight into the drive through and then stopping in the parked order bays for them to decide they were leaving it. No apologies though, and I handled myself well enough to persuade them to actually investigate but they were already dipping into the S.59 pocket when they approached me.

Horrendous legislation that should have been killed at inception but for the endemic problem with kids on dirt bikes it was drafted to try and counter.

[RedSwede]

recaroroadster_oli said:

Again. Can be appealed as I’ve done it and got it removed

That is good to hear. I'm not sure you actually "appealed" it - more that you did a good job to convince them to rescind it. I think they could have kept saying no should they have been so inclined.

recaroroadster_oli said:

In my experience police are a joke tbh

Perfectly understandable. And this is my point - using legislation like this because someone has lowered their MX5 by 8mm (or not responding to burglary, armed robbery, etc), makes more and more of the population an enemy of the police. That is the flaw, and for society it doesn't end well.

[Pegscratch]

recaroroadster_oli said:

redlining it through a quiet village at night however, would be which is fair enough.

But it isn't fair enough. Redlining through a village should be dealt with under the pre-existing legislation that allows police to penalise drivers who drive dangerously, without care or at excess speed. Turning up "cos Ms Miggins saw you and there was a loud car" and penalising you with zero opportunity or requirement to gather evidence is disgusting and totalitarian.

[RedSwede]

Countdown said:

I never assumed I was. However somebody has to be and I'm happy for that to be the Police.

I'm not happy for it to be someone who has a middling knowledge of the law, and is caught up in a potentially heated, fast paced situation. There will always be emotion involved at times like that, and the police are not going to climb down from their position after a "discussion" are they?

[Pegscratch]

RedSwede said:

the police are not going to climb down from their position after a "discussion" are they?

Just, and only when instructed to go and fetch evidence to demonstrate either way. Not every situation has ready access to that evidence though.

[Graveworm]

Pegscratch said:

But it isn't fair enough. Redlining through a village should be dealt with under the pre-existing legislation that allows police to penalise drivers who drive dangerously, without care or at excess speed. Turning up "cos Ms Miggins saw you and there was a loud car" and penalising you with zero opportunity or requirement to gather evidence is disgusting and totalitarian.

But this, allows the police to stop the antisocial behaviour rather then penalise those who are doing it and allow it to continue. It was introduced to address a problem, that parliament deemed serious enough to warrant it, which couldn't be "Dealt with under the pre-existing legislation". Just as it does with uninsured cars etc.

[recaroroadster_oli]

Pegscratch said:

But it isn't fair enough. Redlining through a village should be dealt with under the pre-existing legislation that allows police to penalise drivers who drive dangerously, without care or at excess speed. Turning up "cos Ms Miggins saw you and there was a loud car" and penalising you with zero opportunity or requirement to gather evidence is disgusting and totalitarian.

Couldn’t agree more. If you’re actually driving fast or dangerously, however an officer were to see you redlining your car at the lights/in a car park. Or using excessively high revs for no reason late at night this could be a reason for an s59 as the only offence youre committing (if you can even call it that) is being anti social. Personally I think the whole s59 legislation is garbage and should have never been passed. The world has a lot more important issues than Doris being offended by a loud exhaust

[InitialDave]

recaroroadster_oli said:

It’s irrelevant what kind of car it is, if it’s not being used anti socially then no s59 should be issued. Pretty simple really. But just for you this is my car, sure you’ll have something negative to say as you seem the sort

I don't think I'd get that off my drive, never mind over some of the vicious speed humps on my way to work!

[Pegscratch]

recaroroadster_oli said:

Couldn’t agree more. If you’re actually driving fast or dangerously, however an officer were to see you redlining your car at the lights/in a car park. Or using excessively high revs for no reason late at night this could be a reason for an s59 as the only offence youre committing (if you can even call it that) is being anti social. Personally I think the whole s59 legislation is garbage and should have never been passed. The world has a lot more important issues than Doris being offended by a loud exhaust

Excessively high revs or revving excessively whilst stationary; wouldn't that fit the definition provided of Careless Driving/DWDCA? I know S.59 would "logically" apply but given that an offence has been committed that can follow the usual "gather evidence, present case, independent trial" process, "It makes my job easier" should see a police officer sacked.

[RedSwede]

Pegscratch said:

Turning up "cos Ms Miggins saw you and there was a loud car" and penalising you with zero opportunity or requirement to gather evidence is disgusting and totalitarian.

Absolutely. A lot of people on this forum go around without S59s basically because of police discretion - I'm sure one could be slapped on many a car for any number of reasons.

The loudest car I ever saw on the road was a Bugatti T35. Definitely disturbing the peace - but I think a little bit of me would die if they were stopped and handed an S59. Which the legislation does allow.

[recaroroadster_oli]

Pegscratch said:

Excessively high revs or revving excessively whilst stationary; wouldn't that fit the definition provided of Careless Driving/DWDCA?

I don’t see how. Nothing careless about deliberately making a bit of noise. You’re in full control of the car and are clearly paying attention. Tbf I love my hks exhaust and regularly drive solely to listen to it. As I said earlier. I think the world has a lot bigger problems. The noise limit is in place after 11 etc so I don’t see what harm a loud car is in the middle of the day. We don’t live on a silent planet

[Graveworm]

recaroroadster_oli said:

I don’t see how. Nothing careless about deliberately making a bit of noise. You’re in full control of the car and are clearly paying attention. Tbf I love my hks exhaust and regularly drive solely to listen to it. As I said earlier. I think the world has a lot bigger problems. The noise limit is in place after 11 etc so I don’t see what harm a loud car is in the middle of the day. We don’t live on a silent planet

It could fit the definition of inconsiderate driving. As above if
" quality of life is being damaged by ... noise pollution"

[Pegscratch]

recaroroadster_oli said:

I don’t see how. Nothing careless about deliberately making a bit of noise. You’re in full control of the car and are clearly paying attention. Tbf I love my hks exhaust and regularly drive solely to listen to it. As I said earlier. I think the world has a lot bigger problems. The noise limit is in place after 11 etc so I don’t see what harm a loud car is in the middle of the day. We don’t live on a silent planet

I'm not fully aware of the law around it, but a quick peek on a couple of sites gives verbiage to the following effect:

Some Site said:

Careless driving actually constitutes two offences:

Driving without due care and attention; and
Driving without reasonable consideration for other persons.
For you to be convicted of one of these offences, the court would have to find that you did not exercise the degree of care and skill that would be reasonably expected of a driver in the same circumstances. The test is the same for all road users regardless of age or experience.

I'd say revving tits off your car suggests "driving without reasonable consideration for other persons". It can then be a subjective test based on time of day (it is inconsiderate to drive your car in the noisiest manner possible at 10-11pm, but at 10am on a back road it is not so) and tried properly by objective legal professionals.

[recaroroadster_oli]

Pegscratch said:

I'd say revving tits off your car suggests "driving without reasonable consideration for other persons". It can then be a subjective test based on time of day (it is inconsiderate to drive your car in the noisiest manner possible at 10-11pm, but at 10am on a back road it is not so) and tried properly by objective legal professionals.

Massively depends doesn’t it. I mean my revving could easily be perceived as antisocial but then so could a lot of other things. Think people need to develop more of a “live and let live” mentality, rather than the current “ban everything” that we’re heading towards atm. I mean what about music concerts? What about factory loud cars? What about building work? Etc etc. Some people just need to be told to shut up whining. If I was sat outside your house bouncing off the limiter for 40 mins then fair play. But having to hear my exhaust for 30 seconds as I pass through or set off aggressively. Sorry no sympathy

[Psycho Warren]

The problem is often the cops seem to use section 59 criteria as "either or both" When in reality the wording of the legislation is clearly AND. This means a S59 cannot be issued legally unless it is causing is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public AND is being used in a way that is careless or inconsiderate driving.

There are a lot of occasions where people have had S59's just for attending meets even parked up which clearly cannot be in accordance with the regulations as you aren't driving.

[xjay1337]

Psycho Warren said:

The problem is often the cops seem to use section 59 criteria as "either or both" When in reality the wording of the legislation is clearly AND. This means a S59 cannot be issued legally unless it is causing is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public AND is being used in a way that is careless or inconsiderate driving.

There are a lot of occasions where people have had S59's just for attending meets even parked up which clearly cannot be in accordance with the regulations as you aren't driving.

Problem is once you get an S59 it's basically undefendable and unarguable.

That's my core problem with it.

They complain that younger people today are bored / up to no good / not respectful and you wonder why many car enthusiasts of today have contempt for the police.

[FrenchCarFan]

Just remember. People don't like cars meeting up. More people think like this than don't. If you turn up to a night time meet don't be surprised to get threatened with a s59.