South Yorkshire police super car haul

[andburg]

Just seen this, 3 hired super cars impounded by syp

https://www.facebook.com/sypoperationalsupport/pos...

[anonymous-user]

Interesting to know how they got straight to part 2 of the S.59.

[InitialDave]

La Liga said:

Interesting to know how they got straight to part 2 of the S.59.

There's a rather woolly bit in there about being able to seize vehicles if it's "impractical" to give a warning or they've got "reasonable grounds" to believe one has already been given.

[anonymous-user]

It's not impractical to give a warning at the road side and the Police National Computer holds the warnings on driver / vehicles.

Perhaps all three drivers had warnings. They may have been warned earlier that day.

[ashleyman]

Is it possible that there was already an S59 assigned to the car from a previous rental customer. Then, because the S59 stays on driver AND the vehicle for 1 year. These guys hire the cars, get seen doing silly things and get given S59's. But because the cars already had a first warning, they're removed and towed?

Makes me think perhaps these guys got given 1 S59 and because the car already had 1 and now has 2 it get's seized even though and I hate this expression but it wasn't their fault, the first S59 was the first rental customers fault.

I wonder if thats possible, if it is then it could see big trouble for these car hire firms considering who rents them and what they're used for (showing off).

What happens to the cars now 2 S59's have been handed to the vehicle? Do they get seized or released back to the owner? What happens the next time someone get's pulled over for being a little silly but having 2 S59's. It's going to end in these cars being seized every time they're spotted by Police.

Edited by ashleyman on Friday 21st April 01:00

[anonymous-user]

There is the possibility the cars have the warnings, but I think it would be a bit harsh if that were the case.

The warnings don't stack. I think they could reset the 12 months though.

[cmaguire]

Pointless post by the Plod though.
No real information.
Propaganda central.

[telecat]

Looking at that basically reveals the problem with the S.59. They could have done the Drivers for the offences but choose to impound the cars. The drivers learn little and the Police look like idiots.

[Ki3r]

telecat said:

Looking at that basically reveals the problem with the S.59. They could have done the Drivers for the offences but choose to impound the cars. The drivers learn little and the Police look like idiots.

If the drivers have already had one within the last 12 months then they would be well aware that if they drive like that again it will be seized. Would you feel different if they let them go, they do the same ten minutes later and end up killing someone? There is a way to stop them driving like knobs for a day at least, why wouldn't you do it? Just because its a nice car?

[Some Gump]

I'm sure the police hater types will accuse me of assumption, but last time I checked, that demographic of young supercar hirers tend to drive like morons.

One post on the FB thread was from someone who claims to have been stuck in a jam behind them because they blocked a road to then show off. No idea why anyone on PH would condone that sort of crap.

[Drive Blind]

wtf is "anti-unsocial driving" ?

[4040vision]

Ki3r said:

telecat said:

Looking at that basically reveals the problem with the S.59. They could have done the Drivers for the offences but choose to impound the cars. The drivers learn little and the Police look like idiots.

If the drivers have already had one within the last 12 months then they would be well aware that if they drive like that again it will be seized. Would you feel different if they let them go, they do the same ten minutes later and end up killing someone? There is a way to stop them driving like knobs for a day at least, why wouldn't you do it? Just because its a nice car?

It isn't unreasonable for the police to assume that the cars had been hired so the drivers could act like they did. In that case and with that very reasonable assumption seize the cars, puts a stop to 3 idiots who shouldn't be driving like that in public.
What's the alternative, the police "use their discretion" popular term here for "let me drive like an arse until I get found by a rare officer and he'll let me off"? If that was the action then I can imagine 3 idiots sniggering as they drive off. I can't see how the alternative is reasonable in any way.

[4040vision]

Drive Blind said:

wtf is "anti-unsocial driving" ?

Driving 3-abreast with 2 of of your mates on a 3-lane motorway preventing anyone passing then burning off at high speed seems to be a good example.

[PistonBroker]

4040vision said:

Drive Blind said:

wtf is "anti-unsocial driving" ?

Driving 3-abreast with 2 of of your mates on a 3-lane motorway preventing anyone passing then burning off at high speed seems to be a good example.

That sounds like a good example of anti-social driving.

We're still none the wiser as to what anti-unsocial driving is.

[alpha channel]

Social friendly diving? The Anti would cancel out the un to give us social?

[Ed.]

4040vision said:

Drive Blind said:

wtf is "anti-unsocial driving" ?

Driving 3-abreast with 2 of of your mates on a 3-lane motorway preventing anyone passing then burning off at high speed seems to be a good example.

Quick with the soundbyte but not so good on the details, you don't work in police PR do you?
In case you do, do facebook likes get recorded for appraisals?

[telecat]

The problem with the S.59 is simple. What is "Unsocial or alarming"? Police have issued them when a driver accidentally squealed their tyres getting away from a standing start. I believe some Motorcyclists were threatened for filtering "too quickly". It's the "I'm pissed off" use that is more than annoying.

[sidicks]

4040vision said:

It isn't unreasonable for the police to assume that the cars had been hired so the drivers could act like they did. In that case and with that very reasonable assumption seize the cars, puts a stop to 3 idiots who shouldn't be driving like that in public.
What's the alternative, the police "use their discretion" popular term here for "let me drive like an arse until I get found by a rare officer and he'll let me off"? If that was the action then I can imagine 3 idiots sniggering as they drive off. I can't see how the alternative is reasonable in any way.

That seems highly unreasonable and very much treating people as "guilty until proven innocent". Surely the vast majority of people who hire supercars do so for a special occasion and have not intention of driving anti-socially?

[sonnenschein3000]

sidicks said:

That seems highly unreasonable and very much treating people as "guilty until proven innocent". Surely the vast majority of people who hire supercars do so for a special occasion and have not intention of driving anti-socially?

With the exception of the limo cars (rolls royces, bentleys, etc.), sports cars when hired for special occasions (e.g. weddings) usually get used for generally anti-social behaviour, although this story of the M1 seems quite extreme.

As to what sort of weddings? Well, I couldn't really comment as I'll probably get a warning off an admin for saying so.

Edited by sonnenschein3000 on Monday 24th April 21:11

[mybrainhurts]

sidicks said:

Surely the vast majority of people who hire supercars do so for a special occasion and have not intention of driving anti-socially?

The only ones I've seen have been Asian weddings and driving like a bunch of tits. Last convoy I saw was 20+ cars.

Having said that, the noise was magnificent....