covert bikes

[trumpet600]

Heskey said:

I would love to hear how the police can possibly encourage anyone to speed.

Dear boy, you really are naive, aren't you?

[SplatSpeed]

trumpet600 said:

Heskey said:

I would love to hear how the police can possibly encourage anyone to speed.

Dear boy, you really are thick as pigst, aren't you?

EFA

[Heskey]

SplatSpeed said:

trumpet600 said:

Heskey said:

I would love to hear how the police can possibly encourage anyone to speed.

Dear boy, you really are thick as pigst, aren't you?

EFA

G'wan then smartarse.

With evidence/sources, show me exactly how the police can make people speed instead of being a .

[SplatSpeed]

Heskey said:

SplatSpeed said:

trumpet600 said:

Heskey said:

I would love to hear how the police can possibly encourage anyone to speed.

Dear boy, you really are thick as pigst, aren't you?

EFA

G'wan then smartarse.

With evidence/sources, show me exactly how the police can make people speed instead of being a .

by braking then accelerating whilst you are in the middle of an overtaking manauver contary to the highway code!

[Heskey]

Let me understand this.

You're saying:

You're behind a copper, he breaks somewhat wrecklessly, forcing you to think "fk this I'm overtaking this loon", and then when you're overtaking, the purposefully speed up to prevent you, and then put the sirens on when you're still trying to overtake on now-solid white lines?

All sounds very sordid and horror-movie like to me, in some bizarre backwards way.

But surely you can take down the registration number and report them for driving wrecklessly? But do it when you pull over; or he'll book you for being on a mobile when driving!

[trumpet600]

Heskey said:

SplatSpeed said:

trumpet600 said:

Heskey said:

I would love to hear how the police can possibly encourage anyone to speed.

Dear boy, you really are thick as pigst, aren't you?

EFA

G'wan then smartarse.

With evidence/sources, show me exactly how the police can make people speed instead of being a .

You sound like an ideal candidate for local govenment or the police force.

As already mentioned earlier, i think you will see things very differently when you own a bike powerful enough to overtake milk floats.

[m3psm]

Heskey said:

…show me exactly how the police can make people speed

On any road the cop only has to do 2 or 3 mph below the speed limit and a biker will overtake and he’s nicked if the cop is anal or baiting.

Take this a step further and the cop bike then speeds up a little and starts to catch the biker. The biker will pull away slightly to avoid having to go through the process again, the cop goes faster again, etc, etc then the sirens come on at much higher speeds.

The cop overtakes a biker doing the speed limit on a clear road and the biker thinks that he’ll tag on the back and also speeds up which turns into a spirited run along nice roads, then the sirens come on.

There are many ways of goading someone into going faster.

Heskey said:

But surely you can take down the registration number and report them for driving wrecklessly?

You can if you want parking tickets, speeding fines, littering fines etc for the rest of your life

[hugoagogo]

if you support this, just take a look at the 'worst driving ever recorded' thread, and consider in the light of that if you'd fancy doing 4 months in jail for some overtaking

[Heskey]

m3psm said:

Heskey said:

…show me exactly how the police can make people speed

On any road the cop only has to do 2 or 3 mph below the speed limit and a biker will overtake and he’s nicked if the cop is anal or baiting.

Take this a step further and the cop bike then speeds up a little and starts to catch the biker. The biker will pull away slightly to avoid having to go through the process again, the cop goes faster again, etc, etc then the sirens come on at much higher speeds.

The cop overtakes a biker doing the speed limit on a clear road and the biker thinks that he’ll tag on the back and also speeds up which turns into a spirited run along nice roads, then the sirens come on.

There are many ways of goading someone into going faster.

Heskey said:

But surely you can take down the registration number and report them for driving wrecklessly?

You can if you want parking tickets, speeding fines, littering fines etc for the rest of your life

Thank you for clarifying for me; I can see how some coppers may be this way inclined.

Those of you above just going "Buuuh you sound like a gov. candidate" just stfu and answer the questions I'm asking.

[m3psm]

Heskey said:

Thank you for clarifying for me; I can see how some coppers may be this way inclined.

In a perfect world none of that would happen, but unfortunately it already does with unmarked cars. Cops have several agendas these days and one of those is unfortunately to make money on fines.

You could argue that if everyone stayed within the law on all occasions in all elements of life, then we'd have nothing to fear. Alas life doesn't work like that and if it did, the world would be a very dull place.

[trumpet600]

Heskey said:

Those of you above just going "Buuuh you sound like a gov. candidate" just stfu and answer the questions I'm asking.

"you're breaking the law blah blah blah"

Again, I reiterate comments already made that your views will change should you ever be old enough to be allowed to have a more powerful bike.

I hope you are not unfortunate enough to be goaded by unmarked cars or bikes, but you are very blinkered if you thought this kind of thing is fiction. Not all police officers are like this thankfully, lets hope for your sake it's not you they to decide to have a bit of fun with.

Edited by trumpet600 on Thursday 3rd July 16:47

[Heskey]

trumpet600 said:

I hope you are not unfortunate enough to be goaded by unmarked cars or bikes, but you are very blinkered if you thought this kind of thing is fiction. Not all police officers are like this thankfully, lets hope for your sake it's not you they to decide to have a bit of fun with.

I very much doubt I will be; I don't want to point the finger here but unlike the views expressed in this thread, I am constantly weary of hidden cameras and so on, and so I don't attempt to bend to rules once in while.

But like you say. Maybe in future

[Yoda954]

Heskey said:

I very much doubt I will be; I don't want to point the finger here but unlike the views expressed in this thread, I am constantly weary of hidden cameras and so on, and so I don't attempt to bend to rules once in while.

But like you say. Maybe in future

You're quite fun for a troll...a bit young perhaps, but I think we'll let you stay around here for a bit longer

[Heskey]

Yoda954 said:

Heskey said:

I very much doubt I will be; I don't want to point the finger here but unlike the views expressed in this thread, I am constantly weary of hidden cameras and so on, and so I don't attempt to bend to rules once in while.

But like you say. Maybe in future

You're quite fun for a troll...a bit young perhaps, but I think we'll let you stay around here for a bit longer

Cheers. But I've always considered the definition of a troll to be say.. someone like SplatSpeed who prefers to hurl abuse than actually convey an argument or backup claims with evidence.

I'm just expressing a genuine opposing viewpoint?

[hiccy]

black-k1 said:

Perhaps each of us should first answer a few simple questions:

Should there be traffic laws?
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) Only if applied to others and not to me.

If there are traffic laws, how should they be enforced?
a) By specifically qualified police.
b) By third party QUANGOS or private companies.
c) By any vigilant that wants to.

Should there be any speed limits?
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) Only if applied to others and not to me.

If there are speed limits, how should they be enforced?
a) By specifically qualified police.
b) By third party QUANGOS or private companies.
c) By any vigilant that wants to.

Now, working on the assumption that most right minded people would actually answer a) to all of the above, the question then is:

How should the specifically qualified police actually enforce the traffic laws and speed limits?
a) By using lots of marked vehicles that only ever appear in known locations and pre-prescribed times and provide advice and education in addition to charges and punishment.
b) By using some marked and some unmarked vehicles that provide advice and education in addition to charges and punishment and focusing on locations where statistics show there is an increased safety risk.
c) By using covert automated equipment that is focused on areas where there are known to be a greater likelihood of law transgression even though statistics show there is no greater safety risk.

If you are against the unmarked bikes, what are the alternatives? How do you suggest that you catch the chav in the body kitted Corsa who almost ran you off the road, but who behaves like ‘Reginald Molehusband’ as soon as there is a marked police vehicle in sight? How do you catch the ‘Mr Magoo’ who travels down country roads at a whopping 20mph but always pulls over to let police cars past ‘in case there is an emergancy’?

I couldn't answer "A" to all those questions, the third question is missing the most accurate answer, namely:

"Where appropriate, and of an appropriate level"

And that is the whole nub of the issue! Speed limits on motorways and NSL in this country are NOT always appropriate to the road conditions; in fact, often the speed limit on either can be comfortably exceeded by large margins. Yet whilst doing so you risk losing your licence regardless of the fact that the punishment makes no contribution to road safety.

This slavish pedantic enforcement of a blanket and often inappropiate limit is the problem, and the reason why many people on any number of wheels regularly exceed speed limits. Rather than training people to think about the speed they are travelling at and assess their safety, we use a "one size fits all" approach and wonder why people do 70 down a snow covered icy motorway.

I do appreciate the potential benefits of unmarked vehicles, but can't help feeling they are more than a little unfair when put into the context of our current road and legal system. Why should driving or riding in a safe and reasonable manner be endorsable?

[black-k1]

hiccy said:

black-k1 said:

Perhaps each of us should first answer a few simple questions:

Should there be traffic laws?
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) Only if applied to others and not to me.

If there are traffic laws, how should they be enforced?
a) By specifically qualified police.
b) By third party QUANGOS or private companies.
c) By any vigilant that wants to.

Should there be any speed limits?
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) Only if applied to others and not to me.

If there are speed limits, how should they be enforced?
a) By specifically qualified police.
b) By third party QUANGOS or private companies.
c) By any vigilant that wants to.

Now, working on the assumption that most right minded people would actually answer a) to all of the above, the question then is:

How should the specifically qualified police actually enforce the traffic laws and speed limits?
a) By using lots of marked vehicles that only ever appear in known locations and pre-prescribed times and provide advice and education in addition to charges and punishment.
b) By using some marked and some unmarked vehicles that provide advice and education in addition to charges and punishment and focusing on locations where statistics show there is an increased safety risk.
c) By using covert automated equipment that is focused on areas where there are known to be a greater likelihood of law transgression even though statistics show there is no greater safety risk.

If you are against the unmarked bikes, what are the alternatives? How do you suggest that you catch the chav in the body kitted Corsa who almost ran you off the road, but who behaves like ‘Reginald Molehusband’ as soon as there is a marked police vehicle in sight? How do you catch the ‘Mr Magoo’ who travels down country roads at a whopping 20mph but always pulls over to let police cars past ‘in case there is an emergancy’?

I couldn't answer "A" to all those questions, the third question is missing the most accurate answer, namely:

"Where appropriate, and of an appropriate level"

And that is the whole nub of the issue! Speed limits on motorways and NSL in this country are NOT always appropriate to the road conditions; in fact, often the speed limit on either can be comfortably exceeded by large margins. Yet whilst doing so you risk losing your licence regardless of the fact that the punishment makes no contribution to road safety.

This slavish pedantic enforcement of a blanket and often inappropiate limit is the problem, and the reason why many people on any number of wheels regularly exceed speed limits. Rather than training people to think about the speed they are travelling at and assess their safety, we use a "one size fits all" approach and wonder why people do 70 down a snow covered icy motorway.

I do appreciate the potential benefits of unmarked vehicles, but can't help feeling they are more than a little unfair when put into the context of our current road and legal system. Why should driving or riding in a safe and reasonable manner be endorsable?

But that’s the point. It’s not the police who decide what the limits are, it’s politicians and enforcement of limits is not the same as the setting of limits. If you accept that there needs to be limits then you must also accept that there needs to be enforcement. The advantage of enforcement by people rather than mechanical devices is that people can make judgment calls which mean enforcement is more likely to be based on safety rather than on blanket levels regardless of sense or safety. (It won’t be 100% perfect but nothing is and it’ll be better than the current regime based on cameras).

If you read some of my previous posts you will see that I actually believe that artificially low limits (which many are today) represent an increase in risk rather than a reduction in risk and I think that limits should be set according to scientific principles (the 85th percentile rule) rather than political whim. That doesn’t change the requirement for limit enforcement.

[m3psm]

black-k1 said:

If you are against the unmarked bikes, what are the alternatives? How do you suggest that you catch the chav in the body kitted Corsa who almost ran you off the road, but who behaves like ‘Reginald Molehusband’ as soon as there is a marked police vehicle in sight? How do you catch the ‘Mr Magoo’ who travels down country roads at a whopping 20mph but always pulls over to let police cars past ‘in case there is an emergancy’?

You use marked bikes.

A marked bike is just as efficient at chasing down speeders but has the advantage of advertising their presence to everyone it passes in either direction. It only has to been a few times for people to learn to slow down on that route.

A few may spot it and slow down to avoid getting nicked, then speed when out of sight, but they are probably the observant, alert and safe speeders and even they will remember that that route is now patrolled by something that they can’t shake off.

The undercover bike has little or no benefit in catching the unobservant rider over a marked bike. It does however have a massive advantage in earning revenue from safe speeders.

[black-k1]

m3psm said:

black-k1 said:

If you are against the unmarked bikes, what are the alternatives? How do you suggest that you catch the chav in the body kitted Corsa who almost ran you off the road, but who behaves like ‘Reginald Molehusband’ as soon as there is a marked police vehicle in sight? How do you catch the ‘Mr Magoo’ who travels down country roads at a whopping 20mph but always pulls over to let police cars past ‘in case there is an emergancy’?

You use marked bikes.

A marked bike is just as efficient at chasing down speeders but has the advantage of advertising their presence to everyone it passes in either direction. It only has to been a few times for people to learn to slow down on that route.

A few may spot it and slow down to avoid getting nicked, then speed when out of sight, but they are probably the observant, alert and safe speeders and even they will remember that that route is now patrolled by something that they can’t shake off.

The undercover bike has little or no benefit in catching the unobservant rider over a marked bike. It does however have a massive advantage in earning revenue from safe speeders.

But an unmarked bike will catch the other road users who do things that put bikers in danger but behave like saints when there is a marked vehicle around.

[m3psm]

black-k1 said:

But an unmarked bike will catch the other road users who do things that put bikers in danger but behave like saints when there is a marked vehicle around.

My point is that the bikers that ride dangerously are generally the less experienced who ride beyond their ability. These kind of bikers won't spot a marked bike either.

A marked 'blade or 'busa will still be pretty stealth, but will be a mobile advert for road safety. An unmarked bike will catch maybe 10-20% more people if they tag onto ride-outs etc. but will nothing for advertising their presence (to increase safety by awareness), but will definately increase revenue.

I realise that the unmarked bike will catch the experienced die-hard superbike riders who are very aware of their surroundings and would spot a marked bike a mile off, but although their speed can seem alarming, they are more often than not, safe. You don't get to that ability level otherwise, so these should not be who they target. They are easy earners on fines though.

[black-k1]

m3psm said:

black-k1 said:

But an unmarked bike will catch the other road users who do things that put bikers in danger but behave like saints when there is a marked vehicle around.

My point is that the bikers that ride dangerously are generally the less experienced who ride beyond their ability. These kind of bikers won't spot a marked bike either.

A marked 'blade or 'busa will still be pretty stealth, but will be a mobile advert for road safety. An unmarked bike will catch maybe 10-20% more people if they tag onto ride-outs etc. but will nothing for advertising their presence (to increase safety by awareness), but will definately increase revenue.

I realise that the unmarked bike will catch the experienced die-hard superbike riders who are very aware of their surroundings and would spot a marked bike a mile off, but although their speed can seem alarming, they are more often than not, safe. You don't get to that ability level otherwise, so these should not be who they target. They are easy earners on fines though.

I wasn't talking about unmarked bikes catching bikes, I was taking about unmarked bikes catching other road users (cars, lorries, busses etc.)

Unmarked vehicles should only ever be part of the options for policing in my opinion, with marked vehicles making up the majority.