Double offence?
Discussion
Something I read in the speeding survey triggered a thought.
Is this a standard thing? I know they can only do one person for any one offence, but can they only do you for one thing at a time?
Or was this Plod just in a good mood?
Anon said : Coming out of Boston on the B1121 doing 59 mph. Did not see new speed limit of 40 mph, plod Jumped out with radar gun. He then opened the passenger door, put to books on the passenger seat, said one is for speeding and the other is for no seat belt, which one would you like me to fill in? I told him the seat belt and got away with the speeding.
Is this a standard thing? I know they can only do one person for any one offence, but can they only do you for one thing at a time?
Or was this Plod just in a good mood?
bobthebench said: He could do you for both.
It is now a numbers game, so as long as he gets you, the Inspector sees the stats are fine. After all, you are one offender, not two offences.
He can only issue you one ticket at the time he stopped you. He could have reported you for both but that would require a long winded handwriting exercise and a possible day in court if you went not guilty.
Better for both of you if he gives you the choice of which ticket to have. A non-endorsable or an endorsable?
The moral in the story is, when speeding, don't wear your seat belt. You may get away with a non-endorsable ticket
It may cost you an awful lot more than you bargained for
>> Edited by madcop on Sunday 15th December 14:26
I thought that was the case. Can I just check a quick point here:
Isn't it true that if you're travelling much above 50 that a seatbelt does more harm than good? I thought the steering wheel/airbag spread the damage wheras the seatbelt could, in a sufficiently forceful stop, cut you into little chunks, a bit like cheesewire.
I also hear that if you come from 60 to an instantaneous stop your internal organs explode, so what difference does the seatbelt make?
There was an accident near me some time ago, a bloke ram into a thick brick wall in an old escort, not sure how fast exactly but it must have been rapid because they found his head in the next field from the from the rest of him.
Please note : I'm not encouraging anyone not to wear a seatbelt, I'm just weighing up the arguments.
I'm sure you can all see how my descrptions of flying heads are not intended to glorify speeding!!!
Isn't it about time we made 3/4 point harnesses a factory option instead of a modification?
>> Edited by P*Ting on Sunday 15th December 20:39
You may get more than you bargined for.
Isn't it true that if you're travelling much above 50 that a seatbelt does more harm than good? I thought the steering wheel/airbag spread the damage wheras the seatbelt could, in a sufficiently forceful stop, cut you into little chunks, a bit like cheesewire.
I also hear that if you come from 60 to an instantaneous stop your internal organs explode, so what difference does the seatbelt make?
There was an accident near me some time ago, a bloke ram into a thick brick wall in an old escort, not sure how fast exactly but it must have been rapid because they found his head in the next field from the from the rest of him.
Please note : I'm not encouraging anyone not to wear a seatbelt, I'm just weighing up the arguments.
I'm sure you can all see how my descrptions of flying heads are not intended to glorify speeding!!!
Isn't it about time we made 3/4 point harnesses a factory option instead of a modification?
>> Edited by P*Ting on Sunday 15th December 20:39
Might be a bit irrelivent but my mum had an accident 3 years ago in her citroen xantia some stupid bint had run out of fuel on a sharp bend coming out of mosterton (she was renowned for it) anyway she came round the bend to meet 3 cars stopped behind dopeys fiesta so she hit the braks and skided towards the rear of the stopped cars so she moved to the other side of the road which was clear at the time so she had more room to stop next thing she knows a cattle lorry comes flying round the bend and hits her (now stopped) head on she had no seatbelt on and was thrown into the steering wheel , she had 3 broken ribs and damaged her knee on the steering column . the copper i spoke to said the cit had saved her life because the hydrulic suspension kept the car level and stopped it going under the lorry and it had a full size airbag 60 litre and not an srs bag 30 litre which works with a seatbelt , glad i made her buy the xantia and nt the mondeo she was thinking of getting or she may no longer be here , anyway they didnt do her for not wearing a seatbelt so she got away with it but what a way to do it 
my mums a stuntmum 
my mums a stuntmum
DanH said:
Hang on, didn't I read a post by madcop saying that there weren't targets that needed to be reached?
No. Quite the opposite.
What I said was that there are no longer any performance indicators which are aimed at motoring offences for traffic oficers. They are generally assessed (depending on the regime of the force they work in) on the number of crime arrests and detections that they make. The focus on minor traffic matters has gone, along with a lot of the expertise that used to be within the Traffic Depts. Drink drivers are still a major performance indicator to be met as well as crime.
Police officers have to complete a yearly assessment which has to be evidenced by what they do. They are set objectives which are compatable with the type of role they are employed in. This system is called PDR (personal development review)
Within the objectives will be certain criteria that need to be met to show that the officer is competent at his/her job. This is where targets are set to individual officers within the service. The targets are not specific to the individual officer unless that role is a specific individual role. They are normally generic targets for that department which everyone on it should acheive.
To fail to acheive these targets (the system has a built in 6 month review set into it) can mean that the officer is identified as needing remedial supevision (kick up the ar5e) or if the targets are not met after this suggested action plan, then removal from the specialist department and ultimately the service if the performance is poor.
I am not aware of the targets set for speed detection safety van officers, but they will have set targets and they will have to acheive them to show that they are not driving the safety van to Jocks Cafe and having 6 hour tea breaks every day.
If PDR is not kept up to date and accurate with evidence of what the officer is doing, then any application for a specialist post or promotion is not even considered. The last two annual appraisals which are based on the PDR have to be submitted with the application for a job within the service.
P*Ting said:
Isn't it true that if you're travelling much above 50 that a seatbelt does more harm than good? I thought the steering wheel/airbag spread the damage wheras the seatbelt could, in a sufficiently forceful stop, cut you into little chunks, a bit like cheesewire.
Friction burns and severe bruising are about the most you are likely to suffer from a seat belt. They would soon be modified if they were to act as a cheese wire. TRL test them continually.
I also hear that if you come from 60 to an instantaneous stop your internal organs explode, so what difference does the seatbelt make?
The speed is 40 mph actually and is called a deceleration injury. The organs do not explode but the heart which is not attached to anything other than the tubes that feed it, continues at that seed within the chest cavity which can tear the major blood vessels immediately above the heart. The result is death within a few seconds as the bodys blood is pumped into the body cavity.
This usually only happens to casualties such as pedestrians and motorcyclists (when they hit stationary objects such as lamp posts or the road when they fall back to earth, or orther traffic travelling the opposite way) who do not have the protection of crumple zones to absorb the impact from a high speed to a stop by rapid and not instant deceleration.
There was an accident near me some time ago, a bloke ram into a thick brick wall in an old escort, not sure how fast exactly but it must have been rapid because they found his head in the next field from the from the rest of him.
Individual circumstances within accidents other than seat belt wearing will ultimately affect the outcome of any injuries.
There was a fatal accident in Slough on Saturday afternoon. A stolen car (Honda Civic type 'R') being driven by a disqualified driver who was hotting it down chalvey High Street, hit a car with 4 people in it. One was killed, Ten year old boy had serious head injuries, other two were serious but not critical.
NONE WERE WEARING SEAT BELTS. Had they been, then they would undoubtedly have survived and suffered less injury.
The driver of the stolen car ran off (why is it that they neary always manage to do this?) but is now safely within the protection of the prison system which is what he will now need for a very long time.
Please note : I'm not encouraging anyone not to wear a seatbelt, I'm just weighing up the arguments.
I'm sure you can all see how my descrptions of flying heads are not intended to glorify speeding!!!
Isn't it about time we made 3/4 point harnesses a factory option instead of a modification?
Even less people would wear them as they are time consuming to put on and they crumple your skirt or dress up badly
Wearing of seat belts has dramatically cut serious injury and death. You only have to ask the organ donor charities who are struggling to find organs for those that require new ones.
>> Edited by madcop on Monday 16th December 11:34
Seatbelts work. Plain and simple.
When I totalled my scooby earlier this year I walked away with a few cuts and bruises.
I was wearing my seatbelt and the air bag went off. I had a beautiful seat belt bruise across my torso and a burn down both arms from the air bag explosive charge, but I walked away.
If I hadn't been wearing the seat belt I have little doubt that I wouldn't be typing this now.
When I totalled my scooby earlier this year I walked away with a few cuts and bruises.
I was wearing my seatbelt and the air bag went off. I had a beautiful seat belt bruise across my torso and a burn down both arms from the air bag explosive charge, but I walked away.
If I hadn't been wearing the seat belt I have little doubt that I wouldn't be typing this now.
madcop said:
P*Ting said:
Isn't it about time we made 3/4 point harnesses a factory option instead of a modification?
Even less people would wear them as they are time consuming to put on and they crumple your skirt or dress up badly
Wearing of seat belts has dramatically cut serious injury and death. You only have to ask the organ donor charities who are struggling to find organs for those that require new ones.
Cool - lets allow people decide whether or not they want to wear a belt. This should help organ supply as well as culling some of the Stupid.
Mad
- in your experience do seat belt catches jam? I keep hearing this as a 'reason' not to wear a belt. Looking at the catch as an engineer I'm inclined to say it's bollocks and blame people for getting befuddled and not pressing the button properly...
madcop said:
P*Ting said:
Isn't it true that if you're travelling much above 50 that a seatbelt does more harm than good? I thought the steering wheel/airbag spread the damage wheras the seatbelt could, in a sufficiently forceful stop, cut you into little chunks, a bit like cheesewire.
I also hear that if you come from 60 to an instantaneous stop your internal organs explode, so what difference does the seatbelt make?
The speed is 40 mph actually and is called a deceleration injury. The organs do not explode but the heart which is not attached to anything other than the tubes that feed it, continues at that seed within the chest cavity which can tear the major blood vessels immediately above the heart. The result is death within a few seconds as the bodys blood is pumped into the body cavity.
There is also a ligament (forget the exact name) that sits vertically in front of the liver; when decelerating in milliseconds from 40mph+ this DOES act as a cheesewire and does all sorts of unpleasant things to the liver. As the liver contains a good deal of blood, which is lost into the abdominal cavity, the victim enters shock very rapidly and, without surgical intervention, will die in a matter of hours or sooner. Note that externally visible signs of injury may not be present - you may see a distended abdomen or 'pattern' bruising, but not always; which is why ambulance personnel will always try to ascertain speed of impact - they're not just being nosey
Im all in favour of seatbelts.
I think that Newtons second law states that a body(no pun) in motion will continue in motion, unless acted upon by an external force, i think what that means is that you will continue thru the windscreen unless something prevents you...but i could be wrong.....
As for harnesses, yup, 4 or 6 pointers thanx.
Better than a 3 point car belt system as youre properly restrained, and you dont tend to do that fancy twist as you come to a stop(unsupported side).
Does anyone else reckon that a compulsory fire extinguisher, and first aid kit shouls be carried also?
Do you reckon that crash helmets in cars would also be a GOOD idea? after all rally drivers and others use them, why not ordinary drivers?
I think that Newtons second law states that a body(no pun) in motion will continue in motion, unless acted upon by an external force, i think what that means is that you will continue thru the windscreen unless something prevents you...but i could be wrong.....
As for harnesses, yup, 4 or 6 pointers thanx.
Better than a 3 point car belt system as youre properly restrained, and you dont tend to do that fancy twist as you come to a stop(unsupported side).
Does anyone else reckon that a compulsory fire extinguisher, and first aid kit shouls be carried also?
Do you reckon that crash helmets in cars would also be a GOOD idea? after all rally drivers and others use them, why not ordinary drivers?
deltaf said: Im all in favour of seatbelts.
I think that Newtons second law states that a body(no pun) in motion will continue in motion, unless acted upon by an external force, i think what that means is that you will continue thru the windscreen unless something prevents you...but i could be wrong.....
As for harnesses, yup, 4 or 6 pointers thanx.
Better than a 3 point car belt system as youre properly restrained, and you dont tend to do that fancy twist as you come to a stop(unsupported side).
Does anyone else reckon that a compulsory fire extinguisher, and first aid kit shouls be carried also?
Do you reckon that crash helmets in cars would also be a GOOD idea? after all rally drivers and others use them, why not ordinary drivers?
I think that we should be allowed to choose whether or not we carry a fire extinguisher and first aid kit. I carry both, anyone not serious about thier own safety can choose not to bother. I have 4 point harnesses in the car I take the most risks in. Let the people who can't be bothered to protect themselves suffer the consequences.
Cull the Stupid.
I wear a lid for track driving, if I thought the risk was high enough I'd wear one on the road, but I don't.
deltaf said: Im all in favour of seatbelts.
I think that Newtons second law states that a body(no pun) in motion will continue in motion, unless acted upon by an external force, i think what that means is that you will continue thru the windscreen unless something prevents you...but i could be wrong.....
As for harnesses, yup, 4 or 6 pointers thanx.
Better than a 3 point car belt system as youre properly restrained, and you dont tend to do that fancy twist as you come to a stop(unsupported side).
Does anyone else reckon that a compulsory fire extinguisher, and first aid kit shouls be carried also?
Do you reckon that crash helmets in cars would also be a GOOD idea? after all rally drivers and others use them, why not ordinary drivers?
I've thought about this too. In some countries first aid kits ARE compulsory. So you find they're supplied with the car.
I would be against the compulsory fitting of full harnesses in road cars. How many times have you leant forward to get a better view around the tight corner. Try that when you're strapped so tight you can't budge and inch...on the road I think the current seat belt with inertia-reel seat belt tensioners is a good compromise.
I'd quite happily fit a harness as well to use when on track days, mind.
I too wear a lid on track-days. I've never been anywhere where you didn't have to to be allowed on track. Wouldn't wear one in the car on the road, though...far too much bother. And I expect it'd gain some attention from the local traffic constabulary as well...
Captain Muppet said: Mad
I have only ever seen one seat belt jam completely.
They normally lock when the car is upsidedown with someone in the seat wearing it (that is more beneficial than not). If anyone is worried about being stuck in a jammed seat belt, go to Halfords and buy a seat belt cutter. They are about £2 and fit neatly in the pocket on the upside of the sun Visor. All traffic patrol cars have these fitted as standard in my force. I have only ever used one once and not I hasten to add, on an occupant of a traffic car.
Very informative guys, I have to admit I was dodgy on the cheesewire idea myself, but posted it to get a bit of debate going (and for a bit of reassurance).
I still wonder if there is a more comprehensive alternative to seatbelts, but as pointed out already, most people wouldn't bother with a harness (that's why I suggested having them as an option, for those that could be arsed.
WRT to the inability to lean forward, I read somewhere (DemonTweaks or similar) that you can by pre-tensioning harnesses - which avoids that problem.
I still wonder if there is a more comprehensive alternative to seatbelts, but as pointed out already, most people wouldn't bother with a harness (that's why I suggested having them as an option, for those that could be arsed.
WRT to the inability to lean forward, I read somewhere (DemonTweaks or similar) that you can by pre-tensioning harnesses - which avoids that problem.
P*Ting said: Very informative guys, I have to admit I was dodgy on the cheesewire idea myself, but posted it to get a bit of debate going (and for a bit of reassurance).
I still wonder if there is a more comprehensive alternative to seatbelts, but as pointed out already, most people wouldn't bother with a harness (that's why I suggested having them as an option, for those that could be arsed.
WRT to the inability to lean forward, I read somewhere (DemonTweaks or similar) that you can by pre-tensioning harnesses - which avoids that problem.
There is a three point harness (with two shoulder straps) which has an inertia reel on the rear fixing point. It looks like a good compromise but I can't help wondering it one of the advantages of a proper harness is that they are already tight before the body can move - with any inertia reel the belt will start off fairly loose. Any slack in the system results in increased decelleration forces through the belt and in to the body (assuming well engineered crumple zones).
BTW this isn't just academic to me - I've been in a 40mph head on using a normal seat belt and picked up a factured spine as a result.
madcop said:
Captain Muppet said: Mad
I have only ever seen one seat belt jam completely.
They normally lock when the car is upsidedown with someone in the seat wearing it (that is more beneficial than not). If anyone is worried about being stuck in a jammed seat belt, go to Halfords and buy a seat belt cutter. They are about £2 and fit neatly in the pocket on the upside of the sun Visor. All traffic patrol cars have these fitted as standard in my force. I have only ever used one once and not I hasten to add, on an occupant of a traffic car.
never wear one dangerous things for me. can do more damage if i were it than not wear it.
only thing what would be any help to me a a full harness
your know what the detail on get an exemtion certificat
never bothered getting one but i wont wear it because I have a spinal deformity that cause my rib cage to basicly twisted on the left side just where a belt runs
causeing a weak point just where the belt lays.
ps seen quit a few jam
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff