Discussion
Today on the M40 a Police car (local panda type Astra) joined the road just in front of me and then proceeded to drive at over 90mph all the way from High Wycombe to Uxbridge. No lights with a single policeman (wearing uniform) inside.
I followed him of course to ascertain wether any laws were being broken!
So how much trouble can a Policeman get in for this?
PS - I'd also say he was badgering other road users - eg driving VERY close behind others.
I followed him of course to ascertain wether any laws were being broken!
So how much trouble can a Policeman get in for this?
PS - I'd also say he was badgering other road users - eg driving VERY close behind others.
Speed limits do not apply to police vehicles providing they are being used on police business.
From the uk.transport FAQ;
23. Do speed limits apply to emergency vehicles?
No.
Section 87, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984:
'No statutory provision imposing a speed limit ... shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observation of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose to which it is being put at the time'.
Nothing there about blues and twos, marked vehicles or any of the other myths.
Traffic lights and give way signs have different exemptions which are laid down in the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994.
From the uk.transport FAQ;
23. Do speed limits apply to emergency vehicles?
No.
Section 87, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984:
'No statutory provision imposing a speed limit ... shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observation of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose to which it is being put at the time'.
Nothing there about blues and twos, marked vehicles or any of the other myths.
Traffic lights and give way signs have different exemptions which are laid down in the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994.
So why was the Hampshire force fined for not disclosing the name of the police driver who was snapped by a Gatso?
Interesting case that. The force spent thousands of man hours interviewing suspect officers and narrowed it down to a handful, none of whom owned up.
So the force pleaded guilty and took the conviction for failing to disclose, despite the fact that tha Act gave them a valid defence.
One worthy resident is now trying to start a prosecution for perverting the course of justice against Hampshire police.
Interesting case that. The force spent thousands of man hours interviewing suspect officers and narrowed it down to a handful, none of whom owned up.
So the force pleaded guilty and took the conviction for failing to disclose, despite the fact that tha Act gave them a valid defence.
One worthy resident is now trying to start a prosecution for perverting the course of justice against Hampshire police.
mybrainhurts said: So why was the Hampshire force fined for not disclosing the name of the police driver who was snapped by a Gatso?
Maybe like so many other drivers, they genuinely couldn't remember
One worthy resident is now trying to start a prosecution for perverting the course of justice against Hampshire police.
Which will go absolutely nowhere because no justice was perverted.
All that happened was a failure to identify the driver of a vehicle involved in an offence for which they were prosecuted and penalised.
Where is the perversion of justice.
Perversion of Justice requires someone to make a False or misleading statement to avoid prosecution or as in ARCHERS case to change the inevitable or possible outcome of a case.
Unless this person has knowledge of someone deliberately lying about a material fact, other than "I really cannot remember", then it will go absolutely nowhere. A complete waste of time!
[qiote]Unless this person has knowledge of someone deliberately lying about a material fact, other than "I really cannot remember", then it will go absolutely nowhere. A complete waste of time!
Excellent! so if anyone here gets a ticket, AND there is no photographic evidence of who was driving/riding, AND you have more than you insured to drive/ride, you may safely claim "I really cannot remember".. and thus get let off?
Bearing in mind there needs to be evidence before a conviction, if the only evidence is a Gatso picture, then how can the "incriminate yourself" law be made to work???????
C
Excellent! so if anyone here gets a ticket, AND there is no photographic evidence of who was driving/riding, AND you have more than you insured to drive/ride, you may safely claim "I really cannot remember".. and thus get let off?
Bearing in mind there needs to be evidence before a conviction, if the only evidence is a Gatso picture, then how can the "incriminate yourself" law be made to work???????
C
Today on the M40 a Police car (local panda type Astra) joined the road just in front of me and then proceeded to drive at over 90mph all the way from High Wycombe to Uxbridge. No lights with a single policeman (wearing uniform) inside.
I followed him of course to ascertain wether any laws were being broken!
So how much trouble can a Policeman get in for this?
PS - I'd also say he was badgering other road users - eg driving VERY close behind others.
Guess he was on the way to a shout/court case. We have to assume he was 'on the job' whatever he was up to. Bet he scared a few people when they eventually looked in their mirrors.
If he was in an unmarked BMW you wouldn't have noticed anything untoward going on ;-)
Which will go absolutely nowhere because no justice was perverted.
All that happened was a failure to identify the driver of a vehicle involved in an offence for which they were prosecuted and penalised
In the opinion of the worthy resident, the perversion of the course of justice occurred because it seems that the Hampshire police, Aldershot Magistrates Court and the CPS conspired to deliberately enter a plea of Guilty to a sect 172 offence when they KNEW they had a valid defence. Particularly after wasting 1000 hours by their own admission of police time in seeking the offending police driver.
All this to create an impression that there is no defence to a Section 172 offence, re-inforced by the mis-information and implied threats within the NIPs particularly from Scamera Partnership Areas.
A long time ago these people were impartial; not any more. Some of us see beyond the lies and spin to them greedily snuffling at the hypothecation trough.
>> Edited by Richard C on Wednesday 5th February 09:17
Beat me to it, Richard. Thanks.
Madcop, if you want more details, I'll try to post some of the correspondence, if I can find it.
This has embarrassed Hants police and correspondence has been passed up the ranks to the force's legal spokesman. The Magistrates Court appears to be in a bit of a twist, too.
Madcop, if you want more details, I'll try to post some of the correspondence, if I can find it.
This has embarrassed Hants police and correspondence has been passed up the ranks to the force's legal spokesman. The Magistrates Court appears to be in a bit of a twist, too.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff