Met drivers using police radios
Discussion
Hi, this isn't actually about speeding but....I have a question about police drivers and someone kindly suggested this forum.
As everyone knows it's considered dangerous to use a mobile telephone when driving - I am trying to find out if the Met Police Service has any rules/regulations/procedures in place which govern when an officer driving a police vehicle can/cannot use their personal radio.
Anyone here know of any same or where I can find such info? Thanks.
As everyone knows it's considered dangerous to use a mobile telephone when driving - I am trying to find out if the Met Police Service has any rules/regulations/procedures in place which govern when an officer driving a police vehicle can/cannot use their personal radio.
Anyone here know of any same or where I can find such info? Thanks.
Don't know, but they should be subject to the same rules as mobile users.
And how do they get away with using VASCAR equipment whilst driving?
Eyes on a screen, waiting to press a button when the screened target vehicle passes a white blob on the road, ain't paying attention to driving.
And how do they get away with using VASCAR equipment whilst driving?
Eyes on a screen, waiting to press a button when the screened target vehicle passes a white blob on the road, ain't paying attention to driving.
It's only dangerous if they have an accident at the same time!
They get the same/stiffer penalties if they have an accident while speeding/driving dangerously, it's just that they don't get any penalties if they are just speeding/driving dangerously though!
Should be the same law for everyone - i.e. drive as fast as you want, but if you CAUSE an accident then [god/jesus/jehova/allah/vikram/bintu/pingu - delete as appropriate] help you!
I remember being in an ambulance that was taking a friend to hospital (fell off a 2nd floor terrace when the rail gave way during a party) through town and the driver was steering round traffic whilst relaying the patient information from the paramedic to the hospital via the handheld radio!
They get the same/stiffer penalties if they have an accident while speeding/driving dangerously, it's just that they don't get any penalties if they are just speeding/driving dangerously though!
Should be the same law for everyone - i.e. drive as fast as you want, but if you CAUSE an accident then [god/jesus/jehova/allah/vikram/bintu/pingu - delete as appropriate] help you!
I remember being in an ambulance that was taking a friend to hospital (fell off a 2nd floor terrace when the rail gave way during a party) through town and the driver was steering round traffic whilst relaying the patient information from the paramedic to the hospital via the handheld radio!
mybrainhurts said: Don't know, but they should be subject to the same rules as mobile users.
Most Police vehicles are fitted with hands free devices so that the radio can be operated with both hands holding the steering wheel.
And how do they get away with using VASCAR equipment whilst driving?
You do not need to look at a VASCAR screen to operate it. You merely have to know where the buttons on the device are situated and the rest is done by watching the target pass chosen fixed points. VASCAR is normally operated by the observer when the vehicle is in motion. Having gained an average speed, the speed is displayed on the VASCAR head read out. This takes just a glance to read, no more than looking at the speedo in the vehicle.
Eyes on a screen, waiting to press a button when the screened target vehicle passes a white blob on the road, ain't paying attention to driving.
This is not how VASCAR is operated.
madcop said:
mybrainhurts said: Don't know, but they should be subject to the same rules as mobile users.
Most Police vehicles are fitted with hands free devices so that the radio can be operated with both hands holding the steering wheel.
But under the latest proposals (know that they are only proposals at the moment and certainly not on the statue books) this would be acceptible .... Its a point that I have been making for sometime. Some people want the whole thing banned though - no phones, communications devices or anything, even if it can be operated hands-free.... claiming that it is dangerous....
Dont get it myself. Cos it aint just the police that have such requirements - there are loads of services that need radio / telecomms communications.
One thing that has just come to mind. I know that a lot of detectives etc use mobile phones - easy to keep in contact and slightly more suitable than radios for example. If this is the case, then do the pool cars have multiple car kits fitted for Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola etc phones? There is no standard for phones in the police force and therefore cant be placed in a hands free kit (as seen on national TV on that BBC documentary CarWars). So what can be done about that? Any ideas? or are Police allowed to use phones anyway...?
Cheers,
Paul
Hi
AS far as I'm aware using a phone/radio/CB isn't illegal. What they try and get you on is driving without due care and attention. THey same can apply, and perhaps more so, to someone that's smoking or eating - chatting to his mate's bird in the back seat etc etc..
It's to do with driving standards and at the end of the day it seems that it doesn't matter how your driving was at the time, you'll be nicked regardless.
AS far as I'm aware using a phone/radio/CB isn't illegal. What they try and get you on is driving without due care and attention. THey same can apply, and perhaps more so, to someone that's smoking or eating - chatting to his mate's bird in the back seat etc etc..
It's to do with driving standards and at the end of the day it seems that it doesn't matter how your driving was at the time, you'll be nicked regardless.
Interesting to read everyone's comments, thanks for the replies.
Re that a police passenger in the vehicle would use his radio rather than the driver using his, it is re that scenario that we are trying to establish if there are any official rules/guidelines etc and if so what they are and if possible where they can be found for reference.
To elaborate slightly, two Met officers are claiming someone was driving without due care and attention - this is absolutely denied and aside from the word of the two officers there isn't any evidence eg there was no accident, there are no other witnesses etc.
Amazingly it seems that two officers claiming something is good enough for a charge to be considered provable 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a Magistrates' court (well I don't suppose they are also known as Police Courts for nothing!); this means of course that the onus is actually falling on the accused to prove they didn't do something - not easy to do!
Anyway, it has transpired from statements that the police driver used his personal radio when, according to him and his Pc passenger, they were engaged in the 'pursuit' (!) - hence the question re mobiles and any rules re police drivers using their radios....so if anyone has any further comments/info (particularly re where we could find such rules/guidelines for reference) we'd be very grateful.
Re that a police passenger in the vehicle would use his radio rather than the driver using his, it is re that scenario that we are trying to establish if there are any official rules/guidelines etc and if so what they are and if possible where they can be found for reference.
To elaborate slightly, two Met officers are claiming someone was driving without due care and attention - this is absolutely denied and aside from the word of the two officers there isn't any evidence eg there was no accident, there are no other witnesses etc.
Amazingly it seems that two officers claiming something is good enough for a charge to be considered provable 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a Magistrates' court (well I don't suppose they are also known as Police Courts for nothing!); this means of course that the onus is actually falling on the accused to prove they didn't do something - not easy to do!
Anyway, it has transpired from statements that the police driver used his personal radio when, according to him and his Pc passenger, they were engaged in the 'pursuit' (!) - hence the question re mobiles and any rules re police drivers using their radios....so if anyone has any further comments/info (particularly re where we could find such rules/guidelines for reference) we'd be very grateful.
mike buley said: "Driving whilst not in proper control"
Is the offence that is normally used for someone who is to be prosecuted for using a handheld mobile phone whilst driving. This is dangerous because it requires the prolonged use of one hand to operate the controls such as steering and gear changing if the conversation is more than a few seonds long (unless of course an automatic).
I get the impression the defence that is being used in the case being the basis of this thread, is that it cannot be careless driving because the Police use a hand held radio. I have a feeling that this will not succeed in the slightest.
I cannot comment on the circumstances of the case because I do not know them and have not seen the evidence. Suffice to say that if there are two Police witnesses to an incident of alleged careless driving, even though there was no accident, then there is a very good chance of the prosecution succeeding. The fact that the circumstances evolve around the use of a telephone are no different than if they evolved around some other incident where there was a perceived failure of the driver to act in a careful and competent manner.
It is not normal for the use of a Police radio to be continuous as such in a mobile phone conversation. This method of communication is usually about short sequences of conversation acknowledging or passing messages about incidents attended or requiring attendance (therefore the use of one hand to operate the steering wheel is for only a couple of seconds at a time. Not much longer than it takes to change gear in fact).
The only times the radio is used continously is in those where a vehicle pursuit is commenced. Police vehicle radios have a system whereby the transmit button can be activated in one direction to allow the conversation to be transmitted until the button is released again, or in the case of longer conversations such as pursuit commentary, the button can be activated in the opposite direction to allow 15 seconds of transmission without re-activating the button again. This is more commonly used in pursuit commentary where the Police driver is alone when the incident is ongoing.
>> Edited by madcop on Thursday 10th April 01:49
Thanks for those further replies, I'll look up 'Driving whilst not in proper control'.
Re the defence, fully appreciate it's difficult because I can't give all the details, however, it isn't going to be that "it cannot be careless driving because the Police use a hand held radio." which I'd agree would be illogical. (There is no mobile telephone, or any other such distraction, actually involved, we mentioned same because we thought it might be relevant/comparable to the Pc using his radio.)
It is more a 'clutching at straws' defence because of the sheer impossibility of proving that something (driving without due care) wasn't done and, as you say, the likelihood of the prosecution succeeding purely on the word of two officers.
So we are trying to show that the police driver (who completed all documents etc) was behaving improperly/driving without due care at the time he has alleged someone else was, particularly as he didn't need to do so as he had his Pc passenger with him - this in the hope that same might constitute a 'reasonable doubt' as to the validity of the allegation.
Not a lot of hope of that happening we know but it's all we've got
>> Edited by claudette on Thursday 10th April 02:55
Re the defence, fully appreciate it's difficult because I can't give all the details, however, it isn't going to be that "it cannot be careless driving because the Police use a hand held radio." which I'd agree would be illogical. (There is no mobile telephone, or any other such distraction, actually involved, we mentioned same because we thought it might be relevant/comparable to the Pc using his radio.)
It is more a 'clutching at straws' defence because of the sheer impossibility of proving that something (driving without due care) wasn't done and, as you say, the likelihood of the prosecution succeeding purely on the word of two officers.
So we are trying to show that the police driver (who completed all documents etc) was behaving improperly/driving without due care at the time he has alleged someone else was, particularly as he didn't need to do so as he had his Pc passenger with him - this in the hope that same might constitute a 'reasonable doubt' as to the validity of the allegation.
Not a lot of hope of that happening we know but it's all we've got
>> Edited by claudette on Thursday 10th April 02:55
madcop said: Is the offence that is normally used for someone who is to be prosecuted for using a handheld mobile phone whilst driving. This is dangerous because it requires the prolonged use of one hand to operate the controls such as steering and gear changing if the conversation is more than a few seonds long (unless of course an automatic).
Thats an interesting comment Madcop - does that mean that it is different for automatic cars? I somewhat doubt it (loophole?) as there must be something else in there to prosecute those driving... Any comments?
Cheers,
Paul
I don't think that madcop is suggesting that it's safe to drive with only one hand on the wheel, auto or manual, just pointing out that in an automatic, there is NO need to not have both hands on the steering wheel - unless using the handbrake (after stopping of course!), CH
edited for too fast typing mistakes!
>> Edited by Dr Bob on Thursday 10th April 11:36
edited for too fast typing mistakes!
>> Edited by Dr Bob on Thursday 10th April 11:36
There's an element of confusion here. As I understand the 'defence' being used is to imply that the police engaged in the 'pursuit' were committing an offence so therefore the offence being tried at court should be dismissed.
As Madcop stated earlier, that will never work. If anything, if the court thought that the police were committing an offence then they would be more likely to commence proceedings for that offence, withou dropping your case.
As for the defendant proving that they didn't do something, well in this case if the driving was/is considered to be careless i.e. below a reasonable standard then as far as I'm aware the onus is on the defendant to prove that it wasn't.
As Madcop stated earlier, that will never work. If anything, if the court thought that the police were committing an offence then they would be more likely to commence proceedings for that offence, withou dropping your case.
As for the defendant proving that they didn't do something, well in this case if the driving was/is considered to be careless i.e. below a reasonable standard then as far as I'm aware the onus is on the defendant to prove that it wasn't.
pbrettle said:
madcop said: Is the offence that is normally used for someone who is to be prosecuted for using a handheld mobile phone whilst driving. This is dangerous because it requires the prolonged use of one hand to operate the controls such as steering and gear changing if the conversation is more than a few seonds long (unless of course an automatic).
Thats an interesting comment Madcop - does that mean that it is different for automatic cars? I somewhat doubt it (loophole?) as there must be something else in there to prosecute those driving... Any comments?
Cheers,
Paul
No there is no loophole for automatic drivers. Some tend to think they have a reasonable excuse for doing so because they do not have to change gear.
The problem is not so much on a dual carriageway or a motorway (other than concentration problems) but when any car is driven in traffic situations where there are lots of manouvres to be made.
Only yesterday I entered the M4 on a slip road in an unmarked car behind a V8 Discovery. The driver I saw pick up a paperwork folder from the passenger seat and start to shuffle the contents whilst accelerating to 70mph. He was meandering in the lane until he entered lane 1 and proceeded to undertake a vehicle in lane 2 as he ran straight up the backside of an artic in lane 1, having to brake hard. He then pulled into lane 2 behind the vehicle he had undertaken and accelerated hard past the offside of the HGV. I was along side him in lane 3 at this point where even though I tried to attract his attention to pull over, it was ignored because by this time he was on the phone holding it in his right hand. It was a most crappy piece of driving and I stopped him a little further on to tell him so!
It was undoubtedly down to the fact that he was using only 1 hand to steer and not concentrate on the relevant merging speeds of vehicles around him due to his conversation on the telephone.
woof said: re driving with one hand.
Of course it's possible to hold a licence if you only have one arm. I think the conversion is pretty basic. Obviously it's a auto - with a hand grip on the wheel. Not sure how the indicator would work - I guess a micro switch on the steering wheel ?
Properly adapted vehicles for use by disabled drivers do not preclude someone driving with only one hand as you so correctly state. If however you have two fully functioning hands and the car is not adapted to be used by someone with only one hand, then there is most definately a problem.
While watching Traffic Cops the other night/week I'm sure I saw the undercover guy using a handheld radio (handset type)constantly while chasing some scrotes. His commentary was constant and 2-way. In fact I remember this simply coz I couldn't believe he was using 1 hand for extended periods (virtually constantly) while in the middle of a high speed pursuit. There certainly was no hands free device
Maybe I missed something?
Maybe I missed something?
To 999 - re defence, sorry I didn't explain that very well - it isn't that we are trying to say that as the officer involved was committing an offence therefore the charge should be dropped.
The charge of driving without due care and attention is absolutely denied so why then did he make such an allegation - we are trying to show his state of mind/attitude at the time. That at the time he was being so careless/irresponsible/unprofessional as to unnecessarily use his personal radio when he was driving when, surely, the sensible/safe/professional option would have been for the passenger to use his, we hope will show that at the time in question he was showing a clear lack of judgement...and as such his judgement as regards A N Other's driving is questionable...thus casting doubt, or rather we hope casting doubt, as to the validity of his judgement/allegation. Hope that is a bit clearer, any comments re this welcome.
Re that you say "As for the defendant proving that they didn't do something, well in this case if the driving was/is considered to be careless i.e. below a reasonable standard then as far as I'm aware the onus is on the defendant to prove that it wasn't."
Re onus, yes that certainly does seem to be the case, however, we wonder how, exactly, in a case such as this, is someone supposed to be able to prove they didn't do something. How can they possibly do that? Hence the 'clutching at straws'.
The charge of driving without due care and attention is absolutely denied so why then did he make such an allegation - we are trying to show his state of mind/attitude at the time. That at the time he was being so careless/irresponsible/unprofessional as to unnecessarily use his personal radio when he was driving when, surely, the sensible/safe/professional option would have been for the passenger to use his, we hope will show that at the time in question he was showing a clear lack of judgement...and as such his judgement as regards A N Other's driving is questionable...thus casting doubt, or rather we hope casting doubt, as to the validity of his judgement/allegation. Hope that is a bit clearer, any comments re this welcome.
Re that you say "As for the defendant proving that they didn't do something, well in this case if the driving was/is considered to be careless i.e. below a reasonable standard then as far as I'm aware the onus is on the defendant to prove that it wasn't."
Re onus, yes that certainly does seem to be the case, however, we wonder how, exactly, in a case such as this, is someone supposed to be able to prove they didn't do something. How can they possibly do that? Hence the 'clutching at straws'.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff