Sneaky new police tactics?

[mybrainhurts]

Just received this email, from a trusted list...

Anybody know if it's true?

If so, our plod forces are set to lose another large chunk of public support...

message said:

Police in Essex are using new types of cars with the apparent
intention of tricking motorists in to believing they are broken
down by the side of the road , when they are in fact operating a
Mobile Speed Trap.

These initial reports have come from several different BTST
Members who have noticed some unusual cars set up as Mobile
Speed Traps around Essex.

One member noticed a Purple Mini after receiving a "Possible
Mobile Speed Trap" warning from his BTST Locator.

Upon closer inspection, this Member noticed that the car was, in
fact, an under-cover Mobile Speed Trap.

We've known for ages about "Talivans" like the ones in these
pictures...

...click -- http://speedcameralocator.co.uk/HiddenCameras.html

But we have been getting reports from BTST Members about an
apparently new trick being used to swindle motorists on the A130
in Essex.

Whereas Talivans often hide or try to blend in with the
surroundings, this new tactic apparently relies on tricking
drivers in to thinking that a car has simply broken down on the
hard shoulder.

We have had a tip-off from the BTST Locator update team that
Police in Essex are using Silver Vauxhall vans (complete with
roof-racks and bumper stickers!) and a Silver and a Purple
Mini Cooper.

There could well be many more of these "under the radar" type
cars floating around Essex and the rest of the country.

[Hooli]

dont speedtraps need signs to warn of them? or do the permament signs count for that?

[mybrainhurts]

The rules changed a few weeks ago.

They can now go anywhere they like.

Don't know if the signs rule has changed, but it's too late when you see them, so they're pointless...

[SS2.]

Hooli said:

dont speedtraps need signs to warn of them?

No.

Hooli said:

or do the permament signs count for that?

Permanent signs aren't required either.

[vonhosen]

The sign requirements only applied to SCPs who wished to recover costs.
Police have never needed to display signs that they are performing speed enforcement, they have never been able to recover costs from netting off either.

[Chrisgr31]

Is it fair to say that the Police prefer to be seen doing their speed enforcement as it is a greater deterrent?

[mybrainhurts]

My perception is...no

They're using it as means to get crime detection rates up...

Am I right or wrong...?

[7db]

Detection rates have to be pretty low for speeding I should think.

[vonhosen]

mybrainhurts said:

My perception is...no

They're using it as means to get crime detection rates up...

Am I right or wrong...?

Speed enforcement doesn't count for crime detection rates, it's burglaries, robberies etc etc that matter. Speeding isn't a recordable offence.

[vonhosen]

7db said:

Detection rates have to be pretty low for speeding I should think.

Probably amongst the worst of any offence, along with DWDCA.

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

7db said:

Detection rates have to be pretty low for speeding I should think.

Probably amongst the worst of any offence, along with DWDCA.

That's right...I have to wonder why you bother

There are 3,650,000,000 speeding offences per year. The figure must true, because Inspector Malcolm Collis of Thames Valley police says it is....

As I've said in the past, this level on non-compliance shows that the law is wrong.

[mouseymousey]

If the BTST referred to in the original post is anything to do with the website http://www.beatthespeedtrap.co.uk/ (google BTST) then I would treat these reports as nothing more than scaremongering to increase sales of the devices promoted on that site.

Any website selling radar and laser DETECTORS that claims that GPS based devices are less effective than detectors is clearly just one huge con.

If the BTST referred to in the original post isn't that website then I apologise.

[2something]

Have to admit when I first read the post it smacked every so slightly of advertising, maybe I am just too cynical. Maybe it's just a legitimate warning and a bit of advertising ...

[havoc]

mybrainhurts said:

There are 3,650,000,000 speeding offences per year. The figure must true, because Inspector Malcolm Collis of Thames Valley police says it is....

Hmmm...I probably make 730 journeys a year. I probably break the limit at least 10x per journey, on average (all outside of 30/40 zones, BTW!). So you'd only need 500,000 "me's" to make that figure...


You know, I think he might be understating things!

[7db]

vonhosen said:

7db said:

Detection rates have to be pretty low for speeding I should think.

Probably amongst the worst of any offence, along with DWDCA.

S5 Public order?

[Mr Whippy]

To be really fair if a car has broken down then flying past it at speed is a bit silly anyway.

if "cars on road" = unknown, then (velocity < "speed limit " )

else (velocity == "limit point " )



Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Wednesday 8th August 11:15

[Ravell]

Mr Whippy said:

To be really fair if a car has broken down then flying past it at speed is a bit silly anyway.

if "cars on road" = unknown, then (velocity < "speed limit " )

else (velocity == "limit point " )



Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Wednesday 8th August 11:15

Agreed, I always slow down when passing a broken down car, crazy not too really.

[Conian]

This means i'll have this email waiting for me when i get home. I bought some printer ink off the guy via ebay and i been getting these ever since. A lot of it sounds like bull-poo, but his claims are often backed up by photos of transit vans hiding in trees with speed traps... (i might be exaggerating there)... but a lot of his stuff rings true.

It is of course just his way of scaring us into buying his speed trap warning devices, but he's less offensive than many other adverts i've seen.

[SS2.]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

There has never been a statutory requirement for signs warning of a safety camera enforcement zone. Nor is it true that detected offences could not be successfully prosecuted if the zones were un-signed.

There exist guidelines which detail the requirements of signage, conspicuity and visibility of mobile and fixed safety camera sites but these were only required to be followed if the SCP intended to recover its costs from the resulting fines.

From the 'Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the National Safety Camera Programme for England and Wales for 2006/7' (catchy name..)

the 'official' line said:

Compliance with these rules has no bearing on the enforcement of offences detected by the use of safety cameras. Non-compliance with these rules and guidelines by a partnership, or representative of a partnership, does not provide any mitigation of, or defence for, an alleged offence committed under current UK law.

[Flat in Fifth]

Nothing new in this. South Yorks used to have an old Standard Vanguard ex military staff car in Army Green as camouflage for the radar. Ironic use of word camouflage, sorry about that.