Met traffic fines reach £300,000

[Deva Link]

How bizzare:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6942887....

[vonhosen]

Why ?
If they break the rules & there isn't operational necessity shouldn't they be fined ?
If there was operational necessity it can be quashed.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 12th August 16:10

[TripleS]

vonhosen said:

Why ?
If they break the rules & there isn't operational necessity shouldn't they be fined ?
If there was operational necessity it can be quashed.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 12th August 16:10

They should be subject to the same rules as the rest of us, unless operational requirements intervene. The trouble is, many of the rules are probably nonsensical anyhow - and shouldn't exist to be applied to anybody.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[vonhosen]

TripleS said:

vonhosen said:

Why ?
If they break the rules & there isn't operational necessity shouldn't they be fined ?
If there was operational necessity it can be quashed.

They should be subject to the same rules as the rest of us, unless operational requirements intervene.

And they are, surely this only serves to further illustrate that.

[blackvanman]

vonhosen said:

Why ?
If they break the rules & there isn't operational necessity shouldn't they be fined ?
If there was operational necessity it can be quashed.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 12th August 16:10

How does the bus lane thing work? Do police have to use the same sort of exemption as they would need for say speeding?

I personally think police should be allowed to use bus lanes at any point in their working day, we should simply exempt marked cars full stop.

[TripleS]

vonhosen said:

TripleS said:

vonhosen said:

Why ?
If they break the rules & there isn't operational necessity shouldn't they be fined ?
If there was operational necessity it can be quashed.

They should be subject to the same rules as the rest of us, unless operational requirements intervene.

And they are, surely this only serves to further illustrate that.

Yes, it looks like it, to some extent at least. I was not disputing that.

We've got too many rules IMHO, regardless of who gets caught by them.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[vonhosen]

blackvanman said:

vonhosen said:

Why ?
If they break the rules & there isn't operational necessity shouldn't they be fined ?
If there was operational necessity it can be quashed.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 12th August 16:10

How does the bus lane thing work? Do police have to use the same sort of exemption as they would need for say speeding?

I personally think police should be allowed to use bus lanes at any point in their working day, we should simply exempt marked cars full stop.

Bus lanes are a real problem in this respect, because each bus lane is created with it's own traffic order & it depends how it's written in the traffic order as to whether there is an exemption or not (the driver is unlikely to know in effect so is best to avoid it). It might exempt emergency services at all times, just in emergencies or not at all.
If not at all, it's a matter of discretion for the issuing authority if they'll void the ticket in an emergency situation or not.

[GreenV8S]

blackvanman said:

I personally think police should be allowed to use bus lanes at any point in their working day

Absolutely right. So should everyone else. There's no good reason to give cattle trucks preferential use of the roads that our road funds have paid for.

[Strangely Brown]

vonhosen said:

Why ?
If they break the rules & there isn't operational necessity shouldn't they be fined ?
If there was operational necessity it can be quashed.

I think that it is right and proper that they are fined if there is no operational necessity. The problem that I have with it is that it is the Met, and therefore the taxpayer that is picking up the bill (no pun intended). If there is no operational necessity why is the fine (and any points) not passed straight to the officer in question?

Subject to the same rules as the rest of us my arse!

[mybrainhurts]

Naughty plod said:

The fines were mostly for parking illegally; speeding; ignoring bus lanes; driving the wrong way on a one-way street; and red route offences.

Vehicles responding to emergencies or on operations were exempted from fines, a police spokeswoman said

Love it.....

Sound just like the unruly yoofs round my neck o' the woods...

How in hell's name does a police officer, authorised to drive, not notice she's driving the wrong way down a one way street on her own patch...or even off her own patch?

[David_s]

vonhosen said:

Why ?
If they break the rules & there isn't operational necessity shouldn't they be fined ?
If there was operational necessity it can be quashed.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 12th August 16:10

I thought that simply being 'on police business' was sufficient to claim an exemption from prosecution, has 'on police business' now become 'operational necessity'?

[vonhosen]

David_s said:

vonhosen said:

Why ?
If they break the rules & there isn't operational necessity shouldn't they be fined ?
If there was operational necessity it can be quashed.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 12th August 16:10

I thought that simply being 'on police business' was sufficient to claim an exemption from prosecution, has 'on police business' now become 'operational necessity'?

No it's not a simple case, it depends on the exemption & what it says. Just being on duty & in a Police car isn't sufficient to qualify for an exemption in itself. Officers have been convicted of offences whilst on duty in a Police car performing a Police role, but they were not entitled to avail themselves of any exemption.

[vonhosen]

Strangely Brown said:

vonhosen said:

Why ?
If they break the rules & there isn't operational necessity shouldn't they be fined ?
If there was operational necessity it can be quashed.

I think that it is right and proper that they are fined if there is no operational necessity. The problem that I have with it is that it is the Met, and therefore the taxpayer that is picking up the bill (no pun intended). If there is no operational necessity why is the fine (and any points) not passed straight to the officer in question?

Subject to the same rules as the rest of us my arse!

A fine would be passed to the officer, where he has acted unreasonably.
But there can be occasions that the officer has acted with operational necessity, but they just weren't able to qualify for the exemption. See my earlier post on the problem with bus lanes for example.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 12th August 18:06

[vonhosen]

mybrainhurts said:

Naughty plod said:

The fines were mostly for parking illegally; speeding; ignoring bus lanes; driving the wrong way on a one-way street; and red route offences.

Vehicles responding to emergencies or on operations were exempted from fines, a police spokeswoman said

Love it.....

Sound just like the unruly yoofs round my neck o' the woods...

How in hell's name does a police officer, authorised to drive, not notice she's driving the wrong way down a one way street on her own patch...or even off her own patch?

You have a rape in progress, the officer is approaching the location by the quickest road. The location is a one way street & he is 200 yards from the scene at a point where he can enter the street via a one way street. It is over half a mile to detour to the correct entry for the one way street.

Would you rather he just go through the no entry but carefully, or would you rather he take the detour ?

[David_s]

vonhosen said:

David_s said:

vonhosen said:

Why ?
If they break the rules & there isn't operational necessity shouldn't they be fined ?
If there was operational necessity it can be quashed.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 12th August 16:10

I thought that simply being 'on police business' was sufficient to claim an exemption from prosecution, has 'on police business' now become 'operational necessity'?

No it's not a simple case, it depends on the exemption & what it says. Just being on duty & in a Police car isn't sufficient to qualify for an exemption in itself. Officers have been convicted of offences whilst on duty in a Police car performing a Police role, but they were not entitled to avail themselves of any exemption.

What does the actual legislation say? I thought it was a vague, 'on police business' with no specific reference to 'operational necessity'?

[Strangely Brown]

vonhosen said:

Strangely Brown said:

vonhosen said:

Why ?
If they break the rules & there isn't operational necessity shouldn't they be fined ?
If there was operational necessity it can be quashed.

I think that it is right and proper that they are fined if there is no operational necessity. The problem that I have with it is that it is the Met, and therefore the taxpayer that is picking up the bill (no pun intended). If there is no operational necessity why is the fine (and any points) not passed straight to the officer in question?

Subject to the same rules as the rest of us my arse!

A fine would be passed to the officer, where he has acted unreasonably.
But there can be occasions that the officer has acted with operational necessity, but they just weren't able to qualify for the exemption. See my earlier post on the problem with bus lanes for example.

If a police officer triggers a speed camera and cannot justify an operational necessity then they should receive both the fine AND the points. Does this happen? Has this EVER happened?

[vonhosen]

David_s said:

vonhosen said:

David_s said:

vonhosen said:

Why ?
If they break the rules & there isn't operational necessity shouldn't they be fined ?
If there was operational necessity it can be quashed.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 12th August 16:10

I thought that simply being 'on police business' was sufficient to claim an exemption from prosecution, has 'on police business' now become 'operational necessity'?

No it's not a simple case, it depends on the exemption & what it says. Just being on duty & in a Police car isn't sufficient to qualify for an exemption in itself. Officers have been convicted of offences whilst on duty in a Police car performing a Police role, but they were not entitled to avail themselves of any exemption.

What does the actual legislation say? I thought it was a vague, 'on police business' with no specific reference to 'operational necessity'?

Which exemption do you want to know the wording of ?
Which offence, because they aren't all the same wording obviously.

[David_s]

vonhosen said:

David_s said:

What does the actual legislation say? I thought it was a vague, 'on police business' with no specific reference to 'operational necessity'?

Which exemption do you want to know the wording of ?
Which offence, because they aren't all the same wording obviously.

Exceeding the speed limit.

[vonhosen]

David_s said:

vonhosen said:

David_s said:

What does the actual legislation say? I thought it was a vague, 'on police business' with no specific reference to 'operational necessity'?

Which exemption do you want to know the wording of ?
Which offence, because they aren't all the same wording obviously.

Exceeding the speed limit.

Sec 87(1) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire and rescue authority, ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.

In addition to that guidance is given to officers in respect of when they can or can't claim that exemption & there are of course stated cases in relation to that use & claiming of an exemption.

Previously Officers who have been driving a marked Police car, on blues & twos whilst exceeding the limit, going to a location that they will be engaged in Police business, have been convicted where their claim hasn't been supported by the Police service, because the use wasn't as per guidance.

The decision to claim & use an exemption lays with the driver, the driver has to be able to justify that claim & where they can't they risk prosecution.
It then becomes a matter for the court to decide on the facts of that individual case, if it was a lawful use or not.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 12th August 18:55

[David_s]

vonhosen said:

Sec 87(1) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire and rescue authority, ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.

In addition to that guidance is given to officers in respect of when they can or can't claim that exemption & there are of course stated cases in relation to that use & claiming of an exemption.

Previously Officers who have been driving a marked Police car, on blues & twos whilst exceeding the limit, going to a location that they will be engaged in Police business, have been convicted where their claim hasn't been supported by the Police service, because the use wasn't as per guidance.

The decision to claim & use an exemption lays with the driver, the driver has to be able to justify that claim & where they can't they risk prosecution.
It then becomes a matter for the court to decide on the facts of that individual case, if it was a lawful use or not.

It seems strange that internal guidance could actually over ride the wording of the legislation. Surely Police officers would argue that a) their vehicle was being used for police purposes, and b) observing the speed limit would have hindered their use of the vehicle for that purpose.

How could a court convict if the provisions of the act referred to above were complied with? Or are you saying that there have been a few extreme cases where the provisions of the act were not complied with?