Ph FFS I've had it with Traffic Police this week

[i_hate_beckham]

Well, unless you've moved house and not notified them, you can expect something within 14 days. If you haven't heard by then, it's likely (note careful vagueness) that you're not going to.

But do take it easy: I'm sure your insurance is punitive enough as it is, without ending up with extra loadings for having points on your licence, not to mention the risk of actually losing it.

14 days, bollocks i thought it was a week. I'll contest it though. Beside my little 110mph stint, which lasted literally a mile i did try to keep to the speed limit.

 

[pembrokestephen]

14 days, bollocks i thought it was a week. I'll contest it though. Beside my little 110mph stint, which lasted literally a mile i did try to keep to the speed limit.

Well, I can't advise you not to contest it (come to Carmarthen Magistrates' Court, 21st July, 1400 to find out why), but don't count on it: "equal justice before the law" translates more accurately to "equal justice before the quid, and we generally believe what coppers say".

 

[detective-boy]

I'll contest it though.

With the attitude to responsible road use you are dispaying here you really deserve to find yourself meeting a fucking lamppost or tree at 110mph. Fucking contest that. Twat.

 

[snadge]

With the attitude to responsible road use you are dispaying here you really deserve to find yourself meeting a fucking lamppost or tree at 110mph. Fucking contest that. Twat.

lovely, I suppose you would also wish death on the numerous fellow officers that seem to to this speed for no reason as well, ie testing their new cars out etc.

 

[Velouria]

14 days, bollocks i thought it was a week. I'll contest it though. Beside my little 110mph stint, which lasted literally a mile i did try to keep to the speed limit.

.. apart from the 8 cameras you went past in London?

Speed is for motorways and fast A roads (The A92 is good for a ton plus on quiet evenings - but only the dual carriageway bit, or the big long straight bit with no side turns...). Speeding in town is just silly... In town there are things to hit. Hitting people dents your car, your insurance, your licence and your conscience ...

 

[pembrokestephen]

lovely, I suppose you would also wish death on the numerous fellow officers that seem to to this speed for no reason as well, ie testing their new cars out etc.

Feh. There's a lot of complete cuntery about the whole police advanced driving thing, but at least these are experienced and competent drivers, even if they are expected to drive in a manner which, to most of us, appears unnecessarily dangerous.

What detective_boy is talking about re i_h_b's attitude is something completely different: he's responding to an attitude which does, at times, smack of recklessness. Driving at 110mph (and yes, I've done it, so I'll keep my piousness in check) is a pretty damn dangerous thing to be doing if you are an experienced driver, and are likely to have some kind of idea what to do if something unexpected happens; doing so when you've not even been driving solo for a year is, in my view, getting pretty close to suicidal.

I think detective_boy might be over-reacting a bit to i_h_b, who doesn't seem to be *quite* boasting about having done 110mph, but I have to confess that I find i_h_b's apparent insouciance about being caught speeding 8 times, and having done 110mph rather disturbing: losing control of a car at those kinds of speeds tends to do more than just harm the car and its driver, if there's anybody else around, which makes it a thoroughly irresponsible thing to be doing.

I'd also point out that, when police officers belt around in cars at 110mph, they're doing so in vehicles which are regularly maintained, and maintained in the expectation that they may well be called on to do those speeds. Tyres, brakes and suspension will be checked far more regularly than the average domestic motorist would dream of (or, for that matter, the average transport manager in a car pool), such that the risk of sudden brake failure, a blowout, or a skid or spin caused by uneven tyre wear is, at the least, minimised.

I wonder when the last time i_h_b checked his tyre tread wear, tracking, or suspension geometry was? I wonder if he knows how much is left on his brake pads?

 

[Velouria]

Have you got the offence they were doing that under? I am not aware of registration mark offences being endorseable, let alone disqualifiable. It is a loophole which will undoubtedly be closed as cloning becomes ever more prevalent (alomng with ... er ... suddenly broken, accidentally obscured, very dirty, etc. plates )

Any everyone beware telling your "Just got knocked over ..." story - they may well have photos going back ages! It really isn't worth risking imprisonment for perverting the course of justice / perjury for...

Isn't *anything* actually endorsable, if the Court chooses so ...?

MS60 Offences not covered by other codes.......... As Appropriate

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/drivers/endorsem.htm#Miscellaneous Offences

 

[detective-boy]

Isn't *anything* actually endorsable, if the Court chooses so ...?

No. There are endorsable and non-endorsable offences. You can only get given points for the former, and not the latter, no matter how cross you make the Court

The "Other" code is hardly ever used - there are a few odd endorsable offences not listed in the other codes but I think it's main reason is to cover the possibility of new endorsable offences being invented before the coding system catches up.

 

[Velouria]

No. There are endorsable and non-endorsable offences. You can only get given points for the former, and not the latter, no matter how cross you make the Court

The "Other" code is hardly ever used - there are a few odd endorsable offences not listed in the other codes but I think it's main reason is to cover the possibility of new endorsable offences being invented before the coding system catches up.

I see. I thought 'Miscellaneous contravention of Construction and Use Regulations' was an endorsement code too, but it's not in the list on dvla's website ... Did I imagine it?

(If it did exist, the numberplate thing would fit nicely in there)

 

[detective-boy]

Did I imagine it?

Probably. There are dozens (probably hundreds) of Con & Use offences. Very few serious ones (tyres, brakes, steering, dangerous condition ... can't think of any others) are endorsable. The vast majority are not. Including numberplates so far as I am aware.

 

[djbombscare]

OH FFS. I got my license back with the new endorsements on Saturday.

Yesterday I swing round a corner right in front of a fucking camera van AGAIN. So here come another three points.

So after 17 years of no points, that'll be 9 points in 6 months living in Bristol.

Again no speed limit signs, no camera signs, unmarked van from behind, going with the flow of traffic etc blah blah blah. I'm pissed off at myself cos it was just one of those not looking at the speedo, concentrating on traffic etc and so probably knicked again. I honestly dont know what the limit is there as there are no signs and I came onto the road from a 50. But the fact that the van was there probably means its a 30 innit.


Oh well 3 weeks of watching the letterbox like a hawk beckons

How long do yoru reckon it will take me to cycle 16 miles uphill ?

 

[djbombscare]

right I've got a GPS snooper now. Which gives you the speed limits on the road and if your going to quick it tells you off. . .well when theres a speed trap there.

So I'm not getting caught out again by the sneaky bastards.

 

[bigbry]

another Fixed penalty for me this weekend landing on the doorstep. 40 in a 30where there are no signs saying its a 30 and its open countryside, but technically due to height and distance of lamposts on one side of the road is classed as a built up area. I have later found out and I presume that that is why the van was there. Which was unmakred form the back . . which was all you could see. However it met the requirements as it had safety camera partnership on the doors on the side or soemthing.


Dont mind getting done for speeding. Just dont like the sneaky way that they have done it thats all. Unsigned road, unmarked van, no speed camera signs either just pure revenue raising bollox. Cunts.


Mind you the police need to justify they're existance somewhere as they obviously cant catch any REAL criminals anymore.

It's in the highway code about street lights and 30 mph limit - that's why if it's National Speed Limit they have to have those white discs with the black diagonal line across every 200 yards (or whatever the rule is).

 

[djbombscare]

yeah man I know what your saying. As I looked it all up.

30 mph limits only have to have a sign at the end of the road. Even If another road feeds onto it they do not have to have repeater signs. So as long as it is signed at either end its legal.

Now the place where I got knicked first wasn't a built up area, and only had lamposts on one side of the road. The distance was further then x amount between them BUT the height of the lamposts meant that it is classed as built up area. I joined from a 50 mph zone and there is no indication of the speed limit or national speed limit signs.

The place on Monday is actually a dual carriageway in a built up area. No speed limit signs, no national limit applies NOTHING at all. Just a fucking camera van. I joined again from 50 mph dual carriageway.

Now the fact that they've got a bloody camera van there suggest to me that its a bloody 30, and that there is a total lack of signs also suggest that its a bloody 30. If it was a 40/50/60 they would have to sign it with repeater signs

Now I dont mind, I put my hands up. If it was a 30 then I was speeding as I was doing about 45.

What jacks me off is firstly I've been caught twice in as many fucking weeks really. In exactly the same way on two different pieces of road. Just going along with all the other traffic. And secondly IMO NONE of this is about road safety. This is about sneakilly taking money and raising revenue off motorists.

If this had anything to do with road safety or they at least cared enough to give the motorist a chance to abide by the speed limits then 30 mph would have repeater signs on all roads that feed into these zones as well as along the route

All this about lamposts. Look at two of em and tell me how high they are, that will determine wether they are footway or roadway lighting and how far apart they should be for it to constitute as a built up area or not. Without measuring em and all whilst driving. I cant perhaps I'm crap at judging distances.

IMO thats all bollox really. A built up area has buildings a non built up area doesn't. Simple. Putting lamposts in at certain hieght and at certian intervals does not make it a built up area in my book

To stay with the lampost ruling some places are built up areas with lampost x distance apart making it a built up area and they're 50's. Other are 40's some may be 60's. So how can that really be a valid indication these days ?

Its like roundabouts. When I read the highway code years ago, its says that to go straight across your suppose to get in a particular lane. (Dya know I cant honestly remember which one it is. I think its the left hand lane) Anyway, nowadays when you get to a roundabout its middle/right/left/up down/nside out whatver. It could be any fucking lane.

Sorry, but IMO either you make it a free for all or you make everything the same. Either everything is as stated in the highway code or its all as you get to it. Having a bit of this here and a bit of something else there just makes total confusion.

So to get back on track if they wanna make somewhere a 30 zone put fucking signs up saying its a 30. Letting the motorist guess is wrong and doesn't give them the opportunity to abide by the law. Most will just go with the flow of traffic

They may as well be knicking people on some rule in the magna carta IMO:

On Tuesdays because this road goes North at 8.32 pm anyone riding a horse upwind must ride backwards to enable them to not see into the Queens bedroom window. Which only comes into effect when the wind is in between 0.578 and 0.678 of a sheeps fleece

 

[detective-boy]

Although, as I have said before, roads policing was not my area of expertise, my understanding is that a 30 limit must be signed at it's start in ALL places where it starts (i.e. on all junctions, as well as on the road in question).

If you entered a 30 zone at a point where there was no such sign, you would have a good defence as the courts regularly kick out traffic prosecutions where signing is incorrect.

The street lights bit only applies, so far as I am aware, to repeater signs. Where there is street lighting then that is taken as an indication of the 30 limit and repeaters are actually prohibited by the legislation (this means that if a caring sharinng council put them up to help the motorist they would lead to all prosecutions being lost! I agree this rule needs to be changed, but that is as it is at the moment.

The simple appearance of lamposts as you drive down a road would not, on their own, amount to a legal speed limit zone - you would need the signs for the start of the zone as well.

If you have trouble sleeping, try this site (not "official" but pretty accurate as far as I can tell and gives a good explanation as well as quoting the rules):

http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_limit_signs.htm

 

[djbombscare]

yeah DB thats the site where I found out about the street lighting thing.

Please excuse the cut and paste everyone

(4) The sign shown in diagram 670 (except when displayed on a variable message sign in the manner mentioned in regulation 58(7)(b)) shall not be placed along —
(a) a road on which there is provided a system of carriageway lighting furnished by lamps lit by electricity placed not more than 183 metres apart in England and Wales or not more than 185 metres apart in Scotland and which is subject to a speed limit of 30mph;

I bolded up the Carriageway lighting as that is the major a player in that rule because:


The reference in the subparagraph to a system of 'carriageway' lighting is potentially significant. The carriageway is that part of the highway intended for the use of vehicles, as defined in section 329 of the Highways Act 1980, so a system of carriageway lighting must be designed to illuminate the roadway itself and not just the footways. The 1980 Act, section 270, defines a 'footway lighting system' and a 'road lighting system' as follows:

and this is the defintion of carriageway and footway lighting :

"footway lighting system" means a system of lighting, provided for a highway, which satisfies the following conditions, namely, that either —
(a) no lamp is mounted more than 13 feet above ground level, or
(b) no lamp is mounted more than 20 feet above ground level and there is at least one interval of more than 50 yards between adjacent lamps in the system;
"road lighting system" means a lighting system that is not a footway lighting system.

so if it doesn't meet that criteria it is carriageway lighting. The definition on that site says:

Subparagraph (a) makes it clear that, where street lamps are less than 13 feet (3.96 metres) high, they constitute a footway lighting system, not a 'road' lighting system, regardless of their spacing. (In this context, 'road' is synonymous with 'street' or 'highway', in meaning any part of the carriageway, footways and verges. Thus a 'road lighting system' would include a carriageway lighting system, but a 'footway lighting system' would not.)

Subparagraph (b) says that, where street lamps are between 13 feet (3.96 metres) and 20 feet (6.1 metres) high, they constitute a road lighting system only if there are no gaps greater than 50 yards (45.7 metres) between any pair of lamps in the system. Only street lamps higher than 20 feet (6.1 metres) automatically qualify as a road lighting system, subject to the 183 metres maximum spacing in direction 11, paragraph (4)(a) of TSRGD.

I cant work that lot out when I'm driving. So back to my originla argumnet get rid of that stupid bollox and just fucking sign post it.

I think thats fair. But no it wont raise revenue will it. Cunts

 

[pembrokestephen]

I think thats fair. But no it wont raise revenue will it. Cunts

Got it in one. It's very interesting that so much focus seems to be put on the most lucrative aspects of road safely enforcement: road junction design is apparently a factor in 77% of accidents, but do they rush out and realign a junction after a couple of fatalities? Do they hell, it's out with the camera vans. Fuckers

 

[detective-boy]

Interesting letter in "law & Police" a sort of legal "Dear Dierdre" for cops in Police Review magazine a couple of weeks ago. Abridged version:

Dear Dierdre (Well, David Pickover, Legal Editor, actually). While on duty aws stopped by angry motorist who had just been caught by a mobile camera van parked on the verge at the side of the road. The van had dug two large ruts into the soft verge and must have reversed across the footway. Can you clarify the legal position? Although it may have been easier for this man to have obeyed the speed limit in the first place, in my thinking "two wrongs do not make a right".

Dear Criminal Lover (Okay, I made that bit up). An offence under s34 Road Traffic Act 1988 is committed if, without lawful authority, a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on (a) any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or (b) on any road being a footpath, bridleway or restricted highway. There are no legal mechanisms providing lawful authority for police officers to breach s.34 in detecting speeding offences.

It is not an offence under s.34(1) to drive on land within 15yds of a road, for the purpose only of parking the vehicle on that land (s.34(3). The operative word is "only". Obviously the circumstances outined reveal a purpose beyond simply parking, namely detection of speeding motorists. Accordingly it could be argued that the police driver could not avail himself of this defence.

I am unsure whether the damage to the verge amounts to an "accident" for the purpose of s.170 (duty of driver to stop, report accidents and give information). At first sight it appears outside the spirit of the legislation. Clearly there is a direct connection between the vehicle and the damage, thereby fulfilling the test in Quelch -v- Phipps [1955], but can it be said an accident has occured? Cases such as R-v-Seward [1979] and others show this is a matter of fact for the magistrates to decide. I believe a Court may conclude that an accident has occured.

Regardless, causing the ruts constitutes damage for the purposes of s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971. While the driver may not have intended the damage the verge, a prosecution could be founded on them being reckless about whether it was. The prosecution would have to prove foresight of consequence, or indifference to the risk on the part of the driver. It could be argued that the legal principle de minimis non curat lex "Minis are no longer stocked by Lex Motors" (Okay, okay, that bit as well) "the law does not concern itself with trifles" ** applies but it is submitted a distinction could be made between simply flattening the grass and creating large, unsightly ruts which deface the environment.

The parking of the vehicle also reveals an offence under s.72 Highways Act 1835. This dictates, amongst other things, that a person who wilfully drives a carriage of any description upon a footpath commits an offence. A motor vehicle is with the term carriage (s.191 RTA 1988). As previously noted here, officers who drive their vehicles across footpaths to set up speed traps run the risk of prosecution. Additionally, in some areas it is a bylaw to park or drive on verges.

Under s.78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 the Court may refuse to allow evidence if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances in which the evidence was obtaned, that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it. In my view the Magistrates could apply s.78 on the basis of the speeding evidence being the fruits of, and a consequence of, the commission of offence(s). The detection of an offence by the commission of an offence has a ring of unfairness about it, but in the end it is for the court to decide.

I believe that sooner or later, formal complaints against the police alleging one or more of the offences outlined, can be contemplated. In my view the unsporting and sometimes unlawful practices described in the question need curbing, since these erode public confidence in the police service as a body which respects the law".

** unless flung at John Prescott, Tony Bliar, etc., when it will, obviously ...

Get those digital camera and mobile phone shots flooding in ...