PSNI Speed Traps

belfastgal

scandarahar wrote:

Well I don't, knowing said person. Basically all she did was ask - are you going to prosecute me? Answer - no. Am I legally obliged to remain? Answer - no. Then said she was leaving and that was that. Even after commiting an offence (not arrestable) and being cautioned one of the things you must then be told is - "You do not have to remain".



A Police Officer has no power to detain someone in order to give them a lecture. You listen to it if you want. I would choose not to.



Go find out the rest of Article 180 and see what else it says about stopping vehicles. There is a bit more to it than that.

You obviously think the Police have more power than they really have.



Have you ever flashed anyone in or out of a junction? I've seen the Police themselves do it.



And the point I made about proving that the vehicle I flashed at had to be proven to be speeding before the offence of Obstructing Police was complete, was verified by a traffic Police Officer. So who is right?

Also the Police are on record as saying "We don't want to catch you speeding - we want to stop you speeding". Technically flashing of the lights is helping them out...

I'm not going to get into a a tit -for-tat argument here. You have your view - I have mine. This thread started off about speed traps. I see no problem in flashing at oncoming traffic on a straight level stretch of fast road (mostly the A1) to warn them the Police are lying in a van ahead, just in case they are a few mph over the limit. I perceive the use of camera vans as the laziest form of Policing.

EXCELLENT POST....VERY INFORMATIVE....I SOMETHINGS THINK THE PSNI THINK THERE IS ONE RULE FOR THEM AND ANOTHER FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE.

talksalot81

It is just blatantly obvious that people dont care if they break the law, if there is possible threat to this, they stand up and complain. But it is total double standards. If someone breaks the law and you feel it is against you, then all of a sudden you care and will complain if nothing is being done.

It stinks.

nadnad

oh gees give over mate - no one likes speed cameras - you can get all uppity if you want but no one likes them and no one likes getting fines for doing like 5 miles over the speed limit or whatever - there has always been a sense of "coming together" where the layperson is concerned against the police - its nothing sinister its just the way people are. so what if a couple of people get flashed and warned big deal who really cares? the police would do a better job if they had a few more on the street - patrolling - if more police presence was felt in certain areas then there would be less trouble and problems - I guarantee you won't ever see a police man/woman out on a rainy cold day like today - thats when they do their "lazy policing" ie speed cameras - you only ever see them out and about when the sun is shining. they bring it on themselves most of the time. i saw something in the news the other day about a man who called the police about 4 times because his home was being attacked by youths - they didnt come, one of my mum's friend's house was being stoned a while ago - the police eventually came out - but what did they say - "sorry theres too many of them - theres nothing we can do!" and they left them to it. on saturday night my siter was kept awake by partygoers from 10pm to 10am - the police did actually come out 4 times - but they didnt actually do anything - madness. anyway rant over most of the time i dont have a problem with authority!

Jon_C

Scandarahar,

I am quite happy to differ with you while still taking an interest in what you have to say. I think that's what this kind of forum is about.

Having said that, I'm assuming this topic only got on here with the point being to save money on fines, so here are a couple of suggestions for anyone who wants to do that:

(a) obey the law ("law-abiding citizens" just become "citizens" if they break the speed limit, folks)
or (b) go ahead and break it but keep your fingers crossed that if you get caught, you'll get off with advice and a warning.

Realistically, a police officer can indeed detain someone in this way (in the sense of delaying them for a short while) even if no arrest is made and the motorist is not prosecuted. That's what I was talking about in my earlier post as I'm sure you know well.

It's usually in the motorist's interests to take the talking-to and get off lightly. Some people with more pride and money to spare might prefer to skip the lecture and pay a fixed penalty instead but I'll admit it's probably not what I would do if I was in the wrong.

If you are stopped and then give the officer short shrift as your solicitor friend says she did, you are more likely to end up being delayed further for some other petty reason such as having something on your car checked (anything from headlights to number plates, tyre treads or the water in your windscreen wipers).

If they want to they can defer the inconvenience by getting you to produce your licence and certificate of insurance at a police station if, like me and most other drivers, you don't always have both on you.

Human nature suggests that if they can fault a difficult customer for anything, they will do but they are more likely to give just a ticking-off to someone who at least appears contrite rather than mad keen to get away.

Of course that isn't fair but that's the reality, particularly if you annoy a traffic cop or another officer who has a certain attitude that would usually come with a degree of experience - maybe one who has dealt with a few serious road accidents caused by arrogant motorists and gets more than a little peeved at drivers who think the road is theirs alone.

I'm not suggesting that you or your friend are in this category but can't you see why some police officers would react like this to a driver who appeared uninterested in heeding a warning?

sherlockjones_2

Speed traps they always spoil my mood :mad: i m having some very bad experiences with it lols. i have started obeying law after it :T

Magdhuir

Jon, unfortunately, as with every it is the usuallly law-abiding citizen that is screwed. The real menaces on the road will not be caught as they are usually not registered, mot'd, taxed, insured... So the cameras can flash away, but will only be Mr Tax Insurance Paid who in all aspects of life is law abiding but who may have happened to stray over the limit that will received the "Notice of Intention to Prosecute" and who will duly hand in his/her license and get endorsed and pay the fine and possibly face increased insurance and more importantly who will worry and stress over the whole situation.

Whereas Mr Runaround, if even caught/identified, and brought to account may have no licence to endorse or will not give a monkeys since the fine will be less than the tax/insurance they have avoided.

It's all about fairness and while no one is disputing that speed kills, it depends on a number of other circumstances. Doing 50 past a school around 9.oo is different to doing 50 on a dual carriageway with a 40 limit at two in the morning. It is the games that are played to catch out usually law-abidding motorists. catching the real menances is not cost-effective as they are non-compliant and will cost more dealing with that can possibly be recovered. Whereas the law fearing individuals cough up no questions asked.

Same with any other crime - go for the compliant soft touch everytime. Has little to do with road safety otherwise fixed cameras would be at accident blackspots, has everything to do with squeezing money out of joe public hence cameras where they are not required for safety purposes.

Magdhuir

Although flashing lights is only supposed to be used as a warning, as with sounding horn.

Honkycat

Jon's post was in 2006.

snowmen

Anyone know if they are going to put cameras on the westlink?

Over the past few months 50 signs have gone up everywhere but the only cameras up at the mo are traffic surveillance cameras.

I see two "variable speed limit signs" with black bin liners over them on the clifton street bridge too and the under the bridges there are hatchings on the road which might be the precursor to something?!

x12yhp

The westlink has always been 50 and, with signs up, you can assume that will remain the upper limit. The road becomes relatively narrow and has people feeding on and off at various speeds and various locations. The speed limit there is quite justified.

As for whether there will be cameras... well I doubt it. The area is just a bit too 'bandit' and the police have traditionally avoided it altogether.