Not just hogging the middle lane

Mids_Costcutter

ado wrote: »

The biggest problem with the change in legislation is that there are a decreasing number of dedicated road police to enforce it, whilst most response and neighbourhood police are either unaware or uninterested in enforcing the rules. As a result very few people will receive tickets and the tickets which are handed out will come from a tiny number of constables.

Absolutely right! National cycling charity, the CTC, highlighted a 29% fall in traffic police numbers over the last 10 years:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/traffic-police-numbers-fall-29-in-10-years

Cuts to traffic policing numbers (in most parts of England And Wales) started long before recent cuts to overall policing numbers. It's just not important to the police and hence we see far too much of the careless / dangerous driving described regularly in this forum.

alastairq

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

Absolutely right! National cycling charity, the CTC, highlighted a 29% fall in traffic police numbers over the last 10 years:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/traffic-police-numbers-fall-29-in-10-years

Cuts to traffic policing numbers (in most parts of England And Wales) started long before recent cuts to overall policing numbers. It's just not important to the police and hence we see far too much of the careless / dangerous driving described regularly in this forum.

I think we have entered an era whereby...[as far as roads are concerned...maybe in other fields too?].....levels of 'risk' dictate levels of enforcement?

In other words...[unlike when I was a young driver]....as long as we , the road users, maintain only a reasonable level of carnage, then resources can be diverted elsewhere.

Where independant technology [ie, not relying upon a person being at the scene] can provide enforcement, then that will tick the box marked 'doing something?'

In other words, because the majority of road users are reasonably law-abiding [even if they actually are full of misinformation?]...and the only thing that suffers hurt, is pride, ego, indignation, etc.....then the roads can be left alone.

Much 'enforcement' can be, and is, left to the insurance companies.

If the lack of physical enforcement really upsets, then now is the time to pester these new, voted-for, Police Commissioners [or, is it commissionaires?}

Jack_Regan

Guest101 wrote: »

It's what i heard from my friend who is a serving officer in the met, now this conversation was afew years ago, and if the procedure has changed since then, fair enough. But at that point for use in prosecution it must've been calibrated at the start of every shift.

Do you have a link?

That was never the case.

The was should be checked if your intention was to do speed enforcement.

We all no the guide to speed enforcement was just that.

Crabman

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

Absolutely right! National cycling charity, the CTC, highlighted a 29% fall in traffic police numbers over the last 10 years:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/traffic-police-numbers-fall-29-in-10-years

I've heard from more than one source that it's closer to 50%. There is nothing like the eyeball of a trained and experienced roads policing officer.

Guest101

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2011/201112UOBAOpUseSRLODTv11.pdf

Clearly my memory is going.

But page 21 point 6.2 - says that at the end of every tour, where an offence has been reported, the vehicle speedometer must be checked for accuracy.

So I admit I made a mistake in my previous post. However could still be used to cast some doubt if this wasnt done. And such things do need to be logged for evidence.

Also should point out that the devices to still need to be calibrated regularly, and a device which hasnt done so may be inadmissable. Though if the margin is great, the evidence can still be used.

But it's one point, which could cast some doubt, with enough such points, the doubt could become reasonable.

Jack_Regan

Guest101 wrote: »

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2011/201112UOBAOpUseSRLODTv11.pdf

Clearly my memory is going.

But page 21 point 6.2 - says that at the end of every tour, where an offence has been reported, the vehicle speedometer must be checked for accuracy.

So I admit I made a mistake in my previous post. However could still be used to cast some doubt if this wasnt done. And such things do need to be logged for evidence.

Also should point out that the devices to still need to be calibrated regularly, and a device which hasnt done so may be inadmissable. Though if the margin is great, the evidence can still be used.

But it's one point, which could cast some doubt, with enough such points, the doubt could become reasonable.

I've already told you, not checking it before won't cast any doubt.

The speed detection equipment has a two week window and tells you when it's needs calibration.

Just accept the facts.

Guest101

Jack_Regan wrote: »

I've already told you, not checking it before won't cast any doubt.

The speed detection equipment has a two week window and tells you when it's needs calibration.

Just accept the facts.

6.1 clearly states the device should still be calibrated regularly, frequency depending on the force. So two weeks may be accurate in one area but not another.

Thats the offical guidelines. so you can accept it.

I admitted my mistake in saying it was every shift, i confused it with point 6.2. Clearly your too stubborn to admit your statement may be innaccurate.

Jack_Regan

Guest101 wrote: »

6.1 clearly states the device should still be calibrated regularly, frequency depending on the force. So two weeks may be accurate in one area but not another.

Thats the offical guidelines. so you can accept it.

I admitted my mistake in saying it was every shift, i confused it with point 6.2. Clearly your too stubborn to admit your statement

may be innaccurate.

Two weeks is set by the manufacturer not the force so it's consistent with every force using the equipment.

The Speedo and camera as you refer to it as are two different things.

Jack_Regan

I've already commented on your posted guidelines, they are simply that and not law.

Vicmeldrew

neilmcl wrote: »

Again, these are not new rules! The plod have always been able to take action against careless driving infringements such as listed, the only difference is that they now can now issue FPNs.

True but the only previous option was for prosecution to prove its case before Mags. Hereafter, opting for Mags will be seen as a challenge and affront because you had the option of accepting a CoFPN.


The penalties will increase in terms of points/fine.


Wittingly or unwittingly, fast forward 12 months and compare!