Accident caused by driver on phone - police not interested!

brat

Car_54 wrote: »

They might have been on their way to a murder, rape, armed robbery ...

If you were the victim of one of those* you wouldn't be best pleased if the police arrived late because they were dealing with a traffic offence.

* Except murder, obviously.

It doesn't even have to be that serious. Most traffic offences are low priority, and will be dealt with when there are no other pressing jobs to be done.

But you're right. Had the bobby stopped and booked the zig zagger, he would probably have been told "My taxes pay your wages and why aren't you out catching muggers and rapists instead?"

Had the bobby been going to a domestic as his next call, the chap on the zig zags would have a fair point.

Tilt

Car_54 wrote: »

They might have been on their way to a murder, rape, armed robbery ...

If you were the victim of one of those* you wouldn't be best pleased if the police arrived late because they were dealing with a traffic offence.

* Except murder, obviously.

One would of expected that the police car would of had it's blues and two's on had that been the case. The police car was even been driven at slightly under the speed limit! :eek:

Spicy_McHaggis

Tilt wrote: »

One would of expected that the police car would of had it's blues and two's on had that been the case. The police car was even been driven at slightly under the speed limit! :eek:

If another officer was already there and the offender(s) had left, what would the justification in your mind be for blues and twos and exceeding the speed limit?

Tilt

brat wrote: »

It doesn't even have to be that serious. Most traffic offences are low priority, and will be dealt with when there are no other pressing jobs to be done.

But you're right. Had the bobby stopped and booked the zig zagger, he would probably have been told "My taxes pay your wages and why aren't you out catching muggers and rapists instead?"

Had the bobby been going to a domestic as his next call, the chap on the zig zags would have a fair point.

My response would of been "because sir, I am having to deal with a motorist who is blatantly illegally and potentially dangerously parked. Your taxes are also spent on me making sure that children using this crossing, do so in safety... sir"

Tilt

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

If another officer was already there and the offender(s) had left, what would the justification in your mind be for blues and twos and exceeding the speed limit?

Is this a hypothetical question about a hypothetical scenario?

Spicy_McHaggis

Tilt wrote: »

Is this a hypothetical question about a hypothetical scenario?

Call it a hypothetical question about your real scenario, you haven't a clue what that officer was doing or where he was going.

Tilt

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Call it a hypothetical question about your real scenario, you haven't a clue what that officer was doing or where he was going.

Actually I did know where he was going. I followed him up the high street and then he turned into the nick (before you ask, I was going the same way anyway as my son't school is that direction). But as for what he was doing, your'e right... don't know.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

But as for what he was doing, your'e right... don't know.

So why make rash assumptions that he ignored the offence?

Tilt

brat wrote: »

So why make rash assumptions that he ignored the offence?

Er, because he did... he drove past on his way to the station. Maybe he didn't want his doughnuts to go cold?

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Maybe he didn't want his doughnuts to go cold?

That's possible.

But I could think of a dozen or more reasons why he would be right not to deal with that offence at that time.

I'm not particularly surprised that these reasons didn't surface to the polluted mire of your consciousness.