Hello all,
My friend was telling me that the other day he was driving to work at 0630 and 'making progress'. He was stopped by an unmarked police BMW (not that the make of car has any bearing!) and informed by the policeman that he had been doing an average of 72mph. In a 50mph zone.
However, rather than summons my friend, the policeman said to him something along the lines of "well, we could go with the destructive method here, but shall I just give you a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt?". I suspect that my friend must have passed the so-called 'attitude test' with flying colours.
If only it could always be like that...
PS - I should point out that my friend was genuinely remorseful that he's been doing that speed and has said to me that he knows he was totally in the wrong.
|
Oh these hearsay tales..... a friend of friend told me etc.
Was he wearing a seat belt? If he was no Plod worth his salt would issue a FPN.
If he was not wearing a seat belt, in relation to the speeding, the Officer may well have
(a) used his discretion, or
(b) his evidence fell short to prosecute but was aware offence may well have been committed and drew attention to offence.
Kept his tally up by issue of FPN for no Seat belt
dvd
|
|
Tis a sorry tale. I wonder if box ticking is as boring as it sounds.
|
|
'Box ticking' is something of a myth. In an accountable public service there has to be some sort of measurement. No one wants officers being paid and doing nothing, do they? (The builder doesn't have labourers standing around doing nothing!) Performance measurement gives a baseline that officers working reasonably could be expected to achieve. That then gives managers one (and I stress one, there are others) way to assess an officer. Officers that moan about performance measurement tend to be the lazy ones. Officers that consistently work tend not to moan - they're too busy getting on with it. The point with this is perhaps the perception of measurement versus targets. Which is it? I strongly believe that the answer is to ignore the question. If officers go out and work then the figures will follow, and 'tis well proven that those working have nothing to fear. They exercise their powers when necessary and use discretion a plenty. More than enough scope for both and their managers are perfectly happy with that. Not so happy with lazy officers!
|
>> 'Box ticking' is something of a myth.
Not necessarily.
If you are a busy hard working traffic officer who has fairly realistic targets to achieve each month..but..have had a couple of days extra leave this month, three court hearings, had to cover a colleagues family liaison job because he/she is on holiday etc, etc...and you're halfway throuh the month with nowt to show for it
..are you going to be Constable Savage for a few nights and nip down to the bit of road in Big Expensive Houseville that's a 30mph limit, but really ought to be a 50mph...
..or...be Constable Reasonable and go to ther high crime side of town, but run the risk of nothing going on for over 2 hours?
....and as for the officer whose line manager is a total twonk and has set specific numbers of each offences that need to be completed (despite the fact that sod's law says you might not see them at the times you need them, but you might see loads of the other ones)..what's the officer going to do when he finds one, albeit marginal?...
and these people do exist
|
Seems likely though that the OP's hotshoe friend was going a bit briskly but in a safe and highly competent manner, and the plod didn't want to run a good driver in for something trivial like going too fast, just give him a flea in his ear. Presumably the seat belt gave both parties an out.
There are some sporting and sensible coppers after all. I've met a good few over the years (as well as some right lulus at the other end of the scale). They are people.
|
"something trivial like going too fast"
Is travelling at nearly 50% over the speed limit without wearing a seat belt trivial?
|
|
Evidently thought trivial in this case.
|
>> Is travelling at nearly 50% over the speed limit without wearing a seat belt trivial?
>>
you need to get away from the percentages....there are roads where twice the speed limit, at times, is perfectly acceptable
...and converesely there are times and places when half the speed limit might well be pushing it
Speed for the circumstances is the key.
Not wearing the seat belt is somewhat foolish when you have ever seen the results of a bad accident.
|
|
It was the non wearing of the seatbelt allied to the speed that prompted my response. As far as the speeding is concerned you would know far better than most of the rest of us what dangers are or are not inherent in exceeding the speed limit. Creeping up to 40mph in a 30mph zone might be considered understandable but I would submit that 70mph in a 50mph zone is 'taking them on' territory.
|
>> "something trivial like going too fast"
>>
>> Is travelling at nearly 50% over the speed limit without wearing a seat belt trivial?
>>
Is that your Honda then matey??
|
"Is that your Honda then matey?? "
MD
I don't understand what your question means. The fact of the matter is that I don't have a Honda so I suppose that the answer is 'No' but I don't see the point of the question.
Perhaps you would be good enough to explain.
Cheers.
|
>> Seems likely though that the OP's hotshoe friend was going a bit briskly but in
>> a safe and highly competent manner and the plod didn't want to run a good
>> driver in for something trivial like going too fast just give him a flea in
>> his ear. Presumably the seat belt gave both parties an out.
>>
Bob on, Lud. My friend is an excellent driver and one that I feel utterly safe with. The stretch of road in question is, like Westpig says, a road which has a 50mph limit but is perfectly safe to do the speeds my friend was doing at that time of the morning providing plenty of attention is paid to the task in had. My friend knew this and doubtless the policeman knew this.
Scousehonda - if you read my original post you'll see that he was given the fixed penalty for not wearing a seatbelt, but was actually wearing a seatbelt. If you see what I mean.
For those that know the area, or are a wiz on Google Earth and whatnot, the road in question was the A565 through Ince Woods, between Ince Blundell and Thornton.
Last edited by: Badwolf on Sun 2 May 10 at 13:34
|
>> Scousehonda - if you read my original post you'll see that he was given the
>> fixed penalty for not wearing a seatbelt but was actually wearing a seatbelt. If you
>> see what I mean.
>>
I'd suggest your friend was spinning the yarn a bit. I'd find it remarkable that an officer would give a ticket out for an offence not committed..what would he/she do if the chap went Not Guilty?..Admit you've 'done' someone unnecessarily, abused your authority (sackable offence under discipline regs), Attempted to Pervert the Course of Justice etc..or...lie in court, commit Perjury, (pretending the motorist wasn't wearing the belt)risk 7 years in clink for someone he doesn't know, who could be a Magistrate, lawyer, have in car cameras etc. I don't think so.
Now choosing an offence and warning the other one...then 'yes' i could believe that. It would get the message across, without the 3 points.
|
>> I'd suggest your friend was spinning the yarn a bit. I'd find it remarkable that
>> an officer would give a ticket out for an offence not committed..what would he/she do
>> if the chap went Not Guilty?..Admit you've 'done' someone unnecessarily abused your authority (sackable offence
>> under discipline regs) Attempted to Pervert the Course of Justice etc..or...lie in court commit Perjury
>> (pretending the motorist wasn't wearing the belt)risk 7 years in clink for someone he doesn't
>> know who could be a Magistrate lawyer have in car cameras etc. I don't think
>> so.
Put like that, you may be correct. Perhaps my friend really wasn't wearing a seatbelt and I misunderstood his yarn. It would make more sense for the policeman to have booked him for the seatbelt and give him a stern warning for the speeding.
|
...It would make more sense for the policeman to have booked him for the seatbelt and give him a stern warning for the speeding...
Tend to agree, the copper's found a way of looking after your mate as best he could.
As the thread title states: common sense policing,
Last edited by: ifithelps on Sun 2 May 10 at 17:28
|
|
Common sense policing would have been using a marked car. A visible police presence (in cars, on horses, on foot, or whatever) reduces law-breaking and that has to be better than catching law-breakers after the event.
|
|
Exactly what discretionary powers does a police officer have for motoring or indeed any offenses - surely they are limited in some way? It surely cannot be right that whether or not you are charged with an offense is up to the whim of a individual officer.
|
Badwolf
I've re-read your OP and am unable to see where you state that your friend was 'done' for not wearing a seatbelt even though he was wearing one.
Knowing now that it was your intention to infer that the bobby was being a decent type I can see that you might have thought that what you wrote made this clear but your post was very much open to alternative interpretations.
I also agree with Westpig that any bobby who acted in that way would be bonkers. I thought that that sort of policing went out when Gene Hunt retired.
|
>> I've re-read your OP and am unable to see where you state that your friend
>> was 'done' for not wearing a seatbelt even though he was wearing one.
>> Knowing now that it was your intention to infer that the bobby was being a
>> decent type I can see that you might have thought that what you wrote made
>> this clear but your post was very much open to alternative interpretations.
Fair point. I alluded to the fact but didn't actually state that he was wearing one. You've got me bang to rights, guv'nor :-)
I think that I may have misunderstood my friend's story. It is becoming more likely that the policeman chose to do him for the 'lesser' offence of not wearing a seatbelt.
Even so, my point still stands. Common sense policing that is to be lauded.
|
"Even so, my point still stands. Common sense policing that is to be lauded."
You might not see it quite the same if you had been sheeted, totted up and banned for a lesser speed!
Rule number one. If discretion is the chosen option never reveal the speed.
|
>> Exactly what discretionary powers does a police officer have for motoring or indeed >>any offenses- surely they are limited in some way? It surely cannot be right that >>whether or not you are charged with an offense is up to the whim of a
>> individual officer.
>>
Road Traffic type stuff, (but not the more serious ones such as drink drive, death by reckelss/careless etc) have always been able to be 'verbal warned' and continue to do so.
Very minor crime e.g. stealing one bag of crisps always used to have a discretionary element, but increasingly nowadays, not.
Any kind of noticeable crime e.g. theft of £10 worth of stuff upwards, has no discretion and never really did so.
Society is all the more worse off for the increasing lack of discretion available to police officers. Making them in to near automatons, through checking procedures, targets and other people second guessing the officer on the front line, is ruining the relationship between the police and the public...because minor stuff is dealt with in a heavy handed way..when most people would wish common sense for minor stuff and officialdom concentrating on the important stuff.
|
Unfortunately it isn't just police officers who are automatons - most workers are. Employers provide processes and procedures to work to, guidelines and statements about how to behave. method statements, risk analyses, statements of work, job specs, person requirements etc etc etc which are all overheads and stifle initiative and drive. I increasingly find people, especially youngsters, won't work properly unless they have everything set out for them in writing. Even COHSE (sp?) statements about every product used in the workplace, for instance Fairy Liquid.
Long gone are the days when anyone had any control over their lives and destiny. It isn't just nanny state.
|
|
Thanks WP, very informative - (I guess you meant notifiable and not noticeable?)
|
|
Westpig -'restorative justice' processes being implemented in more forces now. Asking people (victims) what they actually want, delivering sensible outcomes that satisfy the expectation and handing discretion back to frontline officers in lower level crime. Such case disposals will still count as detections. A good move away from the 'one size fits all', process driven methods widely in use today.
|
>> -'restorative justice' processes being implemented in more forces now. Asking people (victims) what they actually want delivering sensible outcomes that satisfy the expectation and handing discretion back to frontline officers in lower level crime. Such case disposals will still count as detections. A good move away from the 'one size fits all' process driven methods widely in use today.
>>
Frontline officers have no discretion, it's been beaten out of them over the years. Occasionally a brave supervisor will step in and overrule something nonsensical, but will then have to fight the aftermath for failing to grab the 'clear up'.
Restorative Justice might have been a good idea in principle, but in reality it's a toothless tiger. Some of the safer neighbourhood teams use it..but only as long as they get the 'clear up' as well. It's making out to the public they're getting something they're not..as usual... and making sure chummy boy doesn't go to court and get the penalty he truly deserves i.e. locked up.
The whole system is knackered.
Probably not a discussion for a motoring site.
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 3 May 10 at 10:07
|
Sorry Westpig but as I read back through your posts you are somewhat contradictory. As you've said, discretion is available for minor traffic offences. Rightly so.
'Noticeable' crime gets dealt with. Well, that's right, isn't it?
Restorative justice isn't going to divert someone that would get a custodial sentence from the court - such a crime wouldn't be dealt with in this way. So the public aren't being cheated. In fact, used correctly, it should take account primarily of the victim's view and deliver accordingly. How is the public cheated when you do what they want? It also negates the argument that the police criminalise trivial offenders.
If the criminal justice system as a whole fails to imprison those that deserve it, if the CPS work to budgets and only prosecute dead cert cases, and the system fails to take account of the victim properly, you can't blame the police for the combined ills.
We can't change the whole system but nor should we tolerate a policing culture where officers are not held to account for their paid employment and are allowed too much discretion resulting in a failure on the part of some officers to deal with events that need positive action. You know that's how it was - 'cuffing' was rife.
I agree that 'the system' is far from perfect, but do you have a better, workable proposal?
|
Woodster,
Inspector Gadget in 'Perverting the Course of Justice' sums it up exactly as I feel.
There's nothing contradictory in what i've posted. I'm not writing war and peace on the subject on a motoring site. If you feel strongly about it ask a Mod nicely to send your e-mail to me and we'll converse via that.
|
Inspector Gadget hit's the nail squarely on the head in his blog.
All those that like to write nonsense about frontline Police Officers should read and digest!
inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/
|
|
I don't feel strongly enough to converse any more, no!. And I shan't be reading the blog. being a frontline, 24 hour a day uniformed Inspector with 25 years in, working one sixth of a county that includes a town receiving money from the EU because of it's very deprived areas gives me enough insight. 2 suicides, 4 robberies, countless domestics, 2 arsons (one totalling 2 houses) deciding all the custody disposals from 3 suites (it's been taken from the custody Sergeants) all in one Sunday late turn, is my little lot in life. I love it hough...perhaps I should write a book.
|
|
You could possibly write your life story during your free time at work!!
|
|
Lol! - see I'm not old yet, I've got text speak in my vocab...
|
Badwolf posted: "For those that know the area, or are a wiz on Google Earth and whatnot, the road in question was the A565 through Ince Woods, between Ince Blundell and Thornton."
That's a pretty dangerous stretch of road. It's a single carriageway, and at one juncture there is a 40mph speed limit due to the bend in the road. There have been untold fatal accidents there.
I have driven along that road countless number of times.
|
>> That's a pretty dangerous stretch of road. It's a single carriageway and at one juncture
>> there is a 40mph speed limit due to the bend in the road. There have
>> been untold fatal accidents there.
Hello Robbie,
Unfortunately, there have been. Most recently an horrendous head on crash involving a car and petrol tanker.
I have to take issue with your assertion that it is a dangerous road though. The limit is 50mph all the way through (the 40mph limit you allude to is not a limit, merely an advisory speed) and exceeding this limit during the day would be highly dangerous. However, driving at 60-65mph first thing in the morning would not be so foolish, providing it was done so with care.
>> I have driven along that road countless number of times.
Me too - more times than I care to mention.
PS - You can easily get a coach (empty, of course) round that bend at 50mph... :-)
|
Common sense policing - Dwight Van Driver
