Well, not quite an end to the problem, but a good idea to curb it has reappeared on the A1(M) in County Durham.
Lorries over 7.5t are now banned from the outside lane of the two lane stretch of the road, just south of Durham City.
The ban is only for a mile or two, only on the southbound carriageway, and only from 7am to 7pm.
But it still seems to me like a good idea to me.
This was tried a year or two ago on the same road as it passes through Gateshead, Tyne and Wear.
I think the experiment was abandoned, so maybe there's a problem with the restriction that is not immediately apparent.
Unless anyone can tell me why it wouldn't work, I'd like to see the scheme extended.
What do you think?
Last edited by: Iffy on Sun 19 Sep 10 at 08:52
|
It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut solution, I'm afraid.
The need for this solution is because the roads are not policed and the minority of bad drivers who cause these hold ups, know they can get away with it.
It will fail simply for the same reason.
It was first tried on the M42, then the A14 and most recently on the M11.
It is effective for a couple of months until those same bad drivers realised it won't be policed and completely ignore the ban.
Much like using a mobile phone while driving, really.
So, in conclusion, the problem needs solving at source and not by blanket bans on everyone.
Pat
|
|
Not effective on the A14 any-more as Pat says...back to normal there sadly.
|
Just to explain this more fully and explain that this simply isn't having a go at the forces of law and disorder!
When I past my HGV test all thos years ago, the first thing I was taught by old and experienced drivers was always to watch my mirrors for Police cars, watch gateways and look back up slip roads as you pass them on motorways.
They would always be lying in wait for us, we had no speed limiters then and it was common to be cruising at 70MPH, fully loaded and with a loose interpretation of the tachograph rules.
But the fear was there of getting caught..................it isn't anymore.
Pat
|
>> But the fear was there of getting caught..................it isn't anymore.
And that applies to almost every road infringement these days,
If its not detectable by camera - ANPR for paperwork offences, Speed cameras for speeding, then its not going to get detected.
I could drive for years as peed as a rat, and never get caught, and people want to lower the current limit? Well thats really useful init.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 19 Sep 10 at 09:48
|
>> If its not detectable by camera - ANPR for paperwork offences, Speed cameras for speeding,
>> then its not going to get detected.
And if it's not in the Daily Mail..it isn't true!
|
So you have as many traffic officers as you need then do you? thats ok we can cut a few more of you.
I dont think so.
|
|
Unless the traffic cops are all driving unmarked cars, I reckon they are almost.non existent in the Home Counties. I go weeks at a time without seeing one, and drive about 300 motorway / major road miles a week.
|
Weird how experiences differ.
I'm not an m/way commuter but I'm up and down the M1/M6/M42 on a pretty regular basis. Usually see a few patrol cars, often on the hard shoulder with cars stopped in front.
Thames Valley have unmarked cars on the A5 round Milton Keynes. They've not had me but again they're a common sight attending to a 'pull' on either the slips or the roadside.
|
|
I spend too much time on the motorways. Have to say I do see quite a lot of patrol cars both marked and unmarked. Not that I'm looking for them in particular of course.......
|
Talking of lack of policing on the roads, i worked yesterday and had deliveries in north Kent and Wembley, i saw driving of cars and MPV's mainly that was attrocious and i wondered several times if the drivers were drugged or drink, an idiot wandering braking indicating regularly for no reason and veering all over the road on the M25 forcing a tipper into the outside lane at one point, was surprised at that tippers don't usually move out the way.
All the cameras in the world won't make the slightest difference as he wasn't capable of speeding, but a real luive policeman would/should have spotted him and pulled him.
Why didn't i call it in, cos i could spend half my life on the phone and he might only be making a sandwich or something and eaten the evidence.
I notice the M11 7.5t outside lane section near A11 turn is mostly obeyed apart from foreign trucks, where A14 section seems compeletely ignored.
|
>> So you have as many traffic officers as you need then do you? thats ok
>> we can cut a few more of you. >>
>> I dont think so.
>>
No, we don't have enough and there is going to be considerably less once the cuts start taking effect. But you said
">> If its not detectable by camera - ANPR for paperwork offences, Speed cameras for speeding, then its not going to get detected. "
A typical Daily Mail-esq comment. I must have imagined the £3.5 million pounds worth of drugs, £1.5 million in cash, armed robbers, murderers..and yes...even a rapist or two since April. Throw in a good few thousand mobile phone offences, dangerous/careless drivers, disq drivers, drink drivers and you'll see that quite a lot gets detected. But don't let facts get in the way, you'll never be able to post anything.
|
And now you are being deliberately selective, most of that, as you know, is inteligence led.
how many more thousand dangerous, careless, drink, mobile offences get missed. We caught x number is meaningless if xxxxx numbers are happening. Catching disquals is easy, you know who they are.
I know, as do most motorists, that I can break most motoring laws with impunity. Why? becuase I know I wont get caught.
But hey, if thats ok with you then we can replace you with a camera tomorrow, we dont have to pay the cameras pension.
|
No, most of it is through damned hard work and experience. Catching disqual is easy eh! Perhaps they have a big sign on their car saying 'I'm disqualified' . I didn't realise my colleagues knew every Dizzy in the country. When they give their false names we actually just say, that's wrong I KNOW YOU.
Your posts are almost comical.
|
...your posts are almost comical...
mlc,
Coppers have always had their own sense of humour.
But this remark you made earlier: "And if it's not in the Daily Mail..it isn't true!", proves you've finally learned something from being on here.
|
>> No, most of it is through damned hard work and experience. Catching disqual is easy
>> eh! Perhaps they have a big sign on their car saying 'I'm disqualified' . I
>> didn't realise my colleagues knew every Dizzy in the country.
YOu know where they live, you know their names they appeared in court remember. you know their faces and as are normally serial offenders they are normally known.
>> Your posts are almost comical.
Really, well tell me laughing boy, who was it who morphed this post and my comment about the need for more uniformed officers and cars into a rabid defence of police performance against an attack that wasnt there.
wasnt me sunshine.
|
Zero
It's not your posts, but your attitude that stinks.
I don't know how to dress words up delicately so I'll say it as it is.
Pat
|
>> Zero
>>
>> It's not your posts, but your attitude that stinks.
Only because I dont agree with you.
|
>> wasnt me sunshine.
>>
Come of it mate; you posted the comment about cameras etc to get a reaction.
|
>> Come of it mate; you posted the comment about cameras etc to get a reaction.
I trully didnt. It was a general comment that road traffic enforcement has been left to camera technology, and its likely to be worse when the government cuts bite into the numbers of officers on the streets.
I really didnt expect people to think this was a good thing, let alone be verbally assaulted those who are in line to get cut.
|
>> those who are in line to get cut.
>>
>>
Remember, Z, they have a lot to loose, job, income, house?, pension. I would be touchy too, I went through it when the forces were cut, but fortunately survived and eventually did extra time because of manpower shortages.
|
|
I fully understand that ON, and frankly Its one area of government spending cuts that should be left alone. Based on that I am baffled on how I became villified as a Daily Mail reader.
|
>> YOu know where they live, you know their names they appeared in court remember. you know their faces and as are normally serial offenders they are normally known.
>>
>>
You're not getting it are you. There are over a million vehicles per day pass over the stretch of m/way I work. Can you tell me how I know their names and faces. When I'm travelling down the M6, do you think I see a Nissan Micra and go 'there's Ethel, she's disqualified', or do you think we stop iffy looking cars, where the drivers usually provide false details and we use experience to discover who they are.
(I'll give you a clue, it's not the first one)
|
>> You're not getting it are you. There are over a million vehicles per day pass
>> over the stretch of m/way I work. Can you tell me how I know their
>> names and faces. When I'm travelling down the M6, do you think I see a
>> Nissan Micra and go 'there's Ethel, she's disqualified', or do you think we stop iffy
>> looking cars, where the drivers usually provide false details and we use experience to discover
>> who they are.
Very true, but then the old bill near the place where the disqual lives do know him dont they, Hes far more likely to be leaving his girlfriends house than driving past your patrol car some 100 miles away isnt he. Chances of catching a disqual 100 miles away from his home patch nill, catching him 5 miles from home or his local, prety high.
And you cant argue, if there was more of you, you could make more pulls, and more likely to catch more.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 19 Sep 10 at 13:08
|
Chances of catching a>> disqual 100 miles away from his home patch nill,
I'm not Dixon and I don't patrol Dock Green. I work on a m/way where nobody lives. I don't know any Disq Drivers, Plenty are caught. Some even 101 miles away from home (and quite a few even more). So you're wrong..simples!
Many of the big drug stops are done using plain. old fashioned Policing. Not Intell led.
Plenty of drink drivers are caught.
Plenty of mobile phone users are caught.
We could catch everybody if we had 10 million bobbies. But then again, if people stopped expecting the Police to be marriage guidance councillors, mental health experts, surrogate parents, litter wardens and took some personal responsibility for their lives, we'd catch more than we do now.
(And yes, I'd like to see restrictions on the use of lane 2 by HGVs. Without a doubt they often cause congestion. 7am-7pm seems eminently sensible to me.)
|
"But then again, if people stopped expecting the Police to be marriage guidance councillors, mental health experts, surrogate parents, litter wardens and took some personal responsibility for their lives, we'd catch more than we do now."
cant argue with that, however we are where we are and its not going to improve any day soon is it. Dropping bodies and increasing cameras is not going to fix it.
|
...(And yes, I'd like to see restrictions on the use of lane 2 by HGVs. Without a doubt they often cause congestion. 7am-7pm seems eminently sensible to me.)...
Crikey, an answer to me question, and from a bloke who spends a bit of time on the motorway.
The answer's in brackets - an afterthought - but I'm still grateful.
Now can we get back to arguing about policing, please?
|
|
There are 2 Ls in intelligence ! ;-0
|
|
Oh wow, great points scored. Make's you such a wonderful person. Feeling superior now?
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 19 Sep 10 at 12:50
|
|
Thanks. I know. You are a good role model.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 19 Sep 10 at 12:50
|
Pda's covered it nicely for me. Why should the inncocent suffer for the idiots. Why should a decent driver who can get an overtake in fairly or averagely quickly, be penalised for the clown willing to sit there all day.
We neglect our Traffic cops at our peril in this country (and 'no' i've never been one). It's already getting far worse on the roads than it used to be and that trend can only go further down.
Someone will realise one day, when it's nearly to late and then there'll be a mad panic to shut the door after the horse has bolted.
|
been giving this some thought.
Looking at the way this thread went, clearly most people seem to take what I say the wrong way.
So I am offski
Live long and prosper all.
|
on reflection the comment I put here was unjustified and is withdrawn
But there's no need for what in another forum I inhabit is known as 'enflouncement'
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 19 Sep 10 at 19:58
|
I hope Z is just having a sensitive moment, I can't believe he can't handle a few grumpy old men and coppers, (and our resident lady lorry driver).
I bet he is listening intently. :)
|
|
On reflection.......perhaps I'd better keep my thought to myself too.......
Last edited by: kb on Sun 19 Sep 10 at 20:18
|
I hope Z isn't bowing out permanently, he does have his own views and they can seem quite abstract and his attitude perplexing and frustrating at times but this forum is better for his participation.
Take Gnasher for a walk Z, get that stripey jumper out of the wash and resume 'Menacing'.
|
Zero, I thought you were thicker skinned than that. OK maybe a few people take what you say the wrong way. So what. If everyone agreed with each other all the time it would be a very dull state of affairs. The lively debates on this forum make for great reading.
Keep them coming.
|
>> I thought you were thicker skinned than that
He is, so that leaves only one answer... He's yankin' yer chains :-)
I don't get the joke though, need to be time served here i suspect.
|
He'll be sleeping it off at this very moment I shouldn't wonder. Has anyone else noticed that internet forum "flouncings" in general tend to take place most often on weekend evenings ?.....Might be a coincidence of course....hic......
:-)
|
|
My 14:17 post in the roundabouts thread might have a ring of truth about it. :)
|
I do find Zs postings can be adrift of an opening question sometimes and the provoking of vebal conflict is a signature of his. Goading for an argument or twisting the knife further.As can be seen in this tread. As usual off topic and usual sparring with the many PCs on here, I find it predictable and tedious and hope he has launched off into another domain.
As for the ban, I wholeheartedly agree.
Last edited by: Cpt. Flack on Sun 19 Sep 10 at 22:22
|
>> Looking at the way this thread went, clearly most people seem to take what I
>> say the wrong way.
>>
>> So I am offski
Sorry you feel that way. If you can dish it out you should be able to take it. We reap what we sow.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 19 Sep 10 at 22:20
|
|
Perhaps Zero will come back under a different identity - Mr X perhaps?
|
>> Looking at the way this thread went, clearly most people seem to take what I
>> say the wrong way.
>>
>> So I am offski
And you had the cheek to call another C4P member a drama queen ;o)
|
...So I am offski...
Seems like I will have to ask the mods to add 'and Zero' to the name of the thread. :)
|
I'm saying absolutely nothing on the subject:)
Pat
|
...I'm saying absolutely nothing on the subject:)...
Pat,
Saying nothing?
Poor drama queen you turned out to be. :)
|
I don't get it. Maybe I missed something ?
Zero's post....
>If its not detectable by camera - ANPR for paperwork offences, Speed cameras for
> speeding, then its not going to get detected.
>I could drive for years as peed as a rat, and never get caught, and people want to
>lower the current limit? Well thats really useful init.
Where is he wrong ? Camera's don't have an opinion as to whether or not you're dodgy, they don't check the contents of your car, take your breath sample or anything else.
They are there to check for a discrete list of offences.
Seems ot me that years ago when up to something I used to drive nervously isnce the chances of ending up with a copper on your tail, or passing one in an entranceway, were pretty high.
Now they're not. Or at least they are lower.
Surely more coppers = better ?
And as for the comment about drink driving, as far as I can see there are a numebr of types of driver;
"Stuff the limit, I drink and drive and screw you all". - Well, the limit isn't going to matter to this lot.
"I never drink and drive. If I am driving I drink nothing". - Well, the limit would seem pretty irrelevant to that lot.
"I do have a drink when I'm driving, but I am law abiding so I stay under the limit". Well now, they will be impacted by the the limit, although I wouldn't have thought they were really the target, but only if they are stopped. And if there are less coppers that's less likely.
And catching a disqualified driver ? Seems to me everytime I watch one of those reality TV police programs they're always pulling people they recognise for one thing or another. I'm sure there are other reasons for pulling someone, but on their home territory being recognised must be a pretty common one.
Unless you have some other way of detecting that someone driving along the motorway is disqualified ? And if you do, surely more police would make that more effective ?
The ridiculous commments seemed to start with MLC & Pat. Having seen the blind defence of idiot truck drivers and Zero's willingness to pick up on it, I guess its just Pat trying to get his/her own back.
But MLC, which bit did he say that you disagreed with ?
Didn't I read in a police report a little while ago that in the past a significant amount of crime was picked up on in routine stops of cars ? Isn't it true that a lower percentage of cars are stopped these days than used to be ? Wouldn't that neccessarily mean that there was a lesser chance of getting nicked, however hard the police try? And wouldn't it be inevitable that one coudl assuem that police catch a wider sample of crime than cameras can ?
Maybe it was driven by some history that I couldn't be bothered to read,, but seems like a whole bunch of over-reaction and dleiberate misunderstanding.
|
Mark,
At work at the moment and lack time to reply. But the phrase 'Zero's willingness to pick up on it' sums it up admirably.
Suspect he got his knuckles rapped by the mods.
|
>> Suspect he got his knuckles rapped by the mods.
Not to my knowledge.
Granted we received a few complaints about his posts, but by the time we got around to looking into the complaints the thread had settled down again and RF said he was leaving because of people taking what he said the wrong way.
Vx - mod.
|
Just struck me as odd that he'd reviewed one thread and decided to offski.
I'm one who thought his baiting of Pat and others was getting out of hand but I didn't see this as any different to several previous occasions.
|
...I didn't see this as any different to several previous occasions...
Me neither, and I didn't see much wrong with his posts, there was stuff going in his direction, too.
I've thought for a while he was overdoing it on here - more than 20 posts a day - and was due a blow-up.
|
>>Granted we received a few complaints about his posts
You must be joking? You got complaints about *those* posts ? Dear God, whichever people that was must really be delicate souls.
What were the complaints ? "Sir, sir, Zero was naughty sir, and he made me cry, sir."
Zero can be scratchy, and he tends to tell it like it is, or at least as he thinks it, but running to teacher over his posts ?
This place has always been a little bit precious, both now and before, but it does rather seem to have become somewhat worse.
In which case, I bet some delicate individuals seriously sulked about me turning up here. Anybody gone off in a huff lately ? Any teddy bears in the corner ?
A little bit of getting over oneself required I feel.
Why is it that people these days seem to feel that they should be able to live in a society where only everybody else makes the compromises ?
|
Mark,
I don't think anyone objects to other posters who tell it as it is. But when it starts to get personal and particular individuals are being singled out then folks can get a bit uncomfortable.
The pub analogy works well for this forum. If somebody wants to stand in the Five Bells & criticise the local schools that's one thing. When they start trying to goad an off duty teacher into reacting that's over the mark (IMHO of course).
|
Pat is most definitely female FM2R, but having worked with blokes for the last 30 years is more than capable of holding her own without having to resort to 'getting her own back'.
>> Having seen the blind defence of idiot truck drivers <<
Well, I'd like to think we've had a very productive debate with all sides putting their thoughts forward without resorting to using the lowest common denominator to tar everyone with the same brush.........perhaps you'd like to join in?
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Mon 20 Sep 10 at 15:32
|
"So I am offski
Live long and prosper all."
Do they change the pollen filter then?
|
Whenever we have a debate about either lorry-drivers or the police, people always get hot under the collar, not least here when both are involved. The measured responses seem to come from the police officers among us and those who are or have been truckers.
There is a sensible debate to be had here, though I don't know what the answer is. On the one hand as a car driver I get very frustrated by a lorry in lane 2 (of 2) doing say 56 mph and overtaking another doing 54 mph. It's a particular problem on the A34 where it goes over the Berkshire Downs between Oxford and Newbury.
On the other these drivers are (normally) not doing it to annoy; they have their employers or contracting companies breathing down their necks if they don't deliver on time.
A ban on HGVs over a certain size in lane 2 is ineffective unless the road is properly policed - and I suppose that funding for such policing is going to get less adequate, not more.
I just don't know the answer - does anyone?
|
I really don't know the answer but I do wonder if it's time we gave VOSA the power to stop and prosecute lorries for very specific offences only.
In the course of their work they do have a visible presence on the motorways and all main routes and at present they are not allowed to cover 'moving' offences such as speeding etc.
I think that decision is the right one but there is an area where they could be utilised and of course, the fear of other regulations being flouted would, in itself, be a deterrent.
Overtaking in a ban, talking on the phone and no seat belt would be three possible offences.
It really does irk me to see the amount of police forces using 'loaned' HGV units these days to catch lorry drivers for these type of offences.
Yes, I know they don't buy them, but they do approx 10mpg and have to be manned by 2 officers, The time spent in them is targeted at one specific road user, while a Police car would act as a visible deterrent and be far more fit for purpose.
If VOSA were able to undertake more of the mundane moving offences just for HGV's, it would bring back the risk of being caught and given an instant Graduated Fixed Penalty notice.
On the other hand there is talk of privatising VOSA, so that would open up a whole new can of worms.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Mon 20 Sep 10 at 04:47
|
>>>It really does irk me to see the amount of police forces using 'loaned' HGV units these days to catch lorry drivers for these type of offences.
Really Pat? Does that happen?
|
Yes, as you can see in this link
tinyurl.com/37mvato
It was first started in January of this year and as it says, the units are completely unmarked in operation. They are also loaned to them from main dealers, and not supplied by hauliers.
Since the start of this scheme there has been a Volvo being used around Worcester and Gloucester and also another one in the lower part of the M5 around Exeter.
I have no objection to the lorry drivers being caught for the offences, simply that it's a lot of time and resources to be spent in such a limited way.
In any patrol car, whether Police or VOSA, it's easy for the passenger to see if a driver is reading a map, texting on a phone or not wearing a seat belt.
If you look in a lorry cabs off side mirror as you approach it, you will see what I mean, but the opportunity to video it wouldn't be there.
There seems to be an obsession these days with getting a large number of minor offences in the statistics whilst ignoring the more serious ones.
In my opinion every foreign lorry should be checked by VOSA for maintenance and drivers hours before leaving any English Port, but we have a situation where VOSA are not allowed on a large number of the docks, Liverpool being one of them.
This has always mystified me and I would love it explained if anyone knows why.
If we turned around every foreigner arriving in this country with an unsafe vehicle or incorrect documentation and sent them straight back home it would send out the message that we're not a soft touch, as we're seen to be now.
It would also do a lot for the haulage industry and level the playing field somewhat. The decline in British lorries delivering into the EU has been tremendous during this last 5 years, and has left a lot of firms struggling.
See what you've done now! I'll get off me soap box:)
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Mon 20 Sep 10 at 08:01
|
I agree with you re foreign HGVs Pat, but re the rest its a question of perception and where you draw the line... Taking many miles to overtake you may regard as a "minor" offence, but to many car and van drivers it could be a major issue... and disregarding signs which tell them not will make those people even angrier... which can then lead to bad driving by them later in their journey to make the time back... there's always two sides to everything!
One persons' "minor" offence may be someone elses "major" one... So in some peoples' eyes that use of resources may be seen as a good thing and not a waste...
(And note I've not come down on one side or the other... as far as I'm concerned all bad driving should be stopped... but it won't happen as there isn't the resources!)
Last edited by: hobby on Mon 20 Sep 10 at 10:28
|
>>And note I've not come down on one side or the other... <<
Well, I'm glad hobby, because it shouldn't be about sides at all.
The more we can intermingle and share viewpoints the better.
I wasn't thinking of long overtakes when I said minor offences.
Come to think of it, I don't know whether a long overtake actually constitutes an offence....Iffy, HELP:)
I know that overtaking in a banned area does though.
The point for me is that the unit is used to take a video of a lorry driver driving with no seat belt and issue a GFP, while ostensibly 20 cars could overtake in lane 3 and wouldn't be prosecuted for the same offence...........as an example.
That's why I question their use of the resources available to them.
>>which can then lead to bad driving by them later in their journey to make the time back.<<
VOSA tell us we should manage our driving time to factor in hold ups that are 'normally found' such as traffic congestion, maybe this would be a partial answer if car drivers on their way to and from work did this too?
Pat
|
I drive on this stretch of the A1(M) every day and the rule is widely ignored by truckers.
When it was trialled it was ignored then, and who was going to enforce it? The traffic wombles?
Seems to be a bit of a pointless exercise to me.And why pick that stretch over anywhere else?
|
...Come to think of it, I don't know whether a long overtake actually constitutes an offence....Iffy, HELP:)...
There others on here with a better technical knowledge of the law than me, but I can't think of an offence for a long overtake.
Careless driving is momentary inattention, and it's certainly not 'monentary'. :)
Dangerous driving can be prolonged, but must also be 'far below the standard of a careful and competent driver'.
Long overtakes are annoying, but not 'far below...etc.'.
Can you commit an offence of obstruction with a moving vehicle?
|
Thinking about Pat's post earlier suggesting VOSA could have some new powers to nick truckers for some offences, not sure about that but there's more than one way to skin a cat.
VOSA lads and girls patrol various roads in search of victims which fit their criteria of the day, fair play.
If they made a point of patrolling these sections and just happended to pull these offenders over for a routine thorough examination, then the word would soon get out and job done.
Thing is those likely to ignore these overtaking restrictions would likely be offenders in other ways too, so a win situation all round, even if they are ok they'll have been held up for half and hour and had all their records examined.
Bonus being it frees up plod for the more important task of donuts -:)
|
|
Zero, are you still reading? Cops pay 11% of their gross salary for the pension. More than twice the rest of the other public services. Even Mrs May the Home Secretary didn't appreciate that little point until a few days ago when it was pointed out to her.
|
"More than twice the rest of the other public services."
Wrong. I contribute 11% also.
|
>> Wrong. I contribute 11% also.
Don't want to start any mud slinging here, but if I had the opportunity to pay 11% of my gross (not net) salary into a scheme for 20 years and get a guaranteed pension of 60% of my salary, index linked, for the rest of my life, I would jump at the chance.
Sadly, having worked in the private sector my entire life, seen 2 of the final salary schemes into which I contributed close down and my investments devalued in the financial crisis I guess I will be working (barring unemployment) until 67. Good job I enjoy my job.
Last edited by: Bagpuss on Tue 21 Sep 10 at 10:43
|
>> Don't want to start any mud slinging here, but if I had the opportunity to
>> pay 11% of my gross (not net) salary into a scheme for 20 years and
>> get a guaranteed pension of 60% of my salary, index linked, for the rest of
>> my life, I would jump at the chance.
>>
It was 30 years for a full Police pension, up until about 6 years ago, when it changed, so new entrants now have to work 35 years. It was common in the past, for young men of 18.5 and upwards (that is the earliest you could join) to join and retire early compared to many jobs, 48.5 for some, although the index linked pension doesn't have any increments kick in until you reach 55. Nowadays though the average age of a new recruit is 27 years. Combine that with the need to work 35 years for a full pension and that makes 62 years, two higher than the current 60 cut off date, so the average recruit nowadays can't fit in enough time to have a full pension, unless the rules are changed.
The death rates for Police pensioners used to be awful, although they have improved. It's a young man's game at the sharp end. It used to be the case that the old boys could have office jobs. That's gone now, they've all been civilianised.
|
|
Interesting thoughts WP - another demographic time - bomb waiting to go off. Seems that the recruiting drive in 1980s is paying off as they line up to boot out the 30 year Officers.
|
|
35 years to a full pension! Most in the Private sector can only dream of that... 40 years for us... If you're lucky enough to still be in a final salary scheme...
|
>> If you're lucky enough to still be in a final salary scheme...
>>
A relative of my wife's, bit older than me, senior chap in the insurance industry, nice bloke....collared me at a family function and there was the potential for quite a verbal 'set to' on the subject...so much so, I stay clear of the subject now, if i can...because his pension has been virtually wiped out, he basically hasn't got one any more and I of course have one that is recognised as being a good one
...but....my contention is the ire ought to be aimed at the Robert Maxwell's of this world or weak legislation that allows companies to rob their pension funds...not those folk who do have a final salary scheme. I wrote a letter to 'Dave' when he was in opposition basically saying (amongst other things) that the death of many final salary pensions in a recession will not be matched by its' resurrection when the good times come back again ..... and it should be, because if pensioners find it hard to make ends meet, the State will have to bail them out.
...in other words those still with a final salary pension shouldn't feel in the wrong... what's wrong is the removal of them for so many people.
|
>> ...but....my contention is the ire ought to be aimed at the Robert Maxwell's of this
>> world or weak legislation that allows companies to rob their pension funds...
I'm sure the law has changed since those days?
|
>> Seems that the recruiting drive in 1980s is paying off as they line up to boot out
>> the 30 year Officers.
>>
The Met might have a small reprieve, they can't afford to get rid of all their numbers and experience before the Olympics. After that, it'll be open season is my guess.
|
|
They are drafting in from far and wide for that. Mate's daughter is plod at nuclear place near Oxford (shortest ever armed policewoman apparently) and she is getting trained in hazardous materials for some special response squad.
|
>> "More than twice the rest of the other public services."
>>
>> Wrong. I contribute 11% also.
>>
I can't remember the exact amount but the armed forces are not far off that figure, Most have a smaller pension due to less time served. Most retire from services at age 40 if they remain fit that long. I did an extra ten years in training and staff roles on top of that and retired from the Navy at 50.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 21 Sep 10 at 13:28
|
|
When I was in the Navy it was non-contributory and still is. Indeed, there is much disquiet in the Forces at the moment because there are rumours that they will have to pay between 2-4%. They also get to retire after 22 years, which is why I wish I'd stayed in.
|
|
I think you will find the the forces pay was given an "adjustment" to account for the pension. It would be good for the MOD to be up front with the amount, if the current service people have to pay a percentage on top of the "adjustment" I am not surprised they are unhappy. I survived for 32 years, that helps the pension a bit!
|
|
How about "driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road"?
|
...Cops pay 11% of their gross salary for the pension...
Woodster,
How Mrs May didn't know that is beyond me.
Mention the pension to any copper - or ex-copper - and it's the standard reply, or rather rebuke.
Wish I had a pound for every time I've heard it.
|
11% and about to go up!
"Wish I had a pound for every time I've heard it."
I wish I had a pound for everyone who talked about my 'free' pension.
|
...I wish I had a pound for everyone who talked about my 'free' pension...
Ah, but you will have in a few years.
|
|
And don't forget its index linked at 55 :-O
|
>> And don't forget its index linked at 55 :-O
>>
But we are worth it. :)
|
Wish I had a pension:)
Pat
|
...And don't forget its index linked at 55 :-...But we are worth it. :)...
I agree, you are worth it.
Which brings me, you'll be unhappy to know, to another point.
It is such a waste to spend time and money training someone and then let them go when they are near the peak of their professional worth.
I've seen coppers in their early 50s who know the job inside out, and who rightly enjoy the respect of colleagues and the grudging respect of criminals.
And what do we do?
Pay them to quit.
All that experience and ability lost to the country.
Madness.
|
|
I agree as far as the plod's go, I am sure their experience could be used even if not in the front line. At about the time I was due to retire from the RN they were critically short of people with my skills due to previous cuts in manpower reducing the pool of people with the appropriate experience available for promotion. The rules were promptly changed to allow further service, and although I was in theory available for any service, I only carried out inspection, examination, and training roles.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 21 Sep 10 at 16:43
|
|
Lots of Police jobs going now when Officers have their 30 years in, they've found a loophole to dispense with service - this means that in some cases Officers aged 48.5 are being pensioned off...
|
" this means that in some cases Officers aged 48.5 are being pensioned off... "
Please explain this loophole PU.
|
True in many fields, Iffy - both public and private. Experienced people tend to cost more, so when there are economies to be made, you can be sure someone will print out a list of staff in descending order of salary and suggest targeting those at the top for 'early retirement'. The list, of course, doesn't even try to show relative usefulness, just cost.
One thing I like about my present employer is the relatively large number of greyheads here: there are two over-60s in my immediate vicinity and I appreciate both their advice and their relaxed, nothing-to-prove attitude. After three jobs in my 20s and 30s where I saw anyone over 50 winkled out, it's a pleasant change - and an encouraging thought now that I'm closer to 50 than 30.
|
|
The other reason for pushing towards early retirement rather than paying off younger staff is that, as far as I know early retirement comes out of the pension fund, apart from any enhancements that are part of it. The whole cost of redundancy payments comes from current income for a company.
|
>> The other reason for pushing towards early retirement rather than paying off younger staff is
>> that, as far as I know early retirement comes out of the pension fund, apart
>> from any enhancements that are part of it. The whole cost of redundancy payments comes
>> from current income for a company.
In the public sector I think the answer to that is it used to!! Certainly in the Civil Service the cost is borne by the employing business unit until the early retiree hits normal retirement date.
|
|
I think, but would stand to be corrected, that the Home Office took on the funding of Police Pensions from Police Authorities a few years ago, although I know from my work as a Governor at a College that Local Authorities are responsible for Council pensions.
|
I agree.
A lot of ex police officers become lorry drivers and I'm sure that must be a total waste of experience and talent.
The last one I know retired from the rank of Inspector but having said that, he is thoroughly enjoying being a lorry driver!
Pat
|
"Which brings me, you'll be unhappy to know, to another point.
It is such a waste to spend time and money training someone and then let them go when they are near the peak of their professional worth."
Bobbies sign up for a 35 year stretch now.
"I've seen coppers in their early 50s who know the job inside out, and who rightly enjoy the respect of colleagues and the grudging respect of criminals.
And what do we do?
Pay them to quit.
All that experience and ability lost to the country.
Madness."
Agreed. But the theory is that all bobbies should be capable of rolling round in the gutter with the 'underclasses' and on shift work which gets harder as you get older.
Ideally the Police should be split or tiered whereby you start doing response work and that includes Traffic (Old School) and move on to something less confrontational such as investigation and prisoner processing.
"......the grudging respect of criminals"
Think that disappeared in the 80's - Life on Mars and all that.
|
...all bobbies should be capable of rolling round in the gutter with the 'underclasses' and on shift work which gets harder as you get older...
I've spoken to one or two older 'once a Pc always a Pc' policemen who have told me the same.
They don't want to let the side down, yet they don't want special treatment either. No easy answer to that one.
I was thinking more of detectives, although I understand the investigation role is being privatised to some extent.
One or two retired 'tecs have been rehired by the economic crime unit of my local force as civilian investigators.
A sergeant I was talking to told me some murder case inquiry work is, or is about to be, given to civvies.
|
I'm proud of the fact I've been 24/7 frontline response all of my Police career. I've never looked for an easy option working 9x5 in an office. However, I'm the wrong side of 40 now and have started to find shifts hard going. While I've no intention of changing my role, do we really want 60+ bobbies working a town centre on a friday night and facing hundreds of drunken 20+s.
Sadly, most bobbies at the moment can't wait to get out. The last 13 years of Blair and Winky have utterly demoralised frontline Police Officers. Not having any right to industrial action means we are an easy target to the current mob. I'm looking at being £4000+ down per year in April (and I do hardly any O/T). Morale is absolutely rock bottom. When I left the Forces I could have taken a much higher paid job. I CHOSE long term stability with a half decent pension. If our pension is now messed with, it'll be the final straw. There's talk of our service being further extended. I don't fancy rolling around with some scoat at 4am when I'm 60. Plus, there's the changes in conditions that means the powers that be can cancel rest days, annual leave at will. Our home lives are already seriously affected by the job, the new proposals mean we will be lucky to have any decent home life at all.
The reg 19 that is now being used to force out Officers with 30 years in is another form of redundancy. As a supervisor it's not necessarily a bad thing. There's a few that have been treading water and taking a position that could be given to someone younger and enthusiastic who hasn't been totally ground down. However, it's a sad end to many years of service.
Last edited by: midlifecrisis on Tue 21 Sep 10 at 19:45
|
|
The flip side being that very experienced Officers who would have stayed on for a few years after their 30 are being lost there is no discrimination in this R19 notice. One bit of spin I heard was that some Non-ACPO senior Officers are being forced out and this is actually freeing up the ranks in the promotion sense.
|
>> One bit of spin I heard was that some Non-ACPO senior Officers are being
>> forced out and this is actually freeing up the ranks in the promotion sense.
Promotion blockages was one of the rationales for 'Approved Early Retirement' (ie go at 50+on a full pension) in the Civil Service. Although most UK wide depts won't offer it now it does still seem to be available to those employed by Scottish Gov - a colleague seconded from there is in line for it.
|
|
And this loophole you know about (48.5). You haven't answered my question PU. Please enlighten me.
|
|
There is an obscure regulation in the Police pension regs (Reg 19) that means Police Forces can compulsory retire Officers with 30+ years service. They are now enforcing it and forcing out those Officers. They cost more than a Probationer (although seeing as ALL recruiting has stopped for the next 3 years..it should be they cost more than a PCSO)
|
MLC, I have been looking through some Armed forces pay review body documents and I have found a reference to the "adjustment" I referred to earlier, but not the amount. I will continue looking.
I found this:-
As a Regular serviceman or woman you are automatically a member of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS). You do not contribute directly from your pay into a pension fund, but the Armed Forces Pay Review Board (AFPRB) does make an adjustment to your salary to take into account the relevant benefits of the Services' scheme when compared with civilian pension arrangements.
|
An end to the four-mile lorry overtake - Pat
