Safe Speed Forums

One of the last paragraphs sounds nasty "They are giving local communities, like the ladies of Sussex, greater control over road design,"


so we are to get roads designed by the greater spotting knit , lay down your knitting needles ladies - lets knit a couple of roads into an accident waiting to happen -- "oh dear , that colour of tarmac looks loverly", lets have some with red stripes - never mind safety - it looks good .

sounds like that old joke - this weekend all buses and lorries will stop driving on the right and drive on the left. And if thats a sucess, the following week the cars will do the same.

He's saying "We've been out here hours, won't the batteries need charging soon?"

She's replying "No, it's powered purely by my own feeling of self-importance".

Or..

She's saying "It must be working, they're all going really slow, nobody's speeding"

He's saying "No you daft bint, you're holding it backwards - its you that's slow!"

Beavis: "Holding this thing all afternoon is making my arms stiff!"
Butthead "She said Stiff, Hurrr Hurrr, Hurrr, Hurrr"

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Can't resist one final quip...


"Quick, here comes Basingwerk and you've got it set to stun...turn it up you fool"

A jest dear boy, a jest

No - this idea didn't turn over and die , like probably some of it's founders.
Spotted this bit in the times --

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/articl ... _1,00.html

Village vigilantes go for their speed guns.

Now it's known as The Community Speed Watch project

Can someone please remind me what has been said about checking speed and the level of competance to do it.
One quote was "“People persistently speed through the village and it’s a concern,”
How does she know - as admitted she's " a mother of two young children who lives "- not a qualified police officer
I might as well look at a bit of dog sh*te in my street and say "Fred's dog did that" - i'd be as accurate as her.
Now if they issued video cameras to Neighbourhood watch volunteers and said "video any suspicious activity" some burglar would sue for breaching his human rights.

Following the Strathclyde Police decision to go along with this I have had some correspondence with them, the latest email from me to them today being as follows:

Thank you for your prompt reply.
I am not a habitual speeding motorist. As an OAP (well, I will be in exactly 4 months time) my days of rushing around the country are, happily, over.
However, there is a basic flaw in your comments. Whilst you say that you do not condone vigilante activity and encourage members of the public to report crimes, this use of police-owned and calibrated electronic equipment as a primary detection tool for use by ordinary members of the public is somewhat different from just reporting of alleged offences. It is, in fact, collection of the basic (indeed the only) evidence. It is, therefore, rather like members of the public going out and attempting to procure an offer to sell them drugs, then photographing the alleged seller and providing the photograph to yourselves for consideration as to what further action you might take.
In view of the fact that illicit drug abuse costs more lives than the 5% to
7% of all total road casualties which are caused by vehicles exceeding the
posted limit, one might think you would encourage members of the public to act thus. Is this to happen? It is like having members of the public on
patrol at night to see if any burglaries are taking place and to photograph
the suspected offenders. Do you want this as well?
The road to a vigilante society is, indeed, a slippery slope and I, for one,
would not condone it nor would I respond well to untrained, unqualified
locals in my area standing behind a hedge with a speed camera trying to be something they are clearly not, i.e. properly trained police officers. The response from ordinary drivers could well 'backfire' on both the vigilantes and yourselves. Are they covered by your insurance, for example, should someone attack them and attempt to use the camera as a suppository!? What if a driver brakes too hard on a wet road, loses control and runs them over when he sees the camera and thinks it is a 'real' police officer? How will they hold up as witnesses in court in the event that you prosecute on their evidence alone. My barrister friend would make 'mincemeat' out of them, which may be what they need to deter them from this nonsense and delusions.
The way to improved road safety is better driver training, re-testing of
elderly drivers (yes, me included), compulsory eyesight tests, more manned police patrols and improved road engineering. Speed camera vigilantees is not, in my humble opinion, the way ahead in a civilised society.
Maybe I'll organise a 'Citizens Drug Observation and Reporting Group
(CIDOR)' to stand outside schools and clubs to report on the 'druggies' and take their photographs. Would this be of help to the police? Please let me know and I'll organise a meeting of local people in my area.

Kind regards,

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Hang-on. I thought that speed cameras, or speed guns, could only be used by police officers to confirm their opinion that a vehicle was exceeding the posted limit.
Has this requirement changed in any way?
Maybe the police have no intention whatsoever of taking any notice of drivers 'clocked' by these vigilantees and it's all a political PR stunt to placate locals and make them feel important.
Bloody silly, if you ask me. It'll all end in tears.
Still, we can use the FoI act to ask how many drivers clocked by the vigilantees have been prosecuted and how many convicted. I'd love to get a vigilante into court and make him/her squirm under questioning - what fun! Can you imagine the 'do-gooder' blue rinse brigade being questioned by a very assertive barrister?

Drivers will get nothing more than a stern letter. Another member of this forum had one and wrote back in similarly stern terms and recieved an apology!

But if they were to pursue a case they would expect to lean on the driver and obtain a confession.

This is the reply I just got from Strathclyde Plod:

Thanks for your mail, the contents of which I note.

The appropriate support will be provided to participating groups.

I will ensure your comments are forwarded to the appropriate scheme
administrators.

I replied as follows:

Forgive me, but I understood that the Home Office Approval was for
electronic enforcement devices to be used to confirm the opinion of a Police
Officer that a vehicle was being driven at a speed in excess of the posted
speed limit.
How is a local vigilante a 'police officer'.
I will be interested to see how many alleged offenders caught by the
vigilantees are actually prosecuted. When it was piloted in West
Dumbartonshire, how many convictions were secured from such unqualified
'evidence'?
Would your force give 'appropriate support' to my proposed Citizens Drug
Observation and Reporting (CIDOR) Group? I am serious about this as I
believe that drug abuse is a far greater threat to the safety and security
of our society than the very small number of accidents caused by drivers
exceeding the speed limit (not 'driving at excessive speed for the
conditions or situation', which is an entirely different thing). Drug abuse
is the cause of the vast majority of street crime, muggings and a lot of
burglary, or does this major problem take second place to speed detection
because it's harder and more expensive to address and doesn't make a nice
easy profit. Well, let's get the new vigilantees working on it now.

It will be interesting to see what their reply is.

First nominee in the annual Lamest Fob Off Awards (Three Line Question Ducking category) is Strathclyde Police then.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Here is their reply to my earlier email this morning.
They don't mention the requirement for a Police Officer to form a prior opinion of speeding. What's the current situation regarding this.

Peter,
Thanks again,

You are correct that operating instructions advise that Speed enforcement
devices are intended to confirm observations that vehicles are exceeding the
posted speed limits. The Home Office Type Approval Order specifies only
which devices can be used. An example can be found at
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/beam02.html

Local community Speedwatch members, not vigilantees, are not Police
Officers.
There have been no prosecutions to date. One person has been warned by the
Police.

Strathclyde Police welcome information on any criminal activity. Often
members of the public are willing to pass on information but do not wish to
divulge their details or become witnesses in any subsequent trial. To
support this we have recently, in partnership with Crimestoppers Scotland
and Safer Scotland, fully supported the 'Drug Dealers Don't Care. Do you'
initiative.
Full details can be found at http://crimestoppersscotland.com/news9.php.
Alternatively information can be passed directly to a local Police office.

Whilst I appreciate your comments regarding the threats to our communities
the allocation of resources and their duties is decided by Strathclyde
Police senior management after due consideration.

Gerald Boyd T20

Talk about life imitating comedy.

By the way, the link should be http://crimestoppersscotland.com/news9.php