Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Aug 26, 2019 02:22

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Be nice to the kids...
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 22:33 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Driver launched foul-mouthed rant after speeding project kids stopped his car, court told

Quote:
A motorist launched a four-letter rant at a PCSO after being stopped by primary school children taking part in a project to catch speeding drivers, a court heard.

Andrew Priest, 39, swore at the community officer in front of the youngsters, leaving them distressed, magistrates were told.

It is claimed that after being stopped by the children from Gorsey Bank primary in Wilmslow, Mr Priest said to the PCSO: ‘It’s a ******* joke, you’re PCSOs and not even proper ***s’.

Mr Priest, of Warford Park, Mobberley, denied speeding, using threatening words or behaviour or causing criminal damage when his trial opened at Macclesfield Magistrates Court.

The magistrates were told he was clocked doing 37mph in a 30mph zone outside the school, on Altrincham Road, by PCSOs and children carrying out the speed watch project.

The initiative gives drivers caught speeding the option to escape a £60 fine by apologising to schoolchildren in a ‘kids’ court’.

Kate Marchuk, prosecuting, said: "They stopped an Audi A3 driven by the defendant.

"He became very abusive and aggressive to the officers in front of the children, swearing repeatedly to the officer. The children had to be ushered away."

PCSO Gareth Harding said Mr Priest argued about the accuracy of the speed gun used. He said: "The teacher clearly looked very concerned for the children, a lot of them were starting to get quite agitated, looking like they didn’t want to be there at all. A few of them were quite distressed."

The court heard Mr Priest was then arrested for using threatening words and behaviour. It was claimed that he then damaged a police hat in the back of a police car.

Maura Logan, defending Mr Priest, questioned the PCSO’s recollection of events and the accuracy of the speed gun. The trial was adjourned until November 26.

To my mind the whole business of using children as human shields in the war against motorists is morally invidious, but always best to keep your cool. If the individuals stopping him were only PCSOs presumably they had no legal powers to do so and he would have been well advised to keep schtumm and say "see you in court".

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 07:52 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
was following a chap who decided to stop and berate a community speedwatch bunch on the opposite side of the road.... they all looked agog as after a couple of seconds of waiting and establishing no oncoming traffic i overtook him and carried on my journey :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:51 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Obviously never an excuse for blowing your cool, (and Altrincham's pretty posh so maybe the kids had never heard anyone swear before :) ) but I wonder what I'd do if my kids were selected for such a task? I think I'd probably refuse to allow them to participate. After all, if it's dangerous, then I don't want my kids exposed to such risks. If it's not dangerous, then it's clearly a wasted exercise and my kids' school time could be better spent!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 15:20 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
Quote:
Obviously never an excuse for blowing your cool, (and Altrincham's pretty posh so maybe the kids had never heard anyone swear before :) ) but I wonder what I'd do if my kids were selected for such a task? I think I'd probably refuse to allow them to participate. After all, if it's dangerous, then I don't want my kids exposed to such risks. If it's not dangerous, then it's clearly a wasted exercise and my kids' school time could be better spent!


Totally agree. What purpose does the whole exercise serve...It's certainly not teaching then how to cross the road safely or how to behave around traffic...it's just teaching them that the motorist is usually in the wrong....what next, accompanying police on drug raids of drug factories, to demonstrate the fact that drug use is illegal/bad??? I would certainly not allow my children to participate.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:50 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9260
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
"Be nice to the kids" ---they might be the ones picking your nursing home. :D ( Couldn't resist and it's not mine- from a birthday card I got from one of mine couple of years back).

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 16:07 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 17:46
Posts: 823
Location: Saltburn, N. Yorks
Quote:
Obviously never an excuse for blowing your cool, (and Altrincham's pretty posh so maybe the kids had never heard anyone swear before


Wot, no footballers :? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 14:42 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 13:51
Posts: 5
Firstly I would like to state everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and then of course people can appeal. Several forums have been laying insults at the accused some even threatening behaviour has been received over this matter. These law breakers will be dealt with, I am sure.

However back to this case. Some things NOT reported in the Daily Mail

The driver was 232.42M from the school when it was alleged he was going 37 in a 30

The user of the SL700 was PSCO Gareth Harding has admitted he had only used the device before twice in two years. He also received a short video and practical, before being let loose on one of 2 speed cameras Cheshire East Police operate.

The SL700 was calibrated on the morning of the alleged offence at Wilmslow Police station., by the PCSO Instead of using the designated markers 44M points to wall at Wilmslow Police station he used the aerial on the top of the Police station. Furthermore he failed to log the six digit calibration result. Later that evening he again failed to calibrate the SL700 the end of his shift.
The road and specific spot the alleged offence happened on was Altrincham Road, opposite the Boddingtons Arms pub, not outside the school as some report.

Now if you go on Google maps and put in SK9 5NQ you will see the road is marked as a 40MPH. This was re graded by council less than 12 month before. The 40 signs have not been replaced with 30 signage, but the 40 signs were removed on the day of the incident so no markings. The driver has accepted it is now a 30 as he has seen the council re grade order, but he does not accept he was doing 37, or given adequate notice.

The prosecution claim despite the fact the driver entered Altrincham road at Sandy Lane (about 200M) from where he was allegedly going 37 in a 30 and no terminal markers exist on this road he should have know the "highway code" relating to the spacing of street lamps indicating this was a "built up area" and therefore a 30.

The PSCO using the SL700 has admitted the driver was in a line of traffic, behind a truck and he accepts you can't identify a car visually at 230M and no tripod was used. He failed to even confirm the colour of a car at this distance on a photo produced in court. Or understand the slightest hand movement can alter the reading, and even a few degrees movement at 230M can send the beam all over the place.

The school had sent a teaching assistant to create a "kids courts" where drivers would be shammed and asked question like "how would you feel if you ran me over"

The PSCO and Teaching assistant had no idea that anyone would actually ask for a ticket, and dispute the allegation of speeding, and may not like being berated by 10 x 9-10 year olds.

The teaching assistant and PSCO made a claim the defendant "wheel spun" his car. The car is a Audi Quattro with automatic transmission.

The allegation of Section 5 Public Order Offence are not really driving matters, however the "teaching assistant" claims the defendants was using the "f" word over and over. Would you then ask this driver to enter a school if they were swearing and being abusive, and talk to kids? Well that's what the prosecution claim which to me sounds odd. Who in their right minds would bring a abusive, swearing man onto a school and hold him there for over 30 minutes while a Police officer came to issue a ticket? Why did the PSCO's not call for back up as Wilmslow Police station is less than 1 mile away?

The PSCO have admitted they asked the driver to enter the school even after they claim he was clearly annoyed. They asked him to exit his car, something he said he did not want to.

It took 30 minutes for a Police officer to arrive, the defendant claims he was threatened with "section 5" something he claims to not know what is. These Section 5 threats were made while the ticket was being issued and contributed when the driver refused to sign the ticket. He believed was not valid as it had the wrong time of offence, and was completed by someone not in attendance. Also he believes as the signatures states "request only" he had zero reason to sign.

This is just up to the point where the matter escalated.......

The trial in ongoing and the defendant denies all charges.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 15:21 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
As Orwell said in 1984, "It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children."

Getting children to denounce their elders is a favoured tactic of totalitarian regimes.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 21:48 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 13:51
Posts: 5
PeterE wrote:
As Orwell said in 1984, "It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children."

Getting children to denounce their elders is a favoured tactic of totalitarian regimes.


Some more details of what children are meant to ask drivers in the "kids court" at the roadside.

Do you know the speed limit?
Why are you speeding by my school?
How would you feel if you ran me over?
Will you continue speeding?
Have you got anything to say.

The school children would ask these questions as it would be more impactive and would make the driver this of the consequences more seriously.

The speed watch is more of an educations tool to members of the public and getting the children involved with the community the intention is not to prosecute anyone. The sole intention is making people think twice of speeding past the school.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 22:36 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9260
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
notguilty wrote:



The speed watch is more of an educations tool to members of the public and getting the children involved with the community the intention is not to prosecute anyone. The sole intention is making people think twice of speeding past the school.


Next step, if we had not seen common sense and kicked out the last left loonie lot- something seen in the iron curtain countries and their clones- "Youth brigade" . I saw the effects of this in one iron country clone-Zimbabwe in the early 80's - this lot were untouchable and answered to nobody, except a home with a couple of large dogs, or a 12 bore .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 23:14 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Can I ask the children:

Have you been taught not to run into the road?
How would you feel if I swerved to avoid you and hit another child?
Will you take more care in future when on the road?

...or would this be considered aggressive behaviour?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 23:18 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
notguilty wrote:
The speed watch is more of an educations tool to members of the public and getting the children involved with the community the intention is not to prosecute anyone. The sole intention is making people think twice of speeding past the school.

Actually I thought the way it worked was that you were given the options of being prosecuted or subjecting yourself to inquisition by children.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:58 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 13:51
Posts: 5
PeterE wrote:
notguilty wrote:
The speed watch is more of an educations tool to members of the public and getting the children involved with the community the intention is not to prosecute anyone. The sole intention is making people think twice of speeding past the school.

Actually I thought the way it worked was that you were given the options of being prosecuted or subjecting yourself to inquisition by children.



This quote is from the teaching assistant who was running the course on the day

"The speed watch is more of an education tool to members of the public and getting the children involved with the community the intention is not to prosecute anyone. The sole intention is making people think twice of speeding past the school"

The motives it seems apart from making drivers aware of the speed. Something which is odd as the road was a 40 and had recently been regarded by the council to a 30. The 40 signs had been removed but not replaced with 30 signs. Also no terminal signage was placed at the road the driver had left which was marked as a 30. It is apparently the drivers responsibility to know about distance of street lights (most covered by trees on this road) rather than the council removing the 30 signs and putting up new 30 ones. But back to the motives the "kids court" is meant to shame people.

It also seems odd, that it's unexpected by the PCSO's and the teaching assistant anyone would ask for a ticket, and nothing had been put in place about this.

Should PCSO be using these devices when they are not using them correctly?
Should children be used in these matters?
I wonder if the parents were told what the teachers were doing with children. In this case taking them off school property to stop drivers who are "allegedly speeding"
Also begs the question why would the PSCO's bring someone onto a school if they had allegedly been swearing?

I would suggest that the council should clearly mark the road when they change the speed limit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 13:14 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 13:51
Posts: 5
malcolmw wrote:
Can I ask the children:

Have you been taught not to run into the road?
How would you feel if I swerved to avoid you and hit another child?
Will you take more care in future when on the road?

...or would this be considered aggressive behaviour?



Under a Section 5 Public order offence you would be suprised what is covered In this case the PSCO claims the driver said "You are not even a real pig"

The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:
"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he: (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

This offence has the following statutory defences:

(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action. (b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling. (c) The conduct was reasonable.

So really if anyone makes any complaint it's up to a judge to decide what is "likely" "reasonable" and what is a "insult" and so on.

Of course there are clear laws for "threatening behavior" as "threatening behavior" has to be proved, in this case the defendant has had the very open charge of Section 5 which carries a max £1000 thrown at him.

Other charges could have been (but they would have to be specific)

Disorderly Conduct – s.5 Public Order Act 1983
Disorderly Behaviour with Harassment – s.4A Public Order Act 1986
Threatening Behaviour – s.4 Public Order Act 1983
Affray – s.3 Public Order Act 1983
Violent Disorder – s.2 Public Order Act 1983
Riot – s.1 Public Order Act 1983

This site covers some good points http://reformsection5.org.uk/

Two videos worth a watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gciegyiLYtY&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQJBKvN42PM&feature=plcp

This also goes for online also however this comes under the communications act, but similar things.

Calling someone a "***hole" or ANYTHING anyone deems abuvise,aggressive,insulting or threatening can end you in court.

I wonder what would happen to Police insulting members of the public? Would they deal with this on a "hush hush, slap on the wrist" approach or would they drag them into the court? Also name and shame them, and make them fund there own defence?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 16:30 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
If they caught, say, Jimmy Savile or Cyril Smith speeding, would they invite them into the school to talk to the children?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 16:50 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Reminds me of the old joke "say what you want about paedophiles, but they always drive slowly past schools" ;)

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 07:23 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
notguilty wrote:
Do you know the speed limit?

Yes.
Quote:
Why are you speeding by my school?

Because all the good children are in class.
Quote:
How would you feel if you ran me over?

A bit silly for driving through a school.
Quote:
Will you continue speeding?

Will you continue bunking off?
Quote:
Have you got anything to say.

Yes, goodbye.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 02:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
:welcome: notguilty

notguilty wrote:
The SL700 was calibrated on the morning of the alleged offence at Wilmslow Police station., by the PCSO Instead of using the designated markers 44M points to wall at Wilmslow Police station he used the aerial on the top of the Police station. Furthermore he failed to log the six digit calibration result. Later that evening he again failed to calibrate the SL700 the end of his shift.....

Now if you go on Google maps and put in SK9 5NQ you will see the road is marked as a 40MPH. This was re graded by council less than 12 month before. The 40 signs have not been replaced with 30 signage, but the 40 signs were removed on the day of the incident so no markings. The driver has accepted it is now a 30 as he has seen the council re grade order, but he does not accept he was doing 37, or given adequate notice.

The prosecution claim despite the fact the driver entered Altrincham road at Sandy Lane (about 200M) from where he was allegedly going 37 in a 30 and no terminal markers exist on this road he should have know the "highway code" relating to the spacing of street lamps indicating this was a "built up area" and therefore a 30.
It looks like there are common errors of alignment with the SL700 units ... as reported here :
http://www.motoroffence.co.uk/services/speeding
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours ... _mon.shtml
Camera Details - http://www.uniparservices.com/sl700speedradar.html

ISO9001 is this and has nothing to do with equipment 'quality' (just in case anyone is confused!) :
iso9001 wrote:
ISO 9001: 2008 standards replaced the previous ISO 9001: 2000 and its objective is to provide quality management systems that will be of real benefit to your organisation to help manage your business effectively and put in place best practice methodology.


Failure to follow procedure is potential grounds for acquittal... IMHO
Failure for any road to be properly signed are grounds for potential acquittal ...
Failure to train people properly is utterly shameful and it should never be down to members of the public to seek this correction. There should be procedures in place to ensure they are properly trained in the first place.
IIFC too, using an aerial is totally unsuitable, as you cannot be sure that the laser is properly aligned with the pointer (as I understand it).

You say that the signs were removed on the day of the incident ... really ??
For information : The driver cannot accept what has not been correct in Law. If there is one sign on that stretch of road as I understand it, it therefore breaks the legality of that entire section. You cannot 'then' (with a part sign) rely on 'another bit' like street lights alone (but if NO signs exist then one must conclude etc ...). Also if the speed limit has been changed then they have signs that should be used to help inform all drivers of the new speed limit.
The Council has a legal obligation to ensure that ALL parts of all roads, meet the correct part of the Road Traffic Act and that all signs and road markers as are per the Law requires and ANYTHING less is not legal.
So if something breaks it it is wrong, one cannot rely on 'common sense' it 'should' properly inform you.
A layman cannot possibly be expected to know that a traffic order is correct, as that would need to be verified by an expert, it is not enough to just 'show the document' and assume that it will be accepted. Did they really have it to hand to show him ?

Since he was in a line of traffic (never the recommended method of targeting someone), if the reporting is correct, then he cannot have 'wheel spun' at that point. Also since they are totally unsure what car he was in, how can they even pull him over, and how can they be sure that they didn't get slip off the lorry, and so on?
The whole thing sounds like it was treated with slack amusement and 'just target anyone' attitude, and then harass and try to belittle people!
As for teaching children to disrespect adults, I cannot think of a worse lesson! The school ought to be ashamed of themselves ! Talk about abuse of trust!

I also think it tries to add to this ongoing idea, that if you apply the psychology of humiliation to someone people are no longer 'allowed or expected' to get upset or angry! It is like a game of 'lets see just how tolerant & gullible people will be' ?!
They are playing with people's livelihoods, and don't expect them to react. And never mind missing the entire point, about what constitutes good driving !
The application of enforcement must always be proportionate and appropriate. This action towards passing traffic, is inappropriate and ineffective.

On another thought .... I wonder if one can state that you will not get out of your car, as you do not have the relevant clearance to be near children, nowadays, and why are the school prepared to ignore this current regulation? Even story-tellers who are fully supervised now need this clearance!

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 03:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
PeterE wrote:
As Orwell said in 1984, "It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children."
Getting children to denounce their elders is a favoured tactic of totalitarian regimes.
Most interesting and troubling, but accurate - perhaps!

notguilty wrote:
Some more details of what children are meant to ask drivers in the "kids court" at the roadside.
So are you involved with this particular Speed Watch? If you are might you be prepared to tell us more please ?

So how might we answer if we happened to be asked these questions .... as an exercise and for interest ....
notguilty wrote:
Do you know the speed limit?
For what road? Do you? What difference does any motorists speed have, to their ability to stop ?
notguilty wrote:
Why are you speeding by my school?
Which school do you attend? (as you have stated it is near other facilities). What's the difference between going 'too fast for conditions' and going 'over the speed limit'? What are the three reasons for a speed limit?
notguilty wrote:
How would you feel if you ran me over?
What events would have to occur for that event to take place? Why do you assume that you will be run over? If you run out what skills do you know of, that a motorist might apply to avoid you?
notguilty wrote:
Will you continue speeding?
What is 'speeding'? What do you understand about the 85th %ile ? What percentage of motorists are involved in accidents with speed as a factor? Is 'speed' ever a cause of an accident and if so how & when? What does driving to a numeric value mean to you ?
notguilty wrote:
Have you got anything to say.
Plenty. What is 'driving safely'? Would you rather I spent my time driving safely, or merely driving at precise numeric value/s ? What effect will travelling at a numeric value have on the motorists visual perspective? What does 'pay attention to the road ahead' mean to you? What happens before every accident - talk me through it?

notguilty wrote:
The school children would ask these questions as it would be more impactive and would make the driver this of the consequences more seriously.
If a driver is failing to properly consider their actions it is a matter of psychology and 'interest' in the subject. Even short lived lessons do not last and many will take massive offence to this type of ridicule. As for teaching disrespect ... :(

notguilty wrote:
The speed watch is more of an educations tool to members of the public and getting the children involved with the community the intention is not to prosecute anyone. The sole intention is making people think twice of speeding past the school.
This is not 'getting children' involved in the community but being taught many wrong and damaging brainwashed misguided information about road safety which is terribly wrong. If there is no intention to prosecute then why act like Police and enforcement. Enforcement is not a joke and cannot be taken so lightly. This is messing with people's lives with no evidence whatsoever that there is any benefit !
IMHO utterly appalling.

The Link to the Public Order Offence/s Section 5 is here and here - most interesting.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 04:03 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
notguilty wrote:
...But back to the motives the "kids court" is meant to shame people.

It also seems odd, that it's unexpected by the PCSO's and the teaching assistant anyone would ask for a ticket, and nothing had been put in place about this.

Should PCSO be using these devices when they are not using them correctly?
Should children be used in these matters?
I wonder if the parents were told what the teachers were doing with children. In this case taking them off school property to stop drivers who are "allegedly speeding"
Also begs the question why would the PSCO's bring someone onto a school if they had allegedly been swearing?

I would suggest that the council should clearly mark the road when they change the speed limit.

Shaming people never teaches anything positive ever as people do not learn in negative environments.
PCSO's AFAIK can only hand out very limited 'tickets', so it is very ill thought out.
In answer to your questions :
No
No
I doubt it and most kids love any excuse to be out of class. Standing by the side of the road where motorists are being distracted by an enforcement camera is 'asking for trouble'.
Certainly anyone not behaving well should never be entering a school and to do so would make me question every aspect.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.333s | 16 Queries | GZIP : Off ]