Safe Speed Forums

What really gets to me about speed cameras is the fact that they are so indescriminate.

Back in the days where every conviction was made with police officers, those drivers speeing "under-the-influence" were weeded out from the ranks of reps and van drivers going about their business on the motorways or at 2am when the roads are empty.

The truth is that now both would receive the same 3 points/£60 fine, and be treated in exactly the same way.

We've heard how the rise in speed camera usage has led to less traffic police, but we've not heard about the effects that this has had on drink driving figures - meaning this remains a theory for the time being, but if anyone has any evidence to back up a decrease in drink drivers being caught then please post it here...

_________________
Tom

This isn't evidence, but it's a 'common sense' argument - Something we perhaps need to be wary of, bearing in mind that the 'speed kills' mantra is often cited as an example of 'common sense' by those who use it.

However, it strikes me as fairly obvious - a camera cannot detect someone driving eratically. A trafpol should be able to pick up on someone over the limit in a minute or less.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Might be more than a theory. I thought there had been a rise in alcohol related accidents, in which case that would be evidence to support Tzunami's idea.
Anybody know if it's true, or did I just imagine it?

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

Can only go off what goes through my labs (as blood and lurgy specialist) - but we seem to see less random blood tests from cop shop for booze, but A&E do send us samples from their customers - and significant number are positive - but these are from all accidents and not just RTAs! We do not know how many were drunk whilst using a Black & Decker, crossing the road or driving a car - the team just get the phials with instructions to test for booze and drugs.

However, our colleagues at the sharp edge do say they have seen upsurge in drunk/drugged chancers coming through their department.

I can usually tell within the first couple of seconds if someone is under influence. In my patch - we are on patrol.

However, colleagues elsewhere are complaining that people do take more chances due to less trafpol presence and camera avoidance!

You do find that many RTAs (by no means all) in our patch do indeed test positive for something - and this will not be a blip in our area. Chancers are chancers so where they live.

Is that well over the legal limit, just over the legal limit, or having taken any alcohol at all?

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"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

Whenever you're stopped by the police they're always conviced you're on something anyway - I got stopped at 2am after a night out, and after bundling me into the back of the car they must have asked me my date of birth at least 6 times - even after the alcohol test came up negative.

I was stopped as i'd reversed up a hill to pick up one of my friends who was on the pavement, and they claimed that I hadn't seen the car behind which had to brake heavily to avoid hitting me - when in truth the car behind was going far too fast coming down the hill after leaving the car park, and I had seen him all along. They were relying on the CCTV team, however, who had royally f*cked up.

What really got to me was that after they found I was clean they got on the radio, and asked "is there an incident for this guy we pulled over?"
The sheepish reply came back over the radio - "Er no" (a pause) "There can be if you want there to be" (pause) Police reply - "No, that won't be necessary, over"

Presumably if i'd have been a little bit cheekier then they would have thrown the book at me

_________________
Tom

Cannot explain how I know - it comes with experience. Before the pull - either driving too slowly (yup - it is true - no win situation for you lot - sorry!!!! - Speed and we pull- and drive too suspiciously cautiously and we think "Aye Aye! - Up to no good here!" ) You find there are tell-tale signs (eyes, mannerisms, general demeanour) that they are under influence of something - not necessarily alcohol!

Well - you would moan at us for not getting the drunks if we let them just drive offinto the distance - and drunks always seem to bye-pass the road with the scams as well!

Just how they do this is one of life's little mysteries!

But - if you do pull someone up --- and you have slightest suspicion -- you do the tests anyway to make sure!

Course I know - we are damned whatever we do! You just cannot get the right BiBs ever!

Unfortunately - mate - we have to make sure you are safe to drive. Possibly - I may even have breathalysed you! After all 2 am - dodgy reverse uphill - and not as challenge on that "Worst Driver" show! But once proved negative - honestly - would not have troubled you further - unless you gave me reason to suspect otherwise! Will admit a repeated questioning as you describe is unwarranted and causes undue upset! You did answer their questions first time and politely- I trust! Best to keep calm and polite in the situation. For record - always appreciated that some of my pulls were nervous and bit afraid of me - you do try to keep situation as polite and calm as possible! That is what we tell our own chaps in the field anyway!



That is bad! I agree. You should have taken their badge numbers and complained about that. We are employed to protect the public and enforce the law - not deliberately seek to arrest people!

But my advice mate - bite your tongue. Remain polite at all times - as politeness begets politeness and does help diffuse a tense situation for you! I know there are some BiBs who shame the uniform - good and bad in all professions - and agree with you - we do need to winkle out our bad ones. But even so - if faced with one of our less professional types - remaining calm and polite can take the wind out of his/her sails! That type unfortunately want you to react. Do not give them the satisfaction!

Hi,

few questions for the BiB's.

(1) What is the difference between getting stopped by ordinary cops and the trafs, does the normal BiB's have to have more reason to stop you?

(2) What visual (or audible) indication has to be shown in order to stop a driver, does just flashing the lights cover it?

(3) Do you ever activate sirens just so you can get through red lights?

Andrew

Not really - we both use same criteria - though proper trafpols always use better judgement and are a liitle more discretionary with regard to minor transgressions than those our lesser experienced colleagues (Our more outspoken family members call them "pretzels in Pandas" Quite like the term myself - and sometimes use it to wind up my colleagues!)



We use the sirens and our blue lights as well - some vehicles are even equipped with a neon "Stop" sign on the rear. If in unmarked - will utilise siren. We point and use left indicators as well.



Myself? Nope - never! (Disciplinary offence if copped doing this and abuse of power. They do check the logs - and it causes masses of paperwork!) Most of us are professional - despite some of our bad press at times! You do get the odd one - and like inall other walks of life - majority get the bad name.

We have to prove we are on a "shout" if we ping anything in call of duty!

Hi IG,

Reason I asked about going through the lights is I used to witness ambulances come out of their pound, drive right up to a set of lights that took ages to change and fire the sirens on? Either they got a call at the same place every day or just couldn't be bothered to wait at the lights (don't blame them). Perk of the job I thought.

Andrew