Safe Speed Forums

How many of those were resulting from a police pull? How many of those weren't following on from when the police had to pull (unroadworthy car or driver) ?
I don't doubt the HS is a risky place to be (perspective: you don't see many people in them), but prompts by an officer of how to do so properly will go a long way to minimising that risk.

I will agree that a pull for something like exceeding the speed limit is not "a real emergency"

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

When I first started thinking about this some years ago, after seeing one or two serious hard shoulder related traffic accidents for myself, and noticing how often I would also hear of (and frequently see) people who had been pulled over by the police to 'chat' on the hard shoulder about some minor offence, everything about it seemed so obviously wrong, and in contradiction to popular road safety advice.

The more I started to think about it, and the simple solution of taking the 'chat' to the next exit, the only minor issue I could think of was, how to communicate the intent of the police officer to the driver of the vehicle being 'pulled'.

This has been asked elsewhere, so I shall copy/paste my response below, to save retyping/repeating, but one point to note first is that the police officer can of course simply follow/tail/escort a vehicle until the next exit approaches, before signalling the driver to pull over, rather than signalling him immediately, which immediately reduces any misunderstanding or ambiguity.

This was my thinking and reply on the issue:

I think this should be tackled in two ways; using both long-term and short-term solutions.

Now of course these are just proposals. They are open to suggestions/improvements - I don't claim to be an expert on the highway code - so any better ideas are more than welcome.

Long-term solution: Public awareness and changes to the highway code.

This would be the ideal solution, but of course not every driver keeps themselves up-to-date on the highway code, so it would take some years before most people would know how to co-operate fully, but let's assume for the moment that they do:

Firstly, if an officer wishes to speak with a driver, in a non-emergency situation, he should follow the vehicle until it is near the next appropriate exit then, request that the driver pull over, in the usual manner. The driver who would know the procedure (in this ideal long-term solution), will enter the slip road while the police officer passes, signalling him to follow.
The police officers could also use hand gestures and/or a simple illuminated sign/light that could be fitted to police vehicles specifically for this purpose.
To stop vehicles in an emergency, the procedure would simply be as it is now, ie the officer would not wait until there is an exit approaching. Drivers would be made aware that if an exit is not in sight that they should always pull over immediately, just as before.

Such procedures could be put into place immediately, but of course, like I said, it will take time before the majority of the public know how to co-operate fully ...

Short-term solution: In the interim period, I would suggest the following.

As with the long-term solution, if an officer wishes to speak with a driver, in a non-emergency situation, he should follow the vehicle until it is near the next appropriate exit then, request that the driver pull over, in the usual manner. Since the driver probably will not know the procedure, he may pull over immediately instead. If this happens, the police officer should stop behind his vehicle and approach the driver, just as he would presently. He should then ask the driver to follow him off the motorway. Once they are in a safe location and the police officer is able to discuss the reasons for stopping the vehicle with the driver, he should inform him of the new procedures. While this is not an ideal procedure, it should reduce the exposure to danger duration by over 90% and allow for gradual introduction through public awareness.

The above procedure could also be assisted by police vehicle signage, such as the message display systems already fitted to many police vehicles; "Follow Me", "Take The Next Exit", etc.
(I am told, by an ex-cop friend of mine, that these 'matrix' signs are fitted to most, if not all, traffic police vehicles now).

Well, I am yet to find figures to accidents specifically involving police vehicles, but I would expect them to be proportionate.

How many times have you seen such accidents on those 'police, camera, action' type shows? There's several that I remember from such shows where a police car and/or the car he pulled got struck my a passing vehicle (there are a few on YouTube in fact). Some of them were in America of course, but the risk is still applicable, albeit on a smaller scale.

I think the point here though is not whether enough people have been killed yet to warrant a change, since this is not a necessary risk to take. If it were, studying the stats would be worthwhile to assess whether or not it was a risk worth taking. Since it is an unnecessary risk, that can be eliminated with a relatively simple alternative, the stats are fairly unimportant. The fact that it is accepted that the hard shoulder is a dangerous place to be, should be enough. Also, don't forget that while we should all be able to choose the various risks we take in life, if you're pulled over by the police onto the hard shoulder, they are choosing this risk for you, before you have even been convicted of any offence (indeed you may be completely innocent).

I put myself in "devil's advocate" mode now.

I am observant, and typically can spot a motorway policeman without obvious livery (ie no blues and twos or roof light if at night) and I closing gaps, be it him catching me up from behind or me catching him up. Mostly it is the latter - they are invariably below the limit observing all sorts of things, and I am making safe swift progress. Occasionally they are in stealth pursuit mode at a speed above the limit, occasionally substantially so, sometimes enough to be catching me up (remember, I'm in Devil's Advocate mode).

If I believe I may have been observed at , sa, a safe 115mph, and I see one catching me up, I will be down at around 75 - 80 by the time he is within striking distance. So he files in behind me awaiting a junction. With the above scenario I am damned sure I could with adequate benefit of doubt manage to lead him past at least four junctions, to the extent that he would eventually stop me on the shoulder and I would protest that he should not be placing us both in danger for a demeanour of inconsequential proportions that I deny anyway. I can think of more than enough techniques that I could get 10 seconds distance between us approaching a junction - and it really would not be obvious to any onlooker (though the cop in question may strongly believe it to be so), and except for the most powerful police cars, there would be no possibility of following any distance to confirm a speeding offence.

This avoidance technique - advance training to avoid ambushes covers much of it - would become second nature to habitual speeders and be as much a part of the chav toolkit as any other technique.

Sorry, good as the idea is, it won't work unless the mark is both co-operative and observant.

For cooperative but unobserrvant, a sign in the back of the police car "leave at next exit" lit up as they approach, might work, but that is a golden opportunity fort the chav to go through the motions and nip back on once plod is committed to going off - and booting it, gaining tens of seconds and plenty of opportunity to swap drivers etc.

Wouldn't it be possible for the police to pull a car onto the hard shoulder but deal with the incident outside the car. If I was pulled onto the hard shoulder by the police I would immediately get the family our of the car and would refuse to get into the police car. Do the police have legal authority, short of arrest, to insist that you get into a police car?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Liebchen IG ist better qualified.


I repeat what "gone" said on PH site. "gone" ist real RPU. We have identified who ist who now ... we hit the report to police procedures button over unprofessional behaviour.

But ignoring my cathartic rant below .. The real police on these boards say that the reason why they require the person pulled to sit in plod car has many reasons:

1. Officer safety. But we know one was murdered in Leeds once by a maniac.

2. Protection of accused. All proceedings are recorded which can protect both sides of coin / oder?

3. Per BBC Motorway Police.. they try to get to safe spot to deal where they can.






We know the ones posting the poison about our family are phoney with some of that clique identified as police .. but NOT RPU! We had no other option given what libel und vulgar abuse was being posted as this could have affected our jobs und fostering. They claimed to be police officers. They accused me of being "anti-police" just because I happen to think they must be held to account if they make a mistake which equate to manslaughter. As I can be held so .. und Ted can be held so if we make serious blunders.. then I see no difference whatsoever. It was the dsimissal of British Transport Police as being "glorified securityt guards" which made me see wild red blood. I reported this comment. Guy who mad it turned out to be a BEAT PATROL OFFICER und not RPU by the way,. He got discliplined. To his credit. he did post publicly this had occurred und thus has gained some respect from me und Ted on that basis.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

@Roger


I think what you have to remember here is that though there is no perfect immediate communication solution, we are talking about the transitional phase. In the worst cases, where a driver is either completely unobservant or uncooperative, the situation would be no worse than it is at present - i.e the officer should just pull him/her over onto the hard shoulder. Once on the hard shoulder, if there is no good reason to remain on the hard shoulder, the officer could simply approach the driver and request that he/she follow him (or lead him) to the next exit. This would of course still be better than the present situation, since the time spent on the hard shoulder would be minimal.

I think the key thing here is that they should try to avoid using the hard shoulder whenever possible and should it be necessary to use it, they should try to minimise the time spent on it.

Over time, with the introduction of appropriate police vehicle signage and the gradual growth of public awareness, there should be less and less occasions where it is necessary to stop someone on the hard shoulder.


@dcbwhaley & WildCat

I don't know what the legalities are to be honest, but I can understand why, in some cases, the officers would prefer to have someone in the back of a locked police car. Also, have you every tried having a conversation next to a busy motorway?

I agree however that, where it is not possible to take a vehicle to the next exit (a dangerously unsafe vehicle, for example) then all concerned should remain outside the vehicles, and behind the barrier, where practical.

I know that someone else mentioned a reason that in some cases a speeding offence turns up something/someone more "sinister", such a drug dealer (because, they claim, people such as drug dealers don't usually drive within the law) and as such police may prefer to pull people over and get them locked into the back of the police car asap, just in case.

I would say that this is a valid point, except that, if they're cooperative enough to pull over, then they're most likely cooperative enough to follow a request to exit at the next junction too. Also, if/when their 'true identity is revealed' and they suddenly 'kick off' with a struggle, would you really want such a struggle at the side of the motorway where someone could get pushed into the motorway traffic and/or cause a distraction/accident?

Hi House and

Small point... If you take your argument above to the n'th degree we would surely all go around driving Volvos, whilst motorbikes would be banned of course.

Tony

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Hi there House.




Yes.. I fully understand your concerns here.


OK Wildy had the on-going joke as I understand with a TVP colleague who posts to the PH site.. "unexploded jam doughnuts" I have to hand it to the . she does have a sense of humour tinged with wry seriousness.

OK serious mode.

We may use the hard shoulder to get up to the scene of an incident. Our guys will choose a safe speed ]for the conditions, I think we keep to realistically safe and acceptable. Few drive over the ton down the hard shoulder here. I cannot vouch for others . We respond accordingly and to obvious comditions. Can I say fairer or reassure you here?

Yes.. we tend to move traffic to safer point if we can. Our guys will choose not to sty on hard shoulder but give advice on re-entry. clear instuctions and escort to safety.

If this is not possible. then all flashing lights are employed.. Highways agency advised with regard to gantry signs.. and we take from there.


I do see your point House ., but we do try in this patch.

Yes .. we will have to ask drivers to sit in plod cars for initial interviews. Our teams wlll have full flashing lights and we try to keep such to a short interviw and instruction to safer place to chat as best we can. We interview in our own vehicle for the safety of all .. Our staff cannot know if they have pulled a seriously deranged person and it's best to interview in a plod car with hi viz lights than in the pulled car.

I am trying to address your concerns. I would ask you to go back to 2004 when I had to reassure "willcove" and managed to convince him that we are aware of the public/. understand their issues and hope to deliver what is required by us as best we can.


I am not the sort who thinks I am above the law because of the training the public more than thoughtfully paid for/ Because of their tacit and consenting funding which I consider myself privileged to have received . then that public has a right and a privilege to demand some return for investment.

House. That's my personal integrity. Most of us plods share this. I know some tarnish us .. but hell . as Mad Mogs points out . his professon has the Allitt/Shipman types . and no profession should really be judged by the occasional repulsive rotters.


I hope I have addressed your concerns and reassured you a little? By the way I am a listening ear. I do not ever take negative criticism personally. I try to redress.. refer .. hope to help here.

Tone. I see your point too as always

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

In Gear.

Could you answer my question. What authority, short of arrest, does a policeman have to insist that a member of the public sits in his police car?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

The statistic you should be looking at is the number of people killed by lions as a proportion of those who get into an occupied lion cage.

Thanks for all the welcomes









But we're talking here again about chosen and calculated risks.

As I said previously, we should all be able to choose the risks we take in life. But when you're pulled over by the police onto the hard shoulder, whatever the associated risks are, they are making that choice for you.

If the risk was either necessary or chosen, then I would see no problem with that. That fact is that in many cases, it's neither of those things.




And if you do that same with the hard shoulder accident stats, I'm sure you'll find a similar correlation, as the HA did:
http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressre ... eid=147446


The analogy was an extreme one to make a point though. The point being that you don't always needs stats to instinctively know that something is dangerous. Now I'm not saying that by sitting on the hard shoulder you are likely to be killed or injured within seconds, but the dangers are undeniable and the longer you're on there the more likely you will be involved in an accident. And whether it's one person sitting on the hard shoulder for 100 hours or 100 people sitting on the hard shoulder for an hour, the probability of an accident occurring is still the same. The longer this practice goes on, the more likely people (inc police officers) will be killed ..... and yet, in a large number of cases, the risk could be minimised or eliminated by simply taking the chat to the next exit.





I don't doubt you take safety very seriously, and I'm sure there are other officers who are just as safety conscious, but you only have to to look at the number of vehicles you regularly see pulled over onto the hard shoulder by the police, or speak to anyone who has been in that situation, and I would guess that in probably 90% of the cases, the 'chat' could've just as easily been taken to the next exit.

The "hi viz lights" won't save you from an out-of-control jackknifed truck. In fact it has been suggested that there may be occasions where such lights can even be a causation factor of accidents. They certainly can be a distraction, and 'rubber-necking' undoubtedly occurs whenever people see the flashing lights of a police vehicle.

Also, if one encounters a "seriously deranged person", wouldn't it be desirable for this to occur away from the motorway, whenever possible? Would you really want to get into a struggle with said person right next to a lane full of speeding trucks? Even if nobody gets pushed into the adjacent carriageway as a result of the struggle, a scrap on the hard shoulder is certainly going to create further distractions for passing motorists.

More grist to this - watch the American version of Police Camera Action. Many a pull has resulted in distraction and serious impact.

The commentator - sycophantic ****er - whose name escapes me - always says how well the policeman did to get out of the way and how he'd kept the potential victim out of harm's way by pulling in behind it etc.etc; never a mentionof "if only thyey'd not wasted their time then vehicles would not have been caved in.

There's actually a few of them on YouTube, if you search for things like 'hard shoulder accident', 'police accident', etc.


Here's a few examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qXR16QDS8I
Since this one is filmed in the states, no doubt the use of 'hard shoulder' in the description is incorrect. I suspect it's actually the outside lane. Either way, it does demonstrate the seriousness of such an impact, and how little the police car does to protect the car in front. You can imagine how much worse the accident would've been if they'd been struck instead by a 40 ton truck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plC-HjTOzHg
This one (which does appear to take place on the hard shoulder) demonstrates how having a police vehicle behind (in this case, the one doing the filming) does nothing to protect against a side impact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N5GptFodjc
Same again here: Hard shoulder, side impact.

I could be swayed here. Before your O/P I didn’t give it much thought and agreed with you, however I think I can see a drawback in practice.

If a traf pol wants to pull someone over but the next junction is 10 or 30 miles away, that seems a ridiculous waste of time and resources. Also, if the traf pol gets a call during that time, (quite likely IMO), then the traf pol is going to have to answer that call instead and the driver gets off with whatever dangerous activity he has done.

Another thought I had was to build many more of those ‘police only’ lay-by things off the hard shoulder which are further away and safer.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Well that would certainly be one solution, but of course that would take time and cost money (something which governments/councils don't seem to like spending unless it's on something profitable).

It's fairly rare that junctions are so far apart, and when they are, the distance is usually broken up by one or two service station exits.

This is the worst, I believe, but this really is an exception:
http://www.cbrd.co.uk/motorway/m26/


So, 18 miles with a service station (possibly around half way?), making the longest around 9 or 10 mile (at a guess).

In the majority of cases, the distance is much shorter, and the next exit will be no more than a few minutes away. Also, by the law of averages, even where there is a larger gap between junctions than normal, the times where a junction/exit has only just been passed, resulting in the greatest distance to travel, will be few.

Personally, I still think that no distance would be too great if it could potentially mean the difference between life and death ... and is collecting a ticket/fine really more important than the lives of the officers and the people they pull over?

The safety advice given to motorists is always to 'continue to the next exit' and use the hard shoulder in 'emergencies only'. To quote from the HA document: http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressre ... eid=147446


I'm not sure that giving someone a ticket is really so much more important than any of the above that it warrants putting people's lives at risk.

However, having said all that, if it was deemed that there must be some exceptions for the few junctions that are far apart, or a limit on how far is reasonable to travel, then if the hard shoulder was still used in such cases, the situation would be no worse than it is now. The vast majority of times a stop could still take place at the next exit, and safe lay-bys could be constructed to deal with the few long, unbroken stretches of motorway that create a problem.

I ask again. Why can't the police pull the offender onto the hard shoulder then deal with the formalities out of the car and behind the crash barriers. I get the impression sometimes that traffic police are ,possibly by virtue of their fat arses, welded into their cars

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Hi dcbwhaley,

Sorry, I did answer that question further up, but it probably wasn't very clear since I was answering both yours and WildCat's questions at the same time.



So I think it's a good solution, where possible, and when there is no option to exit the motorway.

Me and Wildy are in a odd situation House as IG happens to be her cousin and ruddy good pal to us both.

He's been BiB since leaving Uni. He's very .very safety led and sets a Hendon standard of excellence to look up to as as the beacon of good practice

My wife remonstrated with a Bib who boasted of 105 mph on Hard shoulder. She asked hard questions. He was of the ilk who did not post the spite we experienced last year and which has changed our opinion of younger police officers who are more "concerned with their own blagarding self importance and are kindred spirits to the thug like recruits sacked via a fly on the wall documentary in 2002" as a result


I want decent.. of firm noble values. Not much to ask and since excellence and MRSA clear wards are demanded of me by these fools.. I demand similar perfection from them.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Instinct tells us that the faster a car travels the more dangerous it is. Like I said, it's that kind of "logic" which got us speed cameras, which is why I am against the idea without some stats to back it up.

There is a big difference between someone breaking down, and being stopped by a patrol car. Not least that the latter has an experienced police officer deciding where the stop should be made.