Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 07:38

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 08:26 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 13:41
Posts: 23
Homer wrote:
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.
It couldn't be more different than speeding and speed cameras and, with the greatest respect, I gave you the stats already:
http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressre ... eid=147446
Quote:
Hard shoulder accidents claimed the lives of 67 people in the five years from 2000 ? 2004, and a further 950 people were injured


Let me ask you; how many people would you like to see die/injured before you'd agree that this minor inconvenience of restricting the police use of the hard shoulder to 'emergency only' use is worthwhile? :?


Like I said, this couldn't be more different than speeding and speed cameras; speed cameras cost money, make huge profits and don't discriminate between safe/unsafe driving.

What the petition proposes is a safer practice that would cost practically nothing in time or money to implement.

If you need an analogy to help you to understand, try 'building sites and hard hats'. The chances of you sustaining a fatal head injury on a building site are actually pretty slim. Before hard hats were introduced the number of injuries were very small in proportion to the large number of people who worked on building sites every day. No doubt there were people back then too who would argue that hard hats were unnecessary and that people who worked on building sites were generally well trained in safety. I'm sure that there were some who felt that the extra cost of a hard hat and the extra time spent taking it on and off, simply wasn't worth it, because deaths weren't that common. I guess some people prefer to put a cost on human life ...

Most people now accept that the small cost and extra time it takes to wear a hard hat are well worth it. Even visitors to building sites, who may only be walking through a low risk area for just a few minutes, now wear hard hats. You see, despite the low risk of injury, the logic here is 'why take a chance?', especially when prevention costs so little time or money.

Accidents on hard shoulders can and do happen. Common sense tells you that being so close to fast moving traffic and trucks is not a safe place to be. As with hard hats, it matters not how safe your own working practices are because accidents will still happen. A death can't be undone and it's little consolation to the families and friends that the accident was a rare one. If there's a simple solution that makes people safer or less vulnerable, why take chances unnecessarily?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 09:00 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
In support of your argument.. When there are road woks on a motorway or D/C they impose a :50: or :40: or less and average speed cameras because the traffic is deemed to be going too fast and dangerously close to the workers, (or should do so when they are actually there :x ).

So what’s the difference when the situation is the same for a member of the public on a hard shoulder and don’t even have a barrier like the road workers do? In other words the situation House describes is more dangerous for the public who choose not to put themselves in harms way next to faster traffic than for the more protected road workers who do choose to be there.

So I do warm to what you’re saying House but, as has been mentioned, I think these e-petitions usually fall on deaf ears even when there is massive support, so I’m afraid I think you’re on a hiding to nothing. :bunker:

That's still no reason not try though. I applaud your concern and thank you for airing it here where we can thrash it out :thumbsup:

Tone Image

EDIT: If anyone has ever been stuck at the side of heavy traffic doing 70+mph it is very frightening I can tell you. Image

_________________
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.


Last edited by Big Tone on Tue Sep 22, 2009 09:17, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 09:12 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Homer wrote:
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.

Any they have bright strobes to warn traffic behind; however, will a dozy trucker (I'm not saying all truckers are dozy) be able to react to this?

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 09:40 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 13:41
Posts: 23
Big Tone wrote:
In support of your argument.. When there are road woks on a motorway or D/C they impose a :50: or :40: or less and average speed cameras because the traffic is deemed to be going too fast and dangerously close to the workers, (or should do so when they are actually there :x ).

So what’s the difference when the situation is the same for a member of the public on a hard shoulder and don’t even have a barrier like the road workers do? In other words the situation House describes is more dangerous for the public who choose not to put themselves in harms way next to faster traffic than for the more protected road workers who do choose to be there.


That's an excellent point!!



Big Tone wrote:
So I do warm to what you’re saying House but, as has been mentioned, I think these e-petitions usually fall on deaf ears even when there is massive support, so I’m afraid I think you’re on a hiding to nothing. :bunker:

That's still no reason not try though. I applaud your concern and thank you for airing it here where we can thrash it out :thumbsup:


Thanks Tone :D Much appreciated :drink:

Well I think it's worth a try. If all else fails, it may at least make a few more people aware of the dangers ...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 09:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Big Tone wrote:
EDIT: If anyone has ever been stuck at the side of heavy traffic doing 70+mph it is very frightening I can tell you.


Sorry, slightly OT, but this is not consistant with you saying then that you wouldn't mind people passing you on your pushbike at 70mph... as long as they give you enough room?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:00 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
weepej wrote:
Big Tone wrote:
EDIT: If anyone has ever been stuck at the side of heavy traffic doing 70+mph it is very frightening I can tell you.


Sorry, slightly OT, but this is not consistant with you saying then that you wouldn't mind people passing you on your pushbike at 70mph... as long as they give you enough room?
From memory I was referring to my journey to work which is a :30: all the way. I think what I said was I would ‘prefer’ or ‘rather have’ someone to go past me at a higher speed and give me room than someone doing the speed limit, or less, and nearly clip me.

And I still stand by that ;)

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:05 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 13:41
Posts: 23
Steve wrote:
Homer wrote:
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.

Any they have bright strobes to warn traffic behind; however, will a dozy trucker (I'm not saying all truckers are dozy) be able to react to this?



And it's not just the dozy truckers/drivers for whom bright flashing strobe lights have little effect. Vehicles can veer out of control for any number of reasons; driver inexperience, mechanical failure, impact with another vehicle, emergency braking/swerving ....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 13:40 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
What proportion of police pulls on the hard shoulder have led to a police car being rammed in the last 50 years? What proportion of hard shoulder uses have resulted in any vehicle being rammed while pulled up in the same time frame? I'd get out of the car and would want to be out of the way on the bank. Also pulling back out safely into the stream of traffic is made harder by having a police car behind you ruining your rearward visibility so you'd have to travel a few hundred yards down the shoulder to be certain that it was clear. Are there any stats on returning to carriageway type of accidents?

There is no reason why you should have to stay in the plod car. Wireless technology could easily be used so you could have the chat on the bank thus negating both issues. I'd imagine there is a great risk to the policeman from whomever he pulls than there is from being rammed by a passing truck.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 16:36 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 13:41
Posts: 23
teabelly wrote:
What proportion of police pulls on the hard shoulder have led to a police car being rammed in the last 50 years? What proportion of hard shoulder uses have resulted in any vehicle being rammed while pulled up in the same time frame? I'd get out of the car and would want to be out of the way on the bank. Also pulling back out safely into the stream of traffic is made harder by having a police car behind you ruining your rearward visibility so you'd have to travel a few hundred yards down the shoulder to be certain that it was clear. Are there any stats on returning to carriageway type of accidents?


I don't know if such specific stats exist, but I think what I said earlier pretty much answers this point ...

I wrote:
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).


Some of the above mentioned clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qXR16QDS8I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plC-HjTOzHg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N5GptFodjc

teabelly wrote:
There is no reason why you should have to stay in the plod car. Wireless technology could easily be used so you could have the chat on the bank thus negating both issues. I'd imagine there is a great risk to the policeman from whomever he pulls than there is from being rammed by a passing truck.


I would agree, to an extent .... and certainly if continuing to the next exit was not an option for some reason (dangerous vehicle/load/driver/etc) then the next best thing would be to discuss matters behind the crash barrier (whenever possible). In the majority of cases it should be possible (and safer) to continue to the next exit however.

Another reply I made earlier is also still relevant here I think:
I wrote:
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 ever tried holding a conversation next to a busy, noisy 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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 01:03 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 17:12
Posts: 618
Location: Borough of Queens, NYC, NY USA
I'd argue that the construction of the road and the topography of the area adjacent the slow lane and the shoulder are very relevant variables here.

There've been times when I've noticed the officer behind me in full bloom, lights and sirens fabulously proclaiming their demand that I pull over, while I've responded with my hazard lights and a wave to the officer, and then proceeded to very calmly lead the officer on a half- to three-quarter mile excursion to someplace where I wouldn't fear a vehicle speeding by in the slow lane at 100MpH.

Officers get very upset at drivers who pull over between the fast lane and the median - this is so dangerous, I need not mention.
Officers also tend to get very upset at drivers who don't immediately yield and comply with their demands.

Not that I expect Britons to know what I'm talking about without using Google Maps, but the Interboro/Jackie Robinson Parkway came to mind, as

a) the vast majority of it doesn't even have a shoulder
b) that was exactly where I wouldn't pull over (I got off just before the Grand Central Parkway, and then pulled over. He was livid ...)

I like the idea that there should be areas well outside - the fast lane and the median being the inside - and away from both the slow lane and the hard shoulder where

a) officers can pull motorists over for 'official business'
b) drivers can pull themselves over for a break, a snack, a phone chat

say, roughly every mile, or so?

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 02:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
:welcome: House
(So are you linked with Tesco ? ) :)

So then at this point the thought is
a layby (like in France perhaps)
or
barriers placed every so often as added protection in which to hide behind

However the way I see it is that :
there is insufficient evidence to actually warrant action even it is might be considered a good idea,
the stats around the internet here (or http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressre ... eid=147425)
states :
Highways Agency from link above: wrote:
Hard shoulder accidents claimed the lives of 67 people in the five years from 2000 ? 2004, and a further 950 people were injured. Even so, drivers still put themselves at risk by pulling over for non?emergencies such as phone calls, checking the map or even taking a toilet break.
and
5. A report 'Safety on hard shoulders on two and three lane motorways' (Summersgill et al 1998), produced for the Highways Agency, looked at the patterns of vehicles stopping on UK motorways and accidents on the hard shoulder. The main conclusions of relevance were:
? Most occupants did not follow the current Highway Code advice to leave the vehicle when stopped on the shoulder for any reason.
? There are many short duration (less than 2 minutes) 'non?essential' stops on the shoulder.
? 58% of hard shoulder accidents involved a parked vehicle being hit by a vehicle veering into the hard shoulder, 10% of hard shoulder accidents involved a pedestrian hit on the hard shoulder.
? Hard shoulder accidents are very high severity, 32% were fatal or serious, compared with 13% of all motorway accidents.

So if 10% of accidents involve a pedestrian, does this mean that those in their cars were in fact safer ?
Serious can mean an overnight hospital stay or broken leg for example.
On average then 13.4 people are killed each year on the Motorways, but what is, and isn't, included in these figures, for example, are workforce related figures / accidents included too ? I know previous figures for Road Stats included workforce injuries and KSI quite surprisingly really.
Are those pedestrians those that choose to walk on the motorways (i.e those that just 'take a walk', than a driver who is away from their broken down car ?)

Whilst I can sympathise that it can be utterly tragic for just one person to die, the reality is that people will no matter how 'safe' you might try to make things. You cannot just 'try' things because it 'seems' like a good idea.
Each time a new policy is introduced it can have worse consequences down the line.
When Police are required to 'Protect and Serve' I understand that this means when they pull one over for a chat too.
They do however need to do their job expediently and efficiently if it meant a 20 minute drive just to ask a simple question they might be even less inclined to stop people and ask. It might encourage them to wait in the Services and check cars as they enter.
I have seen several stops that end in the Services (looked like by choice) or off the motorway so it does happen already.

We have to decide if we are debating a policy or individual experiences and he two are very intertwined in some of the above posts.

There is nothing to stop you from driving you car gently and carefully to the next exit or services. If you acknowledge their initial pull notification (lights etc) it should not result in the entire local plod descending upon you from every direction inc the sir support units ! :) (as a non stop).
Plus when you have the Police in front or behind (greater effect) many people drive very self consciously and might make many more mistakes, plus all the other road users would also be effected by the long time the Police car had to follow / lead one off the Motorway too.
In fact I would estimate, that it is more likely to cause more accidents than the chance of one on the hard shoulder.

A static Police car can cause accidents as many try to rubberneck. (Another topic to discuss this but in principal a natural curiosity and checking for any potential hazards).
Road users drop their speed because of the potential hazards and to give more time to react, so traffic slows however the distraction can cause further accidents due to inattention.
I think that you missed Roger's point, that if they have to follow certain procedures, then those drivers competent to do so, will be able to always avoid the Police as a consequence (unintended effect), so, a growing number of drivers will never be stopped.

We have to look at all the facts and weigh up ALL the (well thought out and developed) consequences of a new rule or policy before it is considered a reality. You cannot just do something because it seems logically obvious. I totally appreciate that in this case we do NOT have enough figures yet to base a conclusion on.
For example if we did have crash barriers placed in many places at the edge of the hard shoulder, it would force many cars to be totally on the hard shoulder than perhaps partially off it and in fact be safer. Anyone (as they should) pointing their wheels to face the side of the kerb if they were hit would hit the barrier than go up the embankment 'freely'. Whilst some people up the bank might be safer it might be at the expense of a more developed accident on the road because the barrier prevented the crashing vehicles room to move onto the embankment out of the way of further incident.
We need to obtain more information on this interesting issue. Insurance Companies will have some data and I am sure the Police do if it is obtainable ? By looking at the Country Motorway network stats., will help to identify if there is a 'real world' problem.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 07:52 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Big Tone wrote:
think what I said was I would ‘prefer’ or ‘rather have’ someone to go past me at a higher speed and give me room than someone doing the speed limit, or less, and nearly clip me.


Or, even worse, follow you at 20mph at a distance of three feet. And people who do that probably think that they are being kind to you.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 22:49 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
House wrote:
Homer wrote:
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.
It couldn't be more different than speeding and speed cameras and, with the greatest respect, I gave you the stats already:
http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressre ... eid=147446
Quote:
Hard shoulder accidents claimed the lives of 67 people in the five years from 2000 ? 2004, and a further 950 people were injured


Those are the stats for all hard shoulder accidents, how many of those were police stops?

Quote:
Let me ask you; how many people would you like to see die/injured before you'd agree that this minor inconvenience of restricting the police use of the hard shoulder to 'emergency only' use is worthwhile? :?


I would like to know the benefits outweigh the risks.

Such as the speeding driver turning out to be drunk/drugged and killing several people further down the road if not stopped.

We call it the law of unintended consequences.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 08:44 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
dcbwhaley wrote:
Big Tone wrote:
think what I said was I would ‘prefer’ or ‘rather have’ someone to go past me at a higher speed and give me room than someone doing the speed limit, or less, and nearly clip me.
Or, even worse, follow you at 20mph at a distance of three feet. And people who do that probably think that they are being kind to you.
Exactly :yesyes: and only a true cyclist would know what you/me are talking about!

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 17:32 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 13:41
Posts: 23
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
:welcome: House

Thanks! :D
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
(So are you linked with Tesco ? ) :)

Nah. Just couldn't afford a proper ava ;)

SafeSpeedv2 wrote:

So then at this point the thought is
a layby (like in France perhaps)
or
barriers placed every so often as added protection in which to hide behind

That would be ideal of course, but it's not quick solution and the cost may prove to be prohibitive.

SafeSpeedv2 wrote:

Whilst I can sympathise that it can be utterly tragic for just one person to die, the reality is that people will no matter how 'safe' you might try to make things. You cannot just 'try' things because it 'seems' like a good idea.
Each time a new policy is introduced it can have worse consequences down the line.

What "worse consequences" do you foresee in continuing to the next exit?

SafeSpeedv2 wrote:

They do however need to do their job expediently and efficiently if it meant a 20 minute drive just to ask a simple question

I believe that the contender for the furthest distance between junctions is on the M26 ...
Reference here: http://www.cbrd.co.uk/motorway/m26/
... at 18 miles, with a service station exit (half way?), probably making the distance closer to 9 or 10 miles. In this worst case scenario, taking into account the law of averages, in most cases the vehicle would not have 'just passed' the previous junction, so will likely be somewhere in between, making an average time to the next junction of 5 minutes or so. Since this is one of the furthest distances between junctions, for the most part the time to the next junction will likely be no more than a few minutes.

And, like I said previously ....
I wrote:
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.


SafeSpeedv2 wrote:

There is nothing to stop you from driving you car gently and carefully to the next exit or services. If you acknowledge their initial pull notification (lights etc) it should not result in the entire local plod descending upon you from every direction inc the sir support units ! :) (as a non stop).

I know people who have tried this, only to find the plod moving along side them and aggressively insisting that they pull over immediately.

There is another problem with this approach too, if you think about it ...
The officer may know something you don't, like the unsafe load that's about to fall off your vehicle. It would be far better if the officer didn't request that you pull over until the exit was approaching.

SafeSpeedv2 wrote:

Plus when you have the Police in front or behind (greater effect) many people drive very self consciously and might make many more mistakes, plus all the other road users would also be effected by the long time the Police car had to follow / lead one off the Motorway too.
In fact I would estimate, that it is more likely to cause more accidents than the chance of one on the hard shoulder.

They police car would've been travelling to the next exit at least anyway. In my experience, unless they're chasing another vehicle, they tend to travel at around 70mph, which undoubtedly slows everyone else down but it doesn't get people slamming on the anchors and rubber-necking at 90mph+ quite like a police car 'disco' on the hard shoulder does.





Homer wrote:

Those are the stats for all hard shoulder accidents, how many of those were police stops?


I don't know if such specific stats exist, but if they do, I've no doubt they'd be proportionate. A police car is no less vulnerable than any other vehicle.

Homer wrote:

I would like to know the benefits outweigh the risks.

Such as the speeding driver turning out to be drunk/drugged and killing several people further down the road if not stopped.

We call it the law of unintended consequences.


If a driver was driving so badly that he was about to cause an accident, then that would be an emergency. A stop on the hard shoulder would be the only alternative.

If however, the driver noticed the police car following him and stopped doing whatever it was that caught the attention of the police in the first place, then there is no reason to stop him immediately. If it is decided that he is to be stopped, the police need only follow him to the next exit - They would've both been going that way anyway!




A point that a few people seem to be missing here; when a police officer pulls someone over onto the hard shoulder, he is putting that person's life (and possibly those of his passengers/family) at risk without their consent. Now you can argue the finer points of the stats all day, but the fact remains that the hard shoulder is a dangerous place to sit. When you take into account how minor the offence may be (or that it may in fact transpire that the driver is completely innocent), insisting that people put their lives at risk by pulling over onto the hard shoulder is just wrong. At the very least it's totally inconsistent with all public hard shoulder safety advice, and I suspect it may even contravene some basic human rights.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 19:52 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
dcbwhaley wrote:
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?




We generally point out vey politely that they are perhaps "safer" in our vehicles with all the warning lights than in our vehicle. It's also easier for us to verify their details on the spot :popcorn: as our cars are equipped with all the normal "tools and toys" ...


We would only arrest someone if we had sound reason to suspect they'd done something illegal... and follow procedures to the letter :popcorn:

We do so mainly for the security of each party and our guys do point this out to their pulls for whatever reason.

Off topic mini-rant as it's Friday and I've had a hard week ! :popcorn:
For record - my personal opinion and the professional ethic of sound justice is that folk have to be treated fairly/and politely (And yeah., I will be posting up the story that we are "arrogant/rude/over-bearing". My generation of .. hummm.. well.. errr I am in me 50s now .. :shock: .. We were never quite like Gene Hunt :lol: and Jack Regan .. I've been told I'm more like Endeavour Morse tinged with shades of Jack Regan! :rotfl: in my "gentlemanly style" :lol: (Ironically portrayed by the same marvellous and much missed actor)


But really .. I've always strived to apply common sense and serious professionalism throughout my career. I've never been deliberately rude to anyone and always tried to help folk. I've already posted that I've been shot once.. stabbed twice when on duty. I've had missiles chucked at me when engaged in "trying and failing to control a serious riot" in the 80s as a junior officer.. I've had roofing tiles chucked at me from a roof by a deranged burglat trying top resist arrest .. and been spat at.. gobbed and vomited on.. even pissed on once. Oh . one person bit me when I was trying to place handcuffs on him too. :roll: On each occasion .. I admit to wanting to retaliate ,, but to do so would bring me to their level and play into their hands s they'd scream "police brutality!" very loudly.[/size]



As said .. we try not to remain on hard shoulder for long. Normally we pull and give advice on safe rejoining of motorway and escort to next and nearest safe place asap.


There have been occasions in my past when I felt it to be safer and easier to change a person's flat tyre myself. If they were waiting of AA for help or tow . then I used to wait with them with my vehicle flashing a warning. Now we have HATOs to take over this very essential role :bow: - and I have to admit they do a fine job for us here. :bow:

House . believe me.. we try to get folk to safety as soon as we can. Hard shoulders are not places to want to stay on. :roll: If you break down .. then the Highway Code suggestion to wait behind the crash barrier is sound advice.

All other m/way users .. if you can .. ease up lightly on throttle .. and try to pass in L2 if you can as this creates less "slip stream shake" tothe stricken on the hard shoulder.


And by the way .. unless we are on proven police business.. which requires a speedy response .. we are subject to the same rules as everyone else. And even when on such business.. we still have a duty of care to others and can be held to account if we kill an innocent by making any mistake. Our training is such that we have to make allowances for all members of the public out there who just happen to be innocent by-standers witnessing some thug in a car place us all in danger. We cannot endanger the public for the sake of copping one perceived or suspected thug on a red misted mission.. The public pay for our training to do the job competently and with due respect paid to their rights to safety out there. All we ask of our public is that they assist however they can safely but do not place themselves in undue danger.

Likewise . we try to move from Hard shoulder to nearest safe place to chat. We keep the chats to a minimum. Basically we explain quickly why we want a chat.. advise of rejoining carriageway safely and escort to safe point.

That's the procedure here. I think most of us work to that model. There may be occasions when it's impossible . and we are still very mindful of safety House.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 20:23 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 13:41
Posts: 23
Thanks for the input In Gear :)

I appreciate that you do a very difficult job, and I'm sure that you do it to the best of your ability and as safely as possible.

You put your lives at risk to help others during emergencies and breakdowns, when there's no choice but to use the hard shoulder - that's very commendable.

But don't you think it would be safer for all concerned, police and public alike, to reduce exposure to danger as much as possible by not using the hard shoulder whenever it's avoidable?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 20:40 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
House wrote:
Thanks for the input In Gear :)

I appreciate that you do a very difficult job, and I'm sure that you do it to the best of your ability and as safely as possible.

You put your lives at risk to help others during emergencies and breakdowns, when there's no choice but to use the hard shoulder - that's very commendable.

But don't you think it would be safer for all concerned, police and public alike, to reduce exposure to danger as much as possible by not using the hard shoulder whenever it's avoidable?


Hi House

We do try. We will pull into Hard shoulder on our stretch of A1(M) here, We try to keep Gantry information accurate as well. :popcorn: by laising closely wiht Highways Agency colleagues. We may have the odd "timing issue" but generally . we think we get it right 90% of the time . but admit we should be doing much better all the same :roll:

When we pull to HS. we try to keep it short and escort to nearest safe place for a proper chat. Hey .. we do not just have a duty of care to protect the public .. we have a duty of care towards our staff . whether they be PCSO /HATO/Special or full time professional cop :popcorn:


Yes . we may use the HS to get to an accident scene. Unlike the officer my cousin had a long standing and good natured "leg pull" with on a different site which attracts "non serious wafflers" - none of us in this area would be at 100 mph plus along the Hard shoulder unless "very good reason to do so" :wink: Co Durham? Strives to improve as best they can ., anyway they can .. and I think we succeed overall. but we are not at all perfect. We aspire all the same though :wink:

More chat later over the weekend.


For record . you have my support and respect.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 21:00 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 13:41
Posts: 23
In Gear wrote:


For record . you have my support and respect.



Thank you :)


Like I've said previously, this is in no way intended to restrict police officers or make their job more difficult than it already is. It's about (hopefully) making things a little safer for both the police and public by introducing (what seems to me) a relatively simple procedure policy.

And also for the record: One of my best pals (of over 30 years) is an ex-traffic police officer. He also supports the idea, and he feels that during his years as a police officer he would've used the hard shoulder much less if there were such a policy in place.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 21:19 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
Mate .. I hope I speak for all colleagues across the UK. We try to keep HS pulls to a short chat and escort.


Naturally if someone has broken down and cannot move the vehicle . this is more difficult. Our officers and our HATOs will stay to support until RAC/AA/Green Flag etc turn up. I will say these guys are "more on the ball" than in the "nightmare years of the early 80s when they were under-resourced or simply did not have the technology of today at disposal :popcorn: I am being fair, The AA et al are wonderful supports to us at times :bow: and I think it high time they had a pat on the back here.

Occasionally we have the person who does not have this cover.. cannor afford that cover even :roll: and we then arrange for a tow truck to remove. Sometimes we can recharge to the person. Sometimes we may have to absorb the costs ourselves...out of budget :roll: but if by doing so we buy safety for all . then it's cash well spent? YES? :?:

I play fair. I do not ever try to be "holier than thou" on the three chatterbox sites I relax in. I post to this site and one plod only board and I "twitter aout this and that " and the other!"" :lol:

I try to be my realxed self but will refer to the law as I do know it. I've shared my training experiences too. If a person is in bother,. I do not condemn. I try to explain the law and potential outcome without being "negative/unfriendly" if I can. These folk want reality but no gloats/"Schadenfreude" .. and I try to do so for them if I can.

Folk like Greenshed do not quite understand this. My guvs do :lol:

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.033s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]