Safe Speed Forums

Ok one of the other threads went a bit off track, when Paul asked me about the errosion of individual police officers discretion. So I tought it only fair to ask everyone what they think of this issue on a seperate thread. Should the police have strict guidelines telling them what they must do in all situations, or should the individual officers be allowed to show discretion for certain matters (ie where it is a very minor offence or there is no discernable complainant)
This does not necessarily mean letting some one off scott free, but using an alternative course of action.

God help me but I'll give a couple of personal recent experiences, and in the spirit of this forum, I will keep them traffic related.

A car ahead with a non functional break light. I pulled the car over, pointed out the problem, told him to get it fixed, and if I saw him with the same problem that week, I'd book him. The driver was very thankfull, gave me a hand shake and drove off. I saw the car 3 days later, and the defect was rectified . Now I could have reported him for the matter, or issued him a VDRS which as I'm sure most of you know means he would have to producee his documents, and get his repaired light inspected by an MOT centre (usually they charge £10 for this service) All this taking time and money, where a friendly word achieved the same result. Had the defect not been rectified, then I'd say he'd had a fair chance, and then I'd issue a VDRS.

Another example is I stopped a car, and one of the front wheels inside tyre was showing no tread. Most of the officers I know would issue an endorsable fiaxed panalty costing that driver 3 points, and a £60 fine (as well as increased insurance). This is often done for statistical purposes, as the bosses like seeing these go in. The problem I see with this, is that it just punishes the driver, but doesn't rectify the problem, and they can continue driving (at their own risk) with that defective tyre. I usually issue a VDRS, which ensures that the defect is rectified (improving the safety of the driver and other motorists). If there are numerous defects then obviously I'd take another course of action. Strangely though I'm often asked "why not issue them a fixer?"
The amazing thing is the driver whinged about having to buy a new tyre, and produce his documents

So once again, should I be allowed to do the above, or should I be given stringent guidelines for each situation that arrises

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

1st example seems fair to me, even if driver checked bulbs at start of journey then bulb could only have just blown and driver had no way of knowing.

In 2nd case, driver should have noticed tyres condition and replaced it some time ago so there a case for punishment AND getting tyre replaced, couldn't you have fined as well as issue VRDS?

I think the first and most important layer of discretion involves deciding who to pull. You should be completely free to pull anyone you don't like the look of. There's a proven positive correlation between drivers who tend to be accident involved and drivers pulled by Police. You should normally base your "pull choices" on behaviours for best results. Average behaviours should not normally interest you. Obviously sometimes you'll be concerned about vehicle condition. No harm in that.

When you have pulled (!) you should use all possible powers of observation and discretion to solve problems, not to enforce petty regulations. Your first priority should be criminality, closely followed by road safety.

I don't think traffic officer deployments to "nick speeders on the Axx" are a very good idea, unless there's a strange particular local problem. You should be free to use the speed limit laws to prosecute dangerous, careless aggressive and reckless uses of speed.

When bad driving is observed, it's critical that the bad driver understands why his error is unsafe, rather than why his error is illegal. Road side safety lessons from a traffic officer can last a lifetime.

So, yes please, Neil. Use your discretion. Defend your discretion. And set high objectives (safer roads, not more tickets).

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

No, you don't get 2 bites of the cherry. If they fail to rectify the problem, then they go to court and get a fine there.

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

Neil, thats the attitude that should be adopted by ALL traffic officers, once bitten, twice done.
I think with that attitude, more and more drivers would start having a better response to the police, and start improving the public/police relationship.
The genally law abiding motorist used to appreciate the traffic cop, when we had them, and could see the benefits of having a multi-purpose cop on the road, now we just have one-job-cops in little square boxes mounted on poles.
You find out on the spot what you have done wrong, instead of waiting 2 weeks for the NIP/wait till your dad gets home situation of the one-job-cop.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

Emphasis on our patch is geared more towards education rather that punishing for the sake of it. Simple explanation as to why the driver error could have been disastrous seems to get message across better. If driver has a defective tyre - would explain why it can be dangerous to the driver, passengers and other people. In the past - I have checked spare tyre and if this has been OK - I have changed it for them in the past. Encourage our team to do likewise as it is safer to change the tyre than let them continue muttering about fines and the like.

Same with sundry trivial offences and so on. A word of advice usually works better than simply playing the heavy handed cop. Most ordinary members of the public appreciate this and are more likely to support and help us as a result.

Also - it cuts down on - er - paperwork!

Brilliant! It gives out excellent messages, shows you care about the important stuff and delivers an immediate road safety improvement and an immediate and unforgettable road safety lesson.



Can you please try and put that in proper perspective? How much Police time would have been consumed prosecuting a single defective tyre offence if it was defended in court?

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

We do try our best. Try to give out a safety message more than somply punish people.



Can you please try and put that in proper perspective? How much Police time would have been consumed prosecuting a single defective tyre offence if it was defended in court?[/quote]

Oh - don't get me started!

Simple offence like this - about a dozen or so forms of various shapes and sizes. By the time it's been completed and checked - about 2/3 days or so. More if we are short staffed! It is ludicrous. Wastes so much time and most of it is pointless. You could sew up the whole thing with just one - like we used to when I first started out in the job....

Is this another possible reason that cameras are favoured by some BiB? A means to get "results" without the need to fill in such a load of non-productive paperwork? Ever since having seen a few episodes of "The Bill" I have wondered whether policework of today is too paper-heavy. This confirms it. Crazy.

Understood. Thanks. I bet you didn't consider court time did you? (Now in bold).

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

Oh, it's FAR worse. I got an email last year from a disgruntled english traffic officer explaining to me that across his entire traffic garage officers spend 8% of their time out on patrol and 92% involved in admin.

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

OK - forgot! Add on at least another week! or even months! (They get adjourned and lots more time gets wasted .....)

Tis daft world!

Don't forget the transcript of the interview. We only get our Sec 51 cases transcribed, everything else we do ourselves. For those in the dark, Sec 51 are the ones that go straight to crown court. So say for example I do a 30 minute interview on average, this takes me about 4 hours to transcribe, great use of tax payers money eh, I'm a £28k a year typist

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'