Rear Facing Speed Cameras in Police Cars?

[Dieselman]

I am ignoring the deliberate acts that would fall under other legislation.

Good call.

Continuing that line of thought, what are the likely options?

 

[Dieselman]

Accident, I would hope...

I was specific about it being the car drivers fault. Granny tripping over behind a car wouldn't fit that criteria.

 

[Giantvanman]

Good call.

Continuing that line of thought, what are the likely options?

Not sure what you mean by options but deliberate acts would include:-
Homocide, Manslaughter, Corporate manslaughter, GBH with intent, GBH, ABH etc plus attempts. (And wanton & furious driving)

Or are you asking about something else entirely?

 

[Mr. B]

I was specific about it being the car drivers fault. Granny tripping over behind a car wouldn't fit that criteria.

But what if granny had a heart condition prior to tripping over said vehicle.
Plus said vehicle was a Police vehicle fitted with a rear facing camera but the camera in question wasn't switched on because occupants of said vehicle had been exceeding the 70 mph speed limit on the m/way earlier in the day for no particular reason and didn't want said offence to be recorded because said occupants had been guilty of entrapment earlier in the day with another motorist who turned out to be the same granny with a heart condition who sadly died as a result of her trip, caused by the shock of seeing the same Police car who's occupants had reported her for speeding earlier in the day because they had run out of fixed penalty notices but her speedo was defective and the officers VASCAR equipment hadn't been calibrated that morning.

This was all reported in the Daily Mail the following morning so it must be true.

 

[markjay]

So granny was driving the Q7?

She was pulled over and got out of the Audi and then hit by the police car who was reversing with the camera switched off?

That explains it them.

 

[cinek]

Good call.

Continuing that line of thought, what are the likely options?

Surely this would depend on the severity of the injury, as well as already mentioned intent.

 

[DSM10000]

While we are still here, does anyone want to take a stab at whether running someone over is a motoring or criminal offence? (assuming it is the car drivers fault)

I think that for it to be criminal then you need to prove that there was criminal intent or neligent behaviour?

Otherwise it would be seen as accidental and dealt with differently

 

[Dieselman]

Surely this would depend on the severity of the injury, as well as already mentioned intent.

I'm not sure why the severity of the injury matters for a criminal charge. Either the law was broken, or it wasn't.

Let's say a driver threatened, then deliberately ran someone over. What do we think the level of punishment would be?

 

[Giantvanman]

I'm not sure why the severity of the injury matters for a criminal charge. Either the law was broken, or it wasn't.

Let's say a driver threatened, then deliberately ran someone over. What do we think the level of punishment would be?

Driving death……

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf
see page 11

The rest can be cherry picked from here……….
Guidelines to download - Sentencing Council

-------

 

[chrisjfinlay]

That's wrong. It's the same with opportunistic crime, you can't be unreasonable to lay bait like that.

I believe the term you're looking for is "Entrapment" and is illegal - a large number of courts would throw the case out because of it.

 

[C240Sport97]

"Entrapment" and is illegal -

not in the UK

 

[chrisjfinlay]

not in the UK

I stand corrected.

 

[markjay]

I believe the term you're looking for is "Entrapment" and is illegal - a large number of courts would throw the case out because of it.

Baiting or Entrapment is laying a trap based on the anticipated behaviour of an unsuspecting victim.

How is driving a marked car fast can be considered as baiting? Who in his right mind would even contemplate tailing a traffic police car at illegal speeds???

It is no different to saying that the local constable on the beat was baiting you to pinch his bum by walking past and turning his back to you....

 

[ChrisA]

Unfortunately not - we followed the Q7 for quite a few miles before the police car appeared. He/she was generally in quite a hurry.

My lad took a photo of the view as we drove along, and captured said Q7 in his shot:

The Driver of the Q7 is a Police Advanced Driving Instructor who I personally have been out on the road with on many occasions. If the road is safe to do so (Normally B roads) they will carry out various scenarios, this being one of them. The message here is for the general public to see and realise (as this thread proves) that overtaking a marked police vehicle, whilst yourself speeding, is just not acceptable.
It is not common practice to pull on to the hard shoulder for a chit chat so there were other factors involved but not common knowledge

Here endeth the lesson

 

[Meldrew2]

They have a duty as well to adhere to speed limits especially when only patroling

But if by doing so they caught a motorist speeding, is that not enough justification?

Isn't that Entrapment?

Edited to add……
I must read the whole topic before typing
I must read the whole topic before typing
I must read the whole topic before typing
I must read the whole topic before typing
I must read the whole topic before typing

 

[219]

They need reasonable evidence. In this case the speedometer will provide that.

To respond to the first two or three posts in this thread , no camera or other equipment is required .

In England , a police officer can report a motorist for speeding based solely on his opinion that the motorist was speeding ( in Scotland the opinions of two officers are required due to the requirement for corroboration in our legal system ) : this could be the opinion of a police officer on foot patrol who took down the number of the speeding car as it passed .

Before the advent of modern technology , it was the standard practice for officers on traffic patrol to follow suspect cars over 3/10 of a mile and , keeping pace with the suspect car , to note the reading on their calibrated speedometer . There is no reason why this method could not still be used today .

It would also be straightforward for officers to state that they were driving at the maximum permitted speed when they were overtaken , therefore the overtaking vehicle must have exceeded the limit .

Of course , video or other recorded evidence is preferable , but not essential .

 

[219]

Why did the speed of the police car increase above the speed limit. They have a duty as well to adhere to speed limits especially when only patroling

While it is true that the police are not above the law , there are many reasons , and circumstances under which , why they ( and those of us employed by other emergency services ) can at times claim exemptions from certain road traffic laws .

The exemptions available to the police differ from those available to those of us in the fire and ambulance services , but many are shared .

It is not always neccessary , or desirable , to use blue lights or audible warning devices whilst using exemptions , so it can be difficult if not impossible for onlookers to know the reasons .

 

[C240Sport97]

due to the requirement for corroboration in our legal system

English law likes corroboration too

 

[219]

I would do the same as the Q7 and my argument would be why were the police speeding? If an emergency they should have lights etc on otherwise stick to limit and not encourage others to speed.

This is not correct , and a common misconception .

There is no requirement to use lights or sirens while responding to an emergency : this can often be so as to avoid alerting others to your presence or approach , for example police following a suspect vehicle either to observe them further , or not wishing to provoke a high speed pursuit in the wrong location ; I have been instructed to make a 'silent approach' when turning out to a mental patient threatening to jump from the roof of a building .

There are also times when blue lights can be counter productive because of the reactions of other drivers and better progress can be made just going with the normal traffic flow ( eg a busy A road with traffic in both directions and little room to overtake ) .

Besides speed limits , exemptions are also available to automatic traffic signals and red lights can be treated as give way ( with caution ) or solid lines can be crossed , amongst other things . While we can proceed through red lights , we must never pressure or intimidate members of the public in front to do this : hence if arriving behind traffic stopped at red lights , if we cannot go around them , the blues & twos go off . As always , the emergency response driver assumes full responsibity for anything he does .

Another very common scenario is that you can be responding to something and be 'stood down' en route - this is why a vehicle can pass you at speed , with or without blues , then stop , slow down and possibly turn about to return to base - it can look odd to onlookers .

Common to all three services is the requirement for on road training , this again does not always require the use of blue lights .

 

[219]

English law likes corroboration too

It is always preferable to have it