Traffic Police: Why do they generally drive over the speed limit with no lights?

[st13phil]

Two points on "Speed Kills":

1. It's a marketing message aimed at getting people to reduce speed.

Agreed, and like most "marketing messages" it's a gross oversimplification and, in many circumstances, plain wrong. "The Ultimate Driving Machine" springs to mind as an equally absurd, and either misleading or plain incorrect marketing message (depending upon your viewpoint, of course ). The fact that many people now hold the honest belief that as long as they are driving within the speed limit then they are driving safely is testament to the danger of such oversimplifications.

The control of speed is not a blanket panacea but until a more effective method is proposed and implemented we are stuck with it.

Actually, I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head when you say, quite correctly, that it's not a blanket panacea. I do not argue for no speed limits and I do my best to comply with them. The trouble is, their importance has been elevated far above their real significance by a group of people who do believe that they are a blanket panacea, with all the hyperbole associated with that artificial elevation of importance.

 

[Mr E]

It's moving off topic but part of my day job is meeting with automotive policy makers, including those who make and implement policy on road and vehicle safety. None of them would overly elevate speed versus other safety aspects, but they do have the benefit of years of world-wide research to provide some credibility to the decisions made. Their number one measurement is the cost per KSI (Killed/Seriously Injured) incident.

Poor decisions wrt limits tend to be made on local roads by local officials with no real understanding of the overall picture. It was a poor decision to devolve some of this process down to the local level.

But what else would you suggest? At the moment, motorists appear to be happy funding the proliferation of cameras and such so I'd agree that the current message doesn't get through. So, and I'm being serious here, if someone can come up with a serious, credible alternative that stacks up from a financial perspective that could deliver tangible benefits in terms of KSI numbers (tbh, £10 million per life saved won't cut it) then I'd be more then happy to take it into the next session we have (and give credit for it).

You have to remember that you need to look at the effect, not just the cause, of unplanned incidents. Which is why speed gets the attention it does. Simply put, you can reduce the damage caused by reducing the speed - and at the moment it's self funding and therefore attractive.

 

[wemorgan]

The 'Driving too fast for the conditions or driver's ability' argument relies too heavily on the driver being able to make an impartial assessment of their own driving. Whilst some people may be capable of this I'm sceptical that the layman is, of which I include myself at times. Some people are simply beyond driver training to teach them such skills.

In how many other aspects of life do we see people making poor judgement?

It is possible to measure speed precisely and apply exact boundaries for PASS/FAIL. A different and more subjective safety criteria may initially please some but who and how would ever monitor it?

My strongest objection to speeders are those who speed in residential areas. For that, it seems the most effective measure to reduce people's speed is to add speed humps. It may cause even more Mercedes to break their springs, but there is always the brake pedal.

 

[stevieb15]

Or maybe he was saying, look guys and gals I know 70 is slow for modern cars so how about a compromise of 80.

And you wanted to reply with sod that if I can do 80 Ill do 90, which is the exact reason the 70 speed retriction will never change!

but why in the middle lane for 10 miles?

 

[stevieb15]

"sat daring" says more about your way of thinking than whatever their supposed their intent.

If they cruise well below the limit idiots still won't pass. If they cruise above the limit they are subject to the law.

Basically it's a no win for them.

Perhaps I just have a highly tuned level of perception but I still question the necessity for 10 miles in the middle lane unless they were playing some kind of game!

 

[flango]

It's moving off topic but part of my day job is meeting with automotive policy makers, including those who make and implement policy on road and vehicle safety. None of them would overly elevate speed versus other safety aspects, but they do have the benefit of years of world-wide research to provide some credibility to the decisions made. Their number one measurement is the cost per KSI (Killed/Seriously Injured) incident.

Poor decisions wrt limits tend to be made on local roads by local officials with no real understanding of the overall picture. It was a poor decision to devolve some of this process down to the local level.

But what else would you suggest? At the moment, motorists appear to be happy funding the proliferation of cameras and such so I'd agree that the current message doesn't get through. So, and I'm being serious here, if someone can come up with a serious, credible alternative that stacks up from a financial perspective that could deliver tangible benefits in terms of KSI numbers (tbh, £10 million per life saved won't cut it) then I'd be more then happy to take it into the next session we have (and give credit for it).

You have to remember that you need to look at the effect, not just the cause, of unplanned incidents. Which is why speed gets the attention it does. Simply put, you can reduce the damage caused by reducing the speed - and at the moment it's self funding and therefore attractive.

This is a very difficult one and there is an answer though I believe it would be unlikely to be adopted.

The key to all this is training, give a newly passed 17 year old a Lamborghini Gallardo and I think we can all predict the final outcome.

One for consideration is cars should be restricted based on power for new users unless they can prove they are competent to drive them. So you pass your test which entitles you to drive say anything up to 1.2 litres 90 bhp (dont take these figures as gospel they are just examples) you want to swap your car for say a 2.0 litre Golf GTi in order to do that you have to take another test ( maybe a shortened version of the original) but incorporating the skills necesscary to get you out of trouble if you need it, the higher the car power (bhp) or engine size the higher the level of training. In the training I would also incorporate profiling as there are some people that are just not suited or capable of driving high powered cars so should be kept out of them for their own and others safety.

If we are talking KSI Vs cost then you have to question the current driving test which may have been fine in the 1950's but is now so seriously flawed itself that it actually sets people up to have accidents. For instance you pass your test at 17 and you legally can go out in a Porsche, onto a motorway which you have never been trained to drive on, worse still you can go onto a motorway at night. Driving lessons should include mandatory night time and motorway driving. Passing the test should not allow you to drive on a motorway you should take separate lessons and another test to be able to do that.

As for the test and the granting of a licence that lasts you for life well thats total madness itself, regular retesting should take place, if people fail then they do not get stopped driving but get refered for refresher training until they can demonstrate they are at a competent level for the car they are driving or wish to drive.

Contraversial I know but we could do with looking at some of the laws and driving tuition from Australia and certain states in the US.

I'm quite happy to go into more detail on the above but thought I'd save boring you all with a very long post

 

[rf065]

People talk of the vans speedo is not calibrated so they can't prosecute, again another urban myth.

Not quite an urban myth, that was the case until the law was changed some years ago. What happenened though, if the police car did not have a calibrated speedo, they would charge you with reckless or dangerous driving instead.

Russ

 

[flango]

Not quite an urban myth, that was the case until the law was changed some years ago. What happenened though, if the police car did not have a calibrated speedo, they would charge you with reckless or dangerous driving instead.

Russ

They don't even need a speedo or any device to charge you with speeding just the word of the officer and his judgement is good enough. AFAIK that has always been the case. Its a bit like there must be 2 of them in the car the officer must be wearing his hat etc..

Out of interest what was the law before it was changed and when did it change? I always like to keep on top of things like this for professional reasons.

 

[st13phil]

It's moving off topic but part of my day job is meeting with automotive policy makers, including those who make and implement policy on road and vehicle safety. None of them would overly elevate speed versus other safety aspects, but they do have the benefit of years of world-wide research to provide some credibility to the decisions made. Their number one measurement is the cost per KSI (Killed/Seriously Injured) incident.

Poor decisions wrt limits tend to be made on local roads by local officials with no real understanding of the overall picture. It was a poor decision to devolve some of this process down to the local level.

Thanks for the insight. My comment regarding the over-emphasis on speed relates primarily to the local officials level and the very vocal single issue groups who are (perhaps) well meaning, but are disastrously ill-informed. Also, the completely insane pronouncements of a former head of ACPO's Roads Policing Group who ought to have the intellect to realise the nonsense he has expounded.

But what else would you suggest?

Much of what Ian (flanaia1) mentions in his post: improved initial training regime; ongoing refresher training and re-assessment, attitudinal profiling and, perhaps, graduated licences. Add in appropriate engineering and maintenance of our highways and I'll start to believe that, as a country, we're serious about minimising road carnage.

 

[rf065]

Out of interest what was the law before it was changed and when did it change? I always like to keep on top of things like this for professional reasons.

In the late 70's you could not be charged with speeding unless the car had a calibrated speedo, so it must have changed some time after that. Only the traffic division had calibrated speedos, normal patrol or panda cars did not.

Russ

 

[JumboBeef]

i see a police transit come down the slip road and join the A1

then a few mins later he comes past me at about 85mph

no lights or sirens and obviously not going to an emergency and no lights of sirens

I work for the emergency services, and often drive on blue lights at 100+mph

An emergency vehicle does not need to show lights and sirens when going to an emergency (claiming exemption from speed limits).

(Road traffic Regulation Act 1984 section 87 if you are interested).

 

[G.O'Rilla]

Especially on the A14 around Cambridge where there are dozens of SPEC cameras for miles as I discovered yesterday.

Not so much the specs cameras but the camera van on the bridge just before them southbound. He catches you at 800 metres away coming around the bend. Type approved to 1000m. Cost me 60 squid and 3 points - lucky as it was 94 mph

 

[Swiss Toni]

They don't even need a speedo or any device to charge you with speeding just the word of the officer and his judgement is good enough. AFAIK that has always been the case. Its a bit like there must be 2 of them in the car the officer must be wearing his hat etc..

Out of interest what was the law before it was changed and when did it change? I always like to keep on top of things like this for professional reasons.

Speeding requires corroboration to be prosecuted - it could be the officer corroborating a speedo (which could be uncalibrated, if the margin above the limit was so great, but then the offence is likely to be more serious than a summary-only offence such as speeding anyway), it could be 2 Officers, it could be an officer and a radar/laser, but it does require corroboration.

 

[flango]

Speeding requires corroboration to be prosecuted - it could be the officer corroborating a speedo (which could be uncalibrated, if the margin above the limit was so great, but then the offence is likely to be more serious than a summary-only offence such as speeding anyway), it could be 2 Officers, it could be an officer and a radar/laser, but it does require corroboration.

A case in South Yorkshire was successfully prosecuted on one policemans evidence alone. A single crewed traffic officer was out of the vehicle dealing with another motorist, a car went past in a 40 mph limit at what the officer considered to be excessive speed estimated at 65 mph. The officer got back in his car and stopped the vehicle, the summons was issued on the basis of the estimated speed whilst the officer was stood at the side of the road the only corroboration was that of his own opinion.

Magistrates found the driver guilty and gave him 5 points and £120 fine, it was said in summary that if the offence had an actual recorded speed against it of 65 mph then the driver would have been banned, but the magistrates erred on the side of caution as they explained that whilst the traffic officer was well experienced and could judge speed it could not be reasonably established what the margin of error of his judgement had but his judgement was accurate enough to detect a car travelling in excess of the speed limit.

 

[Swiss Toni]

A case in South Yorkshire was successfully prosecuted on one policemans evidence alone. A single crewed traffic officer was out of the vehicle dealing with another motorist, a car went past in a 40 mph limit at what the officer considered to be excessive speed estimated at 65 mph. The officer got back in his car and stopped the vehicle, the summons was issued on the basis of the estimated speed whilst the officer was stood at the side of the road the only corroboration was that of his own opinion.

Magistrates found the driver guilty and gave him 5 points and £120 fine, it was said in summary that if the offence had an actual recorded speed against it of 65 mph then the driver would have been banned, but the magistrates erred on the side of caution as they explained that whilst the traffic officer was well experienced and could judge speed it could not be reasonably established what the margin of error of his judgement had but his judgement was accurate enough to detect a car travelling in excess of the speed limit.

There are other cases too, where the margin above the limit is significant and the offence prosecuted was speeding.

Just that in the majority of cases, where there is such a margin then there is likely to be another offence that is more approriate - driving without due care and attention for other road users, for example.

However, some other offences do require there to be another road user present who the offending drivers actions impact on (speeding clearly does not require the presence of anyone else who might have been adversely affected).
So where a driver passes a Police Officer at a speed far in excess of the limit but where there was absolutely no-one else present (the other offences do not require that 3rd party to be identified, simply that there be evidence that they were there), then speeding may be the case to answer.

As you point out, the experience of the Police Officer is likely to be very significant.

 

[glojo]

Actually , there was a well-publicised case a couple of years back when an aggrieved motorist , who himself had received a speeding fine not so long before , followed a 'safety camera partnership' van up the A77 , through roadworks with a posted limit of 50mph , at an indicated speed of 85mph , witnessed and corroborated by his passenger , and , on following said van all the way into the road policing unit at Govan , made a formal complaint to a senior officer .

Far from making any kind of trouble for the complaining motorist , the complaint was taken seriously , the motorist's car was taken for a run to check the accuracy of his speedo , and confirm the actual speed at his indicated 85 , and on the strength of his , and his passenger's statements , the van driver was both disciplined and prosecuted !

Another time , a friend of mine was pulled over for a faulty tail light , and about to receive a ticket , when he noticed the police car also had a sidelight out - on pointing this out to the officer , he was told 'point taken' , and sent on his way

Have you a link to corroborate this one please?

I do have to laugh when folks say how the police MUST have their blue lights and audible devices active whenever they exceed the speed limit

Are they related to those that thought we would all suffocate if we travelled faster than 30mph?

Getting back to the original question... No one can give you an explanation but I could think of a dozen and one different reasons. If you think they are flouting the law then write a formal letter to the Chief Constable with the dates, times and registration numbers. Do NOT suggest you were speeding, or following them, simply say how you were travelling at the maximum legal speed and vehicle 'x' went past you at a speed you assess as being in excess of **** Make sure you have multiple times and dates, and do not worry about retribution... That would play right into your hands and be a sure way of the offending officer getting the sack

Before the modern type of audible devices were used, the old fashioned two tones were useless at any speeds above 70mph as the noise was mostly being blown back by the winds

 

[renault12ts]

So, is there no way a police officer can be wrong when speeding? Is it enough to say he was in a hurry? Often we are in a hurry, but will get a ticket.
Unless a police officer is driving to assist another police officer or responding to an emergency, he has no more right to speed than any other driver. Right??

 

[glojo]

So, is there no way a police officer can be wrong when speeding? Is it enough to say he was in a hurry? Often we are in a hurry, but will get a ticket.
Unless a police officer is driving to assist another police officer or responding to an emergency, he has no more right to speed than any other driver. Right??

Good olde Mr Google can help answer that question

 

[Swiss Toni]

So, is there no way a police officer can be wrong when speeding? Is it enough to say he was in a hurry? Often we are in a hurry, but will get a ticket.
Unless a police officer is driving to assist another police officer or responding to an emergency, he has no more right to speed than any other driver. Right??

By virtue of Section 87 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended by Section 19 Road Safety Act 2006),

(1) No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when–

(a) it is being used for fire and rescue authority purposes or for or in connection with the exercise of any function of a relevant authority as defined in section 6 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, for Ambulance purposes or for Police or Serious Organised Crime Agency purposes,(b) it is being used for other prescribed purposes in such circumstances as may be prescribed, or
(c) it is being used for training persons to drive vehicles for use for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it was being used on that occasion.




"Police... ...purposes" is open to interpretation by the courts (and has been tested on a number of occasions!).
Simply being a Police Officer, on duty and in a Police vehicle is not valid for the excemption (likewise the other emergency and crime services mentioned).
Being en route to Court to give evidence and being so delayed that the case might be dropped or lost due to the failure of an Officer present in the vehicle not attending, is sufficient grounds.
Catching up with another vehicle which they intend to check, is sufficient, as is authorised training.

It is fairly common for Police Officers (on and off duty) to be prosecuted for speeding offences, although how the %'s compare with the rest of the population, I have no idea....

A Police Officer (again, on or off-duty) (or indeed ANYONE) may claim the excemptions mentioned above apply and it is for the courts to consider whether they accept that or not.

I suggest that a retained Fire Fighter responding to a call, attending a Fire Station in their own private car would reasonably claim the excemption - though it may be the case that their employer has a policy that forbids it.

 

[renault12ts]

Yeh, I know, I read John's post