Unmarked car, one officer

[Swiss Toni]

Thanks for clearing that up.

I always thought they needed blues and twos

So in terms of speed limits coppers are above the law. I want to be a policeman now

The CPS prosecute Cops for speeding every day. They do need to prove the exemption applies on each occasion;

http://www.gwent.police.uk/documents/f_o_i/public_interest/NIP's%20Issued%20to%20force.pdf

For those who remember the ambulance car driver who it was proposed to prosecute for speeding, there is rarely any requirement for a body organ being transported to be taken at speed - in fact most are taken by taxi - so the exemption might not apply (it would not hinder the purpose for which the vehicle was being used on that occasion).
Case got dropped all the same.

 

[glojo]

Thanks for clearing that up.

I always thought they needed blues and twos

So in terms of speed limits coppers are above the law. I want to be a policeman now

If you had thought about this then surely a police vehicle that might be attending a silent alarm would be defeating the object if they lit themself up like a Christmas Tree and had the sirens wailing like wild banshee's.

John

 

[DaveK]

'Originally Posted by Swiss Toni
Yes. Absolutely no reason why not.



Yes. The opinion of the Officer corroborated by a callibrated speedo is sufficient. He can give evidence that he was cruising at 80mph and saw the van approach and pass - from your account, the distances involved would be quite enough to convict (anyone guess the legal limit for the Transit on that road?!). No need to resort to any other technical means - though if the Officer had them, most likely to use them.'

I didn't say he was ' cruising " another poster did.

 

[recycled]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]. [/SIZE][/FONT]

Only car derived vans can travel at 70mph on motorways.

Russ

wrong. a transit can do 70mph on the motorway

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/speedknowyourlimits

 

[whitenemesis]

http://www.wheelbase.net/legislation-help-desk/speed-limits.html

 

[BTB 500]

Goods vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes can do 70 on the motorway.

http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/educadvi/spedlimi.htm

 

[whitenemesis]

Well that's 3 independent links agreeing...

 

[amwebby]

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have an official formula for calculating a speeding offence. It allows a leeway of 10% plus 2mph, so where the limit is 70 that means you can do up to 79 mph.

 

[Swiss Toni]

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have an official formula for calculating a speeding offence. It allows a leeway of 10% plus 2mph, so where the limit is 70 that means you can do up to 79 mph.

Again, I am afraid that isn't quite right.

Firstly, ACPO is a limited company. They issue guidelines for enforcement which are then interpreted by individual forces and ultimately by individual Officers - so if a Cop wants to prosecute you for 75mph on the motorway, they can (after all you commit an offence).

Forces may also issue guidelines for appropriate action at excessive speeds - so "Ticket upto 99mph, then report for summons to Court at 100mph+" might be an example.
That does not stop the Cop who stops you ignoring them and giving you a verbal warning for 101mph on an empty motorway or reporting you for summons for doing 76mph on a busy dual carriageway.

Its why we need more Traffic Cops (the govt tell Police Forces to reduce road deaths and serious injuries, not how they do it - and with limited numbers of Cops, Chief Constables dedicate Police to burglaries and violent crimes whilst allowing mechanical measures -cameras- to be used for speed enforcement. In fairness most Forces dedicate more resources to driver education as a result too.)

So 10% plus 2mph (or indeed 10% plus 3mph) won't stop you getting 3 points and a fine for breaking the law even by a little bit.

 

[amwebby]

Thanks for amplifying my statement. I should have said "in theory". I was only trying to point out that this may have applied in this case. I don't know what section of the M40 this was on so don't know which Police forces' site to check but some do advertise their adoption of this policy.

 

[scumbag]

.'

I didn't say he was ' cruising " another poster did.

Indeed you are correct. The lack of a quote to that very post earlier, did not make it clear to me.

 

[nick mercedes]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]As a "rule of thumb" any van larger than a Vauxhall Astravan will have a gross weight in excess of 2 tonnes and is therefore subject of the reduced "class of vehicle" speed limits. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Ford Transit, Mercedes Sprinter, Mercedes Vito, Peugeot Expert, Ford Connect vans, for example, are all restricted vans. [/SIZE][/FONT]

Only car derived vans can travel at 70mph on motorways.

Russ

Vans and 7.5 ton trucks can do 70 on the motorway.

Late model 4.6 vans upwards are limited to 56 (which must be very irritating)...

 

[HughJarse]

Vans and 7.5 ton trucks can do 70 on the motorway.

Late model 4.6 vans upwards are limited to 56 (which must be very irritating)...

I drove a 3-7.5 ton for a few years and it most certainly couldn't do 70 on a motorway! Not by any law though, it simply couldn't go that fast; restricted to 60 if I remember.

 

[rf065]

Vans and 7.5 ton trucks can do 70 on the motorway.

Late model 4.6 vans upwards are limited to 56 (which must be very irritating)...

Thanks, I was thinking of dual carriageways where vans are restricted to 60mph, unless they are car derived vans, & then it is 70mph.

Russ

 

[nick mercedes]

I drove a 3-7.5 ton for a few years and it most certainly couldn't do 70 on a motorway! Not by any law though, it simply couldn't go that fast; restricted to 60 if I remember.

"A more serious one is that, as all the lorries now peak at the same speed, they tend to bunch together on motorways, whereas before there were always faster lorries, and slower ones, and ones in between, so they tended to string out more. One problem caused by this bunching is that, with long lines of lorries travelling "nose to tail", in the event of an accident, you are now more likely to get a multiple pile-up than you were when they were more strung out. The other, perhaps more serious effect of this bunching is that you get a rolling road block travelling at 56mph in lanes one and two, which will force more cars out into lane three, causing a slow-down there as well. The snag is, on a fairly densely packed motorway, if you have got a block of traffic doing 56mph, a couple of miles behind that you have got traffic doing 30mph, and behind that you have got stationary traffic. (Think of the last time you were stopped on a motorway because of a wide load ahead travelling at 30mph!). Apart from the inconvenience, stationary traffic on motorways causes accidents. Add to this the fact that lorries can no longer take a run at gradients, which means their speed on long climbs will be even slower, and you have got some serious potential for accidents. No increase in safety, but a significant increase in danger." ([http://www.cybertrucker.co.uk/content.php?menace.php)

 

[rf065]

Another danger is the JCB travelling at 17mph on a busy dual carriageway.
I've lost count of the number of near misses I've witnessed.

Russ

 

[crockers]

What about married officers?

its getting scarey ...........single officers..............cruising........

 

[raymont]

I think the issue here for me is the fact that a single policeman can decide to do you for speeding and all he has to do is say you were speeding and show you a reading on a piece of equipment. This reading could have come from anywhere. Two officers will not remove the problem but it reduces the probability because it requires two policeman to co-operate in the falsehood.

As a result of this you can lose your licence, your job and all the consequences that follow from that.

In reality there is no defence, the court will take the word of the policeman every time. So if a policeman takes a dislike to you, for whatever reason, or makes an error, he can stitch you up and there is precious little you can do about it.

Also seems to me to be completely wrong that if you contest and lose a case you are likely to get a larger fine and / or more points for having the temerity to defend yourself.

At least speed cameras offer some tangible evidence.

A road that I frequently travel leads to a busy police station. This road has a thirty mph limit for the good reason that there are always cars parked along the side of the road and there are flats and houses on both sides of the street. Given that it leads to a police station there are many police cars travelling the road. I drive along here at thirty (using the speed limiter). It’s not infrequent that a police car in front will quite quickly pull away from me or one will quickly catch me up from behind.

One rule for us and a different rule for you is the message.

I’m not anti police, but is hard to swallow all the sanctimonious preaching when witnessing this on a regular basis.

 

[DaveK]

We should save some venom for the Magistrates then who are willing to convict on ' un collaborated " evidence.

 

[recycled]

I think the issue here for me is the fact that a single policeman can decide to do you for speeding and all he has to do is say you were speeding and show you a reading on a piece of equipment. This reading could have come from anywhere.
.

It has happened and will continue hapenning.
The most common one is the seat belt offence.
Mostly the officer is travelling on the other side coming towards you.
Then he swings around and says, you have not got a seatbelt on.
No video evidence or anything, just pay up and shut up or go to court.

I do not know the accuracy of the cases but who knows?