Bavarian-Board.co.uk - BMW Owners Discussion Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General Forums > General Off Topic Forum
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - WARNING! Unmarked Subaru on M23
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedWARNING! Unmarked Subaru on M23

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
Author
Message
spokey View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard

Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 04:04
But we all know it's about saving lives and not the money, eh? 
Ciao,
Spokey

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
livvy View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 04:24
Originally posted by lilcartman lilcartman wrote:

livvy are u the police or do u just know too much?

if the police want to stop people speeding whats best than a marked car at the side of the road or driving near you. marked cars save lives not a subaru wanting u to have a go after them.

the tactics the police use are wrong, hiding in bushes or behind bus stops or in unmarked cars. 

they should be stopping drunk drivers, car theives, road tax and insurence dodgers   

not the avarage joe who does 80 in a 70 zone.

whats worse some one who dose 80 in 70 zone or a drunk driver?



You have to have both types of vehicles.

As far as Traffic patrols go there are far more marked cars & marked bikes, than unmarked. These oviously act as a visible detterent. But it's not good people just obeying the rules when they see a Police car though, as I'm sure you see a lot of the time. You know cars doing a 100 down the motorway, notice a Police car doing 60 in lane 1, slow down to 75 for a few miles & then back upto 100.

You need the invisible threat to make people moderate their driving because they fear that an unmarked car could be amongst them. They have a detterent value beyond the marked car because people have to never quite know if the Police are there to discourage them from a stupid act. It's no good someone having a look around seeing no marked car & thinking good I'll do the overtake over the double white lines. They need to think is that other car behind an unmarked Police car ?
IF they then do that overtake they need to punished to re-enforce the message the solids were giving.

If every marked car was out on the roads at the same time the coverage of our whole road network would be small, so people have to fear the unmarked car to moderate their behaviour where a marked one can't be seen.

It's like shoplifters. They need to fear the camera in the store is on them, or that person beside them in the store may be a store detective. They need to fear committing the crime not only when they can actually see the Police, but when they can't.

That's what that thread title does. Be careful if you speed on the M23 there are unmarked Police cars prosecuting speeders.

They are prosecuting drunk drivers, no insurance (also seizing the cars now), anti social behaviour in cars (also seizing the cars now), no tax etc.

But by far the greatest number of offences on our roads are for speeding, so naturally it gets a lot of attention. Not only because of the huge numbers but because of it's affect on the severity of collisions & how it aggravates all other offences. A drunk driver will speed just the same as anyone else after all. A car in dangerous condition will also speed. They need to be caught yes, but if they can't be caught at that time they also need to fear bringing attention to themselves and drive slower, because speeding is one of the most visible offences. It's look at me, easy to see.

The Police if they see a speeder & a drink driver, will go after the drink driver, but if there isn't a drink driver but a speeder, expect them to go after the speeder not ignore them (that's their job after all.)
The trouble is people just give themselves up to speeding prosecutions so easy & even with the numbers prosecuted it still probably has one of the worst detection rates of any offence.

If people don't like being prosecuted for speeding all they have to do is obey the limit. The driver has the power to put themsleves up for prosecution or not, no-one else.
If you gamble by speeding everyday, one day you'll lose. Don't bleat when you do though, because you knew the rules & still decided to gamble. That's what happens when you gamble, some days you lose.

SCPs have meant that traffic patrol officers have been free & encouraged to concentrate on other offences such as those you list including driving without due care, dangerous condition & only do speeding offences where the margin over the limit is larger. Cameras can deal with the rest.

Rather than complaining about the manner in which you are caught being unfair, concentrate on not committing the offence in the first place.
It's like a burglar complaining the introduction of DNA has made the chances of him getting caught rise rapidly & it's not fair. Don't burgle then.


Edited by livvy
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
Back to Top
dutch View Drop Down
Really Senior Member I
Really Senior Member I
Avatar

Joined: 17-December-2005
Location: lakeside Essex
Status: Offline
Points: 438
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 07:10

thats all very good speak livvy!

what cheese people off specialy me is when my workshop gets turned over it takes 3HOURS for plod to turn up to tell me that ive been a victim of crime, (no s**t sherlock)wondered where all me tools had gone! then to drive home at an ungodly speed of 42mph to find plod sitting on his a**e minding a camera on a sunday, no doubt on overtime that im paying for. but as you quote " My veiws expressed are just that. mine and mine alone.!!

yours bitter and twisted

e39,1200 bandit
cooper S, Z3 topazbleu
Back to Top
Nigel View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 09-November-2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6941
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 07:21

Thats a tricky one dutch, and I understand your frustration, its one I've felt.

3,500 people didn't return home last year, 3,500 families affected in the most serious way possible......sudden death.

Neither I nor Livvy believe the present enforcement program is the best way forward, but it is efficient and cheap.

I believe the best way forward is driver training, do you have any ideas that will gelp with casualty reduction ?

Best Wishes

Nigel

Back to Top
spokey View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard

Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 07:43
Originally posted by Nigel Nigel wrote:

I believe the best way forward is driver training, do you have any ideas that will gelp with casualty reduction ?



I believe that a blanket speed limit of 20MPH will "gelp" casualty reduction a lot. Unfortunately, when I suggest that, the argument changes from "it's all about saving lives" to "it's all about striking a balance".
Ciao,
Spokey

Back to Top
livvy View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 07:54
Originally posted by dutch dutch wrote:

thats all very good speak livvy!

what cheese people off specialy me is when my workshop gets turned over it takes 3HOURS for plod to turn up to tell me that ive been a victim of crime, (no s**t sherlock)wondered where all me tools had gone! then to drive home at an ungodly speed of 42mph to find plod sitting on his a**e minding a camera on a sunday, no doubt on overtime that im paying for. but as you quote " My veiws expressed are just that. mine and mine alone.!!

yours bitter and twisted



I hate burglary.

But the fact is a very small proportion of Police resources are put into traffic enforcement compared to crimes like burglaries. In the Met Police for instance only two & a half percent of Police officers are in the traffic department. Of those they spend very little time on speed enforcement, leaving that mainly to SCPs (who don't impact on the Police budget to divert their spending & resources from other things.) These officers can then spend far more time dealing with things other than speeding & only have to deal with the worst speeding cases.

That's 97.5% of Met Police officers are focused on matters other than traffic.

It don't think it's me that's bitter & twisted. The cold hard facts suggest that you have a disproportionate view of where Police resources are aimed at.

Four times as many people were killed on our roads last year than the combined totals of those who were murdered, victim of manslaughter or infanticide. As a result of that many people believe our Police should be diverting some of those 97.5% of officers to dealing with traffic matters.
Life is more precious than anything material.

I agree with Nigel. Speed enforcement is a blunt tool & it is the easy option, training having far longer & greater benefits. People aren't willing to pay the costs for good training though, because they misguidedly think they don't need it, it's not for them.


Edited by livvy
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
Back to Top
livvy View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 07:59
Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:

Originally posted by Nigel Nigel wrote:

I believe the best way forward is driver training, do you have any ideas that will gelp with casualty reduction ?



I believe that a blanket speed limit of 20MPH will "gelp" casualty reduction a lot. Unfortunately, when I suggest that, the argument changes from "it's all about saving lives" to "it's all about striking a balance".


I don't say "it's all about saving lives". That's what you keep saying.
Driving carries an inherent risk, the only way to avoid it is ban it all together, but that is not practical or sensible.

I say it's about a sensible compromise between being able to move around with a reasonable degree of progress, but doing that whilst minimising the risk.

Too many people do risky things on our roads, needlessly so. They take risks that are not for benefit, but for sport on public roads if you like. They need to be discouraged from it & punished where they don't heed that discouragement.


Edited by livvy
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
Back to Top
spokey View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard

Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 08:49
Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:



I believe that a blanket speed limit of 20MPH will "gelp" casualty reduction a lot. Unfortunately, when I suggest that, the argument changes from "it's all about saving lives" to "it's all about striking a balance".


I don't say "it's all about saving lives".


Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

I personally think that cameras are best placed where the fatal collisions actually occur.


Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

I don't see that 3,500 road deaths should be dismissed as not important


Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

I don't think Safety is negotiable


Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

The evidence of 3,500 killed a year & tens of thousands seriously injured is testimony to the fact that people are not as good as they think they are & that they struggle to remain safe in our current limits.


Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

Reductions in deaths & serious injuries are REAL improvements.
Last year saw the lowest number of road deaths ever recorded on our roads (this can't be disputed) our roads have the lowest (per capita) death rate of any major nation. So I don't think we are getting it too wrong. What we mustn't do is get complacent & we must strive to further reduce those numbers.


Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

Killing 3,500 a year is not to my mind a reasonable & acceptable risk management of our roads. It is unbalanced. We will always have some deaths but that is too high a number along with tens of thopusands of seriously injured.




Edited by spokey
Ciao,
Spokey

Back to Top
Fey! View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Funs over, Scotty; beam down my clothes!

Joined: 28-February-2005
Location: Galway
Status: Offline
Points: 4161
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 09:08

Livvy - I think that Dutch was signing his post as "Bitter and Twisted" rather than calling you "Bitter and Twisted"!

New Years night, at about 3am, I drove into town to pick up some drunken friends (I hadn't been out or drinking).  I was in the city centre (Galway) and stopped at a set of traffic lights when an unmarked Mondeo pulled up behind me (it's a small town, and I pass the Garda station four times a day, so I know most of the cars).  After about 30 seconds he turned on his blue lights.  Because of the layout of the junction, it was safe for me to pull into a clearing just the other side of the lights without interfering or risking contact with any other traffic, therefore allowing the emergency services vehicle behind me to proceed unimpeeded.  I pulled into the clearing, and the Mondeo pulled in behind me.  I got out of my car, drivers license in hand, to find out what the problem was.  The passenger from the Garda car got out and started reading me the rite act for running the red light!!!  Bear in mind the night and time of being stopped; the likelihood of them going to a serious call would have been extremely high.  I pointed out that, as he had had no obvious reason to stop me, I thought that he was trying to get to an emergency, and that I only crossed the lights when they had lit their blues, to which he replied that under absolutely NO circumstances should I ever break a red light, and then asked if I had my license (which I had proffered to him at the outset).  When I asked him if that meant that I should block ambulances and fire engines (we were actually outside the main fire station doors at the time) when it was safe to give them a clear path, he turned on his heel, got back into his car, and duly ignored the 2 taxis that flew through the red lights beside him!!!  I could actually see his driver cringing when I asked about the ambulances!!!

As for the goading argument; one of my suppliers was coming from a jewellery fair when a car cut him off on a roundabout (came from the right lane to turn left).  He flashed it, and continued on his way.  A few minutes later he passed the same car and it pulled up to his bumper, so he pulled away.  The other car kept doing this, and eventually turned on a blue light, at which point he stopped.  When the policeman (this was near London) asked him what he was playing at, my guy pointed out where he was coming from and that he had upwards of £100k of jewellery in the car.  The polis arrested him and seized the jewellery in case it was stolen goods (despite him having receipts for everything!).  They brought him into a room with a guy they said was there for aggravated burglary, and asked him for his name and address (all of the jewellery was on a table in front of them), which he refused to give due to the other guys profession.  So he was sent to the cells for 4 hours, was brought back out to give his name and address, and was de-arrested,  but they kept the jewellery for 4 weeks, during which time he could do no business as the polis had his stock.  When he eventually got it back, there was no apology and one or two smaller pieces had gone, but the polis did nothing to trace them.

I know that not all situations are like these (you'll always hear the bad faster than the good, and I've had more good experience with the Gardai than bad), but the above were stupid, as was the one where a female Garda stopped me, alleging that I was speeding.  Funnily enough, the only place she could possible have seen me was stopped at a junction, which was where she stopped me (they were coming from my right on said junction).  When I pointed out that I hadn't been speeding, she got thick and checked my license, tax, NCT, insurance, tyres......basically went through the whole car.  Can anyone guess how annoyed she was when she couldn't find anything wrong???

I'm no saint, but I'll put my hands up when I know I'm in the wrong.  So far, I've been lucky!!



Edited by Fey!
Back to Top
Fey! View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Funs over, Scotty; beam down my clothes!

Joined: 28-February-2005
Location: Galway
Status: Offline
Points: 4161
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 09:12
BTW; bring back a parent being able to scold their child.  We've become far too PC, and then all people who insist on that PCness give out when everything goes to hell!
Back to Top
Nigel View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 09-November-2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6941
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 09:17

In my experience Fey, the Garda are more bloody minded, and much more of a nuisance than the British police....but some of that may be the slight difference in our cultures, plus the fact I'm British and driving a foriegn car within your Country, which I imagine will be part of the problem your mate had here.

As for the missing jewelry, what can I say mate ?, except I'm sorry and embarrassed, there is nothing worse than a bent copper, their fellow coppers hate them more than we do.

Best Wishes

Nigel

Back to Top
livvy View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 09:35
Originally posted by Nigel Nigel wrote:

As for the missing jewelry, what can I say mate ?, except I'm sorry and embarrassed, there is nothing worse than a bent copper, their fellow coppers hate them more than we do.



I agree.

I'm not going to defend the Police for wrong doing, rudeness or anything else. There will always be individual cases of bad apples in all walks of life.
What I defend is the polcy of speed limits & their enforcement as one part of an attempt to minimise death & injury on our roads.

My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
Back to Top
livvy View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 09:39
Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:

Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

Originally posted by spokey spokey wrote:



I believe that a blanket speed limit of 20MPH will "gelp" casualty reduction a lot. Unfortunately, when I suggest that, the argument changes from "it's all about saving lives" to "it's all about striking a balance".


I don't say "it's all about saving lives".


Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

I personally think that cameras are best placed where the fatal collisions actually occur.


Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

I don't see that 3,500 road deaths should be dismissed as not important


Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

I don't think Safety is negotiable


Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

The evidence of 3,500 killed a year & tens of thousands seriously injured is testimony to the fact that people are not as good as they think they are & that they struggle to remain safe in our current limits.


Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

Reductions in deaths & serious injuries are REAL improvements.
Last year saw the lowest number of road deaths ever recorded on our roads (this can't be disputed) our roads have the lowest (per capita) death rate of any major nation. So I don't think we are getting it too wrong. What we mustn't do is get complacent & we must strive to further reduce those numbers.


Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

Killing 3,500 a year is not to my mind a reasonable & acceptable risk management of our roads. It is unbalanced. We will always have some deaths but that is too high a number along with tens of thopusands of seriously injured.




I don't say there that we can expect to have no deaths.

I don't say that we should massively reduce current limits.

I do say that 3,500 is not good enough.

I do say that we can do better & people driving to acceptable standards (including speed limits) with safety being non-negotiable in their attitude can help in achieving that, whilst striking a compromise of moving around with reasonable progress limiting the risk in an inherently risky activity.




Edited by livvy
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
Back to Top
spokey View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard

Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 09:56
Originally posted by livvy livvy wrote:

I do say that we can do better & people driving to acceptable standards (including speed limits) can help in achieving that whilst striking a compromise of moving around with reasonable progress whilst limiting the risk in an inherently risky activity.



Define "reasonable", livvy?

 There are many things the government could do to make driving less stressful, improve progress and make driving safer.

Instead, we see a culture vilifying motorists, cyclists who can be as irresponsible as they like and a consistent message that speed kills and nothing else matters. Scameras are used instead of better instruction, and I for one certainly feel like I am not rewarded with a safe, reliable or enjoyable driving experience on the roads for which I pay handsomely.

Why do I average a speed of 30MPH on a motorway journey of 90 miles on a Monday morning? How is that reasonable? If you think about all the fuss that people like Slower Speeds make about how much safer 20 is than 30, and my average speed on a weekday commute is 30, then why not enforce a 20MPH blanket speed limit? It's hardly a massive reduction, is it?

Just think how much that 3500 will reduce by.
Ciao,
Spokey

Back to Top
dutch View Drop Down
Really Senior Member I
Really Senior Member I
Avatar

Joined: 17-December-2005
Location: lakeside Essex
Status: Offline
Points: 438
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 11:25
1 death is 1 to many if the goverment wanted to reduce this then they should make the ADT the only test for new drivers. on a foot note it may seem callous question but how are the stats worked out for the 3500 you quote? 
e39,1200 bandit
cooper S, Z3 topazbleu
Back to Top
Fey! View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Funs over, Scotty; beam down my clothes!

Joined: 28-February-2005
Location: Galway
Status: Offline
Points: 4161
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 11:47

Nigel/Livvy - in my experience of the police, not too many of them are crooked (maybe I'm either naive or lucky).

Spokey - I'm not a massive fan of police procedures and response times, but I think you're being very unreasonable.  The 30mph average on the motorway is more likely the fault of shortsighted infrastructure planning and bad motorists than the police, imho.

Dutch - I agree with the ADT test as the only test.  My brother in law is German, and they have to undergo a set number of instruction hours on private ground before they're let loose on public roads.  In Switzerland, afaik, if you fail your test 3 times, you have to get a psychiatric evaluation to say whether or not you should be let on the road

Do any of you ever watch Britains Worst Driver?  All the people on that had passed their tests, but shouldn't be let on the roads!

As for the use of the WRX (and the unmarked Volvo T6 estates) - aren't these cars primarily used for fast response/support units (I can't remember the proper term for these units) which also police really bad driving rather than being used as static speed traps?  From what I gather, they also deal a lot with drugs culture.

Maybe I'm off the reservation with that.

 

Back to Top
Nigel View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 09-November-2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6941
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 12:18
And with all that Fey, would you believe the Britsh have the safest roads ?
Best Wishes

Nigel

Back to Top
livvy View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 12:21
Originally posted by dutch dutch wrote:

1 death is 1 to many if the goverment wanted to reduce this then they should make the ADT the only test for new drivers. on a foot note it may seem callous question but how are the stats worked out for the 3500 you quote? 


The number of fatal accidents on our roads are a fact.
Every fatal accident is recorded & investigated after all.

Last year there were 3,221 road deaths, the lowest since records began in 1926.

There were the lowest number of injury accidents recorded for 47 years as well.





Edited by livvy
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
Back to Top
spokey View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard

Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 13:08
Originally posted by Fey! Fey! wrote:

Spokey - I'm not a massive fan of police procedures and response times, but I think you're being very unreasonable.  The 30mph average on the motorway is more likely the fault of shortsighted infrastructure planning and bad motorists than the police, imho.



This is entirely off-topic and doesn't match what I said, I do not hold the police responsible for my journey times.

There are inconsistencies in the arguments put forward by the only police officer in this conversation (that I know of, anyway!) On the one hand, we are told that reducing deaths (improved road safety) is a major objective, on the other, we are told it is better to drive relatively unsafely than to break the speed limit.
Ciao,
Spokey

Back to Top
Fey! View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar
Funs over, Scotty; beam down my clothes!

Joined: 28-February-2005
Location: Galway
Status: Offline
Points: 4161
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-January-2006 at 14:17

Nigel - I'm not a statistician, nor am I, or have I ever been, involved in the emergency services; I'm one of the lucky ones who rarely has to see the carnage.  The driving I witness day to day is on Irish roads, with Irish drivers.  The roads are nothing short of brutal in a lot of cases, and the driving is as described earlier in this post.

Spokey - I only refered to that as you mentioned your displeasure at doing 30mph on the Motorway.  Seeing as this thread started of as traffic police bashing, I thought that it was appropriate.  Obviously I was wrong.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.181 seconds.