Special thanks from Wiltshire Constabulary!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My station recently invited the local police to give driving awareness briefs for which attendance was compulsary to all personnel. The briefs covered all the relevent sections and included pictures/footage which made everyone think that little bit harder about the consequences of dangerous/drunk or inappropriate driving.
Just one point to note though, the copper insisted that there was no reason for Lincolnshire having the highest number of serious or fatal road accidents in the UK (and at one point Europe). We tried pointing out the; long straight country roads, poor lighting, poor road surfaces, tractors and other tediously slow vehicles moving along trunk routes at rush hour, 90 degree bends on unlit country roads, deep drainage ditches, no motorways poor public transport system etc etc etc. He wouldn't have it though.
God give me strength.
Just one point to note though, the copper insisted that there was no reason for Lincolnshire having the highest number of serious or fatal road accidents in the UK (and at one point Europe). We tried pointing out the; long straight country roads, poor lighting, poor road surfaces, tractors and other tediously slow vehicles moving along trunk routes at rush hour, 90 degree bends on unlit country roads, deep drainage ditches, no motorways poor public transport system etc etc etc. He wouldn't have it though.
God give me strength.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Split, Yes I would agree, but lets face it, it is a pretty natural reaction, I would suggest, by everyone (almost) who comes across an 'unknown' speed camera. The same goes for when you see a police car on the side of a road. A great many people just hit the brakes.
Even as mlc admits above, speed cameras are there to generate revenue and we should therefore, question the erection and use of such a device that 'contibutes' as a 'hazard' to road users. The number of skid marks at speed camera locations bears out what I mean.
TSM
Even as mlc admits above, speed cameras are there to generate revenue and we should therefore, question the erection and use of such a device that 'contibutes' as a 'hazard' to road users. The number of skid marks at speed camera locations bears out what I mean.
TSM
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the government wanted to stop speeding they could adopt, and slightly modifiy, a system used here in Portugal (the death rate in Portugal is 6 times more than the UK). You have speed cameras conected to traffic lights further down the road. If the camera see you are going to fast it changes the lights to red. Therefore, if you speed you do not gain from it. The only problem with the system over here is there are no traffic light cameras so many people just jump the lights. So add cameras to catch people who jump the red lights and you will have a good system.
Of course that wont make any money though.
Of course that wont make any money though.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Shrops
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nonetheless, drivers who fail to observe the presence of a speed camera are, IMHO, equally as unlilkely to spot other hazards as well. As a driving society there seems to be a wholesale agreement that there is often nothing you can do to avoid a crash because things happened 'suddenly'. Well excuse me but thats nonsense, there are nearly always telltale signs that a hazard is upcoming or situation developing; the failure to recognise it lies with drivers who are probably thinking about the XFactor, the footie, whats for tea etc etc and not concentrating or observing anywhere near as far enough ahead as they should be. In fact, drivers often appear to think that there's nothing they can do and that crashes are more a function of the environment than they are failures on the part of drivers, e.g.
Originally Posted by shawshank
Just one point to note though, the copper insisted that there was no reason for Lincolnshire having the highest number of serious or fatal road accidents in the UK (and at one point Europe). We tried pointing out the; long straight country roads, poor lighting, poor road surfaces, tractors and other tediously slow vehicles moving along trunk routes at rush hour, 90 degree bends on unlit country roads, deep drainage ditches, no motorways poor public transport system etc etc etc. He wouldn't have it though.
God give me strength.
God give me strength.
But perhaps, when faced with this kind of reasoning, its the coppers who should be going...
Not a good thread in which to offer my two penn'orth (speaking as a 2-year-Army, 26-year-RAF ex-serviceman who doesn't drink, doesn't have to brake at speed cameras 'cos I don't speed and who has the pleasure/privilege of flying for Constabularies (including Wilts) and Air Ambulance Charities (including Lincs)), but I did grimace when I read Tombstone's:
Has anyone else noticed this thread, "Drinking Games" http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=254135 just a line or 2 away on the same bulletin board? Ah, the irony.
Shy, very sorry to hear about your family's recent experiences.
Drive safely everyone - please.
The RAF does not have a 'drinking culture' issue.
Shy, very sorry to hear about your family's recent experiences.
Drive safely everyone - please.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Government statistics for accident causation, taken from 2001:
Inattention 25.8%
Failure to judge other person's path or speed 22.6%
Looked but did not see 19.7%
Behaviour: careless/thoughtless/reckless 18.4%
Failed to look 16.3%
Lack of judgement of own path 13.7%
Excessive speed 12.5%
Within that 12.5% are accidents that occurred under the posted speed limit; remove those from the equation and the figure becomes:
3.7%!!
Ahh....wait, there's more: in a majority of these cases, the drivers were also pissed, on drugs or joyriding in a stolen vehicle - although curiously the DfT won't release any figures for this, making a true reflection of the % of people killed by "exceeding the speed limit" impossible to determine accurately...it WILL be CONSIDERABLY LESS than the already miniscule 3.7%, though.
Anyone care to justify current policy in light of these figures?
Give the "SPEED KILLS" b0ll0x a rest - it's getting tiresome.
Sources: www.safespeed.org.uk ; www.dft.gov.uk
Inattention 25.8%
Failure to judge other person's path or speed 22.6%
Looked but did not see 19.7%
Behaviour: careless/thoughtless/reckless 18.4%
Failed to look 16.3%
Lack of judgement of own path 13.7%
Excessive speed 12.5%
Within that 12.5% are accidents that occurred under the posted speed limit; remove those from the equation and the figure becomes:
3.7%!!
Ahh....wait, there's more: in a majority of these cases, the drivers were also pissed, on drugs or joyriding in a stolen vehicle - although curiously the DfT won't release any figures for this, making a true reflection of the % of people killed by "exceeding the speed limit" impossible to determine accurately...it WILL be CONSIDERABLY LESS than the already miniscule 3.7%, though.
Anyone care to justify current policy in light of these figures?
Give the "SPEED KILLS" b0ll0x a rest - it's getting tiresome.
Sources: www.safespeed.org.uk ; www.dft.gov.uk
Tightgit
I appreciate it doesn't change anything, but at least our fixed speed cameras are easy to see and the mobile speed cameras are clearly marked. Having been the subject of German and Austrian speed traps in the past I can say that they fight dirty using old volkswagen campers or some such thing
and they take the money there and then.
and they take the money there and then.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Split, I take your point and wholeheartedly agree. But the fact remains that Lincs has a high number of serious or fatal road accidents. If you could offer a reason for this I would like to hear it.
IMHO, human error is the cause of most accidents. Educating drivers and making them face the reality of dangerous/inappropriate driving is the best way to reduce accidents. However, in the majority of cases there are always contributing factors. My point is that Lincs road system has many contributing factors which can catch even the most cautious drivers out. (a simple loss of tration due to a poor road surface isn't an issue until you slide into the 15ft drainage ditch)
Yes a careful driver should observe a hazzard before reaching it but the fact of the matter is we are all prone to human error (some more than others admittedly). But when so many hazzards occur so frequently then the chances of an accident occuring increases.
On the other hand you can never account for the d
head drivers who just won't listen no matter what you tell them. (is it me or do they all drive crap cars that have been heavily modified)
IMHO, human error is the cause of most accidents. Educating drivers and making them face the reality of dangerous/inappropriate driving is the best way to reduce accidents. However, in the majority of cases there are always contributing factors. My point is that Lincs road system has many contributing factors which can catch even the most cautious drivers out. (a simple loss of tration due to a poor road surface isn't an issue until you slide into the 15ft drainage ditch)
Yes a careful driver should observe a hazzard before reaching it but the fact of the matter is we are all prone to human error (some more than others admittedly). But when so many hazzards occur so frequently then the chances of an accident occuring increases.
On the other hand you can never account for the d
head drivers who just won't listen no matter what you tell them. (is it me or do they all drive crap cars that have been heavily modified)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Devon
Age: 68
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a ex member of the Royal Air Force, I now work closely with the police on the motorways and A roads. In fact you could say that `I PICK UP THE PIECES` after the event.
Drink and excessive speed are the 2 highest causes of RTCs - road traffic collisions - the term RTA - road traffic accident - is no longer used - because they aint accidents.
If you had seen the carnage after a drink/driver decided to drive for 2 miles the wrong way on a motorway some of the opinions posted on here may be different. It is very hard to explain to a family the visitors they were expecting for the xmas holiday are now in hospital because of a pisshead
None of the police officers I have contact with have quotas or targets for the issueing of tickets - they dont go looking for the offenders - they are there in front of them.....
If you feel the need to drink and drive - do us all a favour - make sure you are the one in the body bag
Drink and excessive speed are the 2 highest causes of RTCs - road traffic collisions - the term RTA - road traffic accident - is no longer used - because they aint accidents.
If you had seen the carnage after a drink/driver decided to drive for 2 miles the wrong way on a motorway some of the opinions posted on here may be different. It is very hard to explain to a family the visitors they were expecting for the xmas holiday are now in hospital because of a pisshead
None of the police officers I have contact with have quotas or targets for the issueing of tickets - they dont go looking for the offenders - they are there in front of them.....
If you feel the need to drink and drive - do us all a favour - make sure you are the one in the body bag
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But this thread isn't about the old holier than thou ‘speed kills’ brigade (If you want that take a trip to Jet Blast and watch BJP defend the indefensible.) or crusades against drunk driving or even the voice of outrage from those who have to sweep up after the event is it? I think you can take it as read that drink-driving = a bad thing
The question here was why did the Police deliberately target a RAF camp for a general motoring crack-down that produced very little in return for their efforts when they know where the real problem drivers are? And if they don't know what the Sam Hill are their analysts doing?
So if all those 'on the inside' can explain the logic of the Wiltshire Constabulary squandering resources on the wrong targets I'd like to hear them.
BTW Still called RTAs on Storm/MA
The question here was why did the Police deliberately target a RAF camp for a general motoring crack-down that produced very little in return for their efforts when they know where the real problem drivers are? And if they don't know what the Sam Hill are their analysts doing?
So if all those 'on the inside' can explain the logic of the Wiltshire Constabulary squandering resources on the wrong targets I'd like to hear them.
BTW Still called RTAs on Storm/MA
Last edited by Maple 01; 31st Dec 2006 at 20:37.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You ill informed w**nkers. Stop believing everything you read in the Daily Mail and try and get out more. It helps. What do you know of how the police operate on a day to day basis. Precisely nothing, so why comment?.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, most of us who have owned real property for more than about 5 years have experience of how the police operate day to day.
And we are frequently unimpressed.
Note: Frequently does not mean "mostly" or even "quite a lot of the time". But it does mean "often enough that everybody has noticed".
Which would have my secondary business gone for lack of customer service.
And if I did my day job that badly I'd be grounded if I was lucky, and dead if I wasn't.
And we are frequently unimpressed.
Note: Frequently does not mean "mostly" or even "quite a lot of the time". But it does mean "often enough that everybody has noticed".
Which would have my secondary business gone for lack of customer service.
And if I did my day job that badly I'd be grounded if I was lucky, and dead if I wasn't.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you know of how the police operate on a day-to-day basis?
so why comment?
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Last edited by Maple 01; 31st Dec 2006 at 22:32. Reason: Edited to add "" around the highly paid bit as I aint
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: England
Age: 59
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Targets.....Targets....
I am a regular member on here but for reasons which will become obvious I have used a different ID...
The Police force that I work for as support staff has set a target (performance indicator) of 3 detected crimes per officer per week. Detected crimes are basically a solved crime which is notifiable to the Home Office. Driving offences in the main are not notifiable so however many speeding tickets are issued do not count to an officers PI.
As it is difficult to solve a burglary or a bit of criminal damage to a motor vehicle and the 100's of other things that matter to the population, how can they meet their PIs? The following situation shows how......
A young lad is refuse access to a night club as he is 3 sheets gone. He starts swearing at the door staff. They ignore him but PC Copper comes along and says "Stop swearing". The lad continues so they arrest him.
Drunk and disorderly? No - it's not a notifiable crime so won't count towards the detection target.
Section 5 Public Order Act (S5 POA) - Notifiable crime so target is met. The lad is given a Penalty Notice for Disorder which adds £80 to the cost of a night out. The fact that it doesn't actually meet the "points to prove" is not worried about. It's a detection.
So why chase Billy the Burglar when you can get 3 drunks on a Fri / Sat night for S5 POA and meet you target.
There is a town in Somerset that is the most violent place to live according to the number of Violence against the person crimes. The police there issue far more S5 POA PNDs than anywhere else in the region. S5 POA counts as a violence against the person and is in the same category as ABH / GBH.......
One force has already had to pay back most of the PNDs they issued as they have been deemed to have been illegally issued. My advice if one of your section gets a PND for S5.....get a solictor to fight it as most police officers do not seem to know when it should be used.
Another major crime which counts as a detection is seeing someone smoking a joint and issuing them with a Cannabis warning. Notifiable and counts as a detection.
Targets are great when they are used properly.
The Police force that I work for as support staff has set a target (performance indicator) of 3 detected crimes per officer per week. Detected crimes are basically a solved crime which is notifiable to the Home Office. Driving offences in the main are not notifiable so however many speeding tickets are issued do not count to an officers PI.
As it is difficult to solve a burglary or a bit of criminal damage to a motor vehicle and the 100's of other things that matter to the population, how can they meet their PIs? The following situation shows how......
A young lad is refuse access to a night club as he is 3 sheets gone. He starts swearing at the door staff. They ignore him but PC Copper comes along and says "Stop swearing". The lad continues so they arrest him.
Drunk and disorderly? No - it's not a notifiable crime so won't count towards the detection target.
Section 5 Public Order Act (S5 POA) - Notifiable crime so target is met. The lad is given a Penalty Notice for Disorder which adds £80 to the cost of a night out. The fact that it doesn't actually meet the "points to prove" is not worried about. It's a detection.
So why chase Billy the Burglar when you can get 3 drunks on a Fri / Sat night for S5 POA and meet you target.
There is a town in Somerset that is the most violent place to live according to the number of Violence against the person crimes. The police there issue far more S5 POA PNDs than anywhere else in the region. S5 POA counts as a violence against the person and is in the same category as ABH / GBH.......
One force has already had to pay back most of the PNDs they issued as they have been deemed to have been illegally issued. My advice if one of your section gets a PND for S5.....get a solictor to fight it as most police officers do not seem to know when it should be used.
Another major crime which counts as a detection is seeing someone smoking a joint and issuing them with a Cannabis warning. Notifiable and counts as a detection.
Targets are great when they are used properly.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My friend who joined the police post RAF thought he was going to be helping the community and finds himself somewhat disilusioned at the performance indicators you mention
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hove
Age: 72
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an example a drunk driver approaching you at high speed, you don't see him at first but when you do its so quick you react, have to serve and end up in a ditch. You didnt speedand you were not drunk. Other driver didnt stop so what factors are recorded as relevant?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So someone out in the bundhu who drinks over the legal limit, then, is a total bandit. He's been to Farnborough, done the course, knows his limitations and compensates accordingly but, when involved with a drugged up, soft drinking young fu**wit, is automatically at fault.
Some of the sanctamonious bollox on here is truly depressing. If you've lost nearest and dearest through cocky fu**wits over the limit then I am truly sorry. If they caused the loss, I agree; hit them. There really is a Towny/not towny divide in play here. I'm standing by for the incoming, with glee.
Some of the sanctamonious bollox on here is truly depressing. If you've lost nearest and dearest through cocky fu**wits over the limit then I am truly sorry. If they caused the loss, I agree; hit them. There really is a Towny/not towny divide in play here. I'm standing by for the incoming, with glee.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Midlands
Age: 55
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doh! Couldn't resist it 
Hello, you’ve reached the Police Department voice mail. Please pay close attention as we update choices as new and unusual circumstances arrive. Please select from the following options:
To whine about us not doing anything to solve a problem you created: Press 1
To inquire as to whether someone has to die before we do something to fix a problem: Press 2
To report an officer for your perception of bad manners when in reality the officer is trying to keep your neighborhood safe: Press 3
If you’d like us to raise your children: Press 4
If you’d like us to take control of your life due to your chemical dependancy: Press 5
If you’d like us to instantly restore order to a situation that took years to deteriorate: Press 6
To provide a list of officers that you personally know so that we won’t take enforcement action against you: Press 7
To sue us, or tell us that you pay our salary and will have our badges or to proclaim our career is over: Press 8
To whine about a ticket and/or to complain about the many other uses for police other than keeping your dumb ass in line: Press 9
To advise us that the police are taking too long to arrive to sort out a situation that you probably created and to tell us that you could be getting killed, when in reality you wouldn't: press 0
Please note that your call may be monitored to assure proper customer support, and remember, we are here to save your ass, not kiss it. Have a nice day. "
Happy new year!
Hello, you’ve reached the Police Department voice mail. Please pay close attention as we update choices as new and unusual circumstances arrive. Please select from the following options:
To whine about us not doing anything to solve a problem you created: Press 1
To inquire as to whether someone has to die before we do something to fix a problem: Press 2
To report an officer for your perception of bad manners when in reality the officer is trying to keep your neighborhood safe: Press 3
If you’d like us to raise your children: Press 4
If you’d like us to take control of your life due to your chemical dependancy: Press 5
If you’d like us to instantly restore order to a situation that took years to deteriorate: Press 6
To provide a list of officers that you personally know so that we won’t take enforcement action against you: Press 7
To sue us, or tell us that you pay our salary and will have our badges or to proclaim our career is over: Press 8
To whine about a ticket and/or to complain about the many other uses for police other than keeping your dumb ass in line: Press 9
To advise us that the police are taking too long to arrive to sort out a situation that you probably created and to tell us that you could be getting killed, when in reality you wouldn't: press 0
Please note that your call may be monitored to assure proper customer support, and remember, we are here to save your ass, not kiss it. Have a nice day. "
Happy new year!
GBZ
“There really is a Towny/not towny divide in play here”.
There is truth in this, and it certainly applies to policing standards. What people look for is consistency in applying the law. Anyone who has the misfortune to attempt to negotiate Tetbury (not a million miles from Wiltshire) knows that it is NOT illegal there to double park on double yellow lines (thus gridlocking the entire town), sail across the pedestrian crossing regardless of pedestrians (or alternatively park on it), stop at any angle on any road to do your make-up and use your mobile (preferably at the same time) and stop at green lights in anticipation of them turning red.
And having seen what the police get up to, the general public naturally copy them.
A few years ago a sharp bodyswerve prevented three joyriders knocking myself and my dog down. Reported it to plod who simply took details, despite me being able to identify a passenger. Ten minutes later, having demolished 5 gardens, the car was abandoned in a sixth. Phoned plod again. The next day they came and stuck a notice on the car saying it had been booked for illegal parking and would be towed if not removed.
Wrote to Chief Constable. Nearly 18 months (!) later a PC arrived at my door. Told me they knew exactly who the offenders were, but that as they lived in the same street as a local policeman they were left alone in case of retribution. Said policeman, and his family, were under orders not to antagonise neds. But what about the ticket the victim got? Up to him to appeal.
“There really is a Towny/not towny divide in play here”.
There is truth in this, and it certainly applies to policing standards. What people look for is consistency in applying the law. Anyone who has the misfortune to attempt to negotiate Tetbury (not a million miles from Wiltshire) knows that it is NOT illegal there to double park on double yellow lines (thus gridlocking the entire town), sail across the pedestrian crossing regardless of pedestrians (or alternatively park on it), stop at any angle on any road to do your make-up and use your mobile (preferably at the same time) and stop at green lights in anticipation of them turning red.
And having seen what the police get up to, the general public naturally copy them.
A few years ago a sharp bodyswerve prevented three joyriders knocking myself and my dog down. Reported it to plod who simply took details, despite me being able to identify a passenger. Ten minutes later, having demolished 5 gardens, the car was abandoned in a sixth. Phoned plod again. The next day they came and stuck a notice on the car saying it had been booked for illegal parking and would be towed if not removed.
Wrote to Chief Constable. Nearly 18 months (!) later a PC arrived at my door. Told me they knew exactly who the offenders were, but that as they lived in the same street as a local policeman they were left alone in case of retribution. Said policeman, and his family, were under orders not to antagonise neds. But what about the ticket the victim got? Up to him to appeal.