Unmarked Police in Essex
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 9,400
Likes: 0
From: A land of lap-dancers and Lanson Black Label
Spotted on A11 just outside Colchester
Dark Maroon Vauxhall Senator
**** ***
Single occupant
You have been warned.............
[This message has been edited by Stuart H (edited 12 January 2001).]
Dark Maroon Vauxhall Senator
**** ***
Single occupant
You have been warned.............
[This message has been edited by Stuart H (edited 12 January 2001).]
Scooby Senior
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 3,410
Likes: 0
Now that's a real help... 
Isn't it more sensible to learn how to spot these cars by their appearance and the way they are driven (class one drivers are not hard to spot these days)... Of course, it's only really an issue if you make a habit of driving in such a manner that you will gain police attention...
Moray
Isn't it more sensible to learn how to spot these cars by their appearance and the way they are driven (class one drivers are not hard to spot these days)... Of course, it's only really an issue if you make a habit of driving in such a manner that you will gain police attention...
Moray
Scooby Regular
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
From: London
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by MorayMackenzie:
<B>Now that's a real help...
... Of course, it's only really an issue if you make a habit of driving in such a manner that you will gain police attention...
Moray[/quote]
Don't tell me that you never drive in such a fashion?
What about if you've having fun on your favorite road, you know, nice flowing back lane, dry, good visability, no one else around etc. etc. etc and you spot a maroon Senator parked up in a lay by/hidden behind a bush/tree/etc. up ahead. You gonna tell me that a) there's no chance that you may be driving over the limit and b) you wouldn't mind knowing that in the back of your mind someone mentioned that there was an unmarked maroon Senator knocking around in the area?
I've no complaints about people being nicked for bad driving but there are times when *just* nicking people for speeding is a bit petty!!! I think that if they are going to hide out on some nice safe empty bit of road with a Laser gun then they should have to be using a marked car - then anyone that get's nicked deserves it!!
Ta,
Matt.
<B>Now that's a real help...
... Of course, it's only really an issue if you make a habit of driving in such a manner that you will gain police attention...
Moray[/quote]
Don't tell me that you never drive in such a fashion?
What about if you've having fun on your favorite road, you know, nice flowing back lane, dry, good visability, no one else around etc. etc. etc and you spot a maroon Senator parked up in a lay by/hidden behind a bush/tree/etc. up ahead. You gonna tell me that a) there's no chance that you may be driving over the limit and b) you wouldn't mind knowing that in the back of your mind someone mentioned that there was an unmarked maroon Senator knocking around in the area?
I've no complaints about people being nicked for bad driving but there are times when *just* nicking people for speeding is a bit petty!!! I think that if they are going to hide out on some nice safe empty bit of road with a Laser gun then they should have to be using a marked car - then anyone that get's nicked deserves it!!
Ta,
Matt.
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 9,400
Likes: 0
From: A land of lap-dancers and Lanson Black Label
If more was spent on stopping the scum who drink and drive and less on hiding behind trees on A roads then fatalities would surely be reduced???
Im all for stopping speeding in urban areas and especially outside schools dont get me wrong but the system at the moment regarding alchohol doesnt work, am I correct in understanding there was approximately a 10% rise in positive tests after accidents this Christmas period??
Maybe StuartH could advise of the figures if I have misinterpreted them
Im all for stopping speeding in urban areas and especially outside schools dont get me wrong but the system at the moment regarding alchohol doesnt work, am I correct in understanding there was approximately a 10% rise in positive tests after accidents this Christmas period??
Maybe StuartH could advise of the figures if I have misinterpreted them
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by mutant_matt:
<B>
What about if you've having fun on your favorite road, you know, nice flowing back lane, dry, good visability, no one else around etc. etc. etc and you spot a maroon Senator parked up in a lay by/hidden behind a bush/tree/etc. up ahead. You gonna tell me that a) there's no chance that you may be driving over the limit and b) [/quote] a young child isn't going to jump out the door of the car that daddy bought off the police and get flattened by you.....
I'm all for having a laff on the back roads, but surely only a complete nutter wouldn't ease off if they see what could be a potential hazard on/near the road ahead?
<B>
What about if you've having fun on your favorite road, you know, nice flowing back lane, dry, good visability, no one else around etc. etc. etc and you spot a maroon Senator parked up in a lay by/hidden behind a bush/tree/etc. up ahead. You gonna tell me that a) there's no chance that you may be driving over the limit and b) [/quote] a young child isn't going to jump out the door of the car that daddy bought off the police and get flattened by you.....
I'm all for having a laff on the back roads, but surely only a complete nutter wouldn't ease off if they see what could be a potential hazard on/near the road ahead?
Trending Topics
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Sadly there has been a rise in the number of positive breath tests provided over the Christmas Period. 
The campaign ran from 06:00 18/12/00 to 06:00 02/01/01 - Out of 15064 people tested nationally 1081 tested positive which works out at 7.17% compared with 6.5% last year at 6% the year before
The campaign ran from 06:00 18/12/00 to 06:00 02/01/01 - Out of 15064 people tested nationally 1081 tested positive which works out at 7.17% compared with 6.5% last year at 6% the year before
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 9,400
Likes: 0
From: A land of lap-dancers and Lanson Black Label
Stuart
Whats the answer? Do you think that a zero tolerance approach would be more successful? ie you have a drink therefore you dont drive.... is this workable and do you think that you guys would have the resources? ( I know you're hard pushed as it is)... Surely drink drive should be targetted more???
Whats the answer? Do you think that a zero tolerance approach would be more successful? ie you have a drink therefore you dont drive.... is this workable and do you think that you guys would have the resources? ( I know you're hard pushed as it is)... Surely drink drive should be targetted more???
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,154
Likes: 0
From: www.karenphillips.co.uk
I'm with Rich Askew on his opinion.
We must remember that our police do a fantastic job 98% of the time, and unfortunately for them 1% of the remaining time is spent picking unfortunates up with a shovel. Ever seen a train suicide victim? Not nice.
As for the other 1% ? They're only human and can't be perfect all the time, like us! Besides, they have orders to follow - They might not necessarily like it either.
Like Mutant_Matt said, if we're REALLY honest, most of the time if they approach us it's for good reason.
(Falls off soap-box...)
[This message has been edited by Squizz (edited 12 January 2001).]
We must remember that our police do a fantastic job 98% of the time, and unfortunately for them 1% of the remaining time is spent picking unfortunates up with a shovel. Ever seen a train suicide victim? Not nice.
As for the other 1% ? They're only human and can't be perfect all the time, like us! Besides, they have orders to follow - They might not necessarily like it either.
Like Mutant_Matt said, if we're REALLY honest, most of the time if they approach us it's for good reason.
(Falls off soap-box...)
[This message has been edited by Squizz (edited 12 January 2001).]
Scooby Senior
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 3,410
Likes: 0
Mutant matt,
Maybe you missed the sarcastic/leg-pulling smiley I placed at the end of my comment?
However, if you drive inappropriately fast in the wrong place you are likely to attract police attention... it's common sense.
My main point was that posting details of individual unmarked vehicles that you spot is not really going to help anyone in the long run.
Moray
[This message has been edited by MorayMackenzie (edited 12 January 2001).]
Maybe you missed the sarcastic/leg-pulling smiley I placed at the end of my comment?
However, if you drive inappropriately fast in the wrong place you are likely to attract police attention... it's common sense.
My main point was that posting details of individual unmarked vehicles that you spot is not really going to help anyone in the long run.
Moray
[This message has been edited by MorayMackenzie (edited 12 January 2001).]
Scooby Senior
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
From: West Midlands
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Stuart H:
<B>The campaign ran from 06:00 18/12/00 to 06:00 02/01/01 - Out of 15064 people tested nationally 1081 tested positive which works out at 7.17% compared with 6.5% last year at 6% the year before[/quote]
Stuart,
are these "tests" used in the figures taken actually *at* a Police attended RTA, or is it for all stops.
The reason why i ask is that is a force stops and tests _everybody_ regardless, then the %-failure rate is (hopefully) very low. However, if they only test people who are unconcious in the drivers seat after hitting a tree with no other cars involved, the chances are that the failure rate is going to be pretty high!
Gotta be careful about statistics!
mb
<B>The campaign ran from 06:00 18/12/00 to 06:00 02/01/01 - Out of 15064 people tested nationally 1081 tested positive which works out at 7.17% compared with 6.5% last year at 6% the year before
[/quote]Stuart,
are these "tests" used in the figures taken actually *at* a Police attended RTA, or is it for all stops.
The reason why i ask is that is a force stops and tests _everybody_ regardless, then the %-failure rate is (hopefully) very low. However, if they only test people who are unconcious in the drivers seat after hitting a tree with no other cars involved, the chances are that the failure rate is going to be pretty high!
Gotta be careful about statistics!
mb
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Sorry, I typed that in a bit of a hurry and I've confused everyone (including myself). 
These figures were aquired by testing <B>everyone</B> involved in an RTC which the Police attended. 1081 of the 15064 tested failed (7.18%) an increase of 11% on last year.
Last year 14907 tests were administered with 972 testing positive (6.52%)
Apologies for any confusion, statistics are indeed a dangerous thing!!
Cheers
S
[This message has been edited by Stuart H (edited 12 January 2001).]
These figures were aquired by testing <B>everyone</B> involved in an RTC which the Police attended. 1081 of the 15064 tested failed (7.18%) an increase of 11% on last year.
Last year 14907 tests were administered with 972 testing positive (6.52%)
Apologies for any confusion, statistics are indeed a dangerous thing!!
Cheers
S
[This message has been edited by Stuart H (edited 12 January 2001).]
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
we'll i'm grateful for any warnings richard!
colchester is mine and princesses' neck of the woods, and although i understand some of the other points made here about driving safely, surely if its safe, drive fast!!!
for gods sake, if i wanted to drive slowly i'd have bought a volvo. i see far more dangerous driving from old biddies crapping themselves on the motorway, doing 20 miles an hour on a slip road leading onto a busy motorway, than people doing 90 or so.
maybe i aint p.c., but frankly i couldnt care less. i dont drive like an idiot, but as i said at the start, i appreciate a friendly warning from richard.
colchester is mine and princesses' neck of the woods, and although i understand some of the other points made here about driving safely, surely if its safe, drive fast!!!
for gods sake, if i wanted to drive slowly i'd have bought a volvo. i see far more dangerous driving from old biddies crapping themselves on the motorway, doing 20 miles an hour on a slip road leading onto a busy motorway, than people doing 90 or so.
maybe i aint p.c., but frankly i couldnt care less. i dont drive like an idiot, but as i said at the start, i appreciate a friendly warning from richard.
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,706
Likes: 0
Your Eeeeevvvillll. 
I can see it, driving down the motorway and a BMW races past (always a BM, never a Scoob ) "Thundering hill, lets nail the low life" as Mr Kiplings best go flying all over the place in the scramble to hit the lights and siren.
Only joking
Seriously though, I disagree with drink driving aswell. Even if I've had a drink at lunch I won't normally drive in the evening. A little excessive I know.
I agree with Richard and Squiz.
P.
I can see it, driving down the motorway and a BMW races past (always a BM, never a Scoob
) "Thundering hill, lets nail the low life" as Mr Kiplings best go flying all over the place in the scramble to hit the lights and siren. Only joking
Seriously though, I disagree with drink driving aswell. Even if I've had a drink at lunch I won't normally drive in the evening. A little excessive I know.
I agree with Richard and Squiz.
P.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post