veerinder9

iTrader: (1)

I hate the police. Got time for stopping people for no reason but got no time for a woman who's getting beat by her drunk husband next door.

nik52wrx

Traffic police probably don't get involved in domestics.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Those are the rules for allowing them to search your car, so that might explain where you got this from.

stipete75

Yeah, just incase your a terrorist

Felix.

oh, not sure - perhaps to show that you are a licence holder perhaps

Felix.

I don't know - i wasn't there.
Was it not explained why it was required - driving without due care, suspicion of alcohol.

AndyBaker

Not really, don't know why there would there would be a suspicion of alcohol. Maybe the car just stood out a bit who knows!!

dnc

Just to give a bit of balance to the anti traffic police rant...

I recently had an accident where it is possible that I fell asleep at the wheel and as a came off a dual carriageway. Fortunately my car was slowed by some bushes and I cannot believe how lucky I was to come out of a 70 ish mph incident completely unscathed.

The police officer that attended was absolutely fantastic in terms of helping me with getting in touch with people I needed to get in touch with and generally having a good chat to put me at ease. I commented 'I can't believe you haven't breathalysed me' after we had been chatting whilst waiting for recovery. He replied 'do you want me to breathalyse you?' Not really says I (I had not had anything to drink), but I assumed I would be. As no other car was involved, he explained, and no third party was hurt, he didn't need to. He was satisfied by my acting coherently, my eyes looking ok and my not reeking of alcohol, that he did not need to breathalyse me.

He also gave me a lift home.

He was a great guy. Think it just depends on the individual, as in all walks of life.

stipete75

The traffic police do have a job to do, we all understand and accept that, plenty of wrong-uns on the roads, I wouldn't like to be the one explaining to a family that a loved one has been hurt or killed...
But, let's face it, the average motorist is an easy target for plod,easy money for the cash machine.

Ant

They not catch anybody if they didn't do the checks would they?

I prefer if they did more random spot checks if it means less drunk drivers

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

..........isn't falling asleep at the wheel a criminal ofence?

Shaun

Felix.

I would suggest the average motorist isn't breaking any laws as they drive, so how are they part of this 'cash machine'?

The so called 'wrong-uns' who persistently drive on the road then, would you suggest more words of advice rather than any judicial disposal

stipete75

The wrong-uns if persistent, caught 2 or 3 times should get an instant life ban if drunk, uninsured etc, keep doing it then suffer the consequence.
The average joe who gets caught on a mobile speed camera placed strategically at the bottom of a very steep hill doing 35mph getting £60 fines is a **** take, especially when said areas are not accident black spots but easy targets for motorists as is difficult to keep to 30 or under on a steep decline, and the camera opperator knows this.......

Felix.

How about the ones persistently doing 50 in a 30 zone on a flat road. Or the ones who persistently drive with no belt or on their phones, or never strap their children in the back seats, or park right on a corner as its easy for them to get to work and not pay a days car parking fee etc etc.


Are we looking at a life time ban for these or just keep giving them words of advice.

How about the ones who drive as fast as they can down the hill - because they can - and reach about 70-80 at the bottom on a 30 zone as it is a 'bit of a laugh'

scoobyboy1

iTrader: (16)

This vid makes me laught Been posted on here before, but I think its appropriate for this thread!!

neil-h

Your car not have brakes? I'd suggest that if you have trouble sticking to a speed limit on something as technically challenging as an incline, then a speeding ticket is the least of your worries.

stipete75

Well doing 50 in a 30 deserves a fine, doing 50 in built up areas is downright stupidity and those drivers deserve their penalties whatever they might be, not contradictory advice.
Drivers doing 80 in built up areas.......instand 10 yr ban, these are the drivers that do not deserve a licence.

It's crazy as mobile cameras are penalizing some good drivers who go accidentally a few mph over the limit, down hill yet these clowns in costume are breaking the law themselves by hiding the cameras, no signs out saying camera in operation here today, most parked illegally on pavements or grass verges causing a nuisance to the general public on foot. It's crazy.
If anyone thinks cameras are not a cash cow then you need a slap.

stipete75

It was in our local paper a couple years ago, complaints from almost everyone about the placement of the camera.
It's not just going down, the road is that steep most have to speed up above 30 to get to the top, the road needs to be driven to realise just how steep it is.
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/110...n&cid=12520376

stipete75

No, no brakes, think you hit the nail on the head, jeez thanks dude

neil-h

So people are relying on momentum to get up a hill, now that to me suggests they're in the wrong gear...

If its a common spot for the camera van then you'd have thought people would be more careful, rather than making excuses.

grunj

Accidently breaking the law doesn't make then good drivers. It makes them unable to control their speed, or use a different road, or here's a weird idea. Try to aim for 20mph, that way when you accidently creep up, you are still within the law

Just saying, you break the law, you risk the consequences (accidently or not), irrespective of where the camera is. If you get caught, then you have to pay the fine. Works like that in every country around the world. Or maybe every police force is wrong for trying to police a known speeding spot? If you don't speed, you wont feed their 'cash cow'

neil-h

Well if you're having trouble controlling the speed of your vehicle then something's gone wrong somewhere.

joz8968

iTrader: (13)

PMSL

stipete75

Iv personally never been caught at that particular spot, another location I was caught doing 36 in a 30(genuine mistake).
Yes I agree cameras are needed in persistent accident hot spots, not at the bottom(hidden) of a very long steep hill, there has never been an accident there in the 29years Iv live here.

stipete75

Thanks for your input

FMJ

iTrader: (2)

I call BS.

All Police Forces in the UK have VERY strong domestic violence policies. So strong that if a officers are called to a domestic these days and there is a suggestion that an offence has occurred between a couple one party will be arrested even if the victim doesn't want it to happen. It's called positive action.

Yes the couple may continue to stay in an abusive relationship and the behavior continues and it seems like nothing is being done but this is more due to the lack of support from victims and witnesses. Also due to the legal system and the amount of unbiased proof/evidence needed.

Generally (not saying yourself) people who "hate" the Police are those who want to live their lives how they want and to hell with how it effects others or society. The Police say no and they don't like it.

As for these comments about the Police making money with tickets.....

Nope. The local authority get the money not the Police. The Police is not self funding. Police officers don't get any prizes for issuing tickets. Yes some may be more harsh then others. It's called discretion and works both ways. Without it things would be far worse.

As has been covered you do have to provide your details if you are driving a vehicle on a public road. It is a legal requirement. If you don't it is an offence but with regards to producing the license you do have 7 days to produce at a Police station which will mean no further action is taken. You would not be arrested or detained for not handing your license over unless it is suspected that you have committed another offence for which arrest necessity exists.

You are required to provide a specimen of breath if you have been driving and involved in a road traffic collision, have comitted a road traffic offence or if you are suspected of drinking (report from a witness, smell of alcohol, acting intoxicated, style of driving etc all add up).

So the OP should have asked why he was being asked to provide a specimen of breath when in fact the original reason for stopping him (to check his plate i presume?) had been resolved and there was no offence. The officers should have explained the reason for the requirement.

Roads policing officers are Police Officers first specialist second. They attend normal non roads related incidents too.

The argument that officers should leave the traffic and minor offences and concentrate on serious stuff is ridiculous and uneducated. If the public stopped committing all the minor offences completely then we wouldn't need officers to deal with them. I'm sure if these people pointed out a rapist or drug dealer or burglar and provided evidence of this to an officer issuing a ticket the officer would probably pay said criminal more attention then the ticket.

And finally yes there are some bad coppers out there. Some are just bad at their job. Some are lazy. Some are power hungry and some are criminal and dishonest. But they are a tiny minority and no matter what you do you will get these people in all walks of life.

In the main (and I have met and worked with a lot of them) Police officers are pretty nice people who do want to help improve peoples lives and stand up to those who try and ruin other peoples.

stipete75

You are not obliged to give any personal details unless you are breaching the peace. Giving a name and personal details on request automatically gives over 'personal rights' to police control. You are not obliged to give any personal details if no laws have been broken, even in random stops.

FMJ

iTrader: (2)

Wrong.

Breaching the peace? Where have you got that???

The power to use force to prevent a breach of the peace exists as does the power to arrest a person to prevent a breach of the peace or to prevent one from reoccurring. The power to enter a private building to prevent one also exists. A court can bind you over to keep the peace.

Giving your details has NOTHING to do with a breach of the peace. Most people do not understand what a breach of the peace is. Most think its loud music or something.

It is to do with a person acting in a way which causes risk of harm to others or to property in the owners presence. Or fear of those things.

As has been stated if you are driving a motor vehicle on a road or public place the LAW states you must identify yourself on the request of an officer. Even if you are not committing an offence. You must also provide your driving license which includes all the details they want.

Want another example of having to give your details as required by law when you haven't committed an offence?

Police Reform Act 2002. States that if you are acting in an anti social manor or are believed to have been doing so you must provide to a constable on request your name and address. Despite the fact that the anti social behavior may not have been an actual offence (your actions may not have been illegal). If you don't give your details you can be arrested if the officer has necessity (one of the necessity criteria is name/address not known so that covers it).

It's dangerous when people spout on the net what they believe to be true.

Now going on to if you are committing a lesser offence. If you give your details the officer can deal with you by way of a fixed penalty or a community resolution or a report for summons etc. These all avoid arrest. If you are an **** and refuse details suddenly a offence that originally had no necessity for your arrest suddenly turns to one where the necessity in law now exists and you are arrested and held until your identity is confirmed. Well done... Then you are done the same regardless.

Hell in a lesser offence an officer may just give words of advice but they will want to check you on the Police national computer before this. The reason is they don't want to tell off an unknown person and let them go only to find that they were wanted or had warnings against their name for certain things. For this they need your name and date of birth. No you may not have to give it by law but if you don't they will move to the next legal option... you guessed it ARREST.

neil-h

Sounds suspiciously like advice from the same school of thought as the free man of the land defence.

stipete75

Your are correct in the police can stop anyone in a public place and ask you to account for yourself, you could be asked to account for your actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of anything. When the police stop you and ask you for an explanation, you don't need to provide your personal details!!!! You are wrong!!!
The police can stop and search you, but must have reasonable grounds to do so.
Police can only enter premises without a warrant if a serious or dangerous incident has taken place, ie, a person is laying unconscious,or to enforce a warrant.