PIstonheads is reporting that a number of officers were caught speeding while on duty. The officers in question refused to say who was driving at the time, and therefore their cases were dropped.

PistonHeads Headlines

I can understand that police officers do indeed need to break the speed limits in times of emergencies. However, those times are logged and those drivers have nothing to fear from saying who was driving at the time. No case would be brought against them under these circumstances.

Instead, these officers clearly needed to hide, and use an excuse that normal motorists pay a severe penalty for when they attempt to use it.

Personally I quite like the excuse they used in one case. I wonder if it I can also use it to escape prosecution should I be taxed on camera

 

This is true... was on our local news. It was in South Yorkshire

BBC NEWS | UK | Speeding police 'not prosecuted'

There is a video on the link showing the speeds they were doing

 

God that video really shows them up...

Pictures of transit vans, and other non marked cars hammering along way over the limit. You even get a full face shot of the officer driving the red car (saxo?) in the clip at the end.

Had that video been full size it would have been an easy matter to work out who they were.

 

It just shows why everone thinks coppers are useless! If i tries the excuses the cops used, i would be laughed at!!!

You telling me the police dont know who is driving their vehicles and when??

It is defo one rule for us and one for them!!!!

What about the ***(traffic cop, the worst of all) who was doing 140mph in his vectra(!) on a motorway, and said he was getting used to the car, and got off scott free!!!

Yesterday i was on the m56 doing about 70mph and a marked tranny van come flying past me at about 90 i reckon, no sirens on and the motorway was
sodding wet in places!!!!!

If that was me in a scoob, they would have delighted in doing me!!!!

 

aye, its one rule for us, another for them. Just watch the BBC video to get a true picture of what these people were doing at the time they were caught speeding. I also bet the people around them were prosecuted successfully.

 

Just because the warning beacons and sirens are not on, does not mean that the vehicle is not en route to a job etc...

Also dont forget that there are exemptions from speed limits for vehicles being used for police purposes.

 

It might have been en route to a job, but barreling down a v busy motorway needs lights on dont u think?

And these exemptions are what are used to get the naughty coppers off!!!!

 

But he was a trained fast response driver who's job involves driving at those speeds, he did it on an empty quiet road where he judged it to be safe.
If he had to drive at those speeds to follow a criminal in a car that he had no knowledge of how it handled at that kind of speed don't you think that would have been even worse ? Seeing how your tools work before you realy need to use them must be the safe option.

As for Police getting off by not saying who was driving, that just says to me that they are exactly the same as 99.9% of the the population who wouldn't incriminate them selves either ...they are only the same as you and I.

 

Great, we have a chav police force! They are supposed to set an example

 

Absolutely

Now watch the video on the BBC site and post your comments...

If these were legitimate cases why hide behind a technicality and not admit to driving? Why try to fight the freedom of information request to have the pictures released? It stinks of a cover up starting at the highest level.

Its also nice to note that it took so long for the judicial process to work to force the police to release these images so much time has passed that no prosecution can be brought even if they are identified.

I am all for the police force doing their job, and God knows its a hard one. Things like this just make it harder. This is a cover up from top to bottom. At no stage have the appeared to act in a reasonable manner.

Their defense of not releasing the images due to any officer being identified being potentially at risk is the largest statement of hippocracy I have heard this week (remember who we have in power). If they are so easy to identify that their images have to be kept from the public, how the bloody hell did the police not manage to identify one of their own colleagues for prosecution

 

The difference being that if you tried that you would be dragged before a court and slapped around the face with a big fine and 6 points They just get let off. What is it again, S172 offence for failing to identify a driver, and penalty for this being normally larger than the speeding offence itself.

 

[QUOTE=Attu;7464866]But he was a trained fast response driver who's job involves driving at those speeds, he did it on an empty quiet road where he judged it to be safe.
If he had to drive at those speeds to follow a criminal in a car that he had no knowledge of how it handled at that kind of speed don't you think that would have been even worse ? Seeing how your tools work before you realy need to use them must be the safe option.


Get him on a police track day then!!!!

He was driving like an idiot and used his job to justify it!!!!!

I used to have a race licencse(regularly did 120 plus), does that mean i am qualified, and when i first bought my scoob i was doing those speeds on a quiet road i judged to be safe, its ok cos i was getting used to it?

NO it doesnt!

 

The very last thing you should do is drive at extreme speed when trying to get used to a car. I still cannot believe that this "defense" did not hang him there and then. Not being sure of a car's handling, and then driving at 160mph to test if its OK it just an act of total lunacy.

 

This sort of behaviour stinks, and just serves to illustrate why I believe that we should all "trust the police as far as we can chuck a carload of 'em".

Note: nowhere do I state that acab, or that I hate the police.

Alcazar

 

How big a slingshot would you like? Personally I fancy a HUUGGGGEEEE one.


Oh look, there they go. Flying so gracefully through the air. In that case I must trust them....*splat*...oh well. Maybe I will have better luck with the next lot I fire across the sky

 

Not quite what I meant,.................but I like your thinking

Alcazar

 

 

Attu , are you a copper????????????????????

 

But S172 forces you into naming yourself or someone else. If you dont then, "failing to identify" summons arrives. The police just sweep their own failing to identify cases under the carpet.

It has been known by many that the police have been dodging speeding tickets for years, now there is video evidence and FOI requests to back up the publics claim that the police are a bunch of lying tossers

Andy

 

Yes, it's called the Road Traffic Act. Please try reading it.


M

 

What i want to know is how many have been caught by mobile cameras where there is a copper down the road who flags you over!

You can just imagine the conversation........"im a copper too", "oh didnt realise you were one of us, off you go then!"

 

And i was behind a panda car once so i was doing spot on 30, he was miles ahead by the end of the road, and where was he parked.....................

Outside wok to go, the git was speeding to pick up a chinky!!!!!!

 

Yeah, seen that sort of thing happen many times. I even got overtaken in a 30 zone by a copper who wanted to get his takeout.

As I said above, one rule for us, another for them.

 

Are you in need of me reading it out to you? It would appear there are many members of the police force who require this service. In particular the parts where is states the speed limits must be obeyed unless in an emergency.

It would also be nice if they could comply with identification requests. However, if they are still having issues reading the rules they are meant to abide by, one might understand how this also escapes them.

 

Meridian are you a copper too?????????

All this reminds me of the time when a copper told me too "stop ******* swearing!!!"

Dont police have psycological tests, and if they already do they are ****!!!

 

the road traffic act applies to all citizens unless they're on duty ,but still the police discard their own offences which should be prosecuted

 

Actually what it says is that a police officer (and an ambulance or fire engine driver) does not need to obey the speed limit if obeying the limit would hinder his or her ability to carry out their work. All their work. At no point does it mention "emergency". Police forces may set rules that govern whether certain types of work allow speeding or not, but the RTA does not. Thus if a force decides that all police work allows speeding, then all their officers may speed for any police work. If the force simply forgets to set a policy (stand up West Mercia, until recently) then again it means any officer may speed at any time they are on police business. Including testing police cars, which is why the officer concerned in that case had the speeding charge dismissed. A point that a number of ScoobyNetters still seem to fail to understand.


M

 

No.


M

 

Nice double standards displayed again by the police, yes they have a hard job to do but they only make it harder for themselves by doing stupid things like this !

Richard

 

It must be "perks" of the job-most irresponsible.

Les