Why don't the Police Forces.......

now who asked you to start a logical thinking thread?

Well andy c, I'm asking you to start a civil liberties thread.

That'd be a fine thing.

Limiting to, say 70mph, would limit possibility to accelerate out of a situation that would warrent it. eg overtaking a car on a motorway that also insists on doing 70mph, with another car sitting on the bumper. If you wanted to speed limita car, then set 80mph.

However, I suspect that many many 'incidents' happen at speeds way below 70mph. Logical alternatives (GPS coupled speed logging etc.) would, to my mind, impinge on personal liberties too much.

/dl

quote:

Well andy c, I'm asking you to start a civil liberties thread.

That'd be a fine thing.

Why is that specifically directed at me? Because of my Job, or have I missed something else?

If its because of my job how do you know I am not doing a role which doesn't protect civil liberties?

David, the speed limit is set at 70mph. I do believe the recommendataion is that you should slow down withdue caution if a tail-gater is present and allow the safe passage of this individual. This incidence would be impossible if you were driving at 70mph as the other car would be unable to accelerate towards you.

Andy C, nobody asked me to think logically - I believe we are in a democracy and I have a right to pose legal questions.

I read your recent posts and wondered why trained police officers feel upset at their own errors in administering the law they are meant to uphold. If an officer cannot fill out a form correctly or apply the law in correct fashion, given the countless hours of training and courses attended, how can they expect the average citizen to immediately comply when driving and trying to compute many operations at one time ?

coz speeds got nothing to do with it, you'd be limiting an idiot to 70 - yep still an idiot

quote:

Originally posted by Martin D:
coz speeds got nothing to do with it, you'd be limiting an idiot to 70 - yep still an idiot

yep, no probs with the idiot driving past the local school at 70mph but at least all those maniacs currently doing 80mph on a nice safe motorway would have to slow down.

But the traffic cop enjoying a sojurn down the motorway could then be doubly employed patrolling school areas for wayward driving and acting as a deterrent against kiddie-fiddlers.

quote:

I read your recent posts and wondered why trained police officers feel upset at their own errors in administering the law they are meant to uphold. If an officer cannot fill out a form correctly or apply the law in correct fashion, given the countless hours of training and courses attended, how can they expect the average citizen to immediately comply when driving and trying to compute many operations at one time ?

I am a realist. I am not a robot either. hence the use of discretion.

Oh, and you have forgot the law is the law, then there are force policies, and then add onto that the use of discretion. I treat others as I would expect to be treated myself. I'm not kidding here. I don't swear at members of the public. I am honest with them if they are victims, and treat them according to the correct legal framework if they are suspects.

Your question re driving is a legal one. We are all expected to drive legally to a minimum standard. Its the law. But then you factor in the use of discretion re prosecution etc. If what you are telling me is there are folk who don't drive to a minimum standard, because they can't concentrate etc, then I agree with you.

Oh, and your 1st question is not logical or legal, unless you have a way of controlling all the other cars. This is because you do not factor the most improtant thing into your suggestion - human error.

I think it would be fun for every ones car to be ristricted to 70 miles per hour, that is to say the time it takes your car accelerate to i70 then it remains there.

We could have a 'Speed' type film with useless actors and crap story line every day of the week.

It would soon reduce the number of cars on the road as well.

Win win.

It would also increase stress... on those that would have to go at a pace dictated by someone/thing else!

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
Oh, and your 1st question is not logical or legal, unless you have a way of controlling all the other cars. This is because you do not factor the most improtant thing into your suggestion - human error.

Why does there seem to be a need to limit ultra-high performance cars to 155mph ?

Is it so that the speed cameras can't be fooled ?

... oh, and my first thread was totally logical as I only turned the speed camera thread on it's head and posed a question that was the antithesis and could also benefit the community at large by allowing trained police-officers the opportunity to do what they are good at.....

PREVENTING crime.

quote:

Why does there seem to be a need to limit ultra-high performance cars to 155mph ?

Is it so that the speed cameras can't be fooled ?

Dunno, bit pointless bearing in mind the limit is 70mph. But then again try telling the relatives of someone who has killed themselves driving well beyond their capability, and above that speed. It's not nice, not nice at all.

quote:

Originally posted by long-time-dead:
Why does there seem to be a need to limit ultra-high performance cars to 155mph ?

it's only the German manufacturers that have agreed to this, Porsche excepted, can't remember the exact reason why though. Of course it's easy enough to bypass if you need to go faster.

My mate's 400bhp Jag XJR is limited to 155mph. Seems logical to me. The engine may be able to power the car up to 180+ mph but would the rest of the car and it's running gear etc. be up to those speeds?

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:

quote:

Well andy c, I'm asking you to start a civil liberties thread.

That'd be a fine thing.

Why is that specifically directed at me? Because of my Job, or have I missed something else?

If its because of my job how do you know I am not doing a role which doesn't protect civil liberties?

Because to my knowledge you're the only cop on the forum that is willing to volunteer the fact and I'd love to hear a cop anywhere in the world conceptualise about the proper limits of their power.

Probably an improper use of the word "conceptualise" there but I can't be bothered looking it up.

Hi All,

I agree with those that say that you'd be limiting an idiot to being an idiot at no more than 70mph. 70mph can be far too fast to travel safely on a busy, foggy motorway where visibility is low, delays have been long, tempers are frayed, people are late and grip is low, average traffic speed is less than 50, though 70 is still legal. 70 mph can be safely exceeded (in my opinion) when the traffic level is light, visibility is good and clear, roads are dry, and grip is good, though it would be illegal to exceed it.

You may agree that only an idiot would try to achieve and hold 70mph in the first situation and you may (just possibly) agree that a driver who is well rested, paying attention, whose vehicle is in good working order, who can see that he/she can stop in the distance clear in front is not an idiot should he/she exceed 70mph.

[I'd like to mention that to the driver of the Police car that came hurtling the hill at the end of my street a week or so ago, no lights or sirens, just comfortably exceeding what appeared to me to be 65mph (in a 30 zone) and there was NO WAY he could stop in the distance he could see to be clear. Police acting above the law really gets me agitated, but perhaps is a topic for another thread sometime.]

So how much use exactly is the sacred 70mph figure as a factor to be obeyed 'to keep safe' in isolation of all others? By that I mean how much use in the real world of people having accidents and dying or getting hurt, not the conceptual world of taking damage to one's driving license by being caught exceeding the speed limit.

If a maximum of 70mph was enforced by means of a speed limiter, would accidents still occur? - Yes, because its inappropriate driving, not solely speed that causes accidents.
Who'd have to turn up and direct traffic, sweep up broken glass, inform next of kin? Yes, our friends the Police.

My take on all of this is that the debate between quantitative measurement (speed camera) and qualitative judgement (real traffic Policeman) will continue to rage on whilst in the meantime, I've got places to go. I stick below speed limits to stay within the law, but as a priority I drive considerately and within the limits of myself and my cars and make sure I can stop within the distance I can see to be clear. These are (some of) my self-imposed limits that adapt to the conditions of the time, and have served me well so far.

Cheers!

Rich

A brief aside:

German cars were limited to 155mph firstly because of the desire at the time to safeguard the tyres from exploding. Those of us lucky enough to be forced to buy Z rated tyres will know how expensive such tyres are, but might not know that the Z part just means that the tyres are rated to run 'over 149mph for an extended period of time'. To me this is quantitative but utterly imprecise - how much over 149mph - is your time over-extended when a tyre explodes and you crash and die???

quote:

conceptualise

please clarify what your getting at - its probably far too early in the morning for me to work this word out LOL

regards

andy c!

Think.

Process abstract ideas without resorting to hypothetical or real examples.

Early evening here.

deane,
ah!
er..
ok.

I think I have done that in previous threads. Most folk here know where I stand on policing type stuff.

If not, then by all means ask away...

quote:

Originally posted by long-time-dead:
...... mount a campaign to have cars speed limited to 70mph ?

Would save a lot of time policing the motorways for speeding motorists !

? Innit ?

There are a lot of criminals using the motorways to get around! You want the motorway network to be a safe haven for them to travel to and from their crimes then?

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:

If not, then by all means ask away...

andy c

I'd love to ask you some questions:

Do you think any sort of crime including terrorism will be stopped or slowed by an increase in police powers?

Do you believe in "technicalities"?

Miscarriages of justice inevitably occur. What do you think is an acceptable level of occurance in the British criminal justice system?

Deane

1. The terrorism question - not necessarily. I think better public relations with ethnic groups, leading to better intel gathering, will be just as, if not more, beneficial.

I also think politics has a lot to do with things, here.

2. Technicalities are a fact of life in law, as well as in the British processing system. this is especially more so due to the accountability facing differing dept's connected with bringing prosecutions to court. technicalities can serve the defence, but they can also serve the prosecution, too. personally, i think miscarriages should not happen, but as I've intimated before, you are not dealing with robots.

Next?