BBC 1 Traffic Cops 8th Nov (8:00pm?)

[7db]

Did you choose to place the feet of the ladder a couple of yards out into the carriageway of an NSL road, about 50 yards from the bend which I was travelling round, as someone else once did?

[Gareth]

Did you choose to place the feet of the ladder a couple of yards out into the carriageway of an NSL road, about 50 yards from the bend which I was travelling round, as someone else once did?

Was that the road we may (or may not) be using next Sunday?

Note to moderators: can threads be joined part way through?

[7db]

I think as mentioned in the other thread, it was the B4494. If we're using that next Saturday, I'll bring a change of underwear.

[TripleS]

Did you choose to place the feet of the ladder a couple of yards out into the carriageway of an NSL road, about 50 yards from the bend which I was travelling round, as someone else once did?

No, I was working well inboard of the boundary of our country estate.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Stephen]

Im sure its been mentioned before in other topics as a police officer we have to observe the rules like yourselves on a day to day basis, and yes like yourselves,some police officers let the side down and break the same laws that we are tasked to enforce and I do not condone this kind of behaviour and as such if you decide to complain / report this behaviour then all well and good.

but in case you have not realised that whilst we are performing our role as a police officer we are exempt from certain laws, as it is recognised that we can not carry out our job whilst adhering to these laws hence the exemption.

I know most of you would feel that we should not have these exemptions and should adhere to the laws just like you, but this is not going to happen and rightly so, and the quicker you just accept that and report all the incidents which you feel are not within the exemptions, then you will just have to accept this.
Stephen

[Gareth]

but in case you have not realised that whilst we are performing our role as a police officer we are exempt from certain laws, as it is recognised that we can not carry out our job whilst adhering to these laws hence the exemption.

I'm not sure which points you are replying to, however I would like to stress my beef, (if it can be called that), is with the law regarding use of mobile phone by drivers and it is on three counts.

First that it targets specific equipment to the exclusion of other equipment that can be used in the same manner as or similar to mobile phones.

Second there is a huge difference between using radio communicating equipment when already stuck in a traffic jam versus doing so in free flowing traffic conditions - I think the officer on the program showed commendable restraint however I feel that he showed poor appreciation of relative risk when having a go at the woman driver who was using a mobile phone.

Third in specific reference to the type of equipment that can be legally used by drivers, that same equipment can be and is legally used by non-emergency workers such as field service engineers, which to my mind points to badly drafted law, or at least law that has been introduced for the wrong reasons.

[James]

Stephen, I assume you are talking about Zenner's earlier posts with your reply. The other contributors on this thread are aware of these exemptions and AFAIK have no issue with them.

[TripleS]

Stephen, I assume you are talking about Zenner's earlier posts with your reply. The other contributors on this thread are aware of these exemptions and AFAIK have no issue with them.

I imagine most of us here are perfectly happy for police officers to have exemptions available to them; it's just that some of us don't care for being excluded from those exemptions - if you know what I mean!

Yes Von, I know what you think about that.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Stephen]

James,
The post was meant to anyone who seems to have a gripe about exemptions in law that are priviledged to the police. We dont make the laws we just enforce them and I agree discretion is still one of the tools that we have left to deal with errant or deliberate law breakers, although this is being slowly taken away from us with the performance indicator databases that some forces operate at the moment.
Stephen

[James]

Stephen,

I appreciate you comments, it seemed odd you had written them all of a sudden in the middle of this thread... it was if you were responding to someone's comments about the police, of which there had been none for a while (the most recent being earlier ones of Zenner's).

Perhaps you would like to start a new thread regarding police exemptions in the Legal Forum?

[Gromit37]

Police officers, and probably all recognised emergency services, should have exemptions from certain things. Obviously this carries an extra burden of responsibilty, which most deal with admirably. I take my hat off to the Police, Fire and Ambulance services...by and large they do an excellent job in less than ideal conditions

But with regard to mobile phone usage and the 'average' motorist... that's a different kettle of fish. Many drivers are not diligent enough when driving, even before they get on a mobile phone. I'm no angel on the roads I can tell you

So, we have to work to the lowest common denominator. If it's only 20 percent of drivers who can't safely balance driving and talking, then we have to make a rule that (attempts) to stop them. Most people have mobile phones, and especially younger people, use them an awful lot. Most people do not have other types of comms equipment in their cars. Hence why they target mobiles. Simple logic. I wish it were not so. Your average Jo Public will spend time loking at the keypad, scrolling through a list of contacts etc. remove that and you're one step closer to curing the problem.

It's exactly the same with speeding and drink driving. You cannot objectively test each individual to say whether they can get the right balance, so we set a blanket level. We know full well that some people will ignore limits. People have a nasty habit of pushing the limits. If you say 30mph is the limit, but well, 35 mph isn't going to make much difference, and well... 40mph is only slightly faster than 35mph. Etc, etc. Drink driving is the same. One is ok, but two doesn't make much difference to one... and three is only slightly more etc, etc etc.

People cannot be trusted to judge themselves and their abilities in an objective manner. That is the crux of the problem. I'm not exempt from this problem, nor is anybody else on this forum, at least in some respects. Not even Vonhosen But I bet he's almost perfect

God, I do go on don't I? I'll shut up now. Promise!

[Roadcraft]

Excellent post Gromit....

[7db]

People cannot be trusted to judge themselves and their abilities in an objective manner. That is the crux of the problem.

It goes further than that -- you wouldn't want a legal system based solely on that sort of judgement, as the view of the one making the judgement and issuing the penalty would occasionally be wrong, but in subjective ways.

When the officer says blow here, you want to know that he will be bound by the results to release on one result as much as you are to get arrested on the other.

[TripleS]

Excellent post Gromit....

Indeed it is - if you want to perpetuate the current policy of working to the lowest common denominator, which IMHO has the effect of lowering the average standard of behaviour still further. When that happens we will probably find that new problems start to emerge as people become less willing and able to think and act responsibly from their own initiative. This is a recipe for continuing decline rather than inteliigent progress, and I find it an utterly depressing prospect.

On another forum I offered this contribution to the driving/mobile phone debate:

"My view is that using a mobile phone whilst driving is OK if it is done by an experienced and competent driver in suitable circumstances. That is all I'm saying. Not for a moment am I condoning irresponsible behaviour in any form, whether it involves mobile phones or any other distraction from the task of safe driving, or grossly inappropriate speed - or whatever else.

I have no doubt that those who are strongly in favour of the current law take their stance for perfectly genuine reasons, but it is another step away from re-establishing the concept of personal responsibility amongst drivers. Trying to address our road safety concerns by imposing more detailed rules will work against us in that respect. I just think it is the wrong approach and I don't think it will work and give us what we want - OK, what I would like us to have - which is a reasonable combination of freedom of choice for the individual, and a high level of safety for all."

Relinquishing control and placing your trust in others is never easy, and the road safety activists will no doubt make a lot of noise and give the politicians a hard time if they seek to do this, but I believe it should be done. Handled in the right way with proper communications between officialdom and the driving population it could, I believe, give us a far better travelling environment than the one we have at present. It will take some brave politicians to bring it about, but it could be a win-win situation for all of us - apart from the control freaks - but I doubt if they really have a lot of support anyhow.

....and you, my friend Gromit, are not the only one that can waffle on a bit! I think the results we seek are not too dissimilar - but we do have different ideas about how to get there!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[crr003]

Excellent post Gromit....

["Peter Sallis"]Excellent cheese Gromit[/"Peter Sallis]