Insurance For Qualified/Advanced Drivers

[James]

My opinion would be, in order to just drive and "check" offenders, then No.

In order to request a specific vehicle to stop, then Yes, in order to make contact with, and stop the vehicle.

Why not? It is police purposes, and the exemption is pretty non specific.

I must say I don't agree with that. From what your saying, that means I can drive through Red Lights and Exceed the Speed Limit for the following reasons;

1) To get to and from work
2) To get a sandwich for refreshments
3) To drive myself to Magistrates Court

I appreciate that the wording is based around if the restriction would hinder the vehicle for the purpose in which it being deployed, and that in my opinion means that unless it is an emergency (when blue lights and tones are being used anyway), no other scenario would justify using these exemptions.

I just dont think it is right that a Traffic Car would travel at 90mph to check drivers, It just would not happen. The proffesional standard's and afore-mentioned human aspects of doing this would also conflict with me.

[TripleS]

Question.

Should a traffic patrol be able to drive along the motorway at 90 miles per hour with the sole intention of checking drivers for no seat belt or use of mobile phone?

I would say not, though I don't know the right answer.

In any case you would only need to drive at 65-70 mph and you could still observe the wrongdoers as they overtake you. On the other hand you might get no customers 'cos they would all follow behind like sheep, not daring to overtake.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Søren]

My opinion would be, in order to just drive and "check" offenders, then No.

In order to request a specific vehicle to stop, then Yes, in order to make contact with, and stop the vehicle.

Why not? It is police purposes, and the exemption is pretty non specific.

I must say I don't agree with that. From what your saying, that means I can drive through Red Lights and Exceed the Speed Limit for the following reasons;

1) To get to and from work
2) To get a sandwich for refreshments
3) To drive myself to Magistrates Court

1) To get to and from work - not police purposes.

2) To get a sandwich for refreshments - not police purposes.

3) To drive myself to Magistrates Court - yes, police purposes, if circumstances are that an unavoidable set of circumstances has caused you to be late, hence you exceeded the limit to be on time. (Times 2nd May 1964)

I just dont think it is right that a Traffic Car would travel at 90mph to check drivers, It just would not happen. The proffesional standard's and afore-mentioned human aspects of doing this would also conflict with me.

Your opinion may prevent you from doing it, but it doesn't prevent it from being 'police purposes'. You would therefore be exempt from the speeding offence.

[James]

I know what your trying to say, but I also know the score in terms of when and how we use our warning equipment in the UK. The court example is correct and could also be used when transporting urgent paperwork to a court if a hearing is about to start.

However, I would always argue there needs to be some degree of urgency in order to justify using these regulations. Without any specified policy defining "Police Purposes" it is hard to conclude this debate.

[JamesH]

As I understand it, similar regulations apply to emergency ambulances and how, when used for "ambulance purposes," there are similar exemptions they can use.

There is a shift away from using them though, and more calls are being responded to at normal road speeds, highway code driving. The risk to the crews and vehicles from rushing through city centre traffic is not justified by the urgency of the call. Whlst the red light is hindering their "ambulance purpose", it is not that much of a hinderance when weighed up with the severity of the call.

[vonhosen]

My opinion would be, in order to just drive and "check" offenders, then No.

In order to request a specific vehicle to stop, then Yes, in order to make contact with, and stop the vehicle.

Why not? It is police purposes, and the exemption is pretty non specific.

I must say I don't agree with that. From what your saying, that means I can drive through Red Lights and Exceed the Speed Limit for the following reasons;

1) To get to and from work
2) To get a sandwich for refreshments
3) To drive myself to Magistrates Court

1) To get to and from work - not police purposes.

2) To get a sandwich for refreshments - not police purposes.

3) To drive myself to Magistrates Court - yes, police purposes, if circumstances are that an unavoidable set of circumstances has caused you to be late, hence you exceeded the limit to be on time. (Times 2nd May 1964)

I just dont think it is right that a Traffic Car would travel at 90mph to check drivers, It just would not happen. The proffesional standard's and afore-mentioned human aspects of doing this would also conflict with me.

Your opinion may prevent you from doing it, but it doesn't prevent it from being 'police purposes'. You would therefore be exempt from the speeding offence.

I agree

[Søren]

I know what your trying to say, but I also know the score in terms of when and how we use our warning equipment in the UK. The court example is correct and could also be used when transporting urgent paperwork to a court if a hearing is about to start.

However, I would always argue there needs to be some degree of urgency in order to justify using these regulations. Without any specified policy defining "Police Purposes" it is hard to conclude this debate.

All I'd say is don't get too hamstrung with trying to justify these exemptions, you'll miss good offences.

[James]

My opinion would be, in order to just drive and "check" offenders, then No.

In order to request a specific vehicle to stop, then Yes, in order to make contact with, and stop the vehicle.

Why not? It is police purposes, and the exemption is pretty non specific.

I must say I don't agree with that. From what your saying, that means I can drive through Red Lights and Exceed the Speed Limit for the following reasons;

1) To get to and from work
2) To get a sandwich for refreshments
3) To drive myself to Magistrates Court

1) To get to and from work - not police purposes.

2) To get a sandwich for refreshments - not police purposes.

3) To drive myself to Magistrates Court - yes, police purposes, if circumstances are that an unavoidable set of circumstances has caused you to be late, hence you exceeded the limit to be on time. (Times 2nd May 1964)

I just dont think it is right that a Traffic Car would travel at 90mph to check drivers, It just would not happen. The proffesional standard's and afore-mentioned human aspects of doing this would also conflict with me.

Your opinion may prevent you from doing it, but it doesn't prevent it from being 'police purposes'. You would therefore be exempt from the speeding offence.

I agree

Agree with what? It is not clear!

[Søren]

My opinion would be, in order to just drive and "check" offenders, then No.

In order to request a specific vehicle to stop, then Yes, in order to make contact with, and stop the vehicle.

Why not? It is police purposes, and the exemption is pretty non specific.

I must say I don't agree with that. From what your saying, that means I can drive through Red Lights and Exceed the Speed Limit for the following reasons;

1) To get to and from work
2) To get a sandwich for refreshments
3) To drive myself to Magistrates Court

1) To get to and from work - not police purposes.

2) To get a sandwich for refreshments - not police purposes.

3) To drive myself to Magistrates Court - yes, police purposes, if circumstances are that an unavoidable set of circumstances has caused you to be late, hence you exceeded the limit to be on time. (Times 2nd May 1964)

I just dont think it is right that a Traffic Car would travel at 90mph to check drivers, It just would not happen. The proffesional standard's and afore-mentioned human aspects of doing this would also conflict with me.

Your opinion may prevent you from doing it, but it doesn't prevent it from being 'police purposes'. You would therefore be exempt from the speeding offence.

I agree

Agree with what? It is not clear!

Agree with the law, it is quite clear. You seem to be overcomplicating things, because you have created your own limits.

Thats fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion.

[James]

Whatever I say your going to disagree with me, but I speak from experience of many many friends of mine at work who, along the way, have received internal penalties by using blue lights and two tones when, even though in "law" they may be OK, have breached policy.

I don't know if you know about police collision management and the occurrence of Vicinity Only Police Collisions... Sometimes your actions are called into question, and you have to account for yourself. I can recall a time when a fellow officer shouted for a breathlysing machine. He was on his own, and had a car of 4 people stopped. For officer safety reasons the unit that responded decided to use their warning equipment in order to make progress and get to the officer quickly. On the way, two cars had a minor touch and so it became a Pol Collison.

The driver received points as a result. I would have though this was a police purpose...

[vonhosen]

Whatever I say your going to disagree with me, but I speak from experience of many many friends of mine at work who, along the way, have received internal penalties by using blue lights and two tones when, even though in "law" they may be OK, have breached policy.

I don't know if you know about police collision management and the occurrence of Vicinity Only Police Collisions... Sometimes your actions are called into question, and you have to account for yourself. I can recall a time when a fellow officer shouted for a breathlysing machine. He was on his own, and had a car of 4 people stopped. For officer safety reasons the unit that responded decided to use their warning equipment in order to make progress and get to the officer quickly. On the way, two cars had a minor touch and so it became a Pol Collison.

The driver received points as a result. I would have though this was a police purpose...

The legal use of exemptions & collisions are different matters though.
If you have culpability in a collision (even vicinity only) then you would be held to account for that. The use of an exemption doesn't absolve you from a duty of care.

[Nigel]

Although we are talking about police officers here, who don't enjoy the public sympathy of the other two emergency services, what he describes Von, is as bad a result as that west mids fire officer who was disciplined for a few miles an hour over his brigade policy ( not the law) on his way to a school fire with reported trapped children, or the ambulance driver who was later cleared, (but rather badly), whilst carrying organs.

Its not a good situation when our emergency boys and girls are treated in this way.

As a mere onlooking civvy, if I were treated like that, I'd go and earn a crust someway else.

[vonhosen]

Although we are talking about police officers here, who don't enjoy the public sympathy of the other two emergency services, what he describes Von, is as bad a result as that west mids fire officer who was disciplined for a few miles an hour over his brigade policy ( not the law) on his way to a school fire with reported trapped children, or the ambulance driver who was later cleared, (but rather badly), whilst carrying organs.

Its not a good situation when our emergency boys and girls are treated in this way.

As a mere onlooking civvy, if I were treated like that, I'd go and earn a crust someway else.

Police training is quite clear though Nigel.

No call is so urgent as to justify a collision.
If when the collision is investigated (which it will be) there is found to be no culpability on your part because you adhered to your training, then you would not be disciplined. If however there is culpability because your actions are not in line with your training, then you could be disciplined under the "safe driver policy".
That is even if there is no evidence of without due care etc.
The standards expected, because of your training, are higher than that of the public and where you fall short, you will get points on your Police driving permit. Even if there is no prosecution for road traffic offences, because no road traffic offence was committed.

If the use of the exemption had been unlawful, then the driver could have been criminally prosecuted for the offence of excess speed, red ATS, keep eft bollard etc. (Which ever exemption it was they unlawfully used). Where the use of the exemption is lawful, but their driving fell short of the standard expected (without committing traffic offences under statute) they will just be dealt with internally.

Driving a Police vehicle carries a huge responsibility.

[James]

This is an interesting debate, one which I am enjoying, even if Soren does think I don't know what Im talking about! (Regional Variations in policy must apply).

Von, regarding my example earlier, the points were received due to the fact the GPS was not happy that visual/audible warning equipment had been used on this occasion. There were no shortcomings apparent, it was explained that he should not have used his lights and tones. Whether they be right or wrong (as earlier discussed in this thread), you cannot argue with supervisors who carry your driving career in their hand.

I have seen and heard of many similar occasions. On the frontline, in both boroughs I have worked in, it has always been the case that officers are extremely cautious when considering using warning equipment when not on the way to an emergency. Ultimatley it is down to the individual to justify and account for their actions. Most however just do not want to put themselves in the firing line.

Von, you must know what I mean when I speak of GPS's and their interpretation of any given PolCol...

[TripleS]

This is an interesting debate, one which I am enjoying, even if Soren does think I don't know what Im talking about! (Regional Variations in policy must apply).

Von, regarding my example earlier, the points were received due to the fact the GPS was not happy that visual/audible warning equipment had been used on this occasion. There were no shortcomings apparent, it was explained that he should not have used his lights and tones. Whether they be right or wrong (as earlier discussed in this thread), you cannot argue with supervisors who carry your driving career in their hand.

Once again I don't know the right answer, but it is surprising to me that a police driver might be criticised for unnecessary use of blues and twos, which seems to me quite harmless. Surely what matters is the driving itself - i.e. was it in accordance with the driver's training and was it safe.

Best wishes all,
Dave.