are'nt our policemen wonderful

just motoring down the road doing about 28mph (honest),there they where the boys in blue in a traffic car,hid behind some railings near the subway on riseholme rd lincoln just opposite the lincoln imp public house.
so they have found another place where they can hide and catch speeding motorists with there little speed camera,oh i'm sorry that should be safety camera.
so in the interests of safety (the coppers words) if you are coming into lincoln along riseholme road please be safety aware and keep below 30 mph or you mighn't not see these wonderful boys in blue,before they nick you.

ah he must have been nicked i hear you say,but no i haven't like i said i was doing 28 mph.

what annoys me so, is that in lincoln over the last few weeks there has been four cases of sexual assault on young women,one of them raped.and where where our wonderful constabulary then, probably all at home watching heartbeat or reruns of the miners strike(you know the good old days when coppers could beat up people and get away with it).

i'm sure it makes my wife and daughter feel safe when they go out knowing that our wonderful nick berry lookalikes are out there looking after them.

sorry for the moan but it helps to get it of my chest.
regards
andy 1
ps david blunkett rules, oh no he doesn't lord justice woolf does.

I used to go to Lincoln a lot and was always amazed at the amount of effort the plods put in to try to catch people speeding there. Go solve some real crimes Mr Plod!!!

[peachey]

someone tried to break into my brother's place some years ago

I went down there and called him out from work
when he arrived at the house in the car

there was me and 2 coppers standing outside the house

first thing they did was check his B*stard tax disk!!!!

[cjay]

My little sis lives in Lincoln so its nice to know shes safe , its all complete ****, police have no idea of whats going on, they need to sort their priorities!

[Rob]

Ok there is a need for a balance to be found, and at the moment, in the eyes of the general public, the police haven't found it, with the motorist being seen as easy meat.

Botom line is the cost and sufferring casued by RTCs (Road traffic collisions - they are rarely accidents in the true sense as many would have been preventable with a little more thought) means that a level of enforcement is vital. It's quite simple, if we dont have anyone issuing parking tickets, you wouldnt be able to drive down your average high street because of all the obstruction. There is a outcry every time there is a rail crash which might only maim and kill a few, yet that carnage occurs on our roads every day, and we seem to take it for granted.

Most police forces are organised in such a way that the traffic cops are specialists. They are the high speed trained drivers who will go after the joyriders and other idiots. They are also the ones who pick up the pieces of the RTCs. A comparatively small proportion of their time will be spent on "proactive" measures of traffic safety such as speed enforcement. In many police forces, the size of traffic departments has been slimmed down with these offices working directly alongside the divisional officers in direct support of the burglary and similar teams.

The problem overall is one of manpower. There's not enough to do everything that we ideally would like to be done. A great cause of that is the court procedures that require so much documentation for even the most simple of cases. Additional tiers of legistlation such as human rights and disclosure have tied the hands of officers, chaining them to a desk (or computer) rather than being out there making a difference.

After all even the simplest arrest of a drunken yob who has smashed the local shop window will necessitate the officer booking the yob into custody, providing his own statement, checking CCTV cameras, getting statements from the shop owner, getting any other witness statements, perhaps getting forensics to sample the glass and match that to samples on the yob's clothing, the taped interview of the yob, which then has to be transcribed. And then it all has to be neatly packaged in a file for the Crown Prosectution Service to decide there's not enough evidence to secure a conviction (because criminal law needs absolute proof), so the case gets dropped.

Are we not blaming the wrong parts of the system, its not that police aren't trying to enforce the law, it's that their hands are tied in doing it?

[peachey]

the reason they are so fond of cameras for picking on motorists and generating stealth taxes is
the figures look good when some politician or whoever gets
a snappy looking spreadsheet in front of them

so they think they have quantifiable 'proof' of crime "being cut"
etc

thus they get bigger bonuses and budgets

only yesterday a colleage of mine had their car crashed into and written off while they were in it (and stationary!) by an underaged/uninsured motorcyclist (who subsequently ran off from the scene)
and were required to present their documents to the cops - licence/insurance etc

i'm sorry nobody said they where wrong for enforcing the law,its just the way they go about it that annoys me.
the way they hide to catch motorists,you don't see them hiding to catch muggers,burglars and rapists and other assorted ner do wells.

in the old days it was highwaymen like dick turpin that you had to look out for when going about your buisness,nowadays its your local police force you have to watch out for.
and has for the bit about its the police that have to scrape the bits up off the road i've heard it all before.they knew what the job entailed before they took it.

so why don't they show themselves more, surely that would slow motorists up.
after all the object of the exercise is to stop speed related accidents.
all they are doing by hiding is increasing revenue and turning motorists against them.
and as for that old chestnut about manpower,our beloved leader tony blair keeps informing us there are more coppers than ever on our streets,and if manpower is tight why not turn traffic coppers into beat bobbies,then everybody will be happy.

i would like to have a poll and see how many previously law abiding motorists who got nicked for speeding would help a copper if he was being attacked in the street.
i know i wouldn't,i'd just walk of laughing .
theyv'e only got themselves to blame.

personally i think captain gatso should stand for prime minister at the next election
he'd get my vote.
and has for the comments about the traffic cops going after the joyriders and other idiots,they won't find them by hiding behind railings and hedges and down side streets.
cheers
andy 1

[Rob]

Crime does not equal speeding and any figures on crime reduction presented by police forces to the Home Office will not be able to demonstrate crime cuttins performance relative to traffic enforcement.

Theft of motor vehicles and similar is crime and would be reported as such.

The government has required casualty reduction from RTCs. This has imposed on local authorities with agencies such as the police to try and reduce RTC occurences and severity. Hence we see all the new speed humps bollards and other such obstructions in our roads to physically try and slow us up. Police enforcement is part of the reduction strategy. In theory money from enforcement fines (cameras) should be poughed back into the casualty reduction measures (creative accounting may prevent all of that). The more effective a force at collecting fines (taxes) the more it has that has to be spent on traffic matters, although that if used correctly would reduce the budget from other sources paying towards traffic.

As for your comment about a licence and insurance being shown at an accident. The officers were just doing their job. Even if the car was stationary, and engine swithced off, the persons in the car are, by law, in charge of that vehicle and thus need to be licenced and insured. If the matter did get as far as court, one of the first things a defence lawyer would be trying to do would be to deflect blame. If the other party proved to be unlicenced and uninsured there would be a bit of an issue. If there is a possibility any one was injured in the prang, then the law requires that insurance be shown.

[Maggy J]

I agree with andy about the hiding to get revenue and being in plain sight to prevent crime.Is the point to actually prevent accidents?Is doesn't seem like it to me

Everyone slows down when they see a policeman/woman or vehicle so that is still the best deterrent of all.

I wouldn't mind if the revenue raised went into employing MORE police but doubt that will actually be the result achieved.It won't even go to improving road safety.It will go to compensation for victims.However if we have a more visible policeforce maybe we won't have so many victims.

Incog.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by andy 1

the way they hide to catch motorists,you don't see them hiding to catch muggers,burglars and rapists and other assorted ner do wells.

Firstly, you were not speeding and were not fined, so whats the beef? These people have a job to do, as do you or I, but there's is a VERY important one.

Living in Linconshire you'll be aware that you have one of the highest rate of RTA's and related deaths in the country, so I guess you should be glad the police are out there slowing drivers down. After all you want your wife and daughter to be safe when they cross the road don't you?? They are more likely to be killed by a speeding driver then by a rapist or murder!

Secondly, I think you'll find that the police DO hide and catch other criminals, a recently (well publicized in the area) initiative with the Leicestershire Constabulary involved police officers rigging a car with cameras and leaving it in a crime hot spot with a mobile phone and some money on display. This initiative caught several people on the first day it was introduced and the whole thing was recorded by "East Midlands Today".

I honestly cant believe people that carp on about the police and speeding motorists because its such an easy law to abide by, there is no reason for speeding at all. Why some people think its still socially acceptable I honestly don't know

[Rob]

Realistically, how well hidden can a police officer be with a radar gun if he /she is going to be able to see you coming, zap you and then stop you? If you can't see him, he cannot see you. Simple.

You saw this officer, and others will have too. Therefore he was having a deterrent value.

Gatzo cameras are one thing. Now they are painted yellow (the operational ones) many will see them a way off and slow down, speeding up again afterwards. However the risk that officers with radar guns can pop up in unexpected locations remains a deterent to those who would otherwise put their foot to the floor, and to deter these ppl a slightly more covert approach is appropriate.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by dellwear

I honestly cant believe people that carp on about the police and speeding motorists because its such an easy law to abide by, there is no reason for speeding at all. Why some people think its still socially acceptable I honestly don't know

Exactly:

The vast majority of us accept drink driving is unacceptable behaviour. Yet it is still enforced with vigour to catch the few who fall off the wagon, and few will disagree with that enforcement.

A few years ago in Surrey, I was told a statistic:

For all serious injury and fatality RTCs, drink driving was a contributory factor in 25%.

During the same period, for all serious injury and fatality RTCs, excess speed was a contributory factor in 36%.

Which do you now consider the more antisocial behaviour, that should be enforced?

yes dellwear
i do live in lincolnshire and i do know that lincolnshire has the highest number of rta's and deaths in the country.
it just goes to show that hiding behind railings and hedges in lincoln to catch speeding motorists is not working.
also movedgoalposts, yes i did see these two coppers but not until the last minute.
it was just that i know this road well and i know that the local plod use it regulally to fill up there money boxes from motorists.
and while where at it who polices the police,i have often been driving along doing 28-29 mph when a copper in front of me has left me standing,who checks there speed hey.
i have relations in the police force,i know how it works.
oops i'm sorry mate i'm in the job you know,here have a look at my warrant card,on yer way have a nice day.
andy 1

[Rob]

Originally Posted by andy 1

and while where at it who polices the police,i have often been driving along doing 28-29 mph when a copper in front of me has left me standing,who checks there speed hey.

I know that certainly in Surrey, there is an awful lot of explaining to do if a police vehicle sets off a gatso. Yes police (that is those who are authorised to that driving level) can exceed the speed limits, but only if their duty requires it, and that would be assessed by a senior officer.

I'm sorry that you have an unduly jaundiced view of the police. At the end of the day policing in this country is done by consent, a fundamental principle that I beleive most officers and the public would wish to uphold. If the police do not have the trust and co-operation of the general public, then the war against any level of crime major, minor or even just misdemeanours, becomes virtually impossible.

[peachey]

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

The officers were just doing their job. .

that old chestnut