Home PageFacebookRSS News Feed
PocketGPS
Web
Read the current newsletter! Weekly
Newsletter
SatNav,GPS,Navigation
Get Speed Camera Warnings For SatNavs Get Speed Camera Warnings For Android Get Speed Camera Warnings For iPhone
Speeding Police Evade Penalties


pocketgpsworld.comThe Evening Telegraph has reported today that a Tayside Police officer, who was caught speeding at 144mph by a speed camera on the A90 Dundee to Aberdeen road, escaped prosecution.

It also reports that last year there were 250 incidents on Tayside’s roads where police vehicles were caught speeding, none of which resulted in prosecution. It adds that not one driver of a Tayside Police vehicle has received a penalty for speeding within the their area since 2006.

However one high-profile Tayside officer, Chief Constable, Kevin Mathieson was recently caught speeding at 72mph in a 60mph zone and prosecuted. That was outside his own patch though, so wasn''t recorded in Tayside''s records.


Whilst we can assume the vast majority of police vehicles were recorded speeding whilst attending serious incidents and chasing criminals, can we believe that every occurrence was innocent and in the line of duty?
Comments
Posted by blackrat62 on Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:08 pm Reply with quote

Presumably he had an exemption - if purpose to which vehicle was being put would be defeated by not exceeding the speed limit he can claim an exemption - to say he escaped prosecution seems to suggest something improper?

If there were only 250 camera 'activations' in one year in that Force area compared to how many tens of thousands of emergency calls - the number of 250 seems VERY low.

I see today that they have announced that Scotland has one of the worst murder rates for a developed country - it's not all pretty glens there.


Or would you prefer the Police, Fire and Ambulance (who also 'evade' prosecution) to drive to emergencies at the speed limit?


 
Posted by RobBrady on Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:20 pm Reply with quote

I'm just genuinely intrigued by the Evening Telegraph's article. I would love to know for sure if officers' who were caught speeding whilst not in the line of duty were just let off with an informal caution.

I know that in many other forces they not only receive a penalty, but also a severe rollicking from their bosses for the embarrassment it causes.


Robert Brady
Editor, Pocket GPS World
The Premier GPS / SatNav Resource for News, Reviews and Forums

 
Posted by gareth71 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:12 am Reply with quote

The really telling thing would be the number, in that force and others, of serving police officers who've been recorded as exceeding the speed limit other than in the course of their duty (that's to say, not on blues & twos), and have subsequently avoided prosecution.


 
Posted by zark on Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:28 am Reply with quote

Down here in the met, we now get notified of every speed camera and red light activation we are responsible for - usually some months after the incident.

We then have to trawl the computer to find which emergency call or incident we were dealing with (or on the way to).

We then have to submit a written report explaining that the vehicle was being used for police purposes and that it was necessary to exceed the police limit.

The penalty notice is then 'evaded' as the telegraph puts it...

Meanwhile, there is probably someone, somewhere who is waiting for a police officer, while that police officer is sat in front of a computer typing endless reports. Is that how the telegraph (and the public) wish to see the police spending their time...?

We have been told that any incidences 'not' for police purposes will be pursued through the courts... Confused Obviously, any non-trained driver exceeding the speed limit could expect to be dealt with most 'robustly' (and rightly so IMHO)

Incidentally - i frequently exceed the speed limit without blues and twos on (where it is safe to do so) For example if a suspicious car goes past me the other way, i may want to turn around and then get behind it without the other car necessarily knowing i was there. So a fair proportion of my gatso photographs will not show the blue light on...


 
Posted by RobBrady on Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:36 am Reply with quote

Thanks for that interesting insight Zark Smile

zark Wrote:
Incidentally - i frequently exceed the speed limit without blues and twos on (where it is safe to do so) For example if a suspicious car goes past me the other way, i may want to turn around and then get behind it without the other car necessarily knowing i was there. So a fair proportion of my gatso photographs will not show the blue light on...

Just playing the devil's advocate here, might that acceptable reason, be "over-used" by some of your less scrupulous colleagues, i.e. might it just be a convenient excuse for speeding past the camera that got them bang to rights?


Robert Brady
Editor, Pocket GPS World
The Premier GPS / SatNav Resource for News, Reviews and Forums

 
Posted by gem on Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:50 pm Reply with quote

zark Wrote:
Down here in the met, we now get notified of every speed camera and red light activation we are responsible for - usually some months after the incident.

We then have to submit a written report explaining that the vehicle was being used for police purposes and that it was necessary to exceed the police limit.

Incidentally.........a fair proportion of my gatso photographs will not show the blue light on...



Why does it usually take "some months" to be requested to answer for your actions. This delay is either a cover up or inept. 14 days or so being the standard time frame to write to the public.

Also, I imagine a traffic police office (or another) might activate a camera say 1-5 times per day. Would this be fair? If so are we saying my income tax is paying for 1-5 reports to be written and researched every working day per driver on this activity?

And your final point explains why no police office in Tayside was prosecuted over a 2+ year period. Exclamation They were of course 'investigating' some car/activity at the time. No proof to say otherwise. Case closed m'lord.


 
Posted by MaFt on Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:52 am Reply with quote

gem Wrote:
zark Wrote:
Down here in the met, we now get notified of every speed camera and red light activation we are responsible for - usually some months after the incident.


Why does it usually take "some months" to be requested to answer for your actions. This delay is either a cover up or inept. 14 days or so being the standard time frame to write to the public.


my guess on this would be that they are served in the usual 14 days, sent to the police regional hq (ie the official owner of the car), sit in an office for a week, then passed to the relevant station, sit in an office for 2-3 weeks, someone sees it and decides to check records as to who was driving etc etc that's nearly 2 months there!!

MaFt


MaFt®

 
Posted by BigPerk on Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:31 am Reply with quote

Such an emotive subject always seems to lead to a lot of 'idle' speculation - even when officers offer some interesting insights on here, someone's got some other angle on it! I guess we have all heard tales which would make hair curl (I certainly have in my previous police-connected existence), but "evidence?" Case not proved m'lord.

Personally, I always hope the worst excesses get sorted in due course - in the meantime, when they are not speeding, the Bill are doing other little tasks like investigating terrorism, murders, knife/gun crime and attending horrific road traffic accidents. Any of us like to get involved in this so we can speed with impunity?

Of course things go on - anything to do with "that's life"?


David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)

 
Posted by blackrat62 on Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:26 pm Reply with quote

Was it Derbyshire Police that prosecuted an officer when 'testing' his car - 155 on motorway and 80 in a 30 limit I seem to recall. That was from reviewing the video in his car.


 
Posted by MaFt on Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:05 pm Reply with quote

blackrat62 Wrote:
Was it Derbyshire Police that prosecuted an officer when 'testing' his car - 155 on motorway and 80 in a 30 limit I seem to recall. That was from reviewing the video in his car.


i thought he got let off though?


MaFt®

 
Posted by Tomo on Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:02 am Reply with quote

Of course the Evening Telegraph article is very vague on the nature of these 'speed camera evasions' but does state that they were all in Police vehicles.

One would hope and assume that those serving officers that commit speeding offences in their own cars are dealt with like any other.

Whats to say that all the 250 vehicles mentioned were indeed been used for a purpose where they are excluded from the speed limits and Taysides officers are law obiding when they have no reason to break the limits.

AFAIK (or remember) there is no legal requirement for a Police vehicle (even a totally unmarked vehicle) to stick within the speed limits when been used for an appropriate police purpose. I beleive that even a patrol car going to a non-urgent call is still excluded but are told to stick to limits to set an example. Of course an unmarked police car going too much over the limit would be innapropriate and under the articles own reporting would get dealt with accordingly.

Many a time I have seen motorists panic when confronted with an emergency vehicle behind them with all their emergency lighting and noises activated. It is feasable for some officers NOT to activate the cars emergency lighting as they will make better progress without it even though they can justify its use.

The part mentioning a car doing 144 on the A90 would indicate that it was a traffic car which, no doubt would of been going to an RTA or gathering ground to catch a speeding or even stolen motor. If this article doesnt tell us what use the vehicles were been put to at the time then no one has any right to judge them.

Steve


Using Go540.

 
Click here to view more comments...
Reply to topic

CamerAlert Apps



iOS QR Code






Android QR Code







© Terms & Privacy

GPS Shopping