Safe Speed Forums

Was watching Road Wars on Sky Mix last night (not sure if its a new series or not), the usual mix of crap drivers and crims trying to escape from the law. BTW, why do the commentators bother to mention the fact that the driving of Mr Low Life shows no consideration for other road users......they've just commited armed robbery and are legging it from the law FFS They're hardly likely to be bothered about a couple of driving offences are they?
Anyway I digress.
In one section two cops spot a car being driven particularly aggressively...tailgating, speeding and undertaking...the driver trying to make his way through moderate traffic pushing others out of his way, you get the picture I'm sure. The cops pull him and make the driver aware in no uncertain terms what they think of his driving. Appalling, inconsiderate, amongst the worst they'd seen etc etc.
I'm pretty sure that the driver is then informed that he'll be taken to court facing charges of speeding and driving in a manner that endangered other road users (paraphrased). The cop is actually testing the drivers temperament, to see if he gets humility or arrogance and defiance in response. As the driver looks as if the bottom has just fallen out of his world the cop backs off and says that instead he's going to issue a caution.
OK, so the contempt filled lecture appeared to have the dersired effect, but is this ethical? To inform someone that they are going to be prosecuted and then back off when he/she demonstrates the required attitude.

FWIW, the guys driving was quite appalling and IMHO the cops should have reamed him a new arsehole and shoved a ticket up the hole

I didn't see the programme, but are you sure the BiB said that the offender will be taken to court and not that he might be taken to court etc? If the latter, then IMO the officer is merely explaining to the driver the possible consequences of his actions to ensure that the driver understands the seriousness of the situation.

More pragmatically, I doubt the driver will argue that the officer didn't "keep his promise" if the officer did threaten prosecution but only issued a caution

_________________
Will

Coppers often admit to that. It means that good actors get off with it. Once you have stopped them, you have to go through with it whatever excuses they trot out. Coppers should be putting these creeps on the bus, not letting them go with a ticking off.

_________________
I stole this .sig

When the piece started I was watching from a distance, but I'm fairly sure the officer was explaining that he would be taking the matter to court. Having watched the prat's driving I was thinking to myself, 'good on yer coppa, let the idiot know what you think of him and send him away with a ticket to contemplate next time he fancies treating other road users with such deplorable contempt'. I know I tend to be a little more 'right-wing' on this issue than others here, but IMHO there is a limit to how bad driving has to get before 'warnable' becomes 'ticketable' and this chap strode across it with consumate ease.
The problem is, unless these warnings are recorded and checked whenever someone is stopped, the officers have no way of knowing whether this is the first or the twenty first time an individual has been cautioned about their bad driving. As long as people know this and can keep their arrogance and bad attitudes in check (and some can't I know), then the actors as BW calls them, will continue to get away with it. And that worries me greatly.

I am all for scaring the crap out of a driver if it will get the message home and the officer did just that and very well. It was also clear that the driver was shaken by what was said and wasn’t an arrogant sob spouting off lame excuses and obscenities but respectful and scared.

But and it is a big but why was the driver from a few clips before that was from what we saw driving safely but at speed (correct me please if I am wrong about his driving) given a 2 year ban and made to retest becouse the judge was horrified at 109mph appearing on the screen. When the tailgater who was by far the more dangerous with his bullying tailgating at 75mph at one point he was only 3 or 4 meters behind vehicles gating at 70mph of more ffs.

Also on the topic of the same program any one fed up with the bollocks fact and figures they keep giving out.

I seem to remember a similar situation (probably not as extreme) with one of the resident Police Persons on here. The Traffic Officer pulled over someone and decided what course to take (i.e. verbal warning/ticket) during the subsequent conversation with the Offender, in the end they got away with a verbal warning.

But there was some discussion as to whether the Offender had blagged his way out of a ticket by telling the Officer what he wanted to hear, or whether the Officer had made a judgement call based on years of experience and being able to tell whether the Offender was being honest or not.

Not sure what the outcome of that discussion was though, sorry.

Seems like a similar situation, and sometimes you've just got to trust the Police Officers instincts.

Edited to add - I don't know whether it's ethical or not, I've always thought of ethics as being a very personal thing. Does the end justify the means? Probably in this case. IMHO!.

being polite and courteous did me no good at the road side. I've often wondered how I will react next time.

I supposed that I am (or at least, I try to be) more pragmatic about such things. The object of the exercise should be to improve road safety and where you have a victimless offence (i.e. no-one's been hurt), the police should have the power to determine whether the offender is likely to re-offend.

I thought that warnings (or, at least, official cautions) were recorded and appeared on your record should you undergo CRB checks. I also understood that for a caution to be available, the offender must have admitted the offence and agreed to accept the caution, which thus should never be unwarranted. Perhaps one of our resident BiBs can give a definitive answer.

_________________
Will

Absolutely, that is why I don't bother watching them any more - the same is true about any program that might, just possibly, bring global warming theory in. In fact it appears to be compulsory to stretch facts past the point of breaking for dramatic effect.

Wistleblower on BBC1 about Parking Attendants wasn't so bad, but the responses about it just being a few rougue elements and not typical, do not ring true - it has been that way for years, and the over aggressive PAs near Virgin Radio were a constant running joke.

Usually decide within first two seconds of meeting "scrote" what am going to do with him/her. It's based on observation of the driving and we can suss attitude by overall body language fairly quickly.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

If our guys decide the standard of driving leaves no alternative but to prosecute - then guy gets prosecuted - and a lecture Depends - I never go in shouting and guys here are trained not to do this. More professional to be calm and polite at all times. Helps us do the job really. (Menopausal and pre-menstrual wimmin apart! think I told you about the one I upset once ! ) Person then volunteers why they think we pulled them - and we continue from there.

A bit naughty of us - but we tend to allow person we pulled to vent his spleen and then decide! We allow for a bit of heated frustration and a little fear though - we can tell if it is the "shock of the experience" or a "pi%55 taker" .

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Might it depend on the age/experience of the driver?

I'm thinking 40 year old rep. has probably driven like that for years, and will continue to do so, where as a 19 year old youth might well learn from the threat of losing his licence/trip to court.

Might also depend on the age and experience of the BiB too!
You're not long in the tooth are you IG?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

This set me thinking. Supposing a driver is pulled by the police for his poor standard of driving, does it make any difference to overall road safety if he/she drives away with just an earbending or a ticket?
Sure it makes a difference at an induividual level, the errant individual may well go away with a warm fuzzy feeling that the feds aren't bad guys after all. Either that or guffawing to himself at how easy it is to kid a copper that you're really sorry and won't do it again (until I'm around the next corner sucker ).
But what about at a system level? Amongst the annual KSIs, are there any missed opportunities - incidents caused by individuals who might have learned had they been ticketed, but didn't because they weren't? Or, conversely, how many are alive and well today as a result of a strong word from an experienced trafpol? I guess we'll never really know, but I reckon that out of the total numbers of drivers and incidents occuring up and down the land each and every day, the numbers actually spotted and pulled are largely insignificant to make any overall difference either way, ticketed or warned.
Which begs the question, why prosecute at all? Or, why not just prosecute everyone who gets pulled, if their driving was poor enough to warrant a tug, why not just ticket them and have done with it? Nobody could be in any doubt as to what would happen if they saw those blue lights in their mirror would they?
Actual prosecution or the threat thereoff, does it make any difference?
I don't know, I've confused myself now

IMO, a crucial factor here is whether the offender has received a prior caution. If they have, they must be a repeat offender and so a caution is less likely to be effective. However, it could be that the demeanor of a first-time offender (at least, first time to be caught) suggests a caution would not be effective. In that case, the officer may deem prosecution most appropriate.

Of course, any system that allows discretion is open to abuse and only pedantic enforcement is "fair". However, pedantic enforcement is exactly what we have with the scameras - and the road death toll is rising as a result. If the primary objective is to punish all offenders, then pedantry (ticket every law-breaker) is the fairest way ahead. However, if the objective is to improve safety and/or to reduce the enforcers being seen as adversaries, pedantic enforcement is not (IMO) the best way.

_________________
Will

Education is the key. Education in school works better with praise, reward and constructive criticism, and works less well with the cane. Why should we suppose that motoring is any different? Pulls and education is the key. I guess repeat pulls and repeat education may occasionally need the cane (ie prosecution), but for my mind, unpremeditated transgressions where drivers are genuinely trying to improve their competence and capability is best without the cane.

One never got the cane for poor performance at school, but one did for smoking behind the bike sheds.

Agree - education and constructive criticism works better than anything else. That's what used to happen at shool - never got caned if I needed moe help. Got caned for not doing my homework, chatting in class, occasionally cheeking the teacher, and once for takng out the Head's window when I "scored a goal" playing football at break once!

Deserved all but the last one! That was an accident! Honest!

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

First of all individuals have to be receptive to the idea that they need educating. Once someone has passed their test I suggest that most switch off to the concept with regards their own driving. That said, I'm plenty in favour of good road safety messages delivered via the best media (TV usually).
Educating people through 'pulls' is far too random IMHO - only a tiny proportion of those who need educating is reached. So, in the great scheme of things does it do any good? And does it make any difference whether the education is received via lecture or a ticket. Personally I don't belive so simply becuase it doesn't reach enough numbers.

It all boils down to the lack of Trafpol. Put those back in sufficient numbers and they WILL spot the worst drivers and WILL educate. Of course TV is good, but it's all too easy for them to fall back to sounbytes.

I agree that TV should be a good media, as would radio, but I my confidence has been rather dented by the b******t content of ones like THAT ad: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/thatad.html

I think "genuine" coppers learn when to bend an ear and when to put someone on. At the end of the day, I also think that those who know they've taken a certain amount of urine, may well end up getting a ticket.

At the end of the day, we do not live in an exact world. Our world is made up of impreciseness. It takes human beings to make judgements about the entire picture of what they've seen and heard. Although there are hard and fast rules, every one has an exception which is why each transgression must be judged on its merrits.

I will relay a TRUE story about someone I hung around with as a kid (ie when at school), who grew up to be a bit of a 'twat'.

Our man (I'll call him 'John'), grew up in East Ham High Street in the East End of London.

One night, he'd been out to a pub at Silvertown and was stopped on his way home literally outside West Ham's football ground (about a mile from his home). The copper who pulled him heard the story about being out with his mates, etc. and taking pity said to John "Leave your car there, mate; get on a bus and come back and collect your car tomorrow."

Sure enough, John got on a bus. But rather than thanking his lucky stars, he got off the bus 2 stops later and walked back to his car (by now the cops had gone).

10 minutes later, the same copper who'd let him go had the delight of dealing with the minor RTA involving John at Katherine Road, about 1/3rd of a mile from East Ham High Street.

John was 1½ times the limit and lost his licence for 12 months. He should have lost it for longer IMHO, but this is a classic case of what some arseholes are actually like when people try to do them a favour.

Personally I think he should have had the car parked up his arsehole!