Speed Guns.

[baza]

I know I am getting old so may have missed something, but I am sure the plod with mobile speed guns are not supposed to hide their cars in bushes and stand nearby with dark clothing on and pointing the gun at oncoming traffic. This morning I saw plod hiding just inside a 30 mph trying to catch people coming from a 40 mph stretch. The same child of parents unwed was still there 3 hours later, pity it was not raining.

[Buenchico]

Would you expect undercover police officers, trying to infiltrate a serious crime organisation, to wear flashing blue lights on their heads? Their job is to detect and prosecute people committing criminal offences, as is the job of coppers with speed guns. I see no difference.

In order to prevent local authorities using fixed speed cameras purely as a way of making money, they are given the choice of being able to hide the cameras (with the money from fixed penalties going to the Exchequer) or making them clearly visible (with the money from fixed penalties going to the local authority). Most, understandably, chose to do the latter. However there are no similar rules relating to the use of mobile cameras by the police.

Anyway, are you sure that they were actually coppers anyway? Lots of other people use speed guns, such as the traffic survey teams (working on behalf of local authorities or the Highways Agency) that I sometimes work with.

[baza]

It was plod as it had Police written on the bonnet as I drove past, my point is that it is very sneaky, the cars being checked were driving east, the copper was standing near the bushes, with no hi-viz or white cap (traffic police) and the car was one of those with blue and yellow patterns on the side, tucked well into the shrubbery.
I would point out that I was going west and well within the limit, just plain sneaky imo.

[Old_Geezer]

It depends on whether their aim is raising revenue or encouraging cars to slow down in order to make the road safer.

[joggerjayne]

The stated aim is to encourage drivers to drive more slowly in established areas of risk.

If that is true (and surely the authorities never lie to us?) ...

... there should be a sign saying "Mobile Speed Camera Ahead"

To pursue the "serious crime" analogy ...

Surely the Police are happy if the presence of a policeman deters people from committing crime?

So, the presence of a camera should deter people from speeding.

But not if the policeman hides in a *** bush!

[joggerjayne]

Its like ...

Why do the police all park down West Street on a Friday night? To stop fights, etc.

Why don't they hide, let people get beaten up, and then step up and go "Aah Haaa!"

That's what the traffic police do!

[douglas9401]

The tactics such as those adopted by Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane in the documentary series The Dukes Of Hazzard, towit, hiding behind billboards and in shrubbery is frowned upon around these parts and, I'm told, south of the border.
Not speeding is a sure way to avoid trouble but I'm sure our protectors are supposed to be highly visible in the interests of safety both for themselves and other citizens.

[Baldric]

I mean, It's just so wrong, isn't it?

[baza]

He did pull over a Fiesta driven by a young male ( saw in rear view mirror), so it must have been a revenue collecting exercise.

[Baldric]

No Hi-Viz and he pulled a Car over,
that must be breaking some rule surely?

[baza]

no risk assessment, no hat, no hi viz, still it is 2014 and coppers do not look like coppers anymore, more like something from a movie.

[SlackAlice]

You mean he wasn't speeding and got pulled over?

If he was speeding, then tough.

[baza]

As the plod stopped him I assume he was speeding, no sympathy from me if he was, I just think hiding is a dirty trick, after all they paint the fixed cameras yellow.

[Deskdiary]

I have extracted the following from a memo from the House of Commons Library;

"Vehicles from which enforcement may take place should be liveried and clearly identifiable as an enforcement vehicle. Visibility of the livery should be maintained during enforcement, e.g. where it is necessary for the doors to be open, markings or livery should be apparent to approaching traffic in the direction of enforcement. If the enforcement officer is undertaking enforcement away from the vehicle, the enforcement officer should be conspicuous by wearing high-visibility clothing.
On every occasion before commencing enforcement at a camera site, the enforcement officer should check that the conspicuity guidance is met.12"

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2FSN00350.pdf&ei=YFcRVJu1FcWR7AaRuIHQDg&usg=AFQjCNHa3ZWMcpjJsgd6RSWT7XNnz7xfIw&bvm=bv.74894050,d.ZGU

Given the above, I strongly suspect anybody caught speeding by this underhand tactic would be able to mount a successful.

The analogy in Buenchico's post doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

[New Judge]

I think not, DD. As with many such issues, you have to read all of the documentation instead of picking out the bits that suit the argument you are trying to win.

Firstly, the guidance you quote from the H of C library only applies to a very few areas in the country which are not part of a road safety partnership scheme. (However similar guidance has been issued to them and later consolidated into a DfT circular). Secondly, it is said that "The guidance represented good practice which Partnerships were expected to consider, but was not mandatory." That is, it did not (and does not) form part of the law covering speeding offences and their detection by automatic and manually operated devices. In fact, the document itself (and, I believe the subsequent guidance issued to safety partnerships) says this:

"To be clear, in terms of enforcement, the guidance has no bearing on the enforcement of offences. Non-compliance with this guidance does not provide any mitigation of, or defence for, an alleged offence committed under current UK law”.

To mount a defence against a speeding offence on the grounds that the detecting police officer was not visible enough (according to the guidelines) would be bound to fail. The guidelines themselves make it quite clear that they are guidance towards "best practice" and cannot be used as a defence. The defendant would have to show that non-compliance with the guidelines either encouraged him to commit the offence or that the process of gathering evidence against him was seriously flawed or impeded by non-compliance with the guidance. I think he might struggle on either count.

[baza]

Talking to friends it would appear Essex Police are well into making money, they told me of an unmarked car parked under the A130 bridge over the A127, with the bonnet up and 2 policemen , one with a speed gun, hiding by the front of the car. If you are speeding and get caught then tough luck imo but the plod should play fair.

[SlackAlice]

Play fair? Yes, you should by not speeding.

[baza]

S A , I would like to point out that I have never knowingly gone faster than the limit, never had so much as a parking/ speeding ticket and no I am not a goody two shoes, I just think it is wrong to use these tactics.

[Robbbbo]

(b)Would you expect undercover police officers, trying to infiltrate a serious crime organisation, to wear flashing blue lights on their heads? Their job is to detect and prosecute people committing criminal offences, as is the job of coppers with speed guns. I see no difference.(b)

It is also their job to educate. Or used to be.....

[Baldric]

Blimey, I just come home from a short run in my 150mph + Estate Car, just to clear the cobwebs you understand, and I'm getting henpecked in my own Lounge!

[SlackAlice]

Baza,
Congratulations, I also have had no tickets driving or parking wise in my driving career. I did not mean you specifically just other drivers. Being speed aware and using common sense makes sense. I also am not a goody two shoes when driving.

It's not being underhanded to catch out offenders by not being in plain sight and wearing hi-vi, otherwise the offending drivers will never learn.