Complaints against officers

[Fedster + 1,307]

He said he is tired of members of the public 'whinging' about being punished for minor misdemeanors.

Chief Constable Anthony Bangham

 

The national lead for roads policing is calling for a new approach to traffic law enforcement with zero tolerance on offending.

Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) lead for roads policing, told the roads policing conference yesterday: “We are law enforcers not law educaters.

“I would suggest our emphasis for some years has lost sight of the core role of policing and has started to convince the public that we should more routinely educate them.

“We should not be embarrassed about it, we should not seek to justify it. We should be comfortable that it is everbody’s role and I want to change the attitude of the public and some of the media.

“We should never ever be apologetic or seek to apologise for issuing a speeding ticket.

“We have powers nobody else does.

“It should be crystal clear if you’re caught driving or using a mobile phone you will be ticketed. There should be no ifs and not buts.

“I want them [the public] to be embarrassed when they get caught. I want less whinging, I don’t want them writing in complaining they’ve got a ticket for doing 35 in 30 zone.”

CC Bangham said “only now” does he believe drivers are “getting the message” on using mobile phones after a £200 fine and six point penalty was introduced in 2017.

“We must strive to have zero deaths, there is no reason why we can’t.

“If we look at the last full set of figures from 2016 there were 1,792 deaths, there are nearly 25,000 life changing injuries and when you look at casualties you start to get into eye-watering numbers.

“So every day we know that five people on average are killed on our roads every day. So by the time we get to the end of the conference today we probably would have five people killed.”

He said the police must be aware “our new reality” and that forces are not going to “suddenly get more money.”

“So I say something has to change - our role in making our roads safer has to become more focused.

“Enough is enough.

“If we carry on this way we’re going to stop enforcing almost altogether.

“So I say let’s change our own attitude.

“Let’s be less reliant on specialists. Let’s start looking inwardly at what we can do ourselves we have an awful lot of police officers who are out on patrol in their neighbourhoods every day and I’m pretty sure many of those officers are no longer doing the traffic process.

“This cannot be an extra we do if we have time. This is something that is so important that every officer has to see it as their responsibility. It isn’t difficult and it isn’t time consuming to issue tickets to people who break the law. The specialists are already doing their bit it’s the others who need to start doing more.”

He intends to take the proposals to the chiefs’ council for approval.  

He added he wants members of the public to act as “guardians of the road” and to be encouraged to send dash cam footage to the police of other users breaking the law

View On Police Oracle

[Hyphen + 693]

I’m always a bit mixed on these sorts of articles. It was blown up yesterday in to a headline about doing 1mph over the speed limit.

I agree when it comes to mobile phones, drink driving and no licence/insurance.

When we start getting silly about doing a couple of miles an hour over the speed limit and all manner of other minor things all we do is alienate people.

It really winds me up. We constantly apologise for investigations for actual crimes taking forever, no time to look for wanted criminals, barely able to respond to jobs and routinely filing all sorts of crimes yet on the other hand we are saying we are going to ruthlessly pursue minor traffic matters.

Thats not to mention the fact that no one has any time to enforce minor traffic matters anyway. 

I wish these senior officers would think before they speak. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

I have no idea who is advising him, or where the idea is coming from. As far as I am aware you are still legally allowed a 10% deficiency on the accuracy of a speedometer. From my traffic days we would not consider reporting if under 40mph in a 30. Of course that was flexible depending on the attitude of the offender. The best way to alienate the public is to even talk about the actions that he is proposing.  The motorist who is doing 31/32/33 is not the danger it is the person doing well in excess. Those are the motorists who cause the danger. 

Every officer has discretion and my rule of thumb was "If it warrants an endorsement (NO Insurance, mobile etc) then it warranted action. There are so many offences that are deliberate offence such as Insurance Phone etc.  However with speeding, the lower range are generally not deliberate offences when the speed is 1,2, .3, or 4 mph over the limit. This would change with higher limits. 

We do need greater Policing of our highways but, that has been curtailed with the financial constraints where forces have slashed R.T.Policing to the bone. The problem is that once you fail to enforce traffic law and regulations then, the public take it as read that it is ok to commit certain offences as they are not worthy of enforcement.  Just take a look during the hours of darkness and see how many vehicles   are parked without lights within 15 yards of a junction or parked facing the wrong way (Nearside wheels not as close as possible to the nearside kerb), parked on pavements, fog lights being used illegally. The list could go on ad nauseum.

We do not need to antagonise the, generally, law abiding motorist, but should be enforcing the motorist who just ignores the R.T. Law to suit. If we were honest we could possibly find some small, petty C & Use offence, or lighting offence on, perhaps 80% of vehicles, many of which are unintentional.  

[Richhamdo + 871]

I must confess that when the chief mentioned in his letter that the police are law enforcers and not law educators I raised my eyebrow a bit,and that’s putting it mildly. I spent quite a few years as a special and when I think back I like to think I did a lot of educating as well as enforcing the law. Whether  my words of advice did any good I have no idea but I would like to think so.  .

Things like explaining  the benefits of seat belts and why they should be worn in the back as well as the front (unless they are exempt). I even explained to cyclists the error of their ways on occasion when  they had poor or defective lights or sometimes none at all during the hours of darkness, and about  riding on the pavement and so on and so forth, the list is endless. Obviously this was done only after weighing up the likely benefits.Fortunately I wasn’t subject to performance indicators,

We police by consent or so we have been led to believe , so to me it’s important that justice should be tempered with mercy whenever possible and not be like some type of “robocop”character. People are human and as such make errors of judgment from time to time.

I think I know where the chief is coming from with traffic offenders, and trying to get road deaths down to zero and good luck with that, but some of his statements are just a wee bit over the top for me,maybe I’ve got a bit soft in my old age. 

On the subject of drivers using mobile phones I don’t agree at all that they have learned  their lesson, I saw one only the other day as I was walking in to town (for the exercise), that was in the space of about twenty five minutes.. Some  just laugh at the possibility of being fined two hundred pounds/ points etc mainly because the chance of being found out are relatively small.   If the recidivists were banned from driving for three months and fined five hundred pounds at the same time they might then start to “get their mind right”. How hard can it be to pull over to the side of the road at the earliest opportunity.

So to sum up, I would like to put the case to the police chiefs council (if they are reading this) when they have their meeting that education (when it’s deemed to be appropriate) is still an important part of the role of policing, whether it be  by support officers, specials or regular police officers. Just my take on it for what it’s worth. Rich.

[Mac7 808]

What absolute drivel. We don’t live in a communist state. Zero tolerance policing does not work and Chiefs of all people should know that. One of the best things about British policing is the ability to exercise discretion.

 

Does he really want people driving along so fixated on their speedometers that they are concentrating on little else as they will be terrified of receiving a ticket? I’m glad there is the 10% plus 2 rule in my force. This seems to vary between forces so perhaps he should be campaigning for a nationally agreed tolerance level.

 

I remember conducting a community speed operation in a 30mph zone early on in service. We agreed between us that we would not be stopping any motorist under 40mph. In all aspects of policing you “have to be about right” with people and be proportionate.

 

This will do nothing for community relations and I doubt very few Chiefs, traffic bobbies back him. Road safely and road deaths are important but this most certainly is not the way forward.

 

[BlueBob + 691]

The concept is fine to the exempt he’s forgotten the 4 Es is example, education, engineering and enforcement., usually in that order.   He’s inviting motorists “self police” their driving, which as far as I know does not happen anywhere in the world.  Would any motorist, including the emergency services, last too long if it was a real world zero tolerance, or would his Instructions be sympathised by the officer doing the task.     There would be few officers doing his 31/32 in a 30 able to claim any exemption which in turn means the officer is even more concerned at their speed than looking out for offenders.

He and his advisors seem to be a scary group promoted beyond their knowledge and ability!

[James255 + 26]

The only real solution is an increase in police funding, and some ringfenced money for roads policing resources. If roads policing was funded properly, traffic officers should be based at local police stations with atleast 1 car in each division area.

[Growley + 2,436]

16 minutes ago, James255 said:

If roads policing was funded properly, traffic officers should be based at local police stations with atleast 1 car in each division area.

You don't need to parade out of a local nick to be allocated to a certain division. It pretty much always makes sense for specialist officers to parade with the rest of their team, and receive their taskings from there.

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

It doesn't take long to issue a ticket? 

If that's the way interactions are to be run then I don't wish to be part of his law enforcement service.

Sure, if ignored the radio, didn't handle prisoners etc I could probably detect minor traffic offence evry few minutes and by adopting a 'hello sir, documents please, point out offence, caution, sign here' approach with no discussion or pleasantries I could probably get the whole thing down to under 10 minutes.

Perhaps I could even issue up to 4 or 5 per hour, allowing for my refs, over 40 per day.

Would I save many lives? Probably not.

Would impose public support? Probably.

Would I lose public co-operation in other realms ie Intel, assistance on the street, being let into communal areas of flats, people technically breaching traffic law to help me pass through heavy traffic on blue light runs....probably.

Chief Constable Bangham I assume extends his views away from the easy tick of petty road traffic matters? Stop all of our education, diversion and safeguarding work we do? Stop referring low level offenders to substance abuse services, mental health services, social services, charities etc... let's just start nicking them all.

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

20 minutes ago, James255 said:

The only real solution is an increase in police funding, and some ringfenced money for roads policing resources. If roads policing was funded properly, traffic officers should be based at local police stations with atleast 1 car in each division area.

What the chief says is that it's not for traffic to be dealingnsith traffic matters...it's for every officer to do. Because clearly in his force he's got alot of officers bimbling around twiddling their thumbs. Clearly officers in his force who work response never stop vehicles or arrest drink drivers. Clearly officers in his force don't stop uninsured vehicles or respond to ANPR.

Not that Mr Bangham would know...he spent very little time as a front line rank and jumped through the ranks.

 

[Member of Public + 206]

I've always been a huge supporter of the enforcement of road traffic law, from things like speeding and no seat belt right through to dangerous driving. I have no time for people who moan and whinge about being done for speeding, overtaking on double whites, etc etc. Its all relevant. 

This though, while probably well-intentioned, will most likely be counter-productive. As others have pointed out, you'll be constantly fixated on your speedometer, rather than paying sufficient attention to where you're going! Fair play targeting those who exceed the limit by a significant amount (e.g; 35+ in a 30 zone) but its very easy to creep over the limit by a couple of miles an hour without realising. Some modern cars do have features to counter this, such as one of the cars I took lessons in when I was learning to drive. That had a feature whereby you can set a 'maximum speed' and the car will not exceed that specified limit unless you press the accelerator pedal all the way to the floor. Once you bring your speed back down to or below the set limit, it will maintain said limit again (unless you reset/switch off the system). Systems like that are brilliant safety features and they're worth every penny, but there are many cars on the roads which don't have them, and I reckon it'll be a few years yet until they're the norm rather than the exception - I doubt they're even fitted as standard to all brand new cars yet! 

I'm currently not driving for a bit (as a young driver I can't justify the cost of a car against my current need for one at the moment) but if this rule is implemented by the time I get back behind the wheel, I think I'll aim for 25 MPH, rather than 30! That way if I do stray over my target by 2 or 3 MPH, I'll be OK 

[Growley + 2,436]

4 minutes ago, PC Wannabe said:

I've always been a huge supporter of the enforcement of road traffic law, from things like speeding and no seat belt right through to dangerous driving. I have no time for people who moan and whinge about being done for speeding, overtaking on double whites, etc etc. Its all relevant. 

This though, while probably well-intentioned, will most likely be counter-productive. As others have pointed out, you'll be constantly fixated on your speedometer, rather than paying sufficient attention to where you're going! Fair play targeting those who exceed the limit by a significant amount (e.g; 35+ in a 30 zone) but its very easy to creep over the limit by a couple of miles an hour without realising. Some modern cars do have features to counter this, such as one of the cars I took lessons in when I was learning to drive. That had a feature whereby you can set a 'maximum speed' and the car will not exceed that specified limit unless you press the accelerator pedal all the way to the floor. Once you bring your speed back down to or below the set limit, it will maintain said limit again (unless you reset/switch off the system). Systems like that are brilliant safety features and they're worth every penny, but there are many cars on the roads which don't have them, and I reckon it'll be a few years yet until they're the norm rather than the exception - I doubt they're even fitted as standard to all brand new cars yet! 

I'm currently not driving for a bit (as a young driver I can't justify the cost of a car against my current need for one at the moment) but if this rule is implemented by the time I get back behind the wheel, I think I'll aim for 25 MPH, rather than 30! That way if I do stray over my target by 2 or 3 MPH, I'll be OK 

I suspect your views may change when you reach the point of driving on a daily basis. 

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

Speed limiters are of little use on multi speed journeys.

Their utility might be to set at 60 for a van or 70 for a car but if you need to floor it every time you enter a 40 or above posted limit you would soon deactivate the function.

Most SatNavs now have a function where you can put an audible warning if you exceed the posted limit by x amount. This is far more useful and I used it to great success via headphones when I rode a motorbike and spent most if my time not looking at my speedo because every car driver was trying to kill me.

Once you've been driving for a while you can generally tell by gearing and engine sound whether youre tonking it or not...but if beseech anyone to maintain a steady 30mph without going over.

As for any 'it's a limit not a target'... try that in your driving lessons and youll be told you're not making progress.

If you drive at substantially below the limit despite conditions being suitable to drive at the limit you invite overtakes which out of most driving manoeuvres are the most risky regardless of the posted limit road you are on.

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

The technology exists to link speed limiters with gps so the sat nav alert would set the limit.
Also every motorway on and off slip could have an average speed camera linked to ANPR.
The technology could make traffic officers redundant because speed is the only issue. [emoji848]

[Radman + 2,163]

I don't agree with this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a proponent of strict piling but the targets have to be the right sort of people - the ones who flaunt the law day in day out, laugh in the face of the police and hold society in utter contempt, not the people out there earning an honest days work driving just over the speed limit.

I see traffic legislation as a good means 'in' with criminals, it's a good excuse to dig that little bit deeper or to ask probing questions - traffic cop when out on attachment with my local unit many years ago told me often it's just a means of initiating an encounter and you'd often find alot more criminality going off once the ball started rolling.

We aren't law enforcers either (hate that term) we are primarily supposed to be peace keepers of a sort...