Derf:
probably easier sticking someone on for using their phone than shutting a motorway for a few hours, searching a body or two for I.D, measuring up all the skid marks, having the vehicles involved examined and then going round someone’s house to deliver a death message…
Yeah its definatley ‘easier’. Maybe not right, but its ‘easier’. Even easier is go round quizzing everyone who’s had a bonfire near the scene of an accident and fine them? Infact it demonstrates the competence of the police. There’s just been a smash and deaths on the motorway and they’re off quizzing a Rugby Club.
vehicles owned or hired without a driver by the armed
services, civil defence services, fire services, and forces
responsible for maintaining public order when the
carriage is undertaken as a consequence of the tasks
assigned to these services and is under their control;
VEHICLE EXEMPT FROM SPEED LIMITER FITMENT BY NATURE OF ITS USE
The vehicle does not require to be fitted with a speed limiter because :
1.
It is owned by the Secretary of State for Defence and used for naval, military or air force purposes
2.
It is used for naval, military or air force purposes and driven under orders of a member of the armed forces of the Crown
3.
It is used for fire and rescue authority, fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes
4.
It is only used on public roads between areas of land in occupation by the keeper of the vehicle for a maximum of six miles per calendar week
That’s interesting Malc, but they might be even further out of scope than you’d think, cos they don’t even appear to be performing “carriage.”
That’s right Dave. The top part is the exemption from 561/2006 and the larger text is the speed limiter exemption, just in case someone else said they haven’t had sufficient breaks. But they do not need any of that as you say, they are in this case, above the law
A report last year on midlands teatime telly showed a truck unit around brum (think they are called west mercia police)
A driver and a video cameraman catching truck drivers talking into mobile phones/ reading /texting/ it may be online somewhere.
Derf:
probably easier sticking someone on for using their phone than shutting a motorway for a few hours, searching a body or two for I.D, measuring up all the skid marks, having the vehicles involved examined and then going round someone’s house to deliver a death message…
Yeah its definatley ‘easier’. Maybe not right, but its ‘easier’. Even easier is go round quizzing everyone who’s had a bonfire near the scene of an accident and fine them? Infact it demonstrates the competence of the police. There’s just been a smash and deaths on the motorway and they’re off quizzing a Rugby Club.
I’ll type this slowly so you might understand…
I was being sarcastic, Any police officer would much rather fine someone for using a mobile phone than search that person’s corpse to try and identify them once they have smeared themselves across a motorway (or other road) because they weren’t paying attention. It is also probably preferable to issue them a ticket than knock on their front door and tell their loved ones something that will change their lives forever.
As for your comments re; recent events on the M5, what do you propose the police do? Totally ignore the fact a large bonfire was nearby at the time and witnesses claim smoke was on the motorway? That, my friend, is called a line of investigation and one that is rightfully being investigated. Had they not have gone to the rugby club to make enquiries, you’d soon be berating the police.
Harry Monk:
The thing with the Romanian driver has obviously been lifted from YouTube, was not filmed in the UK and has nothing to do with Kent Police’s operation, although many of Meridian’s viewers will be under the impression that it was.
They mostly seem to have caught lorry drivers not wearing seat belts, something which is not a danger to other road users, and as for those caught talking on a mobile phone, traffic police officers talk on their radios all day, that curly wire does not make it any safer.
The police officers shown in this footage are simply parasites, feeding from the public teat, sucking from people who work for a living. They are currently being made redundant left right and centre, and good riddance to them.
Mike-C:
Thats a very interesting snippet you posted. Does nothing to address my critiscisms though. hello, police, i’d like to report a burgulary… Hi sir, can i ask how you would describe your ethnicity….i just want to report some burgulars. How do you know they are burgulars?...they’ve smashed a window and are getting in. Are you sure they don’t live there?...erm, no not 100% ok ring us back if it is a burgulary, i’ll give you a incident number and they’ll give you a crime reference if it does turn out to be a burgulary….ok, thanks for your help. Oh, before you go sir, could you just please tell me what ■■■ you are and what is your religion?
LMFAO!!
I love the 2nd line in answer to the ethnicity Q - “i just want to report some burgulars”. The way it reads is just hilarious.
So if the Police stop me for not wearing a seat belt and I point out the fact that in a truck it can be just as dangerous to my own life to wear it, would I still get a fine ? Surely I am the only one who would get hurt if I had an accident and had decided not to wear it, however, a guy I know had an accident were he was thrown from the vehicle in a motorway collision on the m62, he had broken everything so to speak, his worst injuries came from 70% of his body suffering 3rd degree burns from the oil in the truck after he ended up underneath it, the guy was in hospital for nigh on 15 months, the Police told his wife that if he HAD have worn his belt then he would have been crushed to death as he had not been thrown from the truck. The law dictates in too many instances in this country rather than people being allowed to think and decide for themselves. Prisoners have more ‘human’ rights sometimes.
I wear a seat belt because of the annoying beepers and that is the only reason why, in a car I wear it all the time. The truck belts however are always unadjustable and always cut into your neck.
Kerbdog:
So if the Police stop me for not wearing a seat belt and I point out the fact that in a truck it can be just as dangerous to my own life to wear it, would I still get a fine ? Surely I am the only one who would get hurt if I had an accident and had decided not to wear it, however, a guy I know had an accident were he was thrown from the vehicle in a motorway collision on the m62, he had broken everything so to speak, his worst injuries came from 70% of his body suffering 3rd degree burns from the oil in the truck after he ended up underneath it, the guy was in hospital for nigh on 15 months, the Police told his wife that if he HAD have worn his belt then he would have been crushed to death as he had not been thrown from the truck. The law dictates in too many instances in this country rather than people being allowed to think and decide for themselves. Prisoners have more ‘human’ rights sometimes.
I wear a seat belt because of the annoying beepers and that is the only reason why, in a car I wear it all the time. The truck belts however are always unadjustable and always cut into your neck.
That doesn’t compute imho. If he had been crushed wearing it, then how was he thrown out of the cab by not wearing it? The impact would have just face-planted him into whatever he hit when he left the seat.
Personally I think that while there are a VERY small number of situations where NOT wearing a seatbelt may save your life (throw you out of the cab, for example), the vast majority of situations it will save you.
Anecdotal note - the amount of different trucks I’ve driven over this past month that have the seatbelt constantly connected round the back of the seat has really amazed me. Each to their own and all that, but…
Harry Monk:
They are currently being made redundant left right and centre.
Exactly that!
My sister works in the central ticketing office for a large force where they deal with ALL fines and not just vehicle related, she tells me that where a few months back a copper would give you a warning they are now issuing tickets like mad to justify their own jobs. No seat belt used to be just a warning but now it’s virtually an automatic fine, the same as an on the spot fine in the street, the copper used to just tell you off but now it’s an £80 smack of the gob, increase the coffers and save some coppers seems to be their motto!
I know a little bit about this.
They used it all week last week, videoing any offences and pulling over any driver who was an actual danger.
They are alarmed at the amount of foreign registered trucks sideswiping other vehicles and are therefore targetting these vehicles, whilst trying to understand exactly what is happening.
It is only being used on the M20.
They are having to deal with at least one sideswipe every day, sometimes more!
I am no great fan of the Police, but when I used the 20 and 25 regularly, I was initially amazed at the amount of these incidents I saw, I soon got used to it and never even bothered to look.
So, if they can prevent this from happening, by trying to understand why, then if it saves one of my loved ones from what could be death, or anyone else for that matter, I am all for it.
Harry Monk:
The police officers shown in this footage are simply parasites, feeding from the public teat, sucking from people who work for a living.
Just as depicted in the late 18th century satirist James Gilray’s painting, ‘More Pigs than Teats’ - which was a representation of the members of the establishment ‘sucking John Bull’s sow dry’. Which is rather like Harry’s ‘public teat’. Nothing changes, eh!■■
Martin:
Kent Police are using a hired Renault unit from MV Trucks to catch truck drivers, from what I saw on TV today it looks like the limiter has been disabled!
Of course they are not, they do not even need an HGV
vehicles owned or hired without a driver by the armed
services, civil defence services, fire services, and forces
responsible for maintaining public order when the
carriage is undertaken as a consequence of the tasks
assigned to these services and is under their control;
VEHICLE EXEMPT FROM SPEED LIMITER FITMENT BY NATURE OF ITS USE
The vehicle does not require to be fitted with a speed limiter because :
1.
It is owned by the Secretary of State for Defence and used for naval, military or air force purposes
2.
It is used for naval, military or air force purposes and driven under orders of a member of the armed forces of the Crown
3.
It is used for fire and rescue authority, fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes
4.
It is only used on public roads between areas of land in occupation by the keeper of the vehicle for a maximum of six miles per calendar week
Yes they may be exempt from having a speed limiter, but they are NOT EXEMPT from breaking the speedlimit UNLESS they are enroute to an emergency. Judging by the speed Cheshire Police drive their truck they are always on a shout !!
That truck is driven in a far more dangerous manner than any other HGV I’ve seen recently ! (road safety - my arse).
Martin:
Kent Police are using a hired Renault unit from MV Trucks to catch truck drivers, from what I saw on TV today it looks like the limiter has been disabled!
Nah, Angus told em to slap a magnet on, jobs a good un
Martin:
Kent Police are using a hired Renault unit from MV Trucks to catch truck drivers, from what I saw on TV today it looks like the limiter has been disabled!
Of course they are not, they do not even need an HGV
vehicles owned or hired without a driver by the armed
services, civil defence services, fire services, and forces
responsible for maintaining public order when the
carriage is undertaken as a consequence of the tasks
assigned to these services and is under their control;
VEHICLE EXEMPT FROM SPEED LIMITER FITMENT BY NATURE OF ITS USE
The vehicle does not require to be fitted with a speed limiter because :
1.
It is owned by the Secretary of State for Defence and used for naval, military or air force purposes
2.
It is used for naval, military or air force purposes and driven under orders of a member of the armed forces of the Crown
3.
It is used for fire and rescue authority, fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes
4.
It is only used on public roads between areas of land in occupation by the keeper of the vehicle for a maximum of six miles per calendar week
Yes they may be exempt from having a speed limiter, but they are NOT EXEMPT from breaking the speedlimit UNLESS they are enroute to an emergency. Judging by the speed Cheshire Police drive their truck they are always on a shout !!
That truck is driven in a far more dangerous manner than any other HGV I’ve seen recently ! (road safety - my arse).
I shouldn’t worry, it will not be long before you read of a police lorry being involved in an accident, anyone who has ever driven a solo tractor unit in the wet will understand
@ Malc, it’s much harder to get them sideways in the wet now what with all the ASR, TC bollox that you can’t turn off. The old Renault Premium 4 legger was immense fun in the wet .
I can’t believe you are slating our brave boys in blue has no one thought of the children.
Perhaps a decent police presence in proper traffic cars might do the job of making people drive safe rather than driving like a nutter then slowing for speed cameras
att:
I know a little bit about this.
They used it all week last week, videoing any offences and pulling over any driver who was an actual danger.
**They are alarmed at the amount of foreign registered trucks sideswiping other vehicles and are therefore targetting these vehicles, whilst trying to understand exactly what is happening.**It is only being used on the M20.
They are having to deal with at least one sideswipe every day, sometimes more!
I am no great fan of the Police, but when I used the 20 and 25 regularly, I was initially amazed at the amount of these incidents I saw, I soon got used to it and never even bothered to look.
So, if they can prevent this from happening, by trying to understand why, then if it saves one of my loved ones from what could be death, or anyone else for that matter, I am all for it.
It is not difficult to work out why left hand drive vehicles in the UK are involved in sideswipe incidents, all they need to do is sit in the drivers seat of a left ■■■■■■ for ten minutes and the answer will be abundantly clear - even to a copper.
.