They were probably watching “War on Britains roads” on iplayer
i can see why they prosecute for watching a film.
but what’s the big deal with seatbelts in trucks, they hinder your movement, so they are a danger to other road users.
i wear one in the car, but not in the truck, and no jumped up jobsworth copper will make me.
limeyphil:
i can see why they prosecute for watching a film.
but what’s the big deal with seatbelts in trucks, they hinder your movement, so they are a danger to other road users.
i wear one in the car, but not in the truck, and no jumped up jobsworth copper will make me.
Same here.
I’m not condoning the use of mobile phones whilst driving, but I fail to see how that or not wearing a seat-belt is on the same level as watching a video whilst driving, especially when your talking about using a mobile on a motorway which in most cases I would say is one of the least dangerous places to use a mobile.
Surely watching a video should be regarded as a more serious offence with a more sever penalty than the other offences.
Of the 90 drivers caught during the operation, 52 were not wearing a seatbelt and were given £60 fines.
Another 21 were using a mobile phone, six were said to be not in proper control of their vehicles and two were watching DVDs. All were given a £60 fine with three points on their licence.
[Police quote] " so unless we can get up and see what they are doing we can’t prosecute them"
He got that wrong what he meant was “so unless we can get up and see what they are doing we can’t PERSECUTEthem” 
The [zb]s!!
SHOCK HORROR
The police catch people breaking the law, and some don’t like it.
rambo19:
SHOCK HORRORThe police catch people breaking the law, and some don’t like it.
some laws are introduced for very good reasons, but most are introduced under the veil of safety, but the reality is to collect money.
they say wearing a seatbelt makes you safe. i think it’s quite the opposite.
using a mobile whilst driving is unsafe. it depends where you are, sometimes it’s perfectly safe.
uninsured drivers are a hazard to other road users. no they arn’t, they drive like angels as they don’t want to draw attention to themselves.
there used to be laws that allowed the local lord to have a night with your bride, some people would just say “well that’s the law” and they’d be happy with it.
The are no points given for not wearing a seatbelt - it is just a fine
Points were only given to the 21 who were using mbiles and watching DVDs etc
All got the same amount of fine but did not all get points
rambo19:
SHOCK HORRORThe police catch people breaking the law, and some don’t like it.
I haven’t got a problem with the Police upholding the law it’s the way they prioritise on easy targets and relatively minor offences rather than real crime I have the problem with. eg What ratio is there between truckers caught eating or drinking or whatever, or motorists speeding, and burglars caught robbing, or muggers caught mugging, thats too much like real policing,…like I say easy targets 
What would happen if, you have cctv in your truck, you see an accident, copper then spots that you have cctv and so they want to see any footage just in case it’s ‘picked something up’ beforehand. 
If you refuse, where would you stand if it went to court etc?
Goldfinger:
What would happen if, you have cctv in your truck, you see an accident, copper then spots that you have cctv and so they want to see any footage just in case it’s ‘picked something up’ beforehand.If you refuse, where would you stand if it went to court etc?
i wouldn’t refuse, but i’d have to agree a price first.
Dave Galloway was one lorry driver caught not wearing a seatbelt.
He said: "I didn’t realise I was supposed to be wearing a seatbelt in a truck. I always wear one in the car.
Really 
Goldfinger:
What would happen if, you have cctv in your truck, you see an accident, copper then spots that you have cctv and so they want to see any footage just in case it’s ‘picked something up’ beforehand.If you refuse, where would you stand if it went to court etc?
Why would you want to hide it?
Goldfinger:
What would happen if, you have cctv in your truck, you see an accident, copper then spots that you have cctv and so they want to see any footage just in case it’s ‘picked something up’ beforehand.If you refuse, where would you stand if it went to court etc?
Not sure, but could it be classed as withholding evidence?
Goldfinger:
What would happen if, you have cctv in your truck, you see an accident, copper then spots that you have cctv and so they want to see any footage just in case it’s ‘picked something up’ beforehand.If you refuse, where would you stand if it went to court etc?
I suppose it depends on the nature and seriousness of the accident, but don’t the police have the power to seize evidence of a crime ?
limeyphil:
Goldfinger:
What would happen if, you have cctv in your truck, you see an accident, copper then spots that you have cctv and so they want to see any footage just in case it’s ‘picked something up’ beforehand.If you refuse, where would you stand if it went to court etc?
i wouldn’t refuse, but i’d have to agree a price first.
never mind the politics, is it the same truck they are using in the west mids■■? hitler won’t come across the county border will he lol. suppose all the forces will b at it soon just stay legal boys a we’ll be fine 
Yes I agree try not to break the law or get caught by it,any unit running solo could be them and we should all notice it if we drive properly and what a waste of Money that would be running those units with two police officers and back up cars At the moment it’s easy money for them
It’s easy to lookout for solo units, I wonder how long it will be before they start pulling trailers to fool us 