Below is copied a basic Mission Statement for the Police and Law enforcement.
# The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
# The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
# Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
# The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
# Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
# Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
# Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
# Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
# The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it
Not, the brainchild of some graduate Police Spinner but the work of one Robert Peel - totally relevant to today's world and someting that some Chief Constables would do well to read. I lke the one abot the public being the Police and Police being the public.
These HA guys are good. Some are ex-Officers themselves - bit better than the PCSOs I come accross.
|
To play devil's advocate for a moment, I seem to remember a thread not long ago about zip merging.
Thoughtful opinion seemed to be that it was a good idea if it could be made normal practice.
At the same time differences emerged between those who obediently get in lane as soon as they see a sign and those who rush down the soon-to-be-closed lane hoping to do it later (or expecting everyone to zip-merge when the lane really is closed, instead of just saying it will be soon).
So, how far in advance of lane closure were these crummy red crosses on the gantries? A lot of regular motorway drivers say there's all sorts of redundant carp on these gantries. The technology if you like is far too good for the people operating it.
It must be tempting, when you can see a mile down the road as you often can on motorways, to ignore an obviously misplaced electric sign. What lane closure? Over the horizon perhaps.
So perhaps the traffic officers were just being nasty jobsworths making someone's life a misery for nothing worse than ignoring a premature or redundant signal. Not saying they were, just that they easily could have been.
|
To play devil's advocate for a moment, I seem to remember a thread not long ago about zip merging. Thoughtful opinion seemed to be that it was a good idea if it could be made normal practice.
afaik - it is the official recommneded method.
At the same time differences emerged between those who obediently get in lane as soon as they see a sign and those who rush down the soon-to-be-closed lane hoping to do it later (or expecting everyone to zip-merge when the lane really is closed, instead of just saying it will be soon).
ergo, those who do it tooearly are not being obedient, but disobeying the official recommendation.
So, how far in advance of lane closure were these crummy red crosses on the gantries? ... ...What lane closure? Over the horizon perhaps.
methinks you are confusing signs which are "mandatory" with those which are "advisory".
So perhaps the traffic officers were just being nasty jobsworths ..
see Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 38 and
highway code: www.highwaycode.gov.uk/23.htm#238
... 232: Red flashing lights. If red lights on the overhead signals flash above your lane (there may also be a red 'X') you MUST NOT go beyond the signal in that lane. If red lights flash on a signal in the central reservation or at the side of the road, you MUST NOT go beyond the signal in any lane. ..
quite clear. you have no option but to obey, unless you want to risk prosecution.
|
those who do it too early are not being obedient, but disobeying the official recommendation.
>>
"zip merging" - official preferred term is "merge in turn".
see www.gnn.gov.uk/content/detail.asp?NewsAreaID=2&Rel...8
.....
To help drivers stay safe on the roads, the Highways Agency offers the following 'top tips' for a safe journey: ....
5. Stay calm on the road, and drive safely. Poor driver behaviour causes frustration and increases the risk of accidents. In particular:
- Keep left - don't hog the middle lane.
- Don't tailgate. Keep your distance.
- If traffic has to merge, merge in turn.
- Avoid switching lanes suddenly
......
see this very well argued (i.m.o.) article :
motoring.independent.co.uk/comment/article300008.e...e
....This zip merging, or interleaving, is common practice overseas and is now being adopted by the Highways Agency, which is providing new signage at set points where the lanes drop away. By learning how to "merge in turn", drivers will deal more effectively with lane closures. ...
|
|
|
quite clear. you have no option but to obey unless you want to risk prosecution.
YOU VILL OBEY!
But just suppose you can see a mile down the road and there's no obstruction of any sort.
It's more than a red-blooded motorist can stand.
Rubbish mandatory signs are the same as other rubbish signs: made to be disobeyed. And those who enforce rubbish signs are rubbish too.
So there.
|
|
|
|
It must be tempting, when you can see a mile down the road as you often can on motorways, to ignore an obviously misplaced electric sign. What lane closure? Over the horizon perhaps.
So, you REALLY know that just 'cos the road is clear, ahead, the closure isn't due to debris/spillage/tiny ducks/a huge great hole leading to the centre of the earth...
I'm OK with this prosecution, but do still feel that it might well be the slow drip, as mentioned!!
Aswell as being a cheap substitute for real Police officers.
VB
|
So you REALLY know that just 'cos the road is clear ahead the closure isn't due to debris/spillage/tiny ducks/a huge great hole leading to the centre of the earth...
>
If it's debris, dangerous debris, all lanes will be closed. Same with spillage. Tiny ducks don't matter at all. Damn great hole to centre of earth should be visible from some distance. And anyway, if there was anything like that the authorities we have these days - the ones we deserve some would claim - would close the entire motorway system and the airports for something like that, while they clucked around wondering whether there was anything they could do, and deciding that there wasn't but they'd shut the road system so they might as well leave it shut while they polished their crummy yarn about what it was all about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I find it disquieting if HA employees are seen as more reliable and credible witnesses than a member of the public."
It's not anything new, they have made a complaint as civilians, but their legal personality as highway officers gives more credance to their statements of a highway nature, just as a midwive's would carry more weight in a post-natal care case, or a computer engineer in a indecent material on a computer case. They would pretty much be 'expert witnesses' in a court case.
|
"do not have the training IMO to be taken 'more seriously' than you or I"
what training should they get then? Their vehicles are probably video equipped, and having to deal with the mess caused by bad driving probably gives them a certain mindset to road safety.
Having said that,
A trip round the M25/M1 I came upon 2 phantom tailbacks, with cars slowing from the usual weekend 70mph down to about 30-40mph. This included hazard lights being flashed, cars bunching with reduced stopping distances, and lane switching at the last minute.
The cause in both instances?
A HA vehicle going at 55mph.
I don't see how this behaviour can be reconciled in any way to promoting road safety or ensuring traffic flow.
Or if the HA are going to do this regularly, motorists need to not feel guilty about overtaking a police-type car if they are driving at the speed limit.
Ian
|
Or if the HA are going to do this regularly motorists need to not feel guilty about overtaking a police-type car if they are driving at the speed limit.
Is there not some law or other against having a vehicle that resembles a police vehicle?
|
"Is there not some law or other against having a vehicle that resembles a police vehicle?"
No, there is no law about that, only imitating a Police Officer which would never stick in a million years.
|
No there is no law about [having a vehicle that resembles a police vehicle?"] only imitating a Police Officer which would never stick in a million years.
Really? So I can have my car painted up to look exactly like a police car, with no fear of censure! How exciting!!
|
|
|
|
"do not have the training IMO to be taken 'more seriously' than you or I" The cause in both instances? A HA vehicle going at 55mph. I don't see how this behaviour can be reconciled in any way to promoting road safety or ensuring traffic flow.
The issue here is surely lack of observation and or illogical beaviour by the slowing motorists. HA vehicles bear only a superficial resemblance to police cars, they are a different colour and lack blue lights or any police signage. It is also perfectly legal to pass a police car doing 55 provided the normal m/way limit is in force, though it's probably not sensible to do so in the presence of fog or other evident hazard.
HA patrols have to watch for incidents/hazards including debris, breakdowns, tresspassers, damage to boundary fences. All easier at 55 than 70 with the added bonus of saving taxpayers mone on fuel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
