South West Bikers | Motorcycle Forum

Princess wrote:

Funky wrote:I think you mean Police officers are basic tools of an oppressive government that is taking away our civil liberites.

Bollocks.

Step away from the keyboard and go outside for abit.

Maybe you should look outside your own arse for a bit. Think about the european bill of civil rights and how the government have eroded that away and use the police force to enforce it.

Some officials are even still trying to deny that Britian was involved in rendition flights...

Oi princess, daddy a pig then?

DaveMcR1 wrote:Oi princess, daddy a pig then?

No but he's a failed one

Funky wrote:

DaveMcR1 wrote:Oi princess, daddy a pig then?

No but he's a failed one

who is ?

explain

Princess wrote: If a police car speeds by with no lights and sirens on, thats perfectly legal...

I'm not sure that is fully the case, as the appearance in court of officers shows ....... (the general lack of punsihment notwithstanding )

The law is the LAW, yes, but equally that does not mean that those who are supposed to uphold it are above it Yes, the police have a tough job. No, I wouldn't want to do it. Just because I (and many others) don't want to do it doesn't mean they have a right to abuse the law themselves or warrant my undying affection for them doing it either

Just a bit of cut and paste from piston heads which explains the exemtions a little........


"The speed limits can be 'ignored' if to adhere to them would hinder the use of the vehicle for a police purpose. Police officers in marked cars on duty have been given speeding tickets and paid them when shown to not be legally using the exemption.

There is no requirement to use blue lights and sirens to take advantage of exemptions. As such no laws have been broken.

They shouldn't be travelling dangerously at any time.

There is no requirement for them to have warning lights or horns on in order to avail themselves of the exemption. It is a decision for the driver on whether they consider it appropriate or not in the individual circumstances.

Some times they'll use them because they deem it appropriate, some times they won't because they deem that most appropriate. There is nothing in law that requires them to ever use blue lights & two tones, it's down to their discretion.

If I don't want to alert the burglar in a house, I won't use them.

If I want to catch up with a car I want observe without alerting them, I won't use them.

Putting the blue lights on doesn't validate the use of the exemption it's the purpose that does.

If an officer wants a thrill & drives quickly, putting the blue lights on doesn't make what he is doing right.

If an officer is going to a burglary & doesn't use blue lights, that doesn't make what he is doing wrong.

The purpose defines whether the use of the exemption was appropriate in each case, not the use (or lack of) of blue lights.

In poor weather, especially at night, blue lights can be a distraction. I only use them at junctions and hazards but not on straight main roads in these circumstances.

The law says that the vehicle must be being used for police purposes. Therefore it does not have to be:
a, Driven by a police officer
b, A police vehicle.
A commandeered taxi would be a good example - however it would have be driven by a fully trained police driver. NO. As long as the vehicle is being used 'for police purposes' whether or not the driver is a police officer is immaterial.

By virtue of Section 87 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended by Section 19 Road Safety Act 2006),

(1) No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when–

(a) it is being used for fire and rescue authority purposes or for or in connection with the exercise of any function of a relevant authority as defined in section 6 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, for Ambulance purposes or for Police or Serious Organised Crime Agency purposes,(b) it is being used for other prescribed purposes in such circumstances as may be prescribed, or
(c) it is being used for training persons to drive vehicles for use for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it was being used on that occasion.

A police driver is able to make use of their exemptions at any time and for any length so long as they are able to justify their use. The justification for their use rests solely with the driver and if a legal dispute ever arose it would for the courts to decide whether or not the justification was appropriate. A police driver is still liable to be prosecuted for any road traffic offence outside of their exemptions if their driving falls below the standard expected. This is even if they are making legitimate use of exemption, for example when legitimatley negotiating a red traffic light junction on route to a call with blues and twos, if the police car is not driven through at speed and without treating the red light as a "give way", the driver may be liable to a Sec 2 or Sec 3 traffic offence.@

nice post si, also highlights when the driver wa prosecuted for knocking down that girl in torquay when not using blues and twos.

GSXRsi wrote:A commandeered taxi would be a good example - however would it have be driven by a fully trained police driver? NO. As long as the vehicle is being used 'for police purposes' whether or not the driver is a police officer is immaterial.

Officer, I was riding like that cause I was using my bike for Police Purposes... trying to catch that Cnut Dynamight who was speeding so I could get his details to give to you...

Funky wrote:nice post si, also highlights when the driver wa prosecuted for knocking down that girl in torquay when not using blues and twos.

Dont really know the details on that one mate but i accept that accidents happen daily involving police vehicles most result in no injury but some involve injury and sadly death of members of the public and/or officers.

Did the police driver get prosecuted for that?

Maver-Nick wrote:

GSXRsi wrote:A commandeered taxi would be a good example - however would it have be driven by a fully trained police driver? NO. As long as the vehicle is being used 'for police purposes' whether or not the driver is a police officer is immaterial.

Officer, I was riding like that cause I was using my bike for Police Purposes... trying to catch that Cnut Dynamight who was speeding so I could get his details to give to you...

Lol all i can say is i didnt type any of that i just cut and pasted it from some other forum.........which i am guessing has been cut and pasted from somewhere else.