Plod again....

[Fat Albert]

Having had a bad day at work I was pressing on a bit home from the station and lazily riding the torques as I overtook a couple of slow moving diesel hatchbacks and was wafting along the open road at about 85...

I see a car pull out to overtake a truck coming the other way and slow to give him some room..I then spot silver diesel Focus flying up behind me flashing his lights. I ignore him and carry on at 60 and then he pulls alongside and the policeman at the wheel asks me to pull over....

After a lecture from the guy who was being very Tw*tish and obviously had a problem with the car, starts telling me that I could be charged with reckless endangerment?!

I stayed quiet and ate humble pie, and then he informed me I was being reported for a 'Section 59' where if another policeman doesn't like my style of driving/car/shades I can have my car seized and crushed! No recourse, no court, no nothing!

Looking up on t'interweb I see it is a new law aimed at chavs in B&Q car park, Mini-Motos and worst of all those anti-social green-laning Landie drivers!

Had I been given a FPN for speeding I would have just taken it like a man, fair cop and all that, but when I was being careful and actually not very aggressive, I am thoroughly pi**ed off! Especially after the inciedent a few weeks ago, I do feel a bit victimised!

Section 59 Police Reform Act 2002 states that -

Where an officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used in a manner which contravenes Road Traffic Act Section 3 (Careless Driving) OR Section 34 (Driving elsewhere than on a road) AND also the manner of use of the vehicle is causing or has been causing or is likely to cause, alarm distress or annoyance to members of the public, Section 59 can be used to:-
initially give a written warning (valid for twelve months)
(commonly called a Section 59 Notice)
and on a subsequent occasion to seize the vehicle.
(it will probably end up in the crusher, or may be ransomed back to the owner)
A constable in uniform has the power to order the person driving to stop the vehicle, to seize and remove the vehicle, to enter any premises on which the officer has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be and to use reasonable force. Seizure can made only if a warning has been given, or believed to have been given, or if a warning is clearly being ignored.

 

[pauljmcnulty]

I do feel a bit victimised!

Might be time to keep within the law for a while? We do drive very visible cars......[&o]

 

[944 man]

Formal complaint. This sint what S59 is for and the man is a tw*t. It can be undone, but it will involve a complaint - appropriate as the fool needs advising. Btw: cars arent crushed.

 

[Fat Albert]

Thanks guys, when it comes through, I will write to the chief constable asking what his policy is and why this piece of legislation was used in this instance, I had never heard of it before.
My Wife suggested I might want to slow down, I will just use the much more fun scenic route home in future...

 

[zcacogp]

S59 generates a lot of heat over on Pistonheads. Have a gander over there, on "Speed, Plod and The Law."

From what I know if it, it has been abused in applying it to you, but don't take my word for it; talk to (and listen to) others who actually know what they are talking about. (i.e. not me.)

Edd (Copperman on here) is BiB and a helpful chap to boot. He may well pop up here soon or you could try PM'ing him.


Oli.

ORIGINAL: sc0tty
The cop was clearly jealous of stuttgart's finest mate. Enjoy that thought, and know that some plod are total wonkers.

Agree, and what a great word. I shall attempt to use it in conversation this week!


Oli.

 

[944 man]

Id take it up with the officers inspector first. Id also let it be known that youll be happy to allow it to be dealt with informally if the mistake is corrected.

 

[Northern924]

Just out of interest did the unmarked car have on board video?

 

[Copperman05]

ORIGINAL: zcacogp

Edd (Copperman on here) is BiB and a helpful chap to boot. He may well pop up here soon or you could try PM'ing him.


Oli.

Ha, I've been outed by Oli! Well I guess the username does give it away a little[]

TBO it does seem like a strange way to deal with the situation, there are usually many other road offences available to an officer should he think someones driving is unacceptable. Sec 59 is not an offence but a power to seize and remove a vehicle usually involved in anti-social behaviour (mopeds, joy riders, etc).

If you think it was unfair considering how you were driving then as simon says an official complaint can be made to an Inspector. However without knowing all the circumstances its difficult to make fair comment.

Edd

 

[zcacogp]

ORIGINAL: Copperman05
Ha, I've been outed by Oli! Well I guess the username does give it away a little[]

Picture the scene, boys and girls. I am giving this eminently affable chap whom I have never met before, a lift to a PCGB meeting in deepest, darkest essex. As we are making progress along the A-something, with the speedometer needle tickling 95, I happen to ask this fine fellow "What do you do then?"

Answer: "I'm a copper".

Response: Back off the throttle, don't savagely apply the brakes, allow the car to gently coast down to a speed approximating the speed limit ...

Yes. Edd Copperman is a copper. []

So, back to the discussion in hand!


Oli.

 

[944 man]

ORIGINAL: Copperman05

ORIGINAL: zcacogp

Edd (Copperman on here) is BiB and a helpful chap to boot. He may well pop up here soon or you could try PM'ing him.


Oli.

Ha, I've been outed by Oli! Well I guess the username does give it away a little[]

TBO it does seem like a strange way to deal with the situation, there are usually many other road offences available to an officer should he think someones driving is unacceptable. Sec 59 is not an offence but a power to seize and remove a vehicle usually involved in anti-social behaviour (mopeds, joy riders, etc).

If you think it was unfair considering how you were driving then as simon says an official complaint can be made to an Inspector. However without knowing all the circumstances its difficult to make fair comment.

Edd

Its a shame that you cant suggest that itll all be informal (assuming you get the result that youre after) from the utset, but I believe that a formal complaint is needed to undo the S59. I may, of course, be incorrect.

 

[Suffolk944]

I must admit it never occurred to me that "Copperman" is in fact a Copper I just always thought it was some metallurgical connection. Quite what though I have no idea ??? [8|]

Back to the Alberts post, I would say that even though the use of the S59 has been abused the fact is that we all run the risk of getting our collars felt by the BiB when making "discrete progress". Just have to take such attention on the chin if it happens....

 

[944 man]

Taking it on the chin falls well short of accepting the misuse/abuse of authority though. If he wants to summons you for careless, then let him.....

 

[zcacogp]

ORIGINAL: 944 man

Taking it on the chin falls well short of accepting the misuse/abuse of authority though. If he wants to summons you for careless, then let him.....

'Zactly. And abused power is not a happy thing in any situation.

If he wants to summon you for careless then let him ... he'll have a hell of a lot bigger a job to prove it, and hence he won't want to do so. Which is why he is choosing the easy option and hoping you'll swallow it.

Complain. Informally and then formally. If you let him get away with it then he'll be even quicker to do it again next time ...


Oli.

ETA: WITH the very sensible proviso from Edd; it's all hard to comment when reading one side of the story on t'interweb. Not that I doubt you Fatty, just that the copper's point of view WILL be different.

 

[Fat Albert]

Thanks for the responses guys, I was prepared to take whatever speeding fine was thrown at me, it was a fair cop on that score, this just smacks of desperation. He admitted to not having the correct equipment on board as he was not traffic, and that he had had to exceed 110mph to catch up with me (I am not sure on this one as I wasn't going that fast and he didn't seem to make that much of an effort to catch me initially.
He started with a threat of 6 points from 'Reckless Endangerment' which knocked me back on my heels, and when I enquired what part of my driving was reckless, he responded with my speed.

If I get a section 59 through I will write to the Chief Constable and point out that I think that it was inappropriate in this situation and that I want full disclosure of his report in order to plan my next steps. If the Policeman was that upset and scared (the area he quoted from Section 59) by my driving I shall suggest that the force help him with some counselling as I feel he is far too sensitive to deal with a high-stress situation and still carry out his duties effectively

 

[JamesO]

[/quote]

he had had to exceed 110mph to catch up with me

Ha that old chestnut, have heard that one before when I wasn't speeding. Even if you were doing 60mph he would have have to have gone faster than your speed by a lot to catch up (quickly).

 

[Helen Goff]

just read through this thread and symathise.

i was just wondering how you knew he was a policeman. because i wouldn't stop for any old car chasing me up the road flashing his headlights [:-]

 

[Pastry]

have you actually been charged with an offence or was he just putting the shits up you?

irony is probably the only person driving dangerously was the plod trying to catch up.

 

[944s2]

If it was a Focus was it a non traffic car?

Could he prove speed?

Did he show you speed you were doing

Can he prove what he claims?

Do you need corroboration in England?

Or is he just trying, successfully, to put wind up you?

 

[DivineE]

Sounds like your screwed on that one. That's one stunt I've never had pulled on me. Get yourself a £50 banger and do handbrake turns outside the police station until they take the car away from you and crush it.. that way you'll have a clean slate[]

Is it true that there's no speed limit for overtaking? Someone told me they got out of a fine on a set of average camera's because it didn't say stay in lane and they claimed they had overtaken and pulled back into the slow lane which took their average speed over 50. If that is some kind of loophole then you could probably use it in other similar examples when a car is doing 50 in a 60 and you 'extend' third gear to pass him for example.

Sorry your hearing from the police a lot lately. I had a phase of that but it passed.My driving has tended to remain pretty constant

 

[Suffolk944]

ORIGINAL: 944 man

Taking it on the chin falls well short of accepting the misuse/abuse of authority though. If he wants to summons you for careless, then let him.....

Yes at the risk of this thread going a bit "PH" I wasn't suggesting that the abuse of the S59 is taken on the chin.

Interesting on the question of exceeding the speed limit while overtaking, I was always of the impression that the limit is the limit regardless of what side of the centre line you are on. Maybe the average speed camera scenario does offer a loophole in such situations but sounds unlikely to me tbh.