Re: Police payout £2.3m for accidents
 

The Police DO have to obey the speed limits under normal driving conditions...and they must follow the rules of the road just like the rest of us.

The Road Traffic Act allows them to be exempt from such limits in certain situations. IE they can only go through red traffic signals with blues & twos (and only at 15mph or less) when it is safe to do so.

It has been well publicised various officers (especially in S. Yorks. where I live) of Police officers getting speeding tickets from speed cameras.

Re: Police payout £2.3m for accidents
 

your talking about ACPO rules there not the law as it stands an officer can brake the speed limit and or go through red lights up one ways systems the wrong way when ever HE/SHE feels that it is needed

some forces choose to use the ACPO rules to disipline officers but they can not be taken to court for speeding

if however they can show what they did was dangerous driving or with out due care and attention then they can

Re: Police payout £2.3m for accidents
 

Easy way to cut down the amount they have to pay out for accidents get a lot of them out of the cars and onto their feet.

Re: Police payout £2.3m for accidents
 

So you won't mind that when you dial 999 someone will eventually wander round instead of hopping into a panda and driving to you? :erm:

Re: Police payout £2.3m for accidents
 

:erm: i didn't say all of them Derek i said a lot of them blue moons flyby before i see a police officer on foot where i live yet i see a police car at least every 30 minutes (i live on a main road). Don't tell me every police officer needs to be in a car or a van and not on foot. Also police officers on foot would be doing a lot better in dealing with crime then they do in cars.

Re: Police payout £2.3m for accidents
 

How?

Re: Police payout £2.3m for accidents
 

Because if i see the same two police officers walking up and down my road i am a hell of a lot more likely to identify with them and talk to them then i would that fleeting glimpse that is the police car. If more people talk to the police socially more will talk to them about crime they will cease to just be the flash in a car or the uniform and will become what they used too which was a person i could trust. Keep enough officers in cars to rapidly respond obviously but make them people again and the public will work with them.

Re: Police payout £2.3m for accidents
 

Personally I would rather they all have cars - I wouldnt walk up and chat to a police officer even if they were on foot, neither would 99% of people (and that 1% is the old dears)

I see PCSO's everywhere I turn on foot - I see police officers on bikes most days too..

Re: Police payout £2.3m for accidents
 

WHISTLED neither would i at the minute but are you more likely to talk to a person you see often and recognise as someone you can trust or a car. Like it or not the police have to reconnect to the public and regain the trust that was once given and to be honest taken for granted.

Re: Police payout £2.3m for accidents
 

I do trust the police - The only time we need to talk to the police is to report a crime or a problem, I would flag a car down just as easy as a person on foot.

Im not saying they are perfect, in fact they are absolutely dreadful some times, and I have had problems with the police personally (wont go into detail) they are slow in responding as it is, that could only be worse with officers on the beat.

Re: Police payout £2.3m for accidents
 

I hope these lot don't have to respond to an emergency.

Re: Police payout £2.3m for accidents
 

I think the point Rizzy is trying to get across is that police on foot in residential areas where the locals can regularly see them, and if they wish talk with them, would engender a connection between that community and said policeman. I imagine if people knew the same copper was going to be on their streets day in and week in they would be far more inclined to report something to the face they know, as opposed to an unknown copper at the local station, at least they'd be reassured the beat copper would be back on their streets the following day.

Re: Police payout £2.3m for accidents
 

What's wrong with them using bicycles?They are faster than on foot, less likely to cause any real damage in an accident and more accessible if they patrol the same area plus they can do a larger beat than a foot patrol. :)

Re: Police payout £2.3m for accidents
 

Thats exactly what i am saying Froggie and it is what i hear many others where i live saying as well. When i was a kid the police in my area were as effective as they were because of what these days i guess they would call community intelligence where people living in the community gave information freely to the police about crime. You get seen talking to a copper now and someone is then nicked you better have a good glazing company local at the very least. If talking to a copper was seen to be a normal thing you remove that.

Re: Police payout £2.3m for accidents
 

Nothing if you work in a small area, aside from having to worry about some enterprising young scallywag nicking them if they aren't chained up.
If you cover a large rural area then a car is the only option.

With the current level of front line officers taking any away from cars to walk a beat would be dangerous, almost all the Police blogs have stories on them where shifts covering large areas have a handful of cops on at any one time. *IF* the number of office dwellers is reduced and more front line cops appear then yes having them out on foot or on bikes is a good idea.

Plus if any of the ones on foot get involved in a chase they first thing they do is call for assistance from anyone nearby with a car. If you've ever tried running in a stab vest and utility belt it's not easy. Especially if the person you are chasing is wearing a freshly shoplifted tracksuit.

---------- Post added at 10:50 ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 ----------

Besides having cops on foot isn't a bar to the force being sued and having to pay out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/6401371.stm