Unmarked motorcycles cut deaths claim police
Death rates are falling. Could it all be down to policing?
NORTH Yorkshire Police have claimed that the use of unmarked bikes has helped has cut biker road deaths in the area by around 50%.
The police claim that it had resorted to using unmarked motorcycles following a rise in death rates, from 12 in 2008, to 16 in 2009 and 20 in 2010. So far this year, 10 bikers have died on North Yorkshire roads.
The North Yorkshire Police say they use unmarked bikes, including an S1000RR, to gather evidence of "dangerous and anti-social riding". However, they have been up against negative opinion from local motorcyclists and the local Motorcycle Action Group who have criticised the use of unmarked bikes, claiming it's entrapment.
Sgt Sean Gray said: "If you are riding safely then you have nothing to fear. It is when you are riding in a dangerous manner, speeding for example, then you have to worry about the unmarked bike coming up behind you."
Here at Visordown, what we'd like to know is: how does an unmarked police motorcycle deter you from crashing? It sounds like a flimsy excuse from North Yorks police to spend their days tooling around on a free superbike.
Discuss this story
Sgt Sean Gray... should lose his job for being a complete and utter idiot (I wanted to use twat but decided against it).
1. Do you know unmarked bikes operate, you must know for it to have an effect
2. Even if you did would it slow you down
3. Does a bike coming up behind you slow you down
4. Would a parked unmarked bike slow you down
5. Using this logic unmarked cars on motorways would stop people speeding, do they, do they bollocks
These people spend our hard earned cash, are employed and trusted to protect and serve and come out with shit like his, how can anybody respect police when they come out with this crap, they must think we are idiots, no we are not, we are intelligent (mostly) something which this guy isn't
Posted: 11/11/2011 at 20:15
>> If you are riding safely then you have nothing to fear. It is when you are riding in a dangerous manner, speeding for example, then you have to worry about the unmarked bike coming up behind you."
Why does speed necessarily mean that you're driving dangerously? And if I was speeding, the last thing I'd be concerned about would be a bike coming up behind me - unless the blue lights were flashing, but then I'd like to think I'd be aware enough to have spotted them a while ago. If it were just some other biker and he came past me when I had the bit between my teeth, I'd wave him on and good luck to him!
Posted: 12/11/2011 at 05:56
I agree, justification to buy more fun bikes and I don't blame them.
I do think the money would be better spent on educating riders/drivers by running schools to pass on some of there skills.
I don't know if the death and serious injury figures dropped in other counties who don't have no unmarked bikes? (or Northumberland where there are no police bikes at all)
Posted: 12/11/2011 at 07:30
I would like to be a police officer on a unmarked bike and be paid to speed........legally
As to safety, I do not agree speed is not the issue. There are so many other things to take into account when driving.
Traffic conditions
Other drivers
Weather
Bikes capability
As usual I think they milk the figures to please someone in government
Posted: 12/11/2011 at 10:38
Utter. Fucking. Rubbish. Stupid figures fudged to make the daily mail brigade happy, whilst the rest of us get upset that this is the kind of garbage our hard earned tax pounds go on...
Walk away Martin, you know this kind of twaddle only makes you cross..
Posted: 12/11/2011 at 11:23
Utter codswollop !
Tax payers money wasted yet again by the fuzz
Posted: 12/11/2011 at 14:03
To be fair... they're only doing their job. Speeding IS an offence punishable in court after all.
However, they do seem to be so 'ticket' zealous there doesn't seem to be the option of the friendly bike cop pulling you over and giving you a finger wagging tongue in cheek speech about slowing it up a bit.
The cameras on these unmarked vehicles take away the policeman's option of a warning, if he thinks you were being safe, just because you had a wiggle on he could, slap your wrists and send you on your way. Now, of course, as every offence is caught on camera and speeds and distances logged, if you're over the limit, that's it. Nicked.
Posted: 12/11/2011 at 14:38
The whole idea is so ludicrous it almost makes sense. Think about it. These officers are going about their jobs in a manner that is without honor. Dis-honorable people are often put into tight situations because of their attitudes and the negative effect they have on society. Tight situations on a bike can be a death sentence.
But, the truth is much simpler, and each of you has touched on several of it points. If there has been less deaths this year than in the past, look to better gear, better bikes, better tires, better education, and more awareness on the part of OTHER users of the road. Police, and especially Police that you can not see, do not save lives.
Posted: 12/11/2011 at 18:43
The police seem to be really good at dreaming up ideas to make us hate them, it must be a natural ability they have...
Lower accident rates, as mentioned in a previous post, look no further than exhorbitant fuel costs and less bikes on the road.
Yes there are morons out there riding faster than their ability allows, no doubt. But unmarked bikes won't deter them, they won't even notice them...
Posted: 12/11/2011 at 20:41
"It is when you are riding in a dangerous manner, speeding for example, then you have to worry about the unmarked bike coming up behind you."
How could a legally ridden police bike catch up with an illegally speeding motorcycle? Surely they can't be allowed to cruise around at even higher speeds on unmarked bikes looking for offenders as this officer is suggesting... no wonder motorcyclists have a bad name!
Posted: 13/11/2011 at 12:53
They way they reduce deaths is coming up behind some idiot (don't necessarily have to speed to catch someone up) who speeds and puts themselves in danger, and then gives them a ticket or whatever, detering them from riding so fast again and reducing the chance of a fatal accident. That wouldn't happen with a marked bike because the rider speeding would notice and slow down.
Also, if they have a faster bike, they can more easily catch up with offenders than they could if they were on a massive white BMW tourer.
It seems quite simple to me. Marked bikes for detering speeding/dangerous riding, unmarked bikes for those who choose to ignore laws.
Posted: 14/11/2011 at 13:45
"(don't necessarily have to speed to catch someone up)"
Explain...
Posted: 14/11/2011 at 17:07
Well its obvious how the theory works. Unmarked bikes make you far more paranoid about getting booked so you slow down.
Its just the same as if there were GPS units on your bike and central HQ observes it, and you get a fine every time you go 5 over the limit. Or if there were hidden cameras every 200 yards or so, you wouldnt speed.
Problem is most people would have no license at all and the economy would stop.
They dont implement this stuff because most people actually know they themselves speed - even police hate highway patrol people - so they dont make enforcement as hard as they could easily do with technology these days. But some, like this load of dorks, do.
But the big problem is, it wouldnt make roads safer, because speeding is not a problem, I dont care what you say. Reckless driving - which may, that is, may, involve speed - is the problem.
The police department and rule makers are way too stupid to understand and analyse and enforce this so we're stuck with this sort of nonsense which destroys the joys of life.
Unfortunately, most people are morons and they have no idea what Im talking about.
Posted: 15/11/2011 at 06:30
I wouldn't mind so much if they were around when you needed them! Few weeks back I was out for a ride and on a long sweeping bend/kink on a single carriageway a VW people carrier coming the other way failed to follow the bend in the road (playing with his satnav/phone) I had to brake and move over into the oncoming lane (luckily empty) to avoid him, I saw in my mirror he carried on his path only correcting himself after having mounted the pavement!
We stopped by the next roundabout to chat about the idiot only to see 10mins later a unmarked BMW bike and scoda chasing eachother around in some sort of persuit training!
Posted: 15/11/2011 at 13:44
I disagree profoundly with the use of unmarked bikes.
Having, unfortunately, had to deal with one, I am now spending a significant amount of my attention while driving screening other bikes to establish whether they are civilians or spies.
Previously it was a pleasant relief to be in the company of another skilled motorcyclist:
The increased visibility to the "Didn't see you (didn't look)" brigade!
Two pairs of watchful eyes to monitor dangers.
Has any meaningful research been carried out to determine if, like over-signage, this practice may contribute to accidents?
Undercover policing has been exposed as problematic in many spheres but here one has to ask " Who is being protected from whom?" Maybe umarked video pedal cycles might help protect cyclists from being endangered, and killed, by other road-users? Unmarked camera sports bikes seem to be like prosecuting the householder who didn't fit a burglar alarm rather than the thief who broke in.
I regret to say it but the experience of being stopped by one, has significantly reduced my enjoyment riding my bike and, after more than forty years on the road, made me wonder if it's worth carrying on.
Posted: 15/11/2011 at 13:48
Some statistics for you.
The Isle of Man TT is the most dangerous race in the world.
The Isle of Man TT is one of the safest races in the world.
Both these statements have statistics that can be cited as proof.
Now in what sense can the police cite statistics for their proof. If you ask me it is just one way to get to enjoy your hobby and get paid for it.
Posted: 15/11/2011 at 13:48
Slightly off topic, has anyone any experience/recommendations of helmet/on-board cameras?
Only I know of a couple of instances of a rider succesfully disputing/making a claim using the video evidence...
Posted: 15/11/2011 at 13:56
Did you know that there are less shark attacks in Australia in the winter and less ice cream sales - clearly ice cream is a cause of shark attacks - BAN ICE CREAM!!!
Seriously flawed statistics - there absolutely no discernible data you can pull from such a small and restricted number pool, what a joke.
Posted: 15/11/2011 at 13:59
Hate this stuff. Look at the way they treat car drivers from their lessons/tests to interpreting the rules of the road and then compare this with the way they treat bikers.
I wish they would put them in line, ie, once a car driver has passed their test at 17 they can only drive an unmodified a 4-wheeled that is limited to 50mph for the first 2 years. If they want to drive a faster car they have to wait till they're 21 and do a 2-part test akin to the bike test.
There's so much more that could be brought into line but car drivers would have hysterics if they were expected to drive with the restrictions that bikers are fighting.
Seriously sick of the whole police/government/EU interference.
Posted: 15/11/2011 at 16:03
I think the real objective here is...."Kerching £££££"
With all the cuts around, they are squeezing money everywhere and as always, the first port of call is the motorist.
I agree with the previous posts, the reduction in deaths is probably down to less people on the roads due to being butt fucked without vasalene in fuel duties!!! Less cars to crash into, less fun rides out.
Fucking big brother out again!!!
Posted: 15/11/2011 at 17:49
From Kiwi down under riding a Hayabusa, riding/driving fast but safe.
Only go as fast as the fastest car or bike on the road. So see a car or bike catching you up in a mirror, slow down to legal limit plus 15%(15% is not such a big speeding ticket if you get it wrong) There is no way you can tell a unmarked or marked cop bike/car from headlights from behind. We can tell a unmarked police car by the number of radio aerials of at lest 2, the radar pots on the dash or rear parcel shelf.Highway patrol cars are lowered, have no hub caps.
So what is on those UK unmarked bikes, do they carry mobile phones? Do they have extra warning lights for chases? Police remarks like that is to please politicians and district commanders.
Posted: 16/11/2011 at 01:29
If cops were only interested in booking those doing wheelies up high street (as someone above claimed) Id have no problem with that. But sadly they don't. They get you for doing minor speed limit breakage and claim it all legitimate safety enforcement. What bullshit. If you were let go for doing 90 you were very very lucky, that is not the normal police way. Trust me. Around where I live, a moron cop spends his days hiding in a car park nicking people who dont come to a complete stop at a stop sign where there really is no danger whatsoever. They're morons, simple.
Posted: 16/11/2011 at 22:34
"...It is when you are riding in a dangerous manner, speeding for example...."
Since when was speeding a dangerous manner, if it was dangerous then all sports that involved speeding should be banned, it would be be too dangerous?? If you speed you can do it safely, considerately and without causing any harm or distress to anyone in your own space (not that I condone speeding on public highways of course!) The purpose of this is another stealthy exercise in order to get more revenue in the governments already bulging purse. So, a sports bike with a trained police rider, insurance, tax, MOT and gear etc is still cheaper to run than a speed camera?
What a load of cock.
Posted: 17/11/2011 at 16:16
|
|
