Speed trap cops drive off after confrontation

Officers in unmarked car make an exit when their visibility is questioned

Posted: 26 August 2014
by Visordown News

TWO POLICE officers in Glasgow drove off after being confronted for using a speed gun in an unmarked car.

The pair were quizzed as to why they weren’t making themselves more visible by two passers-by.

One of them said: ‘You’re in an unmarked car with a speed gun. You’re meant to be highly visible,’

After the female officer pointed at her high visibility vest and protested ‘we are’, the passer-by retorted: ‘You’re not. You’re in an unmarked car. That’s not highly visible. That’s at shoulder height.

‘Are you telling me that if a car drove down from up there they would be able to easily tell that this is a police car?’

The men then tell the officers that if they pull a vehicle over, they will remain present to argue with the decision, at which point the police offers drive off in their unmarked Vauxhall.

Previous article
Police release disturbing footage of motorcycle crash
Next article
Video: MotoGP stars take Ice Bucket Challenge


Discuss this story

Safety camera is to deter bad driving,not to catch it.

Posted: 26/08/2014 at 14:23

They're not working for the SCP so don't follow their handbook. They're Police Officers and can use the standard issue detection devices like every other appropriately trained officer in the country. They don't have to stay and have an argument with random bored goons either.

Posted: 26/08/2014 at 21:06

Stories like this just sell 'columns' which are fuelled by the open invitation to provide uneducated guesswork and comments from the oh-so-poor-hard-done-to motorists. Stop making up rhetoric about what cops can and can't do. You don't know unless you are or have been one. Get a licence and keep it. The ONLY person that can lose your licence for you is YOU.

Posted: 26/08/2014 at 21:58

Does anybody really believe that speed cameras are for safety, or rather for making quotas and revenues?

Drive safely... but this entrapment style tactic is just bogus.

Posted: 27/08/2014 at 02:17

"Entrapment"? Where?

Guidelines are not laws. There's absolutely nothing to prevent constables from hiding in bushes giving it pew-pew for great justice. You were speeding, you were not speeding, end of.

Now... *this* Chris McCann?



What a charmer.

Posted: 27/08/2014 at 08:18

fracking ¢unts. meanwhile there's naff all done about drivers using mobiles, chopping lanes, feral kids, bike theft and home grown terrorists. the only "villains" targeted authorities are the hard working, working classes because they're easy to catch and fine.

Posted: 27/08/2014 at 14:24

Evening Guys, copper here.
Just pitching in to say I (at least the counties I've worked) have no traffic fine targets, or even ANY ticket targets for that matter. And I obviously sympathise about mobile phone use. hate it. prosecute every time. When I get the time to do road safety stuff...

I know there are @rseholes in my job out there, but they're the ones getting filmed and circulated. No one filmed me last time I pulled a driver/Rider over and had a logically and polite chat about the errors of their driving, and made a human connection but hey ;)

now, back to bikes...

Posted: 27/08/2014 at 17:32

The Police here in Nicaragua is never after servicing the public. They want to catch people even in the slightest error as to give a ticket (for a quota possibly), or just to get a bribe.

They're such a joke, that when they stop me I inform them that I will video record the interaction to make sure they don't try to rob me.
Usually, they just wave me off.

Posted: 27/08/2014 at 18:09

I have done this myself.
Speed camera van illegally parked in a Bus stop.
Not only that blocking a wheelchair ramp at the pavement.
I got off my bike and took pictures.
He stopped working and got out of the van.
I told him any evidence gathered here wouldn't be admissible in court as it was obtained illegally.

He jumped back in the van and drove off.

Posted: 28/08/2014 at 07:25

As long as they keep the usual Audi driver overtaking me too closely at 85mph in a 50mph zone, there is nothing wrong with what they're doing. They can be wearing a fake moustache and selling ice lollies on the side of the road for all it matters.

You were either going too fast or you weren't.

And what is with this ridiculous concept of them having to have high vis if they're measuring speed? Defeats all purpose of the exercise... surely you slow down due to the fact that you spotted them. Balls to 'technicalities' of the bible of hi-vis.

All my encounters with the police have been of mutual respect. If someone comes to film you while you're doing your job..........

Posted: 28/08/2014 at 08:55

"Stop making up rhetoric about what cops can and can't do. You don't know unless you are or have been one."

I do know what the rule of law is, however, and that's not it.

Posted: 28/08/2014 at 08:55

In the 'good old days' the police speed trap was always a concern. Favourite spots for the radar trap usually well known to locals who would slow down (as we all do for the SCP cameras) just in case.

That is to say, the Police are within their rights (I think) to catch speeding drivers. That's their job. Trouble is Traffic depts now so depleted through worship of the Speed Camera that we're suspicious when we see them doing their job.

Posted: 28/08/2014 at 11:45

Stealth "police traps" were being bemoaned in Parliament over a century ago. They were unpopular but legal then, they remain unpopular but legal now. If you don't like it, lobby your MP.

>Speed camera van illegally parked in a Bus stop.

What offence would that be? Which statute, which section?

> Not only that blocking a wheelchair ramp at the pavement.

Same question. It's pig ignorant, it's not an offence.

>I told him any evidence gathered here wouldn't be admissible
>in court as it was obtained illegally.

Perhaps in 'Murca. Watch a lot of Colonial police procedurals? Best of British luck getting that to fly here.

Not that it was obtained illegally anyway.

Posted: 28/08/2014 at 13:08

If it's entrapment or wrong in some way for an officer to be in an unmarked car and not wearing hi-viz, then they had better start wearing hi-viz all the time. Including the drugs squad, counter terrorism units, organised crime units. Oh wait, you want to decide what offences the Police to investigate and how they do it.

Posted: 28/08/2014 at 22:19

To be fair, I do have some pencils marked "Lancashire Covert Policing Unit". I think they stopped short of wearing branded shirts and baseball caps though.

Posted: 29/08/2014 at 08:35

Here in the USA most States do not allow by law a radar, laser or speed device used by a traffic officer to be hidden. They must be out in the open and plainly visible to all traffic. Some States, including mine have ruled speed cameras unconstitutional and can't be used, the municipality had to return all the fine and court cost money.

Posted: 29/08/2014 at 13:21

Still Browsing, cops in NSW, Australia don't have quotas either. However they are assessed whether they are doing their job by the number of tickets they issue.

So if you don't issue tickets you are not doing your job. It couldn't possibly be due to better compliance. The police using covert cover allow the crime to occur and then catch the perpetrator. So much for crime prevention being the number one priority.

I think it should be high visibility policing at all times so they are catching the people that are not situational aware and/or distracted instead of the aware and careful that may be speeding but are more likely to be doing it safely.

Posted: 29/08/2014 at 13:36

Brenboy, that's something the US got right for sure. Totally agree. It should be about preventing it happening, not taking covert photos and telling someone 2 weeks later by mail.

Posted: 29/08/2014 at 13:39

True, Bobby Peel (who knew a thing or two about policing) will be spinning in his grave.

"the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them"

Posted: 29/08/2014 at 22:54

He was NOT a Cop but a civilian.
he has no more right to park illegality than you .

Posted: 30/08/2014 at 14:04

He wasn't parked illegally.

Posted: 30/08/2014 at 21:36

Yes he was. If he was blocking a disabled access, then it falls under "unnecessary obstruction" and the police can issue a £60 parking fine. Don't believe me? I've had it done at work when a van parked blocking a disabled parking space and the cops immediately issued a ticket. Same if you park blocking a dropped curb. Or try parking blocking a road (which again, people have done at work) and again a parking offense has occurred. Parking in a bus stop or a bus lane is dependent on local by-laws. Again, what happens when you drive in a bus lane in London? Fine. Try parking in one and you'l be towed. Sounds illegal to me.
In what way does getting a penalty notice and fine two weeks AFTER the offence has occurred, make the road where the occurrence happened safe? Maybe you won't speed down that road again, BUT around here, the speed limits have dropped from national speed limit to 40, for no apparent reason, and that is where the police hide their vans. No accident frequency, no change in population or road conditions, but a lowered limit. It's got shit-all to do with safety about 99% of the time.

Posted: 31/08/2014 at 21:26

Talkback: Speed trap cops drive off after confrontation

Latest discussions