Posted By Bill Morrison While driving down the lovely M6 on a bright sunny day all going well, the traffic starts to slow up then gets slower only to find a Police Traffic unit having a nice sedate drive on the inside lane at no more than 50mph. Surely this could be a major cause for traffic congestion and possibly a accident as some drivers don’t want to pass the police vehicle. I am sure if others were travelling at 50mph on a major motorway they would be encouraged to keep up with traffic and the motorways moving?

Posted By Liam Mc Conalogue On much the same note- I noticed there a few weeks back a Garda(ROI Police) standing with speeding camera wearing no high vis gear- of course I was purely worried about his safety (ahem:-)) Seriously though, legally when working in close proximity to traffic are police exempt in some strange way from wearing high vis gear? Also going off the topic a bit- if a driver was caught by this garda- what way would it stand in court if the Garda was breaching the law himself- again purely from a H&S point of view. Just a point to note- he was in full leathers in the scorching sun!!

Posted By Stupendous Man Agree fully with John's comments, and given that LGVs are restricted to 56mph, a police car travelling at 50mph shouldn't cause any difficulties.

Posted By Stupendous Man Liam, In answer to your 'how would it stand' question - generally speaking, I don't think that you can rely on the Police breaking the law as a defence to your own breach. For example, the fact that the police officer was not wearing a hi-viz would not affect the fact that you were speeding.

Posted By gham The problem is perception, if the patrol car drives slow other drivers perceive that the may be a reason for it and slam on the anchors this sudden reduction in speed even from 80 to 70 causes problems so from 80 to 50 is even worse, I know i said 80 twice, lets face it we all do it but just to confirm the limit is 70, and some road do have a minimum limit too, go and read the highway code Is there any reason why you see camera vans on long straight streach of road rather that tucked around a bend somewhere, maybe cause it's dangerous when fast moving traffic suddenly slows down. KEEP A SAFE DISTANCE as they say Personally i agree with bill it's dangerous, if he did it the polis' may have stopped him for obstruction, driving with undue care and attention, it has been known

Posted By Martin Gray Cast your minds back to the fuel disputes the government advised that 50 mph was an economical speed to drive at, less fuel consumption. Everyone conplains about the police speeding all over the place but now we want to complain because they are being economical with fuel, as a tax payer I congratulate the officers for this move. If people are to concerned to overtake a police vehicle what have they to hide (no tax, no insurance, out of date MOT). Nothing to hide keep going at the national speed limit.

Posted By Brett Day Liam the officer not wearing hi-viz is wrong and I suspect would get a severe rollicking from his duty officer were it to be reported, the whole reason for the 'Batternburg' markings and chevrons on traffic division cars was as a direct result of a number of officers being killed on the hard shoulder. Bill as for the trafpol car doing 50 on the motorway, I was taught on the Police Class 1 course I did that driving at 50-56 (the aim is to keep pace with HGV's or at HGV speeds) gives you more time to scrutinise other drivers behaviour and driving, if for example 20 cars go past you without altering speed, and one comes up a fair rate and then anchors up when they reach you it can indicate that the driver is not observing properly - driving without due care and attention. Many drunk drivers do not speed, they become overly cautious and will drive more slowly than conditions allow. By driving at a slower speed it gives a traffic officer more time to watch and judge a driver's behavior. It is not about fuel consumption (although a good driver will have a light right foot) and it is not about unofficial traffic calming or entrapment. As they are in in lane 1 they shouldn't be causing an obstruction, also there is a 20mph speed differential for traffic in lanes 1, 2 & 3 to overtake with. Philby, your examiner was right and also very, very wrong. It is correct that you should not unduly impede traffic (i.e. keeping up with the flow), however, if you need to exceed the limit to do this you are breaking the law and commiting an offence, his advice should have been to continue at a maximum safe speed WITHIN the limit or if it was becoming a serious proplem with other drivers taking chancy overtaking risks, being defensive pull over and let the traffic pass, after all they are an accident looking for somewhere to happen. As for Road Angels and their ilk, I have no problem with them, but do have concerns about how they are used if they are being used Jonathon as your collegue says 'to avoid points' it would indicate that there is a problem with thier driving and attitude towards driving irrespective of speed and would recommend an assessment of their driving before being allowed to drive on company business, I have contact details of fleet driver assessors and an organisation that does psychometric testing of drivers, if you want details drop me a line. I have a speed camera database on my satnav, why ? Speed cameras are supposed to be placed where there is a higher than normal accident rate, likewise it also notes schools and accident blackspots that are not camera controlled so it gives me an advanced heads up of higher risk areas, IMO a good thing. I've seen a lot of comments here on various posts along the lines of 'if we all slow down we'll be safe', 'stick to the limit and you'll be safe'. Please, Please, Please remember, that the speed limit is not a target, it does not mean you are safe, you can be absolutely lethal and also legal.

Posted By Saracen11 Hi Bill, this reminds me of a situation a while back where my mate was stopped by the rather helpful officers of the law in a well known mobile speed trap area, for driving in a straight line… well he was actually stopped for driving an Audi Quattro! That was the offence – driving an Audi Quattro with only one person on board. The officers explained that as it was an Audi Quattro, there should always be four people on board, the logic being ‘Quattro means 4’. My mate obviously thought the nice officers were kidding, until things started to get a bit heated and strong words were exchanged. He was accused of obstruction when he started laughing at the happy enforcers and was wrestled to the floor… when asked what he found so funny… he replied… “I’ve just seen one of your colleagues over the road stop a Fiat Uno with five people in it!” Boom! Boom! (It’s not even Friday). Regards

Posted By J Knight Hi Folks, Brett, I don't and can't share your opinion of Road Angels etc; a driver should always know what speed they are doing (more or less) and they are almost always purchaseed to save points on people's licences. You may be the only person in the country who uses a satnav camera database for honest purposes. I do however wholly endorse your view that the speed limit is a limit and not a goal; again, a driver should know what sort of speed is safe and what isn't. On this general topic of people slowing down for no good reason because they follow inappropriate cues (your cue for slowing down should be the knowledge that you're driving too fast for either the limit, the road or the conditions, not the presence of a police car); what about people who slow down to 60 on dual carriageways when they approach a speed camera? I don't think its entirely their fault that they don't know what the limit is. I was in a Suzy Lamplugh seminar when the speaker asked the delegates what the National Speed Limit sign means. Opinion was largely divided between '60' and '70'; a few smart alecks like me said 'it depends'. So, your point Mr Knight? Well, isn't it a stupid sign and a stupid idea? Why have a sign with at least two meanings? Is there any other safety related sign which is so ambiguous? Surely, if the limit is 70, the sign should say 70, and if it is 60 it should say 60. Why on earth do we have a variable sign? And finally on the subject of speed limits. We all know how people react to speed limit signs (if they happen to stop talking on their phone long enough to notice them ;-)); 30 means 30ish, maybe up to about 35, doesn't it officer? What might happen if the sign said 28, for example? Would that make people take a more rigorous view? Just a thought, could be a useless thought, but there you go, John

Posted By gham Philby Said "cut out the margin for being overtaken, as slowing only meant more cars were taking chances" How true! you put others at risk by diving too fast, and also too slow

Posted By J Knight Further to the rant about the National Speed Limit Sign, what about this http://www.nu-riskservic...63031212694732601_1.htm? Now, I'm sure it won'y be the first time we've read something like this, I know I've seen similar surveys before, but what should be done? Do we need a complete review of signs ('cos lets face it, we ain't going to change drivers), or do we even need signs since most people obviously ignore them as they don't know what they mean and yet most car journeys are completed with reasonable safety (though of course it could be a lot better)? John

Posted By J Knight Hi Brett, Obviously all the drivers I know are reprobates! I do agree with your sentiments on road signs, to an extent, and I suppose I've always thought 'better training' is the answer. But I suppose I feel that that a) isn't going to happen and b) might not work. So maybe we should look for a solution around reviewing the signage. I don't agree about the National Speed Limit sign at all. I was talking to my partner's brother, while I was proceeding down the Sheffield parkway at about 70 (good, clear dual carriageway with barriers etc) and he told me that he'd heard a policeman on Radio 4 that morning saying that the real speed limit on such roads was actually 60, though most people think its 70. Now I reckon he's wrong, and he misheard the policeman, but my point is that he had, that morning, heard a news item intended to clear up the confusion and it had ended up confusing him. And he's a bright bloke and a good communicator; plus he's been driving for nearly 30 years. If we look at not just roadsigns but any signs from an ergonomics & communications point of view, if they confuse people or people don't know what they mean then arguably they are bad signs, and it may just be easier to change the signs than it is to change the people. After all, as I said earlier, if people don't know what they mean they won't heed them, and in the context that could be very dangerous, John

Posted By J Knight Brett, Couldn't agree more. I have signed our organisation up to Brake, for example, and would like it to pay for us all to do at least DD training if not full scale advanced. However, my point on road signs is this; if you had a sign that warned workers about a hot surface, and they kept burning themselves (supposing you couldn't eliminate it or redesign the task) one of the things you might consider is redesigning the sign. That's all I'm saying; I'm not trying to excuse ignorant drivers, but as somebody who has to share the roads with them I am very worried that repeated surveys highlight the fact that a large proportion of them don't understand roadsigns. Love your other thread and I'll respond when I get to work, John

Posted By Stupendous Man John, While I agree that some of our signs are not as clear as they may be (I can see an argument for getting rid of the national speed limit sign and ensuring that the actual maximum speed is displayed instead), I think it is a change in driver attitudes that's needed rather than a re-design of signs. IMO, drivers get transfixed in watching the driver infront of them rather than the wider environment, or get complacent in familiar surroundings and feel that they do not have to look around them. To illustrate, I was in the car, with my wife driving a few weeks back. She approached a large traffic island over a motorway junction. The road was clear with few vehicles. The approach to the island has recently been improved and now consists of three, rather than two lanes. The road markings clearly explained the lane destinations, yet she chose the wrong lane! Why? Because, in her own words, she 'has always used that lane'. One of the first things covered in advanced driving is observation, particularly of road signs - it is amazing when you see all these signs that you didn't realise were there before!!

Posted By Patrick Burns CMIOSH - SpDipEM - MIQA Better them to be at 50mph in the inside lane than the usual 90mph in the outside lane for no apparent reason at times.