Traffic police using unmarked HGVs to spy on thousands of drivers

[BurtonM]

Taken from an article by by Lisa Edwards of PetrolPrices.com

Traffic police using unmarked HGVs to spy on thousands of drivers

Image: Pixabay

Most of us drive around and use the sight of a police vehicle as a sign that we are being monitored. However, police in some parts of the UK are using unmarked HGVs to spy on drivers and to then send out fines for a whole range of minor traffic offences.

Caught out at the wheel

Highways England revealed that last year there were over 4,000 drivers who were caught out by just three unmarked HGVs that they operated while hundreds of unmarked police trucks have caught more. Police are filming and fining people not wearing their seatbelt, eating at the wheel or using their mobile phone.

The lorries don’t tow trailers and, the officers sit in the cab, one driving and the other with a video camera to record offences. Northamptonshire police are the latest to admit to using this tactic and caught 43 drivers committing over 50 offences in a recent session. The higher viewpoint means that officers can look into cars and see what drivers are doing, said PC David Lee of the force.

 

Nothing new

It turns out this isn’t a new practice – police have been using the tactic for three years. Last year there were 213 people stopped for a variety of offences including 12 who were found to be reading books or eating while driving. Highways England also use the tactic and caught one lorry driver with his foot on the dashboard while talking on his mobile phone while driving, a ridiculous and highly dangerous idea.

A total of 28 forces have used the HGV cab safety initiative since it was started in April 2015. Over 4,100 drivers have been pulled over in relation to over 5,000 offences during the first two years – almost two-thirds were driving and using a mobile phone at the same time. Other offences included drivers steering with their knees and even brushing their teeth while behind the wheel.

The Road Police Unit from Surrey Police enjoys showing some of the ridiculous – and dangerous – things they have spotted since using an HGV. Have a look here: https://twitter.com/i/moments/894570962364100608

Strange driving practices

The unmarked vehicles have caught people doing a range of strange things while driving. One woman with a young child in the rear seat was found applying lipstick and mascara while travelling at 40mph along a dual carriageway. She was using her rearview mirror to ensure her makeup was perfect, although her driving can’t have been!

Two delivery drivers were caught inhaling nitrous oxide, a substance that is illegal for human consumption, in their parked van in Birmingham. Another driver was seen driving along a London road eating cereal with a spoon and bowl, that car must’ve been quite messy! Other more common offences including not wearing seatbelts and not being in proper control of the vehicle.

Using a mobile phone while driving remains the top reason that the unmarked HGVs have stopped drivers. One sting in Kent in March operated for three days and stopped 44 drivers, 31 of which were using their mobile phones behind the wheel. This now carries six penalty points and a £200 fine if you are caught using a hand-held phone. Bluetooth headsets, voice command or dashboard holders are all acceptable alternatives.

 

Unmarked car rights

Some drivers are a little nervous about the concept of unmarked police cars, even if they are doing nothing wrong. Following stories of people being followed by fake unmarked police cars, some drivers are worried about stopping for a vehicle that doesn’t look like a police car. One driver was signalled to stop by an unmarked vehicle, but when the man in the car didn’t have a police uniform on, she drove away, and real police officers said she did the right thing.

Unmarked cars and vehicles do have the right to stop drivers but the officers driving the vehicles must have a police uniform on when they get out. They don’t have to have a reason to stop someone and can ask for your name, date of birth and to see documents such as driving license, insurance and MOT certificate. These can be delivered later to a police station if you don’t have them on you within seven days.

If you are unsure that the vehicle is a genuine unmarked police car, the official police advice is to drive to the nearest police station or a public place such as a petrol station. Even an occupied house could do in remote areas but don’t stop somewhere where no-one is around.

Signal to the car to show you have acknowledged them, and a real police vehicle will happily follow you. You can also use hands-free devices to call 999 if you are worried and they can check the details of the vehicle. Don’t drive off at high speed, however, or real police will think you are trying to get away!

Extra caution needed

The new tactic by police shows that just because you can’t see a police vehicle, doesn’t mean you can get away with dangerous driving behaviour. As more forces around the country start to use this approach, people will have to be even more cautious while driving.

[Countryboy]

Nothing new, they’ve been doing that round here for quite a while.  My opinion is if you’re in the wrong and get caught - “Tough *”&t"!!  Maybe just another reason/incentive - if another is needed - to drive safely, sensibly and legally.  

PS:  I’ve heard that if you’re stopped by the police for any reason they will now check your eyesight automatically, and if you fail the 20m test you will not be allowed to proceed.

[Drumtochty]

Not an issue for me at all. If your eyesight is poor do not drive, wear a seatbelt and concentrate on you driving.

Not rocket science.

[Phoenix22]

I have no objection to this tactic, as said above, if you are doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about. The more folk they catch using a mobile whilst driving the better the roads will be for us all.

[trufflehunt]

@Countryboy

Nothing new, they’ve been doing that round here for quite a while.  My opinion is if you’re in the wrong and get caught - “Tough *”&t"!! …

 

Pretty much the reasoning that leads to a police state.

As in… ’ If you’re doing nothing wrong, then you’ve nothing to worry about… " So it’s then all OK for police to do as wish, stop anyone

for any purported reason.

 

 

[Roadie]

Every time I see somebody speeding in a dangerous area.

Every time I see somebody overtaking on a bend or brow of a hill.

Every time I get tailgated.

A load more times when drivers act like d*ck heads.

Those are the times I wish there were more unmarked Police vehicles patrolling the roads.

[Countryboy]

@Roadie

Every time I see somebody speeding in a dangerous area.

Every time I see somebody overtaking on a bend or brow of a hill.

Every time I get tailgated.

A load more times when drivers act like d*ck heads.

Those are the times I wish there were more unmarked Police vehicles patrolling the roads.

  

 

[Roadster_Robbie]

@burtonm

Image: Pixabay

That’s classed as unmarked?

 

[ast]

@Countryboy

 PS:  I’ve heard that if you’re stopped by the police for any reason they will now check your eyesight automatically, and if you fail the 20m test you will not be allowed to proceed.

 

It’s a limited pilot scheme, with the objective of gathering real world. The distance is 20m for post 2001 plates, 20.5m for pre-2001 plates. There lies the grounds for appeal  (ie. has the officer accurately ascertained the distance where the test was conducted. Of course ultimately it would has opinion that your eyesight did not meet the regulation, and conducting the test provides his evidence. But that evidence is diminished if he could not show that you were in fact standing 21m from the vehicle in question, or that the car used, which might be a random parked vehicle, had a plate that fully met the regulations. Or that the plate was clean at the time of the test. Or that the lighting conditions at the time were sufficient.

The way it has been reported is inaccurate. Failure to read the plate at 20m does not lead to you being taken off the road automatically. The traffic officer will still use discretion whether to allow the motorist to proceed home/nearest optician. There was a recent case where a motorist was allowed to continue driving, despite failing a roadside test, and days later killed a pedestrian. The only mandatory eye test is when you sit your driving test. At the roadside, the driver was advised to stop driving, but refused to surrender his licence, within his legal rights.

So, the way this is reported is very misleading. I suspect the number of drivers who will not be allowed to proceed will be vanishingly small, if any. Instead, there will be lots of non-enforceable bits of advice.

Vision Express is supporting the trial (financially), but not SpecSavers. Each year, around 180,000 people are injured or killed on UK roads, of which about 3,000 are attributed to poor vision. The trial is somewhat flawed in that the demographics of drivers checked will be skewed to a younger age profile; the police cannot deliberately stop elderly drivers for just being elderly. These will be normal traffic stops, with due cause. And in the course of that stop, your vision will be tested, where you will pass, you will fail and will be advised to get glasses, or you are Mr McGoo, and the police will issue an emergency stop order, and prevent you from driving any further.

Those of us who wear glasses do generally undertake a new eye test every 2-4 years, driven mainly because the old glasses have broken, or they look dated, scratched. Those who don’t probably never get an eye test, and just boast about their 20/20 vision. The evidence is that poor vision is not a major contributor to road accidents, but I suppose the worry is with a combination of an older population, and rising type 2 diabetes, that this will increase as an issue. I do not see this trial really improving the knowledge of the present situation.

Currently the government has access to a huge repository of data; NHS England eye tests (and self-paying eye tests), which can be matched to the DVLA database. Individual drivers can be matched to these eye tests, and then sent a questionnaire asking them when they last purchased glasses for distance, and include the name of the prescribing optician. Failure to respond, or by providing a false statement could result in action. But government is not so joined up, and DVLA databases cannot be matched to Health records. The DVLA can’t even match records with the DVLNI.

My father has Alzheimers; he had stopped driving a month before the formal diagnosis, due to treatment for dry eye, and probably a year earlier, had stopped driving at night. His GP is supposed to inform the DVLA of this fact. He evidently did not. Those diagnosed with Alzheimers, if they can remember, are supposed to declare this to the DVLA. Amazingly, a diagnosis of Alzheimers or other dementia, does not lead to an automatic suspension of a driving licence. Instead, the DVLA will convene a medical board, and meet with the licence holder, and may issue an extension of up to 12 months. I’d imagine for most with AD, this is the last thing they will ever do.

His driving licence is up for expiry, and he received a form asking if he wanted to extend it, through another self declaration. Of course, this is now the time for him to surrender his licence, but to do so, he needs to send the licence back with the form. But of course, with AD, his driving licence went months ago when he mislaid it someplace.

Supposedly test your sight yourself:

http://www.vutest.com/seedrive/

 

But better than that, go see a optician. They can now also test at the same time the thickness of the retina, an early diagnostic for AD, to really cheer you up (AD is basically terminal).

[ast]

@Roadster Robbie

@burtonm

Image: Pixabay

That’s classed as unmarked?

 

 

Its not an unmarked police lorry. Its a truck liveried up as part of a publicity drive.

 

Actual unmarked lorries:

 

Leicestershire RPU:

 

 

Not always white

 

And various makes

 

 

 

Watch out for buses as well

 

[Roadie]

Actually the ‘unmarked’ trucks are very easy to spot.

1. They are not pulling a trailer.

2. They have no company branding.

3. They are UK registered rather than Lithuanian or Polish.

4. The driver will not be talking on his mobile.

Tick all these of and it’s a good bet it is the boys in blue.

[TMW]

Fully support this - Ultimately, unsafe drivers kill people.

If this stops people being killed, whats not to like? 

 

Un-marked car coppers are not going to pull you over just for the fun of it - they have much better things to do with their time! So yes, if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear!!

[Paul_W1]

I welcome this scheme. The standards of driving seem to have taken a big turn for the worse since mobile phones became widely available; as I drive to work I estimate that one in five drivers coming the opposite way seem to be quite blatantly using a mobile phone, either with it to their ear, or texting and most seem oblivious to much else. I often spot them on the motorway, too. Drivers who suddenly slow down or meander in lane (or across) are a dead giveaway as phone users. My own phone is kept in my bag in the boot whilst I drive to work; it completely removes the temptation to handle it.

Confiscate the mobile phone of anyone caught using one whilst driving, I say! For many that would be a more severe punishment than not being able to drive.

[Parker]

I share the sentiment of the majority here - good luck to 'em, especially if they can catch more mobile phone users. 

As regards eyesight, I was told my my optician nearly 2 years ago that my vision without glasses is ‘borderline’ OK for the driving minimal standard, so I’ve tended not to wear my glasses except when I use my prescription sunglasses. As a result of this latest campaign, I’ve now decided that I should always wear them for driving, so there’s one positive result for road safety 

[Scottishfiver]

Performance upgrades on the way as well.

  

Classy chassis eh?

 

[Scottishfiver]

@Paul W

I welcome this scheme. The standards of driving seem to have taken a big turn for the worse since mobile phones became widely available; as I drive to work I estimate that one in five drivers coming the opposite way seem to be quite blatantly using a mobile phone, either with it to their ear, or texting and most seem oblivious to much else. I often spot them on the motorway, too. Drivers who suddenly slow down or meander in lane (or across) are a dead giveaway as phone users. My own phone is kept in my bag in the boot whilst I drive to work; it completely removes the temptation to handle it.

Confiscate the mobile phone of anyone caught using one whilst driving, I say! For many that would be a more severe punishment than not being able to drive.

 

Last week, I’d have thought…Mmmmm perhaps, perhaps not.

This week, I have to agree 100% with you after seeing a female driver in a Hoon-die writing off another woman in her new Polo with 2 babies in the back by ramming the Polo up the ■■■ while having a larf on the old Iphone. All in Tesco car park. The Polo had only stopped at the Zebra to allow a bunch of folk to cross. 

She was arrested…no worries. Worse still, her chemistry and general disposition of arrogance did not endear her much to the Traffic Police.

[Combemartian]

I wonder if they are speed limited, and if not how fast can they go?
I remember driving in the US a while ago and found it quite worrying being overtaken by a truck doing 70 plus.

[Scottishfiver]

@Combemartian

I wonder if they are speed limited, and if not how fast can they go?
I remember driving in the US a while ago and found it quite worrying being overtaken by a truck doing 70 plus.

 

I trust some miscreants will get a shock at 90 mph when one, if not governed as we know it, comes up their ■■■ with the blues & twos on.

That would be a boxer-short filling experience.

[Mr_Sukebe]

Utterly disgraceful.

 

I don’t want the police to take videos and prosecute drivers who they consider to be driving appropriately.

I want them to stop the offending driver, drag them off to the side of the road and cane them mercilessly until the miscreant promises to never ever be such a knob again.

 

(sorry, was that a little non-politically correct)