More policing by social media

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by thirdcrank »

I started this thread because of where things have reached with policing by social media. Anybody who uses the roads has a pretty realistic idea of the current state of traffic policing from their own observation.

It's a long time ago now since people at the Home Office and elsewhere decided that policing should be spun so we saw the telly cameras invited on raids when sledgehammers were used as doorknockers and the baddies were bundled in vans so the general public could be sure there was robust enforcement, even if the dealers etc knew reality was often different. Fingers were sometimes burnt eg with the highly-publicised raid at Cliff Richard's place.

In the traffic policing context, Derbyshire is one of the forces which participated in a series of police chase programmes.

Now, we seem to have gone to the next stage, where the reality is portrayed: drive badly and the sanction is a weak joke on twitter.

(Obviously, I'm jumping to the conclusion that no enforcement action was taken in this case, but I base that on the belief that if there had been, it would have been prominently mentioned.
===============================================================
PS
Re "Accident" the word is widely used in statutes eg exception for need for NIP; power to breath test; duty to stop and exchange details or report; powers to examine vehicles. That use of "accident" is wider than "collision."
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Accident is widely used in the statute books, but so are various other terms we wouldn't use - through change of meaning, through increased awareness...

We don't use the word carriage, or wanton, or furious (at least not in this context) any more...

"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years"

I wonder - does a cut to the head constitute "any bodily harm to any person"?

I would strongly argue that the driving was wilful misconduct/neglect...

I also don't think this is the correct statute to use.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by thirdcrank »

So, why did the police attend this collision?
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by [XAP]Bob »

<engage cynic mode>
to direct traffic and get the road opened as fast as possible
<disengage cynic mode>

I would sincerely hope that there is a more appropriate statute to use - the outcome of an incident shouldn't be the thing that determines the level of punishment for the behaviour that predictably caused the aforementioned incident.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by Jdsk »

mattheus wrote: 2 Dec 2021, 4:46pmWeird, because the police generally compile reports that list multiple causes of crashes. (e.g. excess speed, inattention, plus slippery surface - that sort of combination)
Which is as it should be - anyone involved in matters like safety at work will know this. There is rarely one cause, and it's quite common for more than one person to carry some of the blame.

Attempts at simplistic analysis are rarely helpful, and smack of grandstanding.
Yes, the harm rarely has a single cause. But I'd leave blame to a separate discussion from causes.

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by Jdsk »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 9:59am... but the use of the word accident is frequently used to minimise the responsibility anyone takes for their part in the incident.
It's a very tricky word. It can mean different things to different people, and that can get in the way of reducing future harm.

Jonathan

PS: This is why many of us prefer Emergency Department to Accident & Emergency Department.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by thirdcrank »

Traffic officers - employed by National Highways (Highways Agency as was) have these duties which I'd summarise everything bar investigation of offences:-
MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TRAFFIC OFFICER ROLE

Provide an on-road presence and resource which effectively supports the Highways Agency’s Network
Reduce congestion following on-road incidents
Facilitate the removal of damaged/ broken down and abandoned vehicles
Remove debris, foreign objects and animals from the carriageway
To improve road safety for all road users
Undertaking high visibility patrols
Set up and manage road closures
Escort high-risk vehicles and loads
Improve journey time for all road users
Monitor the road networks and provide reports
Provide a high level of customer service and care
Support special events as and when required
Work with other agencies and provide support to the Police
Attend legal proceedings and provide evidence in court as a witness as and when required
Providing first aid when first on the scene at an accident
https://www.how2become.com/careers/traffic-officer/

FWIW, I think the only reason (or main reason) the police attended this crash was because its spectacular nature meant a lot of emergency calls were made raising the possibility that this might be a KSI crash ie somebody was killed or was so seriously injured they might die. Otherwise, it would have been left to the traffic officers to deal without police attendance.
cycle tramp
Posts: 3482
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by cycle tramp »

mattheus wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 8:21am
Why not just say "Driver X caused this accident by his reckless driving". Or similar. Everyone will understand that! No garbled English required, win-win.
When I worked with the traffic police to organise road closures, following collisions, the officers always referred to the event as a 'road traffic collision' and not 'accident'. From their point of view an accident was an 'unexpected situation which was impossible to forsee, predict or avoid', from their point of view most road collisions could be avoided.
It's time to go :-)
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: More policing by social media

Post by mattheus »

Jdsk wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 1:39pm
[XAP]Bob wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 9:59am... but the use of the word accident is frequently used to minimise the responsibility anyone takes for their part in the incident.
It's a very tricky word. It can mean different things to different people, and that can get in the way of reducing future harm.
[bold] Then don't use it that way!

JD: It means almost EXACTLY the same thing to 99.999% of English speakers. Tell someone there's been an accident on the motorway, and EVERYONE will know what you mean. "Grandma's had an accident" - also conveys a clear message.
Or look at workplace safety:
https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/heal ... 8-07-2021/
"Last year saw 39 construction workers killed following accidents on sites, more than the five-year average according to the Health and Safety Executive.
...
HSE chief executive Sarah Albon said of the latest work deaths data: “Whilst the picture has improved considerably over the longer term and Great Britain is one of the safest places to work in the world, every loss of life is a tragedy, we are committed to ensuring that workplaces are as safe as they can be and that employers are held to account and take their obligations seriously.
"

There is no real world ambuguity; it only exists - albeit briefly - on silly threads like this, where people invent a new meaning for it.
You don't change the world by banning words - see also "Spastics".
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by Jdsk »

mattheus wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 6:51pm It means almost EXACTLY the same thing to 99.999% of English speakers.
It's worth looking at the conclusion reached by the British Medical Journal in 2001:
https://www.bmj.com/content/322/7298/13 ... f_ipsecsha

and from four years later:

However, there may be times when “accident” seems appropriate—that is, to describe the primary event in a sequence that leads ultimately to injury if that event is genuinely not predictable. Nevertheless, readers are reminded that all BMJ specialty journals resolved to ban the word “accident” in any other context. This decision, announced in an editorial in the BMJ, prompted an outpouring of letters to the editor. When the dust settled, the result was a draw with equal numbers of letter writers supporting this step towards enlightenment while all others were entirely condemnatory. The exchanges are worth reviewing: they are occasionally insightful and often amusing.
https://jech.bmj.com/content/59/3/182#ref-8

Jonathan
richardfm
Posts: 963
Joined: 15 Apr 2018, 3:17pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Re: More policing by social media

Post by richardfm »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 9:56am
richardfm wrote: 2 Dec 2021, 10:16pm
Hellhound wrote: 2 Dec 2021, 12:49pm
OK so the bloke deliberately drove into the back then?No it was an accident.
Maybe if the ridiculous 56mph limit was lifted there wouldn't be long lines of HGVs following each other like train carriages.
The speed limit in England and Wales, for lorries, on motorways is 60mph https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits It doesn't stop them driving in convoys, too close to each other.
No speed limit would do that though.
I agree, but @hellhound seemed to think it would.
Richard M
Cardiff
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: More policing by social media

Post by mattheus »

Jdsk wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 7:00pm
mattheus wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 6:51pm It means almost EXACTLY the same thing to 99.999% of English speakers.
It's worth looking at the conclusion reached by the British Medical Journal in 2001:
https://www.bmj.com/content/322/7298/13 ... f_ipsecsha

and from four years later:

However, there may be times when “accident” seems appropriate—that is, to describe the primary event in a sequence that leads ultimately to injury if that event is genuinely not predictable. Nevertheless, readers are reminded that all BMJ specialty journals resolved to ban the word “accident” in any other context. This decision, announced in an editorial in the BMJ, prompted an outpouring of letters to the editor. When the dust settled, the result was a draw with equal numbers of letter writers supporting this step towards enlightenment while all others were entirely condemnatory. The exchanges are worth reviewing: they are occasionally insightful and often amusing.
https://jech.bmj.com/content/59/3/182#ref-8

Jonathan
In your estimation - no need for great accuracy - how many people write letters to the BMJ??

Meanwhile, your quoted text doesn't show the BMJ using, or establishing a different definition; it's merely an editorial policy, a bit like banning n***a or black guy. If they allowed n***a in a journal article, everyone would know was meant.
Last edited by mattheus on 3 Dec 2021, 7:17pm, edited 1 time in total.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by thirdcrank »

richardfm wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 7:09pm
[XAP]Bob wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 9:56am
richardfm wrote: 2 Dec 2021, 10:16pm
The speed limit in England and Wales, for lorries, on motorways is 60mph https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits It doesn't stop them driving in convoys, too close to each other.
No speed limit would do that though.
I agree, but @hellhound seemed to think it would.
I detect ambiguity in No speed limit would do that though.
  • Problems would be eliminated by scrapping the speed limit
  • This will not be solved by any speed limit (The solution lies elsewhere
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by Jdsk »

mattheus wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 7:12pm
Jdsk wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 7:00pm
mattheus wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 6:51pm It means almost EXACTLY the same thing to 99.999% of English speakers.
It's worth looking at the conclusion reached by the British Medical Journal in 2001:
https://www.bmj.com/content/322/7298/13 ... f_ipsecsha

and from four years later:

However, there may be times when “accident” seems appropriate—that is, to describe the primary event in a sequence that leads ultimately to injury if that event is genuinely not predictable. Nevertheless, readers are reminded that all BMJ specialty journals resolved to ban the word “accident” in any other context. This decision, announced in an editorial in the BMJ, prompted an outpouring of letters to the editor. When the dust settled, the result was a draw with equal numbers of letter writers supporting this step towards enlightenment while all others were entirely condemnatory. The exchanges are worth reviewing: they are occasionally insightful and often amusing.
https://jech.bmj.com/content/59/3/182#ref-8
In your estimation - no need for great accuracy - how many people write letters to the BMJ??
The point about the BMJ's decision and the reaction is simply that different people have different views.

Jonathan

PS: I'll assume that "99.999%" is obviously rhetorical, unless you'd prefer otherwise...
richardfm
Posts: 963
Joined: 15 Apr 2018, 3:17pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Re: More policing by social media

Post by richardfm »

thirdcrank wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 7:15pm
richardfm wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 7:09pm
[XAP]Bob wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 9:56am

No speed limit would do that though.
I agree, but @hellhound seemed to think it would.
I detect ambiguity in No speed limit would do that though.
  • Problems would be eliminated by scrapping the speed limit
  • This will not be solved by any speed limit (The solution lies elsewhere
Good point, I only saw the second meaning.
Richard M
Cardiff
Post Reply