Worst job for the police - > motivation for enforcement?

[Cyril Haearn]

One occasionally reads of the "worst job of all" - visiting unsuspecting family to tell them a wife / husband / child has been killed in an "accident". The reaction of the bereaved is hard to imagine. Many (most?) police officers have had this task. I read that they always go in pairs so that the bereaved can be stopped from spontaneously jumping from the balcony.

Why does this not motivate the police to seriously try to enforce traffic law?

I am particularly interested in comments from present/former police officers.

Diolch yn fawr

[Flinders]

One occasionally reads of the "worst job of all" - visiting unsuspecting family to tell them a wife / husband / child has been killed in an "accident". The reaction of the bereaved is hard to imagine. Many (most?) police officers have had this task. I read that they always go in pairs so that the bereaved can be stopped from spontaneously jumping from the balcony.

Why does this not motivate the police to seriously try to enforce traffic law?

I am particularly interested in comments from present/former police officers.

Diolch yn fawr

The people who have to give such news aren't the ones taking the decisions on police funding (except when they vote in elections) or allocation of resources within the budget the police get.
Giving bad news is horrible- a policeman relative of mine said it never got any easier, even after many years in the Force. Sometimes they would be attacked by the bereaved, and they understood it and didn't condemn people because sometimes people have to hit out at someone, they can't help it, they are trying to fight off what they have heard, not the people bringing the bad news.
When someone in our family was killed in an RTA the police informed the family by phone. That was grim for us.

[landsurfer]

It just goes on and on for the Police.
Drugs, child abuse and child prostitution, terrorism, domestic violence and on and on.
Then a cyclist rings up and complains they where nearly (not) hit by a car ......
mmmmmm

[reohn2]

One occasionally reads of the "worst job of all" - visiting unsuspecting family to tell them a wife / husband / child has been killed in an "accident". The reaction of the bereaved is hard to imagine. Many (most?) police officers have had this task. I read that they always go in pairs so that the bereaved can be stopped from spontaneously jumping from the balcony.

Why does this not motivate the police to seriously try to enforce traffic law?

I am particularly interested in comments from present/former police officers.

Diolch yn fawr

Because they're completely overwhelmed and understaffed.
There's only so much they can do with what resources they have,so we've reached the position where criminals know that being caught is less likely than ever.
We need more police,if people didn't think they could get away with crime,they wouldn't do it,as it is they can and do.
This results in 'firefighting' policing where prevention has to be exchanged for reaction to crime after the event due to lack of wo/man power.

[irc]

It's all about balance. Some people think more motorists need convicted. Other people think going for motorists is an easy target and the police should be catching real criminals.

“They would much rather see efforts going into reducing violent crime, tackling vandalism and damage to property and focus on housebreaking. Instead, Police Scotland seems to be more interested in the easy targets who are Scotland’s drivers.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ivers.html

I think it is likely that aside from traffic cops (whose numbers have been cut) uniform cops largely find their time is filled with dealing incoming calls, ongoing enquiries generated from earlier calls that week or month, and other tasks.

I suspect the time to actually patrol which would traditionally be when cars would be stopped and checked and traffic offences dealt with is now close to zero.

[thirdcrank]

... The people who have to give such news aren't the ones taking the decisions on police funding (except when they vote in elections) or allocation of resources within the budget the police get. ....

It won't come as any surprise that this is it for me: what is now called roads policing is not a priority.

No matter how keen somebody might be to enforce a particular area of the law, they need detailed knowledge - and that's particularly true of all the twiddly bits with traffic - duty time, and sometimes specialist training.

Police officers soon get used to dealing with death and I fancy that for most, things like taking a family member to the mortuary to identify the deceased are worse than a notification of a death. In my own case, I couldn't begin to estimate the number of sudden deaths I've dealt with, but I have a clear memory of only one fatal crash - when I went directly from the scene to notify the family of the deceased.

I don't remember having any training in how to notify somebody of a death, although things may have changed in the last fifty or so years. I completed the OU course Death and Dying the year before I retired, arguably 30 years too late. The only times I remember violence following a death have been suicides, when one part of a family has blamed another but I'm not suggesting that's in any way exclusive.

[reohn2]

On a point of easy target motoring crime,we shouldn't forget that motoring crime is 'crime' after all,and sometimes vehicles stopped for minor 'infringements' like speeding reveal bigger crimes.

IME UK roads become a free for all,where I see bad and dangerous driving on very regular basis(almost every time I drive or ride),the roads need to be policed and quite simply they aren't.

[Smiler1968]

I've never had a relative become violent with me due to a death message. People's reactions differ greatly but maybe I've just been lucky. As for going in pairs or double crewing, I'm not aware of any policy that stipulates that.

Crime is very much on a sliding scale. I've had burglars tell me that I should be out catching real criminals like murders and rapists. Most neighbourhood meetings are filled with people that want the police to deal with dog mess or cycling through the local public gardens or poor parking. Violent offences or burglary rarely raises its head unless you have been a victim or are close to one.

The bane of the patrol officers life is facebook. The amount of policing time spent sorting other people's personal lives out is immense. Parents not controlling their children and the subsequent ASB that comes from it.

As for road policing. Much of it is subjective. What does fall below the standard of a competent and careful driver? Or indeed far below? Theft is easy. It doesn't belong to you, you take it. Bingo ( I know there are exceptions but I won't go into them). Due care and attention when some passes you by 1m rather than 1.5m?????? I'm probably out telling someone their relative has died or dealing with a burglar. I'm not being flippant but proving a due care offence is much easier if there has been a collision.


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my iPad using hovercraft full of eels.

[Cyril Haearn]

Traffic offences are crimes.

Traffic law enforcement must not cost money. It could break even or make a lot of cash for the public coffers.

[thirdcrank]

Traffic offences are crimes.

Traffic law enforcement must not cost money. It could break even or make a lot of cash for the public coffers.

In the system of law enforcement "crimes" has various definitions and while traffic offences are criminal offences in that they are created by the criminal law, they are not generally dealt with by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID)

Not for the first time I'll mention that once upon a time, possibly still today, recruits arriving at police training centre were met with the extract from Sir Richard Mayne's instructions to the Metropolitan Police dating from 1829:

The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime: the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed. To these ends all the efforts of police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquillity, and the absence of crime, will alone prove whether those efforts have been successful and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained.

Prevention is better than detection.

The Home Office is convinced that visible policing does not deter offending even though there's little, if anything, which deters bad driving more than the sight of a police patrol car. The irony IMO is that in concentrating resources, including detectives, on fatal crashes, the importance of preventing crashes has gone out of the window.

Address your views to your local sheriff (Police and Crime Commissioner) who now sets local policing objectives, or your to your MP, with a request that they make your concerns known to the Home Secretary.

BTW, if you do write, be careful how you express the economic case. Saving money by reducing crashes is generally a GOOD THING. Cash cows such as speed cameras are a BAD THING.

[Smiler1968]

Traffic offences are crimes.

Traffic law enforcement must not cost money. It could break even or make a lot of cash for the public coffers.

Yes but at what point does it become a crime. When the offence it's self relies on a subjective threshold it's far from clear cut.


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my iPad using hovercraft full of eels.

[PRL]

It just goes on and on for the Police.
Drugs, child abuse and child prostitution, terrorism, domestic violence and on and on.
Then a cyclist rings up and complains they where nearly (not) hit by a car ......
mmmmmm

Number of people killed in the UK by being hit by a car vs number killed by terrorists ?

[landsurfer]

It just goes on and on for the Police.
Drugs, child abuse and child prostitution, terrorism, domestic violence and on and on.
Then a cyclist rings up and complains they where nearly (not) hit by a car ......
mmmmmm

Number of people killed in the UK by being hit by a car vs number killed by terrorists ?

Not wishing to be rude but .... read my post " nearly hit by a car".
There have been posts on here recently by those that believe every near miss is a reportable offence. And worthy of the Police's full attention.
Not sure about that myself....

As to terrorism deaths, i believe since 1969, about 3000, I'm sure someone will put me right.

[reohn2]

........As to terrorism deaths, i believe since 1969, about 3000, I'm sure someone will put me right.

Whereas 3000 are killed on UK roads yearly.......

[landsurfer]

Whereas 3000 are killed on UK roads yearly.......

Staying on thread here ... 3000 cyclists killed yearly ????

"Lies, big lies and statistics .... all carry the same weight" ... Someone famous i believe ...