IN REPLY
By Chris Pooley

I was aghast when I saw the van parked as pictured. It's not that long ago that the fashionable police buzz phrase was something along the lines of "pavements are for people". Campaigns were launched and tickets were issued. Did it stop people parking on pavements? No.

Now we see that is yesterday's problem, as it is now apparently all right to park on a pavement - because it's speed that kills now, we are erroneously made to believe by police spin doctors. What really flabbergasted me about the article were the lame excuses given by the police spokesperson. We're asked to accept that a police trainee was responsible, and will be suitably advised. They must take us for fools if they expect us to believe that probationary constables are being let loose with the sophisticated equipment involved in the covert trapping of speeders.

Or, is it, as I suspect, a trainee speed enforcement officer, who I have no doubt will be a highly-experienced traffic officer, with many years of police experience who should know better than to flout the laws he has sworn to uphold? And, further, do they really expect us to believe that there was no action taking place in the van regarding speed enforcement? Just how long does it take to familiarise oneself with Station Road, especially when it is rush hour and the likelihood of a large haul of speeders is high? Not 90 minutes from the back of a van, that's for sure.

It's a fact that thousands of Derbyshire's generally law-abiding, police-supporting public, who would not normally come to police notice, are becoming criminalised due to the close to zero tolerance actions of the so-called safety camera department and many may now, in certain circumstances, be facing the loss of livelihoods due to collecting a number of what would once have been considered minor speed transgressions.

"Sniping" at these people from the back of a partially-hidden van will not make a blind bit of difference in the long term, (and certainly bags few real criminals in their unregistered cars), any more than "pavements are for people" did. It will, however, make a vast difference to the eventual public feeling towards the police. Nearly every family I know has had some member become the subject of its intrusive attention - are they really all dangerous drivers? Do the police chief and even, God forbid, the saints who operate the camera, never let their attention wander for a moment?

If so, let them publicly make that claim. If they can't, or refuse to, the whole speed campaign must fall into disrepute. If they do, they are liars. So, with this camera van rapidly becoming an embarrassment to the Derbyshire force - making it appear little more professional than the force of some banana republic - which now seems more concerned with raising taxes for the Government than applying common sense and having a mind of its own, is it not time for a review of this highly-unpopular policy, or will that just not raise enough money?

And no, I'm not a disgruntled motorist who has been caught. I'm an ex-police officer involved in a more positive realm of road safety - that of driver training.
I can see the wood from the spin.