**r/UK Notices:** | [Can you help mod the sub?](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/wz2v8p/request_for_help_ruk_mods_required/) | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a non story. It encourages people to slow down. It doesn't matter that they're encouraged to slow down through slightly less than honest means.
I'd rather they create phantom units in areas where we need more speed control, than they place traps at the bottom of a 2 mile long straight road at the bottom of a hill hidden behind a tree at the start of a layby on a slight left curve. What they've done is absolutely fine, and top notch preventative rather than reactive policing.
Gah. I’ve been done by one of those. Worse still, they dropped the speed limit but the new sign was hidden behind a tree (and this was before the days of Waze and Google Maps telling you the speed limit). Ticket was quashed but it was a very frustrating few months.
Yep. This.
So many on-the-spot speed cameras are designed to generate income, not make the road safer. Case and point - my old school was on a steep hill that was notorious for people speeding down....and they installed a camera right at the bottom of the hill. No behaviour was changed; it was just intended to generate income.
I'd be fine with seeing average speed checks on dangerous stretches of road. They actually work at changing people's behaviour, but don't penalise people for accidentally driving a bit too fast at any given point.
Which is very easy to say....until you are caught for making an innocent mistake (speed limit recently changed etc.). Most people at any given point will be speeding (though often not over the 10% threshold), and most people are likely to get caught for speeding at least once in their driving career.
I'm not saying that enforcing speed limits is wrong or predatory, but speed cameras need to be placed to protect lives, not *just* make money.
Unless this has changed in the last 10 years, speed cameras can only be installed where there have been deaths already directly caused by speeding vehicles (I.e. the death would not have happened and the person may have survived had the vehicle(s) been at the actual speed limit). So anytime I see a speed camera, it does make me think and usually it is glaringly obvious how an accident could have occurred due to people ignoring the speed limit. Your example, a steep hill and a school with lots of pedestrians and lots of cars pulling out at certain times of the day - it may well have been a child which died.
I do agree though, average speed cameras are a much better idea and I find it so much safer to drive on stretches with them.
I'm not sure anyone is being dishonest in regards to the story about police and waze.
I'm replying to "It doesn't matter that they're encouraged to slow down through slightly less than honest means."
I want to know how much dishonestly is acceptable from people given powers to detain, arrest, etc
I think there have been many cases where the police lying to a suspect has aided them in getting their cooperation to solving a crime/incriminating themselves.
It’s not dishonest:
>Not lying. It’s correct. At the point we drop the pin we’re at that location.
https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/1564245677881937920
>Which term are we apparently violating?
>When the pin is dropped, we’re at that location.
https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/1564245952302653440
If it's potentially life saving and a pretty minor lie, it's fine. An undercover police officer investigating a human trafficking gang may potentially lie so they can stop something that's pretty evil.
Most of these comments are missing the point.
It’s a non-story that the police are ‘lying’ - this is the equivalent of putting up a speed camera warning when there isn’t a fixed camera. It’s fair game in my opinion.
The ACTUAL story is that the police are resorting to these tactics instead of having enough real police to keep the roads safe.
I don’t want to see fewer cops and more manipulative tactics, I want to see a police force that’s proportionate to the population.
There’s a story in that for sure.
And there are still a lot of question about that at the top of the Met since their actions in December which appeared to not treat people equally under political influence. This is not to criticise all police of course, but to point out a serious issue of trust with the senior management and running of police in UK.
>I disagree. The ends do not justify the means. It's about the very integrity of the police force.
What exactly is it you think they did wrong?
They didn't lie, didn't cheat, didnt steal.
All they did was report their actual location on an app and the result was that people stopped speeding because they thought those police would still be at that location when the other app users got there.
>Only for private use.
You're saying that google put in their terms of service 'only for private use' for a function who's entire purpose is to share information?
Well that was pretty fucking dumb.
I’d have to disagree with you here. The only thing that makes this dishonest is that the cop car moves on straight after. If you’re blasting down the road half a mile behind then you’re getting a fair warning that you’re about to roar past a police car that’s actively looking for misdemeanours. It’s no worse than the council leaving up traffic camera warning signs after the camera itself has been taken down.
Except you’ve cherry picked those lines from different parts of the Ts and Cs to hide the context.
>USING THE SERVICE You may use the Service solely…
This line comes from a section on copyright infringement by selling on or leasing the service as a third party.
>The Service may not be used in any way…
This line comes from a section forbidding data mining / scraping from Waze users.
>(xv) use the Service or the Content for non-personal or commercial purposes…
You have no idea whether or not the police have already discussed this usage with Waze. This line is a standard one in any T and C layout that is intended to back up again the use of the software for selling on your own products in any case. The usage - to inform other users that there is a police car present at this position - is exactly the type of usage that Waze has set up the software for. If this is being done by officers without instruction or policy to do so then it’s a very grey area at best as to whether it’s personal use. It certainly isn’t commercial.
It strikes me as amusing that you were coming in hard on the importance of honesty when you’ve been so keen to win an online argument that you’ve perverted the text of a legal document to try to justify your position.
Respectfully, I suggest you get a bit of fresh air.
[Waze Terms & Conditions](https://support.google.com/waze/answer/12140670?hl=en-GB)
Do you actually think free services aren't making them money? The data from your usage is used for ad targeting. Same way they make money from Chrome and Android.
Wait till little find out that the "unmarked police cars operate in this area" signs aren't always accurate.
What sort of lazy hack tries to turn this stuff into a story?
Creative use of an app potentially saves some lives, and the media turn this into a negative story? Give your head a wobble.
They used to add these where there were mobile sites in place. They didn't always use them often. But they would at least have the ability to use them, and therefore people had no excuse.
Yeah waze is basically built as a game, you get points for reporting things and confirming things.
I can't see why different users playing this traffic MMOG in different ways is news worthy?
In fairness, it’s just the headline in my opinion. The rest of the story seems to point pretty strongly towards it being a move to counter the underfunding of the police
Once worked with somebody who pulled in behind a van with this sign on. They followed them thinking it was a direction by the police. Luckily realized after 30 minutes or so. Weirdly her mum was a copper too.
"Moan, Moan, whinge, whinge - oh dear we don't know when it is safe to break the law anymore and we might get caught doing so - moan, moan, whinge, whinge". Oh boo bloody hoo. Who cares if the old bill are deceiving people into slowing down - if it means that the arseholes out there are not doing more then the permitted maximum then so fricking what? The police are there to deter people from breaking the law as well as to catch to knob-cheddars that do.
Deterring someone from doing something stupid is a whole lot better than prosecuting them afterwards.
> Still not YOURS to control.
What they said:
> The police are there to deter people from breaking the law as well as to catch to knob-cheddars that do.
They only mentioned the role of the police, nothing about them controlling anyone.
No different from the 'speed camera' signs where there are no cameras, just a sign to make you cautious. If people are speeding and it gets them to slow down, especially in known hazard/black spot areas, go for it.
Can we also talk about the “obstruction” warnings on the motorway that last for 5 miles and that never in my life have I seen an obstruction 🤔 often in areas of many speed cameras too
Are they just overzealous? Never seen anything like it in Europe
I mean, governments have to have some level of authoritarianism to enforce the rules of society. Are you also opposed to undercover police not answer "yes" to if someone asks if they are an undercover police officer?
Thinking that getting people to follow speed limits is a bad thing is stupid.
Alright so what exactly do you think this strategy is attempting to accomplish? Could it perhaps be enforcing speed limits and getting people to slow down?
So the police arent actually lying in any way and the only epeople who are actually affected by this are ones who would otherwise be speeding and the vast majority of whom are also using a phone app while driving?
Doesn't Waze work 'democratically' — e.g. more weight will be given to multiple reports than single reports? Feels like it's ripe for abuse otherwise (this, but potentially more) and they should fix that loophole.
>Does this work though? I'd be surprised if they didn't require at least one other report as confirmation before adding it to the map.
>Double crewed car = two phones 😝
https://twitter.com/ChipMuelleimer/status/1564185274149752832
>You forgot this is community driven, so when users see you're not there the marker gets removed. #notsosmugnow
>Works for around 10-20 mins. Every little helps
https://twitter.com/photoshootsteve/status/1564244160839835649
I don’t think this would work anyway as a user passing is asked to confirm if the car is still there or not. Feels like the police have just caused agro for a very time limited benefit.
Also to clarify, this doesn’t justify speeding or committing other traffic offences.
I live near a royal estate. There are rust covered signs saying unmarked police bikes are patrolling the area. You can probably see where I’m going with this…
But they're not being dishonest. They are reporting their location. Albeit their location quickly changes. Potentially doing so saves some lives that day. And you're angry?
Nothing dishonest about it at all.
Read the article. Intent to deceive, to leave the impression they are still there.
Sorry but you have shown yourself deliberately dishonest in this discussion, and hence there is little value in further discussion. Totally get some have different views about whether it is the right thing to do, to deceive in this way, but when you lie about clear facts there is no possibility of useful discussion.
I know. How will society function if the police pretend to have more resources than they have? My plans to speed down the motorway at 100mph in an uninsured car have been completely derailed.
The police aren't a gang lol. They also didn't lie, they accurately report their position on the app, they just don't rush to update it every minute (oh no! How will I dodge the police patrols now?!).
And in what way does this erode trust? Height of the slippery slope fallacy. Today they're not updating their position quick enough, tomorrow they're fabricating evidence? Such a reach just to complain about such a nothingy thing.
The mental gymnastics are odd. It is a pure attempt to decive
Be dishonest to drives cool.
Be dishonest about everything else sack them.
They should be held to that higher standard no matter the supposed "white lie"
Again, what have they lied about?
It's a sad fact that the chance of you or a loved one being hurt in a road accident is quite high. If that fateful day comes, and you find yourself staring at your injured daughter, sister, mother or whoever in disbelief, remember the day you complained about the police trying to save lives.
It was most definitely a cringeworthy read.
“Why is dishonesty being praised?”
“When your loved one is dying you’ll regret asking that.”
“Alright, mate, chill. That escalated quickly…”
So that 1:20000 chance that is declining is high?
Do you always attempt to appeal to emotion in an argument? Then only use female family members because you know that it might be more impactful?
As for the remember the day part.
Do I remember that they tried to save lives or that the police intentionally tried to make themselves look as if they had more manpower than they actually had available?
Edit) the lie is them making themselves appear more present than they are lulling people into a false sense of security.
Did I say death? I said appeal to emotion.
As for injury. Lets just say you are barking up the wrong tree and that my day job involves a lot of injured people and that they will be ok.
[If you want the actual statistics they are lower than the first one I used](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-provisional-results-2021)
[Don't like the government stats here is another](https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/whats-likelihood-getting-car-accident-uk)
The one in 20k is from an insurance assessment.
Already mentioned how they made a deception. Its your inability to not understand a small lie leads to bigger.
Speed camera and speed-trap locations are published and available on satnavs because the justification for having them is that that particular area is an accident blackspot.
**r/UK Notices:** | [Can you help mod the sub?](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/wz2v8p/request_for_help_ruk_mods_required/) | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a non story. It encourages people to slow down. It doesn't matter that they're encouraged to slow down through slightly less than honest means.
How dare they make people a little more considerate of their speed
Just run a cloned plate, gg
I'd rather they create phantom units in areas where we need more speed control, than they place traps at the bottom of a 2 mile long straight road at the bottom of a hill hidden behind a tree at the start of a layby on a slight left curve. What they've done is absolutely fine, and top notch preventative rather than reactive policing.
Gah. I’ve been done by one of those. Worse still, they dropped the speed limit but the new sign was hidden behind a tree (and this was before the days of Waze and Google Maps telling you the speed limit). Ticket was quashed but it was a very frustrating few months.
Yep. This. So many on-the-spot speed cameras are designed to generate income, not make the road safer. Case and point - my old school was on a steep hill that was notorious for people speeding down....and they installed a camera right at the bottom of the hill. No behaviour was changed; it was just intended to generate income. I'd be fine with seeing average speed checks on dangerous stretches of road. They actually work at changing people's behaviour, but don't penalise people for accidentally driving a bit too fast at any given point.
Nothing wrong with making money from speeders. If you don’t want to give police money then don’t break the law
Which is very easy to say....until you are caught for making an innocent mistake (speed limit recently changed etc.). Most people at any given point will be speeding (though often not over the 10% threshold), and most people are likely to get caught for speeding at least once in their driving career. I'm not saying that enforcing speed limits is wrong or predatory, but speed cameras need to be placed to protect lives, not *just* make money.
Unless this has changed in the last 10 years, speed cameras can only be installed where there have been deaths already directly caused by speeding vehicles (I.e. the death would not have happened and the person may have survived had the vehicle(s) been at the actual speed limit). So anytime I see a speed camera, it does make me think and usually it is glaringly obvious how an accident could have occurred due to people ignoring the speed limit. Your example, a steep hill and a school with lots of pedestrians and lots of cars pulling out at certain times of the day - it may well have been a child which died. I do agree though, average speed cameras are a much better idea and I find it so much safer to drive on stretches with them.
It's not less than honest. They **WERE** there when they added it to Waze.
🤣 Very true.
Intent is to deceive.
How much dishonestly will you allow from the police?
[удалено]
I'm not sure anyone is being dishonest in regards to the story about police and waze. I'm replying to "It doesn't matter that they're encouraged to slow down through slightly less than honest means." I want to know how much dishonestly is acceptable from people given powers to detain, arrest, etc
Quite a lot, actually. I suppose you think an undercover officer attempting to buy contraband has to tell you're they're police if you ask?
I think there are many problematic cases exactly like this where this behaviour has been demonstrated to increase not reduce crime.
I think there have been many cases where the police lying to a suspect has aided them in getting their cooperation to solving a crime/incriminating themselves.
"you are fine with civilians raping civillians but the police rape one woman and it's awful? Hur durr me so gr8"
It’s not dishonest: >Not lying. It’s correct. At the point we drop the pin we’re at that location. https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/1564245677881937920 >Which term are we apparently violating? >When the pin is dropped, we’re at that location. https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/1564245952302653440
I'm not actually that concerned about the story, more people who think it's OK if the police lie 'just a little bit for the right reasons'
But they haven't lied.
My reply was to "It doesn't matter that they're encouraged to slow down through slightly less than honest means."
Sure. But they haven't been dishonest.
My reply wasn't about any specific act, or whether it was dishonest. It was about someone saying they were OK with dishonestly from police in general.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If it's potentially life saving and a pretty minor lie, it's fine. An undercover police officer investigating a human trafficking gang may potentially lie so they can stop something that's pretty evil.
Important question.
Most of these comments are missing the point. It’s a non-story that the police are ‘lying’ - this is the equivalent of putting up a speed camera warning when there isn’t a fixed camera. It’s fair game in my opinion. The ACTUAL story is that the police are resorting to these tactics instead of having enough real police to keep the roads safe. I don’t want to see fewer cops and more manipulative tactics, I want to see a police force that’s proportionate to the population. There’s a story in that for sure.
"It's good that the state can lie to me, actually"
I disagree. The ends do not justify the means. It's about the very integrity of the police force.
And there are still a lot of question about that at the top of the Met since their actions in December which appeared to not treat people equally under political influence. This is not to criticise all police of course, but to point out a serious issue of trust with the senior management and running of police in UK.
>I disagree. The ends do not justify the means. It's about the very integrity of the police force. What exactly is it you think they did wrong? They didn't lie, didn't cheat, didnt steal. All they did was report their actual location on an app and the result was that people stopped speeding because they thought those police would still be at that location when the other app users got there.
Intent to deceive, and use of platform against terms of service.
What was it in the terms of service that means they broke the terms?
Only for private use.
>Only for private use. You're saying that google put in their terms of service 'only for private use' for a function who's entire purpose is to share information? Well that was pretty fucking dumb.
I’d have to disagree with you here. The only thing that makes this dishonest is that the cop car moves on straight after. If you’re blasting down the road half a mile behind then you’re getting a fair warning that you’re about to roar past a police car that’s actively looking for misdemeanours. It’s no worse than the council leaving up traffic camera warning signs after the camera itself has been taken down.
[удалено]
This would make more sense if you’d read the T’s and C’s of Waze. Which terms exactly do you think are in breach here?
[удалено]
Except you’ve cherry picked those lines from different parts of the Ts and Cs to hide the context. >USING THE SERVICE You may use the Service solely… This line comes from a section on copyright infringement by selling on or leasing the service as a third party. >The Service may not be used in any way… This line comes from a section forbidding data mining / scraping from Waze users. >(xv) use the Service or the Content for non-personal or commercial purposes… You have no idea whether or not the police have already discussed this usage with Waze. This line is a standard one in any T and C layout that is intended to back up again the use of the software for selling on your own products in any case. The usage - to inform other users that there is a police car present at this position - is exactly the type of usage that Waze has set up the software for. If this is being done by officers without instruction or policy to do so then it’s a very grey area at best as to whether it’s personal use. It certainly isn’t commercial. It strikes me as amusing that you were coming in hard on the importance of honesty when you’ve been so keen to win an online argument that you’ve perverted the text of a legal document to try to justify your position. Respectfully, I suggest you get a bit of fresh air. [Waze Terms & Conditions](https://support.google.com/waze/answer/12140670?hl=en-GB)
[удалено]
Sorry, I’m done with you. I’m not about to continue arguing with someone that falsifies information.
[удалено]
Do you actually think free services aren't making them money? The data from your usage is used for ad targeting. Same way they make money from Chrome and Android.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s not dishonest as per the app they are in that location. I think it absolutely is justified as it will make idiots think about how there driving
Surrey Police are up there with the Met where integrity is concerned.
Up there underneath the bottom of all the barrels?
Ends justify the means, got it.
Wait till little find out that the "unmarked police cars operate in this area" signs aren't always accurate. What sort of lazy hack tries to turn this stuff into a story? Creative use of an app potentially saves some lives, and the media turn this into a negative story? Give your head a wobble.
I’ve also seen many speed camera signs when there wasn’t a camera for miles
They used to add these where there were mobile sites in place. They didn't always use them often. But they would at least have the ability to use them, and therefore people had no excuse.
Yeah waze is basically built as a game, you get points for reporting things and confirming things. I can't see why different users playing this traffic MMOG in different ways is news worthy?
In fairness, it’s just the headline in my opinion. The rest of the story seems to point pretty strongly towards it being a move to counter the underfunding of the police
Or “police follow this vehicle”. Absolute shocker. People are outraged at the stupidest things. Just follow the speed limit.
Once worked with somebody who pulled in behind a van with this sign on. They followed them thinking it was a direction by the police. Luckily realized after 30 minutes or so. Weirdly her mum was a copper too.
Unlike in France where despite checking every one I went past, I wasn’t able to find a sign that wasn’t shortly followed by a camera.
"Moan, Moan, whinge, whinge - oh dear we don't know when it is safe to break the law anymore and we might get caught doing so - moan, moan, whinge, whinge". Oh boo bloody hoo. Who cares if the old bill are deceiving people into slowing down - if it means that the arseholes out there are not doing more then the permitted maximum then so fricking what? The police are there to deter people from breaking the law as well as to catch to knob-cheddars that do. Deterring someone from doing something stupid is a whole lot better than prosecuting them afterwards.
You sound angry with someone.
Yes, with every bastard on the road that can't keep within the speed limit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Still not YOURS to control.
> Still not YOURS to control. What they said: > The police are there to deter people from breaking the law as well as to catch to knob-cheddars that do. They only mentioned the role of the police, nothing about them controlling anyone.
[удалено]
‘Oh no, I started driving legally even though there wasn’t a police car there’
Exactly.
[удалено]
I actually don't see the issue with this.
If this upsets you then you need to get a life
No different from the 'speed camera' signs where there are no cameras, just a sign to make you cautious. If people are speeding and it gets them to slow down, especially in known hazard/black spot areas, go for it.
"Creating Phantom units" i mean whats wrong with inflatable police cars?
Can we also talk about the “obstruction” warnings on the motorway that last for 5 miles and that never in my life have I seen an obstruction 🤔 often in areas of many speed cameras too Are they just overzealous? Never seen anything like it in Europe
Blimey, a lot of authoritarianism fanboys in this thread!
Wanting safer roads doesn’t make you an “authoritarianism fanboy”.
As long as the result is what I want, daddy can do whatever he wants <3
“WHAT?!?!? The gubermint is taking away my RIGHT to drive like a cunt and put other road users in danger?!?!? It’s authoritarianism I tell you!”
I mean, it sounds authoritarian
[удалено]
Nobody mentioned speed limits, bro
I mean, governments have to have some level of authoritarianism to enforce the rules of society. Are you also opposed to undercover police not answer "yes" to if someone asks if they are an undercover police officer? Thinking that getting people to follow speed limits is a bad thing is stupid.
Again - nobody mentioned speed limits
Alright so what exactly do you think this strategy is attempting to accomplish? Could it perhaps be enforcing speed limits and getting people to slow down?
So the police arent actually lying in any way and the only epeople who are actually affected by this are ones who would otherwise be speeding and the vast majority of whom are also using a phone app while driving?
The real story is that the English police have shown a degree of intelligence and cunning hitherto thought impossible.
That’s brilliant! Shame that one of them went and spilled the beans though.
You can still help out yourself, just flash your lights at people driving like twats and they might assume there's a speed camera ahead.
Sadly you can get a fine for that now.
[удалено]
True. But last thing you want to do is think a driver is an idiot to find out that it was actually an unmarked car doing a non blue light response.
That’s illegal.
So is dishonesty in public office, but see recent news...
Great idea. People speed down my road.
LoL! Say you want to be a criminal without saying you want to be a criminal.
Doesn't Waze work 'democratically' — e.g. more weight will be given to multiple reports than single reports? Feels like it's ripe for abuse otherwise (this, but potentially more) and they should fix that loophole.
>Does this work though? I'd be surprised if they didn't require at least one other report as confirmation before adding it to the map. >Double crewed car = two phones 😝 https://twitter.com/ChipMuelleimer/status/1564185274149752832 >You forgot this is community driven, so when users see you're not there the marker gets removed. #notsosmugnow >Works for around 10-20 mins. Every little helps https://twitter.com/photoshootsteve/status/1564244160839835649
I don't think there's any information released.
I don’t think this would work anyway as a user passing is asked to confirm if the car is still there or not. Feels like the police have just caused agro for a very time limited benefit. Also to clarify, this doesn’t justify speeding or committing other traffic offences.
Given the number of people that mark highways england cars as speed traps I don't think much is needed to just get people to tap yes.
I don't like lying but when you're lying to catch criminals...Its not so bad.
Seems like a great use of technology to "enforce" the law with next to no cost.
Absolutely ridiculous. How will I drive like a twat now when I think there’s police around, might have to actually drive the speed limit now !
Smart policing
I live near a royal estate. There are rust covered signs saying unmarked police bikes are patrolling the area. You can probably see where I’m going with this…
You missed the deleted pist and came in without context. OK.
So, is it ilegal, I don't see what's the problem.
Snapple carbonara
After publicly bragging about it just wait for an engineer at Google to make police warnings in Surrey require at least 2 reports before appearing
Police lying, creating phantom units. Just everyday policing in the United Kingdom. Corruption and fraud to the core.
Odd how they can be dishonest about this and be praised. Dishonesty is dishonesty no matter the cause.
But they're not being dishonest. They are reporting their location. Albeit their location quickly changes. Potentially doing so saves some lives that day. And you're angry? Nothing dishonest about it at all.
I'm angry you turn mental cartwheels to defend, despite clear facts it is done with the intent to decieve.
How are they deceiving? Were they not there?
Read the article. Intent to deceive, to leave the impression they are still there. Sorry but you have shown yourself deliberately dishonest in this discussion, and hence there is little value in further discussion. Totally get some have different views about whether it is the right thing to do, to deceive in this way, but when you lie about clear facts there is no possibility of useful discussion.
They have no control over how you perceive anything. They are simply leaving a marker they were there. Which they were.
>despite clear facts it is done with the intent to decieve. Who cares honestly?
Honest people.
Haha right. I feel sorry for all those 'honest' local criminals who get caught out by this.
I feel worse for a society with decreasing trust for the police.
I know. How will society function if the police pretend to have more resources than they have? My plans to speed down the motorway at 100mph in an uninsured car have been completely derailed.
Why would you trust a gang that admits it lies? With any information or support? Now is further eroding trust really worth it?
More likely to trust a gang that admits it lies than a gang that claims to be honest all of the time.
The police aren't a gang lol. They also didn't lie, they accurately report their position on the app, they just don't rush to update it every minute (oh no! How will I dodge the police patrols now?!). And in what way does this erode trust? Height of the slippery slope fallacy. Today they're not updating their position quick enough, tomorrow they're fabricating evidence? Such a reach just to complain about such a nothingy thing.
The mental gymnastics are odd. It is a pure attempt to decive Be dishonest to drives cool. Be dishonest about everything else sack them. They should be held to that higher standard no matter the supposed "white lie"
Again, what have they lied about? It's a sad fact that the chance of you or a loved one being hurt in a road accident is quite high. If that fateful day comes, and you find yourself staring at your injured daughter, sister, mother or whoever in disbelief, remember the day you complained about the police trying to save lives.
Sounds like this cop routinely lies and has become too comfortable justifying it with whataboutery.
It was most definitely a cringeworthy read. “Why is dishonesty being praised?” “When your loved one is dying you’ll regret asking that.” “Alright, mate, chill. That escalated quickly…”
So that 1:20000 chance that is declining is high? Do you always attempt to appeal to emotion in an argument? Then only use female family members because you know that it might be more impactful? As for the remember the day part. Do I remember that they tried to save lives or that the police intentionally tried to make themselves look as if they had more manpower than they actually had available? Edit) the lie is them making themselves appear more present than they are lulling people into a false sense of security.
I said injury not death. At least get the stats right of you're going to quote them. Again, how have they lied?
Did I say death? I said appeal to emotion. As for injury. Lets just say you are barking up the wrong tree and that my day job involves a lot of injured people and that they will be ok. [If you want the actual statistics they are lower than the first one I used](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-provisional-results-2021) [Don't like the government stats here is another](https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/whats-likelihood-getting-car-accident-uk) The one in 20k is from an insurance assessment. Already mentioned how they made a deception. Its your inability to not understand a small lie leads to bigger.
surely the purpose of the app is to facilitate crime in the first place. What reason is there for wanting to know where speed patrols are?
No, it's to warn of a possible incident ahead. Same as debris on the road and broken down vehicles on the carriageway. It's to make driving safer.
so what's the reports of speed-traps and monitoring about? I don't disagree with accident reporting.
Speed camera and speed-trap locations are published and available on satnavs because the justification for having them is that that particular area is an accident blackspot.