# Norman Ward received a ticking-off for a minor offence. (Having a misted up rear windscreen, Hunts Post, November 29). The officer, who won t be allowed to respond personally to Mr Ward s public criticism of her actions, used her discretion and did not
# Norman Ward received a ticking-off for a minor offence. (Having a misted up rear windscreen, Hunts Post, November 29). The officer, who won't be allowed to respond personally to Mr Ward's public criticism of her actions, used her discretion and did not issue him a fixed penalty notice.
Mr Ward has the attitude that no person in authority, particularly the police, has the right to point out the error of his ways. This is a major reason why society no longer respects police officers, teachers or council officials.
The officer merely told Mr Ward to present his driving documents, something that happens to people every day. There are thousands of people who do not bother to tax, insure, or MoT their cars.
Unless the officer had a crystal ball, she could not tell whether the person in the car in front of her was the "respectable son of a former policeman" or a disqualified driver who had just burgled somebody.
Mr Ward had seven days from midnight of the day he was stopped to produce his documents, he did not have to go during the working day.
I think it wholly commendable that a lone female officer on patrol had the courage to stop a vehicle with two occupants at 9pm.
# Is this a waste of police resources? The police are never going to be the most popular people in our society. But who is it that has the job of picking up the severed limbs and other body parts after a major collision and who is it that has to tell the relatives of those killed in crashes?
How, now that the season of goodwill and road deaths is nearly upon us, can telling a motorist to clean his windscreen so that maybe he could avoid an accident be considered a waste of police resources?
# MR WARD, the RAC and yourselves should all be ashamed of yourselves. Is this story really worthy of your front page? What an opportunity you could have taken to promote the dangers of not being able to see out of your windows and the risk to life.
Congratulations, Cambridgeshire Police - absolutely right. People like Mr Ward seem to think they are above the law and that society owes them some great debt of gratitude for working hard.
Discretion was used not to prosecute. You are indeed lucky, Mr Ward. You deserved to be, as you clearly have not learned from good advice.
Your father was a policeman, as you say. How many stories would you have heard of the sad and tragic loss or injury suffered through driver error? Clearing your windows is a very simple and effective way of seeing out of your vehicle. Watch the papers over the next few weeks as the number of collisions are reported.
Mr Ward, wind your window down and your neck in.
# DRIVING without clear all-round vision is driving without due care and attention. If you can't see all round, then you aren't driving safely.
# HOW many motorists would have been aware of this particular law?
With the annual budget for Cambridgeshire Constabulary running into the millions and needing more millions each year, could somebody explain the decision-making process that brings about such
My father earned the Military Medal in WWII fighting for freedom and democracy. When we have to know laws such as these in order to carry out our daily existence what is this country coming to?
# THE police should concentrate more on genuinely dangerous or reckless driving rather than on technical infringements with no real consequences. Better still, they could improve their hit rate on burglaries, muggings, rapes, assault and murder.
Having said that, if the person in the story had been driving around on a frosty morning having made no attempt to clear his windows except for a "porthole" on the windscreen, he should then have been stopped and cautioned. That would, in my book, be dangerous driving.
# IT doesn't matter who you are or if you have worked in the town for 40 years, this does not mean you can break the law.
# IF Mr Ward now cleans his windows for the remainder of his driving career, his being stopped will have served its purpose. I hope others will take note.
Dr ANTHONY EVANS
# THIS officer could have found something better to do.
It's just another example of police persecuting the public. When I was a member of the police service I got fed up with having to stop motorists for trivial stuff. I certainly could have found something better to do. I'm sure a few miles down the road this chap's car would have warmed up with its heater blowers and demisters. In this weather, it's difficult to keep all glass clear. The only way would be to stop breathing.
You have to ask yourself why the general public these days are not onside with the police.
Quote from old school cop to new recruit: 'Remember you are there to prosecute the public but not to persecute.'
# THE police were a bit over-the-top in pulling over a motorist for steamed up back window. They should concentrate more on the number of untaxed, uninsured vehicles on the roads of our town.
# Motorists are not just stopped for the sake of it. It is often for a good reason, such as their manner of driving, or on suspicion that an offence is being committed, or simply to advise the driver.
We do not know how the conversation between the police officer and Mr Ward went, we only have one side of it. How had Mr Ward driven prior to being stopped? We do not know the full facts or whether the officer simply pointed out the steamed-up rear window for safety reasons. The police have the power to ask any driver to produce their documents because of the fact that they are driving a motor vehicle on a road. If more stop checks were made and documents checked, we would not now have the present situation where a high percentage of motorists are driving around uninsured.