142 MPH in Scotland... anyone here?
Discussion
vonhosen said:
Different test of dangerous driving in law for them.
If they did it in their own car off duty then yes they'd be getting the same, or worse probably.
Would it surprise you to hear of two people out on bikes pulled after doing 130mph plus , one being a serving officer and nothing happening other than the calm it down talk. Fifteen years plus ago so maybe wouldn't happen now, maybe would depend on force or maybe even individuals involved.If they did it in their own car off duty then yes they'd be getting the same, or worse probably.
wc98 said:
vonhosen said:
Different test of dangerous driving in law for them.
If they did it in their own car off duty then yes they'd be getting the same, or worse probably.
Would it surprise you to hear of two people out on bikes pulled after doing 130mph plus , one being a serving officer and nothing happening other than the calm it down talk. Fifteen years plus ago so maybe wouldn't happen now, maybe would depend on force or maybe even individuals involved.If they did it in their own car off duty then yes they'd be getting the same, or worse probably.
Sometimes not even that, ie not even getting stopped.
Where it gets put before the courts though, that can be a different matter.
Forester1965 said:
What if the constable is off duty? What if the constable retired the day before the driving in question? What if the person driving was not a constable (or any of the other relevant people) but had undertaken training equal to or more comprehensive than a police constable?
As I said, different test though.And one that a jury is capable of applying to the circumstances.
There is public utility in the lawful use of exemptions (& a different Sec2/3 RTA test for 'designated people') acting in the public interest & for a reasonable Police purpose. Not having that & using the same test for them as the public driving use, is not tenable.
That public utility doesn't exist for an officer who retired the previous day etc, or a member of the public who has had some training.
Just like there is public utility in allowing trained and authorised Police officers to carry loaded firearms in a public place, but there isn't for allowing a member of the public (including an officer who retired the day before) who happens to be a good well practiced shot.
vonhosen said:
It wouldn't surprise me to hear of people getting nothing but a dressing down (whoever they were) 15 years ago or even today.
Sometimes not even that, ie not even getting stopped.
Where it gets put before the courts though, that can be a different matter.
Agreed, consistent outcomes for similar offences would be nice, as long as it's not everyone going to jail Sometimes not even that, ie not even getting stopped.
Where it gets put before the courts though, that can be a different matter.
Forester1965 said:
Hence my comment that it's a fudge.
I don't see it as a fudge at all, I see it as a sensible amendment.I'd argue for a Police officer to be allowed to use exemptions & to drive in the way they are taught without fear of prosecution for doing that reasonably on duty.
I can see public benefit in the doing so against public harm with them not being allowed to do so.
I can't argue the same for them doing that simply for a hoon on a day off.
I'm no angel, but I can't honestly argue for a free pass from s2 or 3 as applied to everybody else.
Forester1965 said:
What if the constable is off duty? What if the constable retired the day before the driving in question? What if the person driving was not a constable (or any of the other relevant people) but had undertaken training equal to or more comprehensive than a police constable?
He should bloody well know better?Forester1965 said:
What if the person driving was not a constable (or any of the other relevant people) but had undertaken training equal to or more comprehensive than a police constable?
I'd be interested to hear who you think, from a road driving perspective, could have training that's equal to or more comprehensive that a police advanced/pursuit trained driver.I'm not having a go, it's a genuine question, I can't think of how you could access that level of training privately.
Harry Rule said:
I'd be interested to hear who you think, from a road driving perspective, could have training that's equal to or more comprehensive that a police advanced/pursuit trained driver.
I'm not having a go, it's a genuine question, I can't think of how you could access that level of training privately.
A fully trained ex-constable. There are plenty of organisations that will train to Roadcraft etc. I'm not having a go, it's a genuine question, I can't think of how you could access that level of training privately.
Forester1965 said:
Harry Rule said:
I'd be interested to hear who you think, from a road driving perspective, could have training that's equal to or more comprehensive that a police advanced/pursuit trained driver.
I'm not having a go, it's a genuine question, I can't think of how you could access that level of training privately.
A fully trained ex-constable. There are plenty of organisations that will train to Roadcraft etc. I'm not having a go, it's a genuine question, I can't think of how you could access that level of training privately.
vonhosen said:
Forester1965 said:
What if the constable is off duty? What if the constable retired the day before the driving in question? What if the person driving was not a constable (or any of the other relevant people) but had undertaken training equal to or more comprehensive than a police constable?
As I said, different test though.And one that a jury is capable of applying to the circumstances.
assess what 'would be expected of a competent and careful constable who has undertaken the ... prescribed training, and
(b)..would be obvious to such a competent and careful constable that driving in that way would be dangerous.
I guess the fast answer to that is the same as a jurer who's never driven and has to judge whether the standard fell far below the careful and competent driver...
In reality I think it's a layer of complexity that ultimately might give rise to an exemption for Police officers more often than it should. If officers believe they've an extra layer of legal protection to fly through that junction at full pelt, are they more likely to do than if they didn't?
In reality I think it's a layer of complexity that ultimately might give rise to an exemption for Police officers more often than it should. If officers believe they've an extra layer of legal protection to fly through that junction at full pelt, are they more likely to do than if they didn't?
Living up here I know that road and it is a good road which can entice you into going faster than normal. It is also a well known as a place to keep an eye on your speed as it is well policed.
I cannot see the driver getting jailed for this unless he is a serial offender also we are full to overflowing and have no space for driving offenders.
I cannot see the driver getting jailed for this unless he is a serial offender also we are full to overflowing and have no space for driving offenders.
heebeegeetee said:
Forester1965 said:
Harry Rule said:
I'd be interested to hear who you think, from a road driving perspective, could have training that's equal to or more comprehensive that a police advanced/pursuit trained driver.
I'm not having a go, it's a genuine question, I can't think of how you could access that level of training privately.
A fully trained ex-constable. There are plenty of organisations that will train to Roadcraft etc. I'm not having a go, it's a genuine question, I can't think of how you could access that level of training privately.
andym1603 said:
Living up here I know that road and it is a good road which can entice you into going faster than normal. It is also a well known as a place to keep an eye on your speed as it is well policed.
I cannot see the driver getting jailed for this unless he is a serial offender also we are full to overflowing and have no space for driving offenders.
Is it an accident black spot, or a high complaint spot for anti-social driving, or is it just a case of policing for policing/revenue's sake?I cannot see the driver getting jailed for this unless he is a serial offender also we are full to overflowing and have no space for driving offenders.
Getting points on your licence for speeding is one thing, but being locked up is ridiculous.
Not forgetting that many of our European cousins are legally allowed to drive at significantly higher speeds than us often on significantly worse quality roads than ours even on busy roads, giving lie to the clear nonsense that exceeding an arbitrary limit in itself is inherently dangerous.
mac96 said:
caley64 said:
Snow and Rocks said:
Are those highlighting the fact that it's an A road actually familiar with the particular stretch of road in question?
It's wide open, perfectly sighted with open moorland on each side - I'd argue that it's probably safer to speed there in certain conditions than on most dual carriageways.
As an aside, I got pulled by an unmarked Volvo on this very stretch about 10 years ago. He'd clocked me during an overtake (at long range) doing 92 which resulted in a trip to court in Dingwall and 4 points and a £200 fine.
Probably lucky I was driving an ancient diesel Land Cruiser or my full bore overtake would probably have resulted in a much higher number!
I was told this morning he was originally clocked at 112mph, then got nobbled for the higher speed when they set off after him.It's wide open, perfectly sighted with open moorland on each side - I'd argue that it's probably safer to speed there in certain conditions than on most dual carriageways.
As an aside, I got pulled by an unmarked Volvo on this very stretch about 10 years ago. He'd clocked me during an overtake (at long range) doing 92 which resulted in a trip to court in Dingwall and 4 points and a £200 fine.
Probably lucky I was driving an ancient diesel Land Cruiser or my full bore overtake would probably have resulted in a much higher number!
There are indeed massive wide open stretches on this road.
It's like shooting fish in a barrel. The police often sit in the layby this time of year.
For a stationary car to catch a sporys car that passes it at 112 mph and is accelerating up to 150 mph is pretty much inconceivable.
The sports car would be over a mile away before the following car even matched its speed, then the following car has to close the gap.
There is a video from years ago of a police bike trying to catch an Evo at those kinds of speed on the Isle of Mann.
The bike struggled to catch him and an Evo is very short geared and small engined compared to a Porsche, meaning it runs out of puff at speeds above 110 mph.
The bike only caught up as the Evo slowed for a 40 zone.
BandOfBrothers said:
Is it an accident black spot, or a high complaint spot for anti-social driving, or is it just a case of policing for policing/revenue's sake?
Getting points on your licence for speeding is one thing, but being locked up is ridiculous.
Not forgetting that many of our European cousins are legally allowed to drive at significantly higher speeds than us often on significantly worse quality roads than ours even on busy roads, giving lie to the clear nonsense that exceeding an arbitrary limit in itself is inherently dangerous.
Absolutely not an accident blackspot - it's one of the safest places to travel at speed. They go out of their way to sit there because it's easy pickings - the road quality is such that the general speed of traffic is often 80+.Getting points on your licence for speeding is one thing, but being locked up is ridiculous.
Not forgetting that many of our European cousins are legally allowed to drive at significantly higher speeds than us often on significantly worse quality roads than ours even on busy roads, giving lie to the clear nonsense that exceeding an arbitrary limit in itself is inherently dangerous.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff