122mph Police officer not on emergency call
122mph Police officer not on emergency call
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

normalbloke

Original Poster:

8,829 posts

248 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
What do we think of this one chaps/chapesses?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/788406...



"He denies dangerous driving claiming his speed was not inappropriate for the conditions"

Obviously not.


Edited by normalbloke on Wednesday 11th February 16:31

SS HSV

9,646 posts

287 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
Well he maybe right to argue that speed is not necessarily the killer but I doubt they will listen to him, more likely make an example of him. Poor sod.

BigJonMcQuimm

975 posts

241 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
Should be made an example of... simple as.

The laws apply to us all.

marcia1

5,099 posts

219 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
What a TcensoredSSER,hope they throw away the keyyes

Schmeeky

4,298 posts

246 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
Reckon he was pretty damn lucky not to be seriously injured... and doing speeds like that in heavy rain is clearly inappropriate, police driver or not. A civilian caught doing that speed in those conditions would have the book thrown at them - I reckon he should be treated the same way.

scotal

8,751 posts

308 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
normalbloke said:
"He denies dangerous driving claiming his speed was not inappropriate for the conditions"
Surely the only answer to that is
"Your speed was obviously inappropriate, otherwise you wouldn't have crashed."

In this case I think its of little of no consequence that he's BiB.

Fezant Pluckah

1,711 posts

240 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
SS HSV said:
Poor sod.
Errr.... why?

ipitythefool

13,700 posts

277 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
SS HSV said:
Well he maybe right to argue that speed is not necessarily the killer but I doubt they will listen to him, more likely make an example of him. Poor sod.
Why is he a poor sod?
He broke the law - he should face the consequences.

The Black Flash

13,735 posts

227 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
Can't see him getting away with that argument. "I couldn't avoid the crash but I was driving appropriately for the conditions"....errr nuts

leon_t

295 posts

233 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
defense barrister said said:
In that rain he would aquaplaned at 65mph.
So could you please explain how every other driver managed to avoid crashing?

Funny, when I saw the headline "122mph Police officer not on emergency call" I figured it may well just be a Petrolheaded cop having some fun on a safe dry stretch of road. But at over 120mph in HEAVY RAIN with standing water, WTF did he think would happen.

Sounds like that if he crashed at 115 and had been driving inappropriately fast for a long period of time, he deserves to lose his job, go to prision and face a long ban. Idiot!

MGJohn

10,203 posts

212 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
How about that.

Going fast on a rain saturated road and aquaplaning ~ there's a turnup ~ who'd have thought that could happen.

>>> not inappropriate for the conditions. <<<

Yeah ... right.

NobleGuy

7,133 posts

244 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
scotal said:
normalbloke said:
"He denies dangerous driving claiming his speed was not inappropriate for the conditions"
Surely the only answer to that is
"Your speed was obviously inappropriate, otherwise you wouldn't have crashed."
yes

Rude-boy

22,227 posts

262 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
Had to argue on this in that the limit is far too low 99% of the time, yet the speed he was doing has to be questioned if the conditions were such that there was a good chance of the car aquaplaining.

I have driven(in Germany) at over 100mph in the rain, yet with very clear lines of sight and no hint that there was standing water. I have also driven a 30mph on the m6 a thought that was on the limit for the conditions.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

303 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
without getting into the usual plod-bashing mode....

if he does not get done for this, then there is something wrong with the system...

120Mph without a vadid reason is bad enough, but to do this in (what is reported to be) standing water is just reckless driving, period.

As said, if this was a MOP, you can imagine what the police would be saying about it....

militantmandy

3,838 posts

215 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
no sympathy whatsoever, assuming rain was as heavy as stated. madness to be going that fast in such conditions.

mrmr96

13,736 posts

233 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
Defending barrister Chris Rees said:
Any driver who finds himself with water covering all four wheels is in deep trouble.
Ba-dum Tish!

Seriously, though, why the comparison to Lewis? I presume he's making the point that once you're aquaplaning you have no control. I think the point (deliberaltly) missed by the defence barrister is why the car began to aquaplane in the first place.

"In that rain he would aquaplaned at 65mph" so WTF is he doing double that?

How can he say his speed was appropriate for the conditions and keep a straight face? Logic tells me it's not:

Rain + 120mph = aquaplaning so no control and crash.
No rain + 120mph = no aquaplaning and no crash resulting from aquaplaning.

FishFace

3,790 posts

237 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
mrmr96 said:
Seriously, though, why the comparison to Lewis?
Because a lot of people in the jury are going to be stupid and will think that if Hamilton couldn't do it, then it can't be dangerous etc.




AndyM31

817 posts

234 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
Emergency or no emergency if the conditions were not safe then the speed is a big issue but speed limits do exist overall. The fact is that is he hit the water at 115 MPH; what on earth got in to him to drive at that speed; more so using the tool of trade and wearing a uniform that we should look up to.

My recollections of driving in rain are such that the French come to mind when they restrict the speed when raining, let alone damp from 130 to 110 KMS. get caught going over and start praying.

based on the merits of the case and reading the news only, I feel that the law that applies to me as a private driver should apply to him. If it had been a blue light call, then perhaps it might be a different story.

Andy..

andygo

7,390 posts

284 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
..Trained to the second highest standard...


I raced a few years ago in a series that had as a fellow competitor a police driving instructor from Hendon.

He didn't have a clue about car control. He seemed to have no perception of what was about to happen, and had to react to situations rather than see them coming. He had several bumps as his invincibility shield didn't seem to work very well..

Mind you the sight of him shuffling the wheel through his hands on an autotest was amusing.

Edited by andygo on Wednesday 11th February 17:50

aquatix

1,587 posts

219 months

Wednesday 11th February 2009
quotequote all
Hope he gets the Welsh dictionary thrown at him for wasting the court's time with a "not guilty" plea. Since all that training couldn't do it then perhaps a spot of jail time might help him match speed to the conditions in future.

He should have just taken it on the chin (both of them) biggrin
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED