Police driver suspended for 140mph

[vonhosen]

Zeeky said:

vonhosen said:

Quite, but I'll start from the position that things are legal until there is sufficient to convince it isn't legal.

To convince whom? Convincing you or I is not relevant to the question.

It is if I'm going to be making the decision to use the exemption.

[Rovinghawk]

Cat said:

In the absence of an authority stating the speed travelled at must be justified for the exemption to apply I can see no reason to interpret the legislation that way.

So you feel that his unjustified 140mph is ok because nobody specifically said he couldn't.

His vastly superior skills didn't extend as far as good judgement, though.

[Zeeky]

That isn't relevant to the law. Only to your perception of the law or what you believe is acceptable to those who are responsible for discipline and reporting for the offence.

[Cat]

Rovinghawk said:

Cat said:

In the absence of an authority stating the speed travelled at must be justified for the exemption to apply I can see no reason to interpret the legislation that way.

So you feel that his unjustified 140mph is ok because nobody specifically said he couldn't.

His vastly superior skills didn't extend as far as good judgement, though.

Is that a question or a statement?

What I am discussing is whether or not the law requires the speed involved to be justified in order for the exemption to apply. The law as it is written appears to suggest not.

I have made no comment as to whether or not I consider his actions were acceptable.

Cat

PS - Once again you selectively quote to try and misrepresent a post - well done

[Zeeky]

[quote=Cat]... It would seem just just as likely to a be reference to the "fact" as to whether it was a Police purpose or not and the "degree" to which obeying the limit would hinder that purpose? /quote]

At first reading I thought this, but...

If the court meant the "degree" to which simple compliance with the limit would affect the level of hinderance rather than the extent of non-compliance affecting the level of hinderance, it would be illogical to refer to a specific speed over the limit.

[i]...Familiarising oneself with a vehicle and honing one's skills does not necessarily involve driving at 90mph through residential streets[i/]

It might only require driving at, for example, 50mph. Following your analysis even if that was the case, 90mph would not be relevant as the exemption threshold had been met.

[vonhosen]

But in training (as he 'Milton' claimed) you'd have to consider the 'imaginary purpose', so 90mph may have been acceptable.
Wouldn't he just claim he was imagining the most extreme of circumstances every time he was training?

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 26th January 20:06

[Rovinghawk]

Cat said:

Is that a question or a statement?

there was no question mark; it was not a question.

Cat said:

What I am discussing is whether or not the law requires the speed involved to be justified in order for the exemption to apply. The law as it is written appears to suggest not.

The law appears to have no judgement on the subject as yet. It would be good for this to be put in front of a judge for clarification. I am disappointed that nobody has seen fit to do so in this case.

Cat said:

I have made no comment as to whether or not I consider his actions were acceptable.

Would you care to do so? You seem to be defending the legality of his actions.

[10 Pence Short]

My reading of the legislation is that the exemption can be used only so far as to prevent the purpose being hindered.

The speed required to avoid hindrance will be a matter of fact and circumstance on each occasion. It would be up to the defence to satisfy the court the speed used was necessary.

Travelling at a speed beyond that required to avoid hindrance, on my reading, would be ultra vires and therefore susceptible to conviction.

[vonhosen]

10 Pence Short said:

My reading of the legislation is that the exemption can be used only so far as to prevent the purpose being hindered.

The speed required to avoid hindrance will be a matter of fact and circumstance on each occasion. It would be up to the defence to satisfy the court the speed used was necessary.

Travelling at a speed beyond that required to avoid hindrance, on my reading, would be ultra vires and therefore susceptible to conviction.

So when I am going somewhere that involves time as an issue, I have to second guess what might be enough time at the end of the day rather than just get there ASAP because I believed time was an issue?

Now if I get new information that means time is definitely no longer an issue, I can see that & that's what generally happens anyway (cancelled on route), but until you have such information/confirmation you've really got to guess what might be enough?

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 26th January 20:19

[Cat]

Rovinghawk said:

Cat said:

Is that a question or a statement?

there was no question mark; it was not a question.

In which case don't make stuff up and claim it is my point of view!

Rovinghawk said:

Cat said:

What I am discussing is whether or not the law requires the speed involved to be justified in order for the exemption to apply. The law as it is written appears to suggest not.

The law appears to have no judgement on the subject as yet. It would be good for this to be put in front of a judge for clarification. I am disappointed that nobody has seen fit to do so in this case.

The law as written appears unambiguous and expresses the intention of the legislators who drafted it. What part of the law as written do you think needs clarification by a judge? Just because you don't like what the law says doesn't mean it requires a court to re-interpret it.

Rovinghawk said:

Cat said:

I have made no comment as to whether or not I consider his actions were acceptable.

Would you care to do so? You seem to be defending the legality of his actions.

I don't think that his actions were acceptable nor am I defending them. As previously mentioned I am addressing a pointed raised earlier that there needs to justification of the speed involved for the exemption to apply - I disagree.

Cat

[340600]

I would expect somebody being prosecuted for 140mph to face a dangerous driving charge anyway so discussing "how much" over the limit the exemptions allow or whether the speed is justified seems somewhat moot to me.

There is of course no exemption for dangerous driving. The documentation my force is issued with states that the use of the exemption must be reasonable, necessary and proportionate at all times. If my driving fell outside of that criteria I'd expect to be put under the microscope in court just the same as anyone else.

For what it's worth many forces (including mine) will also issue speed "limits" based on driver grade/vehicle type so it would be possible to be disciplined internally whilst still claiming the legal exemption.

[vonhosen]

340600 said:

I would expect somebody being prosecuted for 140mph to face a dangerous driving charge anyway so discussing "how much" over the limit the exemptions allow or whether the speed is justified seems somewhat moot to me.

There is of course no exemption for dangerous driving. The documentation my force is issued with states that the use of the exemption must be reasonable, necessary and proportionate at all times. If my driving fell outside of that criteria I'd expect to be put under the microscope in court just the same as anyone else.

For what it's worth many forces (including mine) will also issue speed "limits" based on driver grade/vehicle type so it would be possible to be disciplined internally whilst still claiming the legal exemption.

140mph is always dangerous?

I don't think anybody has said there is an exemption from dangerous driving & Milton was convicted of that offence.

The question isn't whether forces self regulate (not all forces do) by imposing percentages or speeds over the limit when using the exemption, but whether the legislation does.

[10 Pence Short]

vonhosen said:

So when I am going somewhere that involves time as an issue, I have to second guess what might be enough time at the end of the day rather than just get there ASAP because I believed time was an issue

The alternative would be that an officer, having identified the need to use the exemption, would be free to travel as fast as they can possibly go (without prejudice to other offences). This surely wasn't the intention of the legislation. I would expect the courts to provide a wide discretion in their favour, though perhaps not extending to 140mph show off sessions on the A1.

[mph1977]

10 Pence Short said:

My reading of the legislation is that the exemption can be used only so far as to prevent the purpose being hindered.

The speed required to avoid hindrance will be a matter of fact and circumstance on each occasion. It would be up to the defence to satisfy the court the speed used was necessary.

Travelling at a speed beyond that required to avoid hindrance, on my reading, would be ultra vires and therefore susceptible to conviction.

exactly, the issues arises is when someone in authority over the ES person in question (Supervision / Roads Policing / PSD / driving school) says the exemption is justified but the speed you reached is excessive - this is not covered in the law as it stands.

[vonhosen]

10 Pence Short said:

vonhosen said:

So when I am going somewhere that involves time as an issue, I have to second guess what might be enough time at the end of the day rather than just get there ASAP because I believed time was an issue

The alternative would be that an officer, having identified the need to use the exemption, would be free to travel as fast as they can possibly go (without prejudice to other offences). This surely wasn't the intention of the legislation. I would expect the courts to provide a wide discretion in their favour, though perhaps not extending to 140mph show off sessions on the A1.

Nobody has said 'showing off' as a purpose qualifies as a Police purpose. If his force came to the conclusion that was why he was speeding I would have expected a court case for speeding.

I don't see that the purpose of the legislation is to make officers second guess how much time they need to make up & then limit the speed they do in order to only just satisfy that time imperative. I see it as time is an imperative & that purpose allows them to exceed the limit by any safe margin but not a dangerous margin.

[340600]

vonhosen said:

140mph is always dangerous?

I'm not saying that. If a Police driver finds him or herself in court for doing that speed then I would expect the charge to be for dangerous driving. Obviously the exemption doesn't cover DD so as I said, discussing whether the driver is allowed to be a certain amount over the limit seems moot.

vonhosen said:

The question isn't whether forces self regulate (not all forces do) by imposing percentages or speeds over the limit when using the exemption, but whether the legislation does.

The legislation is quite clear in what the exemption allows and specific speeds are not mentioned. So again I fail to see the point in discussing it.

[Cat]

10 Pence Short said:

The alternative would be that an officer, having identified the need to use the exemption, would be free to travel as fast as they can possibly go (without prejudice to other offences). This surely wasn't the intention of the legislation.

Why do you think this? If the legislation intended there to be additional constraints beyond the vehicle being used for a police purpose and that purpose being hindered, why doesn't it specify this?

10 Pence Short said:

I would expect the courts to provide a wide discretion in their favour, though perhaps not extending to 140mph show off sessions on the A1.

It doesn't extend to show off sessions because they are not a policing purpose. 140mph or 75mph in those circumstances are both equally illegal.

Cat

[XJ Flyer]

340600 said:

vonhosen said:

140mph is always dangerous?

I'm not saying that. If a Police driver finds him or herself in court for doing that speed then I would expect the charge to be for dangerous driving. Obviously the exemption doesn't cover DD so as I said, discussing whether the driver is allowed to be a certain amount over the limit seems moot.

At least for those of us who disagree with the idea that such types of speed in isolation should be considered as so called 'dangerous driving' as I've said it's arguably in our interests to see some common ground with the police driver in question in this case.Obviously anyone who supports Brake's cause wouldn't see it that way though.

[vonhosen]

340600 said:

vonhosen said:

140mph is always dangerous?

I'm not saying that. If a Police driver finds him or herself in court for doing that speed then I would expect the charge to be for dangerous driving. Obviously the exemption doesn't cover DD so as I said, discussing whether the driver is allowed to be a certain amount over the limit seems moot.

That doesn't make sense.
If 140mph is not dangerous when the exemption is lawfully being used, it doesn't suddenly become dangerous if the only difference is that the exemption isn't being legally used. It just becomes speeding.

340600 said:

vonhosen said:

The question isn't whether forces self regulate (not all forces do) by imposing percentages or speeds over the limit when using the exemption, but whether the legislation does.

The legislation is quite clear in what the exemption allows and specific speeds are not mentioned. So again I fail to see the point in discussing it.

Some are arguing that it isn't clear.
Some think that there is a limit how far you can go over the speed limit, even if it were safe to go further over. Whilst others think that providing it's safe & it's a qualifying purpose, there is not restriction how far you can go over the speed limit (the limit being it mustn't become dangerous).

[340600]

vonhosen said:

That doesn't make sense.
If 140mph is not dangerous when the exemption is lawfully being used, it doesn't suddenly become dangerous if the only difference is that the exemption isn't being legally used. It just becomes speeding.

Apologies if I'm being unclear here. I am in actual fact agreeing with you. What I am saying is that if a Police driver ends up going to court for that kind of speed - it will almost certainly be for dangerous driving, because they have operated outside of the exemption which covers speeding, but not dangerous driving.