Police driver suspended for 140mph

[jm doc]

vonhosen said:

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).

And the point I was trying to make in my post earlier in this thread is that the CPS, police and others are trying to claim on the one hand that 140mph is dangerous when there appear to be no other aggravating factors (link not curently available but motorist convicted DD after brief burst 140mph, no apparent aggravating factors), but simple speeding if carried out by a police officer when there are multiple aggravating factors.

You can argue all day about exemptions and the rules, but it's rank hypocrisy and reinforces the view that the police feel they are above the law.

[Greendubber]

340600 said:

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.

Why would it be for dangerous?

There needs to be other aggravating factors for dangerous other than speed alone.

[vonhosen]

jm doc said:

vonhosen said:

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).

And the point I was trying to make in my post earlier in this thread is that the CPS, police and others are trying to claim on the one hand that 140mph is dangerous when there appear to be no other aggravating factors (link not curently available but motorist convicted DD after brief burst 140mph, no apparent aggravating factors), but simple speeding if carried out by a police officer when there are multiple aggravating factors.

You can argue all day about exemptions and the rules, but it's rank hypocrisy and reinforces the view that the police feel they are above the law.

Circumstances matter for all, not just Police, as 150mph in daddy's Porsche in a 60mph limit shows.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerous...

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 26th January 22:03

[340600]

Greendubber said:

Why would it be for dangerous?

There needs to be other aggravating factors for dangerous other than speed alone.

Taking the first Milton case as an example, there didn't appear to be much other than very high speeds going against him.

The exemption covers us for speeding when responding, so by default if you end up in court it's generally going to be because you've done something that could be considered dangerous, whether it's for excessive/disproportionate speed or something else.

[vonhosen]

340600 said:

Greendubber said:

Why would it be for dangerous?

There needs to be other aggravating factors for dangerous other than speed alone.

Taking the first Milton case as an example, there didn't appear to be much other than very high speeds going against him.

Did you see the video?

It was at night.

[carinaman]

vonhosen said:

Circumstances matter for all, not just Police, as 150mph in daddy's Porsche in a 60mph limit shows.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerous...

1. He wasn't a police officer.
2. He wasn't on duty.
3. He wasn't driving a police car.
4. Porsche drivers aren't expected to set a good example to rest of society.
5. The Porsche driver didn't owe a duty of care to the detainee.
6. The Porsche driver was probably paying for their own fuel.
7. A 21 year old that's not been on any police driving courses can't reasonably be expected to know better.


We're going to need another job lot of needles to dance upon the head of.

Edited by carinaman on Sunday 26th January 22:26

[vonhosen]

carinaman said:

vonhosen said:

Circumstances matter for all, not just Police, as 150mph in daddy's Porsche in a 60mph limit shows.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerous...

1. He wasn't a police officer.
2. He wasn't on duty.
3. He wasn't driving a police car.
4. Porsche drivers aren't expected to set a good example to rest of society.
5. The Porsche driver didn't own a duty of care to the detainee.
6. The Porsche driver was probably paying for their own fuel.
7. A 21 year old that's not been on any police driving courses can't reasonably be expected to know better.


We're going to need another job of needles to dance upon the head of.

What?

It's an example of speed alone not being enough for dangerous driving. An example that shows that doesn't just apply to the Police, it's Police & public alike (both matters alleged by the person I was replying to).

Rather than looking for needles keep up with the programme.

[carinaman]

vonhosen said:

Rather than looking for needles keep up with the programme.

Using your yardstick MPC Joey Hand looks relatively safe, it was an M-way, it was a police maintained vehicle, he'd been trained as a police driver etc.


I am sure someone mentioned context and the importance of context in the last page or two of this thread. I am not sure I can multitask enough to cope with the idea of context while comparing two different types of fruit.

[vonhosen]

carinaman said:

vonhosen said:

Rather than looking for needles keep up with the programme.

Using your yardstick MPC Joey Hand looks relatively safe, it was an M-way, it was a police maintained vehicle, he'd been trained as a police driver etc.


I am sure someone mentioned context and the importance of context in the last page or two of this thread. I am not sure I can multitask enough to cope with the idea of context while comparing two different types of fruit.

What are you going on about?

My reply was to a person & relevant to their post. You then jump in talking about something of no relevance to that & are back to talking in riddles.

I mentioned context - circumstances matter as to whether a speed is dangerous or not.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 26th January 22:37

[carinaman]

vonhosen said:

Circumstances matter for all, not just Police, as 150mph in daddy's Porsche in a 60mph limit shows.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerous...

Your comparison has dazzled me to my right and temporarily distracted me.

I grasp your point. Excessive velocity doesn't always mean a conviction for Dangerous Driving. It feels like your comparison is scraping the Armco.

Edited by carinaman on Sunday 26th January 22:41

[rossmcdee]

Hi guys, just stumbled upon this thread this evening! It's a year old I know but I feel a need to add my two penneth!
I am the person in the link on page 10 who was convicted of Dangerous driving and speeding. A few facts I would like to make clear.
1. The car was a well maintained de restricted BMW E39 M5 not a X5
2. There was no police "chase" as some articles have stated.
3. There were no other parties involved, no passenger no "showing off" and no racing or interference with any other road user or pedestrians.

I have not read all the numerous pages on this thread but I understand it is of differing opinions about the officer showing off and traveling at 140mph, and the subsiquent punishment/ramifications.

I firstly am not using this forum to in any way justify doing 144mph on a public road.
My concern is with the inconsistency to which the charge of dangerous driving has been administered, my case for example.

I am a experienced driver and have been the owner of a number of high power rear wheel drive cars (TVRs Etc).
I have had one to one driver tuition with a seasoned race driver on several occasions.
I have a track day car and have driven some of the most challenging circuits in Europe.
I have not had a bump or any kind of incident on a public road in over 20 years and have previously gained only 3 points in that period.
On the day I was caught speeding I was traveling on a virtually empty dual carriage way passing no traffic at all whilst traveling above the speed limit.
I accelerated from 70 to aprox 145 in about 10-15 seconds then immediately decelerated to within the speed limit.
I was not "seeing what it would do" as some reports state. I am aware my car was capable of 186mph.
The road was bone dry and visibility was excellent.

I was told by the CPS that irrespective of the drivers experience, the cars performance capability or the topography of the land. The essence of the dangerous driving charge was the speed itself.

As I understand then, anyone (police officers, footballers....) traveling at speeds in this region should automatically be furnished with the dangerous driving charge??

• nb

I had a crap brief as I'm not on benefits. I would have put this to crown court if I could have afforded it.

[DocSteve]

rossmcdee said:

Hi guys, just stumbled upon this thread this evening! It's a year old I know but I feel a need to add my two penneth!
I am the person in the link on page 10 who was convicted of Dangerous driving and speeding. A few facts I would like to make clear.
1. The car was a well maintained de restricted BMW E39 M5 not a X5
2. There was no police "chase" as some articles have stated.
3. There were no other parties involved, no passenger no "showing off" and no racing or interference with any other road user or pedestrians.

I have not read all the numerous pages on this thread but I understand it is of differing opinions about the officer showing off and traveling at 140mph, and the subsiquent punishment/ramifications.

I firstly am not using this forum to in any way justify doing 144mph on a public road.
My concern is with the inconsistency to which the charge of dangerous driving has been administered, my case for example.

I am a experienced driver and have been the owner of a number of high power rear wheel drive cars (TVRs Etc).
I have had one to one driver tuition with a seasoned race driver on several occasions.
I have a track day car and have driven some of the most challenging circuits in Europe.
I have not had a bump or any kind of incident on a public road in over 20 years and have previously gained only 3 points in that period.
On the day I was caught speeding I was traveling on a virtually empty dual carriage way passing no traffic at all whilst traveling above the speed limit.
I accelerated from 70 to aprox 145 in about 10-15 seconds then immediately decelerated to within the speed limit.
I was not "seeing what it would do" as some reports state. I am aware my car was capable of 186mph.
The road was bone dry and visibility was excellent.

I was told by the CPS that irrespective of the drivers experience, the cars performance capability or the topography of the land. The essence of the dangerous driving charge was the speed itself.

As I understand then, anyone (police officers, footballers....) traveling at speeds in this region should automatically be furnished with the dangerous driving charge??

• nb

I had a crap brief as I'm not on benefits. I would have put this to crown court if I could have afforded it.

I feel sorry for you. You have been heavily punished for a victimless crime in my opinion.

Was the standard of driving likely to lead to injury or significant damage to property? Although I know people are criticised for mentioning the Autobahn here but in this case it is a valid analogy, surely. If driving at high speeds per se is that dangerous then the Autobahn would be a bloody mess. I accept that drivers in the UK are aware of the 70mph speed limit and therefore there are significant differences in that regard (the road systems are otherwise similar and certainly no more geared for high speed in Germany than the UK) but if this was taken into account e.g. no passing of traffic at higher speeds than would be anticipated then how can it be argued as dangerous?

The speed limit is the speed limit and I accept that is the law but how can dangerous driving be made out simply on the basis of speed alone?

[anonymous-user]

It depends on the circumstances. Someone posted a link above which judged a higher speed not to be dangerous. Here it is again: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerous...

If you drive at those speeds and are caught, you place yourself in the "lottery" of excess speed / dangerous driving. It doesn't matter what happens to other people.

DocSteve said:

The speed limit is the speed limit and I accept that is the law but how can dangerous driving be made out simply on the basis of speed alone?

It's not. Look at the link above as an example.

[DocSteve]

La Liga said:

t's not. Look at the link above as an example.

I accept all of that but it appears to be a lottery as to whether excess speed is deemed to be dangerous or not. Surely that says something about the legislation - i.e. it is ambiguous at best.

[ging84]

CPS want to have their cake and eat it.
speeding is a specific offence, with very clear sentencing guidelines, which makes it nice and easy to prosecute speeding on contexts where is clearly posed no danger, yet when they feel that the penalties for speeding laid out by parliament are not enough at the top end of the scale, they make up there own laws saying doing over x mph is automatically dangerous driving.

[Mk3Spitfire]

vonhosen said:

What are you going on about?

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 26th January 22:37

Have you not met C-man before?

[anonymous-user]

rossmcdee said:

...

[a load of self justifying bilge/attempt to blame his lawyer/whatever.]

Here's the story:

http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/s...


What a tool.

[vonhosen]

ging84 said:

CPS want to have their cake and eat it.
speeding is a specific offence, with very clear sentencing guidelines, which makes it nice and easy to prosecute speeding on contexts where is clearly posed no danger, yet when they feel that the penalties for speeding laid out by parliament are not enough at the top end of the scale, they make up there own laws saying doing over x mph is automatically dangerous driving.

They don't make up their own laws (governments make laws), they let the court decide if it satisfies the dangerous driving legislation.

[Greendubber]

Breadvan72 said:

Here's the story:

http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/s...


What a tool.

Ah but he's owned RWD cars and had a bit of track time so he's clearly a tasty driver....

[carinaman]

Driving ban for Northumberland man who travelled at 144mph The Journal 15 Jan 2014 said:

McDermott was criticised by magistrates and prosecutors while The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) claimed lives could have been lost.

from: http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/s...



Nice to see RoSPA being like the IAM being like BRAKE!

One of my New Year's Resolutions for 2015 is to be even more reliant on the Precationary Principle because you can never be too careful.