RE: 159mph PC to be convicted?
Discussion
lambo cop said:Lambo, when your powers to act on your own initiative are curtailed by your superiors you will have to ask yourself why it has come to that point. As I understand it, by reading reports in the press, West Mercia Police have already done that by laying down the directive that exceeding the speed limit by 20mph is allowed with a maximum of 120mph in exceptional circumstances. Remember speed kills and that you are in control of a lethal weapon.
I, like 99% of all on here don't know the full facts in this case and so I am not going to comment on the case itself.
A question I am going to pose is this. A lot of tax payer’s money is spent on the likes of Tony and I to train us to Advance police drivers, pursuit trained etc. When a new car does arrive at the garage yes I do take it out and yes if it’s safe I take it to about 90% of its capability on an appropriate road (empty motorway). The reason? When I get behind the next Ian Huntley, Fred West, etc I want to catch the bloke not at all costs but I want to make sure I know the characteristics of that vehicle so when in a stressful pursuit moment the last thing I 'm wondering is " How will this car handle on the next bend ?"
Is this then classed as reckless or common sense ?
I expect a lot of bad feedback from this statement but sorry.
As has been repeatedly stressed in this thread PC Milton is paying the price of SCP enforcement of speed limits. It is also worth repeating that no member of the public reported him, it was from within his own department. Why do you think this was, and who decided to report him to the CPS? [if any BIB knows the answer to this it would be very interesting]. It would appear that you and your fellow class one drivers have something to fear from your superiors and they are going to clip your elitist wings.
Incedentaly neither West or Huntley were driving at the time of their crimes and it has never been suggested by anybody that they drove at 159mph at any time.
lambo cop said:
I, like 99% of all on here don't know the full facts in this case and so I am not going to comment on the case itself.
A question I am going to pose is this. A lot of tax payer’s money is spent on the likes of Tony and I to train us to Advance police drivers, pursuit trained etc. When a new car does arrive at the garage yes I do take it out and yes if it’s safe I take it to about 90% of its capability on an appropriate road (empty motorway). The reason? When I get behind the next Ian Huntley, Fred West, etc I want to catch the bloke not at all costs but I want to make sure I know the characteristics of that vehicle so when in a stressful pursuit moment the last thing I 'm wondering is " How will this car handle on the next bend ?"
Is this then classed as reckless or common sense ?
I expect a lot of bad feedback from this statement but sorry.
[/quote]Lambo, when your powers to act on your own initiative are curtailed by your superiors you will have to ask yourself why it has come to that point. As I understand it, by reading reports in the press, West Mercia Police have already done that by laying down the directive that exceeding the speed limit by 20mph is allowed with a maximum of 120mph in exceptional circumstances.
As has been repeatedly stressed in this thread PC Milton is paying the price of SCP enforcement of speed limits. It is also worth repeating that no member of the public reported him, it was from within his own department. Why do you think this was, and who decided to report him to the CPS? [if any BIB knows the answer to this it would be very interesting]. It would appear that you and your fellow class one drivers have something to fear from your superiors and they are going to clip your elitist wings.
Incedentaly neither West or Huntley were driving at the time of their crimes and it has never been suggested by anybody that they drove at 159mph at any time.
mybrainhurts said:
Remember speed kills and that you are in control of a lethal weapon.
I can't see your face. I hope that wasn't a serious comment.....
No its tongue in cheek. Both are messages from the Dorset Camera Partnership, and elsewhere in the enforcement business, to justify their operations. If its true then it applies to Police Class 1 drivers as well. [although in my opinion they should be exempted from speed limits under certain circumstances]. It was not me or the public who prosecuted PC Milton in the first place or requested a retrial - somebody in his own organisation had it in for him.
lambo cop said:
I, like 99% of all on here don't know the full facts in this case and so I am not going to comment on the case itself.
A question I am going to pose is this. A lot of tax payer’s money is spent on the likes of Tony and I to train us to Advance police drivers, pursuit trained etc. When a new car does arrive at the garage yes I do take it out and yes if it’s safe I take it to about 90% of its capability on an appropriate road (empty motorway). The reason? When I get behind the next Ian Huntley, Fred West, etc I want to catch the bloke not at all costs but I want to make sure I know the characteristics of that vehicle so when in a stressful pursuit moment the last thing I 'm wondering is " How will this car handle on the next bend ?"
Is this then classed as reckless or common sense ?
I expect a lot of bad feedback from this statement but sorry.
What I still fail to see is that if taking your vehicle out for a "Test run", call it what you like, and this is perfectly legal, then why did it ever get to court in the first place. I agree we must train our police drivers in fast pursuits, and as someone has pointed out trak days are expensive, but why not train drivers up to say 90-95 on motorways, and a track for the final handling at speed thing or whatever you call it?
Do you mean that all our trained fast pursuit police drivers at one time or another, take their cars to the limis on our roads on a regular basis?, (just asking).
lambo cop said:
Incedentaly neither West or Huntley were driving at the time of their crimes and it has never been suggested by anybody that they drove at 159mph at any time.
If the next Huntley or West does drive and they have just killed a member(s) of your family, and the press print the following headline " Police driver could have caught killer however decided that he was unsure about his new BMW so let him go" will you still have the same views ? I think not.
Nowhere have I said that Police Class 1 drivers should be limited to driving at the speed limit, in fact I said they should be able to within laid down guidlines. It is not me you have to worry about beware of the enemy within. Not all senior Police officers like your elitist status and they are out to get you. It is obvious that PC Milton must have upset someone high up in West Mercia Police.
In your senario I would not be happy of course but I would not be happy if they were killed by a Police driver either.
lambo cop said:
If the next Huntley or West does drive and they have just killed a member(s) of your family, and the press print the following headline " Police driver could have caught killer however decided that he was unsure about his new BMW so let him go" will you still have the same views ? I think not.
They obviously haven't told you yet - with the proposed new ANPR camera network they're setting up there'll be no need to chase anyone. You'll be able to follow their progress by computer and wait for them to arrive wherever they going.
All we need then is remote controlled stun guns mounted on every lampost and they can get rid of all the experienced officers and hand the control room over to hoards of playstation addicted teenagers - hell they could most probably charge for it and the police force would actually make money for HMG.
lambo cop said:
What I still fail to see is that if taking your vehicle out for a "Test run", call it what you like, and this is perfectly legal, then why did it ever get to court in the first place. I agree we must train our police drivers in fast pursuits, and as someone has pointed out trak days are expensive, but why not train drivers up to say 90-95 on motorways, and a track for the final handling at speed thing or whatever you call it?
Do you mean that all our trained fast pursuit police drivers at one time or another, take their cars to the limis on our roads on a regular basis?, (just asking).
As I have said I don't know what is going on in this case like 99% here, however there is obviously more to this case then we know.
On an advanced driving course yes the limit is exceeded on NSL roads when it is safe to do so. This is for confidence if you do get into a high speed incident. However a lot of time is also spent in a classroom doing subjects such as mental characteristics of a driver, attitudes, red mist, vulnerability, self-awareness, hazard awareness, biological rhythms etc etc, all can be found in the first chapter of roadcraft.
Thank you very much for that, makes extreamly good sense, no doubt this thread will wind on though, but we are seeing a lot of good comments here.
Much has been said about the 'moral' offence of the high speed. In a world where people are murdered and tortured on a daily basis, I do wonder why the pre-occupation with this.
But, as has been said before, we weren't party to the video.
Also, doesn't the legislation covering careless and dangerous driving refer to what a "careful and competent driver" might consider driving to be below (in the case of careless) and far below (in the case of dangerous) a certain standard?
Wouldn't a police driving instructor be in a position to determine both of the above 2 points?
>> Edited by volvos70t5 on Wednesday 8th February 12:10
But, as has been said before, we weren't party to the video.
Also, doesn't the legislation covering careless and dangerous driving refer to what a "careful and competent driver" might consider driving to be below (in the case of careless) and far below (in the case of dangerous) a certain standard?
Wouldn't a police driving instructor be in a position to determine both of the above 2 points?
>> Edited by volvos70t5 on Wednesday 8th February 12:10
volvos70t5 said:
Wouldn't a police driving instructor be in a position to determine both of the above 2 points?
How often do 'Expert Witnesses' disagree though?
Defense will produce an 'Expert' swearing black is white and the prosecution produce an 'Expert' swearing white is black (sic).
BigBob said:
How often do 'Expert Witnesses' disagree though?
Defense will produce an 'Expert' swearing black is white and the prosecution produce an 'Expert' swearing white is black (sic).
As a former one... all the time. You'd imagine that two experts looking at the same evidence would come to broadly the same conclusions. Sadly, in RTA stuff this is rarely the case.
Where 2 expert witnesses are up against each other then, obviously, one must lose. Then again wasn't Roy Meddows an expert witness?
I know guys at work who consider themselves experts in their particular field. I wouldn't consider them experts in being a human being but there you go.
I know of one driving instructor who considers himself to be a real driving god. I happen to know that the same person was told by a serving Police Class 1 driver that his driving standard was dangerous.
I know guys at work who consider themselves experts in their particular field. I wouldn't consider them experts in being a human being but there you go.
I know of one driving instructor who considers himself to be a real driving god. I happen to know that the same person was told by a serving Police Class 1 driver that his driving standard was dangerous.
So let us imagine, purely for sake of argument, you have two expert witnesses, an ADI for the prosecution and a plod instructor for the defence.
The ADI could very well be one of the wallahs who came along and said "Crikey, we teach people how to pass a test, you lot really do teach people how to drive."
The other witness evidence will be inadmissable simply because he doesn't have a bit of paper because the legislation recognises that in order to do his job he doesn't need such a bit of paper.
Where is the justice in that?
The ADI could very well be one of the wallahs who came along and said "Crikey, we teach people how to pass a test, you lot really do teach people how to drive."
The other witness evidence will be inadmissable simply because he doesn't have a bit of paper because the legislation recognises that in order to do his job he doesn't need such a bit of paper.
Where is the justice in that?
Dwight VanDriver said:
But if he is an EXPERT fif he shouldn't be in Court
Definition of EXPERT
EX - Has been
PERT - Drip under pressure ?
(Quality Yorkshire air at the moment...}
dvd
What really is an EXPERT WITNESS, take the threads on this site, we all agree to differ on many many points, yet we are all convinced we are the best drivers on the roads, basically the expert witness to me is just some punter who just happends to know a lot about a particular subject. And sadly to date, folk have chosen to believe everyghing they say, which after all, is only their interpretation of their chosen subject.
Your explanation here is probably close to being right.
vipers said:
But if he is an EXPERT fif he shouldn't be in Court
Definition of EXPERT
EX - Has been
PERT - Drip under pressure ?
(Quality Yorkshire air at the moment...}
dvd
What really is an EXPERT WITNESS, take the threads on this site, we all agree to differ on many many points, yet we are all convinced we are the best drivers on the roads, basically the expert witness to me is just some punter who just happends to know a lot about a particular subject. And sadly to date, folk have chosen to believe everyghing they say, which after all, is only their interpretation of their chosen subject.
Your explanation here is probably close to being right.
vipers
I consider myself a better than average driver only.
I know of one chap who is a retired police driving instructor who is a genuinely nice guy and has, in my view, the right attitude when it comes to getting the best out of his students/clients. He is the *only* person I feel I need to use to develop my road driving skills further.
Then there is another (non-police instructor) who is nowhere near as well qualified but somehow feels qualified to lecture people about all aspects of driving.
I guess I can relate more to the quiet ones rather than the loud ones particularly when I am a novice student with regards to the subject matter.
IMHO people who are quiet have nothing to prove and the loud ones feel as though they have something to prove.
volvos70t5 said:
I know of one chap who is a retired police driving instructor who is a genuinely nice guy and has, in my view, the right attitude when it comes to getting the best out of his students/clients. He is the *only* person I feel I need to use to develop my road driving skills further.
Then there is another (non-police instructor) who is nowhere near as well qualified but somehow feels qualified to lecture people about all aspects of driving.
I guess I can relate more to the quiet ones rather than the loud ones particularly when I am a novice student with regards to the subject matter.
IMHO people who are quiet have nothing to prove and the loud ones feel as though they have something to prove.
I'm keeping quiet!
But seriously though, I have more confidence in people who sometimes sound a bit tentative about things, rather than the ones who seem to noisily insist that they are always right. The latter quite often prove to be wrong in due course.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff