RE: 159mph PC to be convicted?
Discussion
Let's try to be a bit less dogmatic here.
The speed of 159 may well not have been dangerous.
However, the speeds he was doing in the lower limits could have been and that's a matter for the judgement of the courts.
He was, however, breaking the legal speed limit by a considerable margin and for that he is guilty. There can be no mitigation due to his training or status as a police officer. He was not on authorised and structured training not was he chasing a villain or otherwise 'on a shout'. Official authorisation cannot be 'back-dated' to allow police officers to drive at any speeds they may wish. We would all like that, I'm sure.
Clearly, if you or I would be guilty of 'something' at those speeds, then so should he equally guilty of the same 'something'. There is no difference.
Let's be honest, he went for a 'hoon' in a new police car and thought that he'd get away with it. He didn't. Tough, the law applies equally and he will, if found guilty, get banned and maybe lose his job. If guilty of DD he could, in theory, go inside for a short while, although that's a bit unlikely really.
The speed of 159 may well not have been dangerous.
However, the speeds he was doing in the lower limits could have been and that's a matter for the judgement of the courts.
He was, however, breaking the legal speed limit by a considerable margin and for that he is guilty. There can be no mitigation due to his training or status as a police officer. He was not on authorised and structured training not was he chasing a villain or otherwise 'on a shout'. Official authorisation cannot be 'back-dated' to allow police officers to drive at any speeds they may wish. We would all like that, I'm sure.
Clearly, if you or I would be guilty of 'something' at those speeds, then so should he equally guilty of the same 'something'. There is no difference.
Let's be honest, he went for a 'hoon' in a new police car and thought that he'd get away with it. He didn't. Tough, the law applies equally and he will, if found guilty, get banned and maybe lose his job. If guilty of DD he could, in theory, go inside for a short while, although that's a bit unlikely really.
most interesting points to date. Would you (or anybody) in there right minds take a brand new car to that speed on delivery! they don't take jet fighters of the ground till they have sorted out the bits on the ground. second well aimed point, If we want to drive anywhere near that speed we have to go to a private testing ground. I think their is one called MIRA!! It would be nice if the tax payer footed the bill for the motor to do it in... Book him danno!
james_j said:That was my take on it. Nothing that undermines the Scamera/speed kills mentality can be allowed to exist.
I think we want Jo Public to start getting their heads around the fact that it isn't speed in isolation that kills people. Its the innappropriate use of it that contributes to accidents.
The One thing Cameras cannot deal with. Discretion!!
I believe it's just this emergence of good sense that is the reason the DPP wants to revisit this case. ...just in case the absurd "speed kills" (creates revenue) bandwagon gets challenged any further...
ubergreg said:
It's either dangerous or it isn't, not dangerous for 'Jim' but safe for 'Bob'
This is why re-opening this can of worms is a bad idea. If driving very quickly yet safely is found to be a no-go for PC Milton, then what chance do the rest of us ‘untrained civvies’ have when travelling at anything above the limit? The courts have said that, because of this person’s training, experience, and the conditions he was driving in, he was not a serious danger to himself or others, and therefore would not receive punishment.
edited to add...
I'd like to think that, if I get done for doing 95mph at 2am on a clear, dry, straight stretch of M-whatever, that I could demonstrate to the court that the circumstances in which my driving took place was quite safe, being neither a danger to myself or others.
...end edit
If he is found guilty this time around, we might find some short-term justice in it (I might even dance a jig), but it drives another nail in the coffin of safe efficient, speedy travel.
Here’s a question, just for fun: if Jenson Button did the same stretch, at the same time in similar conditions - in his NSX - I wonder what the courts would think of that?
>> Edited by ubergreg on Tuesday 31st January 14:11
You'd like to think so wouldn't you, however, i was recently in court to plead my case for speeding on an empty, dry, straight, perfect visibility dual carriageway, at least a mile from any pedestrian area. The vascar footage would have clearly demonstrated this, as it would have, my safe and text book overtake of the unmarked Merc. My main argument was that the concept of a safe overtake is minium TED (time exposed to danger), and that watching the speedo whilst overtaking was in fact NOT the safest option
- Magistrate had no interest in the video, proclaimed speeding kills (who in this case i'm not quite sure) and gave me a £500 fine for my troubles. There is absolutely no common sense applied in these cases. The guy before me driving without tax or insurance got a slap on the wrist, go figure.........
The media seem to focus on the 159mph top speed too much. The worst part of the story for me was the speed he was doing in built up areas. I seem to remember someone mentioning that he was doing around 50mph in a 30 zone (shropshire star paper maybe?). To me, that is inexcusable! No matter how competent the driver, you cannot deny that such speed is highly dangerous, regardless of the time of day or night. Considering the safe speed advertising campaign on tv quotes the massive difference between 30 & 35mph, imagine what doing 50mph would do to someone.
That kind of speeding on the motorway is stupid, but isn't necessarily dangerous in the right conditions (drivers in germany seem to cope fine), but speeding in a 30, even by a couple of mph, is risking peoples lives. On a clear motorway, even at night you can see miles ahead (unless it's foggy of course) and have no junctions or pedestrians or houses, but in built up areas you have all these obstacles.
If it's true that he was speeding in a 30 zone (can't say for sure because all the news stories i see focus on the big 159!), than there's no doubt he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, regardless of his training!!!
That kind of speeding on the motorway is stupid, but isn't necessarily dangerous in the right conditions (drivers in germany seem to cope fine), but speeding in a 30, even by a couple of mph, is risking peoples lives. On a clear motorway, even at night you can see miles ahead (unless it's foggy of course) and have no junctions or pedestrians or houses, but in built up areas you have all these obstacles.
If it's true that he was speeding in a 30 zone (can't say for sure because all the news stories i see focus on the big 159!), than there's no doubt he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, regardless of his training!!!
The copper is guilty of speeding, and it is hard to understand how he could get off that charge. I think the DPP is right to look into the case as it does stink of 'one rule for the, one for us'.
However, I think he is probably not guilty of dangerous driving. To have "is speeding dangerous?" given an even-handed debate in court might be interesting. If the judge rules that speeding far in excess of the posted limit does not automatically imply dangerous driving, that would be a nice precedent.
However, I think he is probably not guilty of dangerous driving. To have "is speeding dangerous?" given an even-handed debate in court might be interesting. If the judge rules that speeding far in excess of the posted limit does not automatically imply dangerous driving, that would be a nice precedent.
159 mph is bloody silly on any public road - I know cos I've done it. Tried out the old Tuscan (in Germany of course) and it terrified me at 170 mph. The road goes very narrow, the scenery all blurred and the smallest curve very tight. You cant see any debris by day, let alone at night so avoidance is out of the question. You are overtaking other traffic at 100 mph and they wont see you in their mirrors before they pull out in front of you.
Bang the bugger up and make the BiB use Bruntingthorpe for testing. Thier 2 mile straight is terrific.
Bang the bugger up and make the BiB use Bruntingthorpe for testing. Thier 2 mile straight is terrific.
This is probably why the DPP's going back to court. Look this was all covered at the time.
Regarding all these pronouncements like "that speed was silly" and "inexcusable."
:Michelle of the Resistance:
I shall say this only once
:/Michelle:
You have to see THE video in order to be able to comment!
What Milton was "guilty" of imho was
a) a lack of restraint.
b) a lack of respect for his colleagues.
c) even worse a lack of respect for the public.
That is my 2p and there I will leave it.
FiF
Regarding all these pronouncements like "that speed was silly" and "inexcusable."
:Michelle of the Resistance:
I shall say this only once
:/Michelle:
You have to see THE video in order to be able to comment!
What Milton was "guilty" of imho was
a) a lack of restraint.
b) a lack of respect for his colleagues.
c) even worse a lack of respect for the public.
That is my 2p and there I will leave it.
FiF
mjp_001 said:
The media seem to focus on the 159mph top speed too much. The worst part of the story for me was the speed he was doing in built up areas. I seem to remember someone mentioning that he was doing around 50mph in a 30 zone (shropshire star paper maybe?). To me, that is inexcusable! No matter how competent the driver, you cannot deny that such speed is highly dangerous, regardless of the time of day or night. Considering the safe speed advertising campaign on tv quotes the massive difference between 30 & 35mph, imagine what doing 50mph would do to someone.
That kind of speeding on the motorway is stupid, but isn't necessarily dangerous in the right conditions (drivers in germany seem to cope fine), but speeding in a 30, even by a couple of mph, is risking peoples lives. On a clear motorway, even at night you can see miles ahead (unless it's foggy of course) and have no junctions or pedestrians or houses, but in built up areas you have all these obstacles.
If it's true that he was speeding in a 30 zone (can't say for sure because all the news stories i see focus on the big 159!), than there's no doubt he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, regardless of his training!!!
mjp_001, I would have more likely agreed with you if we were talking about urban 30 limits before the mid 90s. But nowadays have you seen some of the appalling 30 limits on some roads today. Down in Devon (where I'm from) there are A LOT of roads with 30 limits where doing 50 would not be considered dangerous.
PaulSmith said:
If 159mph can be safe enough not to endanger the public, then surely this is a clear official admission that driving a few miles per hour over the speed limit isn't necessarily dangerous either.
Paul wins non-sequitur of the year so far. They found that this person's driving in that situation was not dangerous. It's not an official admission of anything. It's quite common that driving at the limit is dangerous - an official would be a fool to admit anything so sweeping.
Is the SCPs are arguing with outrageous claims, black and white nonsense arguments and the like, does it really help to do the same back?
I have never really understood how if a judgement is made, it gets done all over again at great expense, and will probably come to the same conclusion.
Although, on this case, I do think the judges result was wrong, and has angered a lot of road users whom have been done for perhaps 10 mph over the limit on similar roads.
Those of you who read my other threads will know that I personally am a stickler for road speeds, and would support any move to increase current motorway speed limits, I dont think 80 is unsafe whatsoever given the right conditions, but any other driver with every excuse under the sun would not have got away with what the police driver got away with.
Although, on this case, I do think the judges result was wrong, and has angered a lot of road users whom have been done for perhaps 10 mph over the limit on similar roads.
Those of you who read my other threads will know that I personally am a stickler for road speeds, and would support any move to increase current motorway speed limits, I dont think 80 is unsafe whatsoever given the right conditions, but any other driver with every excuse under the sun would not have got away with what the police driver got away with.
Can a Vectra with all those lights on top really do 159mph?
If it can, why aren't Vauxhall milking this for all they are worth?
Maybe the monitoring system isn't as accurate as the CPS would have us believe. We may still see the case dropped again as the Police really wouldn't want this man to have to prove his innocence.
If it can, why aren't Vauxhall milking this for all they are worth?
Maybe the monitoring system isn't as accurate as the CPS would have us believe. We may still see the case dropped again as the Police really wouldn't want this man to have to prove his innocence.
The thing that bothers me is the concept that someone who has been acquitted, whatever the rights or wrongs, can apparently be set up for another go for political reasons, when there appears to be no new evidence to support this.
One wonders if this might be another thin end of the wedge ; yet another.
One wonders if this might be another thin end of the wedge ; yet another.
cdp said:
Can a Vectra with all those lights on top really do
159mph?
Not according to my book.
Top Gear magazine has fastest Vectra at 155 mph, not very far away.
3.2 V6 24V GSi five door.
Maybe downhill with a tail wind and normal manufacturing variation.
IMHO, the copper was guilty of a bit of speeding.
No one got hurt, no one killed, I would consider three points
and 60 quid fine sufficient.
jellison said:
Bloody Right - Bang him Up
Thats a crock. You only want him "banged up " cos he's a cop, and in your mind cos he's a cop he shouldnt get away with it.
Is that about the size of your argument?
Lets look at it another way not the hysterical "jellison" way..... Namely, was the speed he was travelling at "dangerous" and if so to whom?
If the circumstances are proven (which they were not) then whats the problem as long as its SAFE?????
If its safe to do 250mph then there is NO problem cos its "safe".
Or is this more about The law IS the law IS the law codswallop?
I said wasn't going to contribute again but stuff it, more lies and unbalanced speculation.
At the time of the original Milton case there had been plenty of people shouting with joy because a MoP had got off on a technicality for a similar speed in his Porker. Yet when its bib the hang and draw cry comes out. More double standards than a double standard shop on bogof day.
It wasn't 159mph actually. Due to inaccuracy in device calibration it was a lower figure. Not just by a handful of mph either.
Secondly what REALLY brassed me off this morning was one of the news items on this case showed a bit of in car provida footage.
The implication was that this footage was from the Milton case. The fooage shown was actually @ 116 mph, in heavy rain, with some other traffic about on a motorway in daylight, therefore totally unrelated to Milton case.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh lads.
FiF
Over and out.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 1st February 09:32
At the time of the original Milton case there had been plenty of people shouting with joy because a MoP had got off on a technicality for a similar speed in his Porker. Yet when its bib the hang and draw cry comes out. More double standards than a double standard shop on bogof day.
It wasn't 159mph actually. Due to inaccuracy in device calibration it was a lower figure. Not just by a handful of mph either.
Secondly what REALLY brassed me off this morning was one of the news items on this case showed a bit of in car provida footage.
The implication was that this footage was from the Milton case. The fooage shown was actually @ 116 mph, in heavy rain, with some other traffic about on a motorway in daylight, therefore totally unrelated to Milton case.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh lads.
FiF
Over and out.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 1st February 09:32
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff