RE: 159mph PC to be convicted?
Discussion
If no paperwork or 'approval' for him taking the car and testing at that speed was granted IN ADVANCE of him doing it, surely he should be done for gross misconduct irrespective of the speeding aspect? That alone would be enough to lose him his job. His speeding may well not have been dangerous but unless there were very good mitigating circumstances he should be charged for breaking the law by some quite excessive margin. After all, none of us would get away with that speed whereas arguing the toss for between 70-100 we might do. He had NO mitigating circumstances UNLESS the testing had been approved.
Just my 2p worth
Just my 2p worth
BBC Story here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/466959
I'm afraid I don't think your one rule for you, another for us bit holds any water. The rule applying to EVERYBODY should be: Consider the circumstances.
Do not throw PC 159'er into jail for doing what he did. If the PTB decide it wasn't dangerous then that's ok, be pragmatic. But when I'm caught doing 120 also with no suggestion I was being dangerous, use the same discretion there also please. Because that's only fair.
This achieves two useful things: 1. Respect for the system increses across the board, 2. Minds are refocused away from "how fast was he going" and onto "how dangerous was he being", and that's crucial if we want a grown up approach to road safety, ie one that saves lives.
SM
Do not throw PC 159'er into jail for doing what he did. If the PTB decide it wasn't dangerous then that's ok, be pragmatic. But when I'm caught doing 120 also with no suggestion I was being dangerous, use the same discretion there also please. Because that's only fair.
This achieves two useful things: 1. Respect for the system increses across the board, 2. Minds are refocused away from "how fast was he going" and onto "how dangerous was he being", and that's crucial if we want a grown up approach to road safety, ie one that saves lives.
SM
Flat in Fifth said:
opinions of senior officers that Pc Milton's driving was not dangerous was simply inadmissable evidence
To be an 'expert' on the standard of driving, it has been previously held that you need to at least hold an ADI. Very few Police instructors tend to hold ADIs, because they don't have to under the Road Traffic Act, and therefore can't actually comment on whether driving is dangerous or not.
However, at risk of reopening the can or worms, there are two offences under consideration - the actual driving offences and the moral offence. It will be very hard to prove that his driving was not '...for Police purposes' (not least because at the original trial West Mercia admitted there were no procedures for 'familiarisation' at the material time) and thus the speeding part could well fail. As for the dangerous - I'd give it a good run as I find it highly unlikely that at night (assuming an unlit motorway) that he would be able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear.
As for the moral offence, guilty. At a time when relations between Police and drivers are being irrevocably damaged by the insistance on enforcement (and moreover enforcement after the event when no education can be imparted), to have an officer drive at headlining speeds and appear to get away with it can only harm things further.
StressedDave said:
To be an 'expert' on the standard of driving, it has been previously held that you need to at least hold an ADI. Very few Police instructors tend to hold ADIs, because they don't have to under the Road Traffic Act, and therefore can't actually comment on whether driving is dangerous or not.
: Devil's advocate:
So in the case of, oh let's say, someone charging down a crowded High Street, handbrake turns, J turns, and generally behaving like an arse, the evidence of Mrs Miggins, a driver but not an ADI, would be inadmissable then. Surely not.
:/Devil's advocate:
Will refrain from commenting about actual driving and behaviour of some ADIs have witnessed.
StressedDave said:
However, at risk of reopening the can of worms, there are two offences under consideration - the actual driving offences and the moral offence. It will be very hard to prove that his driving was not '...for Police purposes' (not least because at the original trial West Mercia admitted there were no procedures for 'familiarisation' at the material time) and thus the speeding part could well fail.
Agreed.
StressedDave said:
As for the dangerous - I'd give it a good run as I find it highly unlikely that at night (assuming an unlit motorway) that he would be able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear.
But you need to consider the true speed which was not 159mph per earlier post. We will have to agree to disagree I think.
StressedDave said:
As for the moral offence, guilty. At a time when relations between Police and drivers are being irrevocably damaged by the insistance on enforcement (and moreover enforcement after the event when no education can be imparted), to have an officer drive at headlining speeds and appear to get away with it can only harm things further.
But the moral offence as outlined in my earlier post, lack of restraint and respect is perhaps a disciplinary matter and not one for the courts.
I blame the politicians and the professional muck rakers involved in this.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 1st February 13:50
Heavy handed money grabbing enforcement is the cause of all this.
So, he's a professional police drive, got a new set of wheels to try, and no doubt evaluated the circunstances and deemed it an acceptable risk to play with the fun pedal a bit. The do-gooders spout 'drifting over the speed limit is the same as drifting a knife into someone', and a mag then says 'he was honing his skills'
OK, civies might hoon about at 159MPH, and if someone was on a busy motorway it's a tadge dangerous, and perhaps unnecesary.
He'll probably get hammered now, doing no-one any good at all. Not him, not the police, not the public, not PHers.
that's my thoughs anyway.
So, he's a professional police drive, got a new set of wheels to try, and no doubt evaluated the circunstances and deemed it an acceptable risk to play with the fun pedal a bit. The do-gooders spout 'drifting over the speed limit is the same as drifting a knife into someone', and a mag then says 'he was honing his skills'
OK, civies might hoon about at 159MPH, and if someone was on a busy motorway it's a tadge dangerous, and perhaps unnecesary.
He'll probably get hammered now, doing no-one any good at all. Not him, not the police, not the public, not PHers.
that's my thoughs anyway.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/466959
DO him - if it was us we would get jailed. They are supposed to suspense chase >120mph (but all M-ways car can go way pat that).
Not sure many std ones loaded would do 159 though.
Anyway - lets hope he enjoys it inside.
DO him - if it was us we would get jailed. They are supposed to suspense chase >120mph (but all M-ways car can go way pat that).
Not sure many std ones loaded would do 159 though.
Anyway - lets hope he enjoys it inside.
StressedDave said:
opinions of senior officers that Pc Milton's driving was not dangerous was simply inadmissable evidence
To be an 'expert' on the standard of driving, it has been previously held that you need to at least hold an ADI. Very few Police instructors tend to hold ADIs, because they don't have to under the Road Traffic Act, and therefore can't actually comment on whether driving is dangerous or not.
Is this serious? I've met ADIs who know diddly squat about advanced or high speed driving. How has it 'been previously held'?
>> Edited by safespeed on Wednesday 1st February 14:39
jamesson said:
supermono - I think you'll find the vast majority of police will take into account the weather, road conditions, traffic levels etc when deciding whether or not to pull someone for speeding, dangerous driving, whatever. Discretion is used thousands of times a day, possibly without motorists even being aware their driving is being monitored if unmarked cars are in use. Only a small percentage of those who speed - and are seen to speed - by police are ever pulled over, and even fewer make it to court, let alone get convicted. Police in general are not targeting speeders, it's just that soundbites from road safety campaigners and camera partnerships make it sound as though we are.
Yes I've always held and still hold traffpol in high regard because of this pragmatism that they show. Given that they collectively hold encyclopaedic knowledge of all things to do with driving safely, why oh why oh why aren't their voices being, er, voiced at these imbeciles running the partnerships?
SM
jamesson said:
But for goodness sake people, please stop banging on about "one rule for them, one rule for us". Of COURSE it is, and has to be, otherwise the police could not do their job as effectively. If you needed police help in an emergency, would you like them to stick to the limit and stop at red lights? Or would you rather they got there quickly without jeapordising other road users? Do you complain about fire and ambulance exceeding the speed limit? I haven't heard anyone on here moan about that. Or is that because they don't hand out FPNs? These grumbling comments come across as nothing more than sour grapes.
They can drive as quickly as they like on duty and responding to an emergency call.
If one rule however, applied to any traffic is "speed kills", then suddenly we justify a potentially leathal training exercise on the roads.
All the Police have to do is drop the pretence that speeding is ultra dangerous, bring back some degree of leniancy for the conditions, and I'd be happy. But right now, imho, our elected servants decide to bend us over a barrel for speeding safely, so the same has to apply to the police in this case.
Sorry, but thats my view. If we can't resort to sensible road safety policy and fairness from our elected representatives, then tough titties I say. If they want us to be leniant back, they can give us some slack in return.
If they don't it will just harm public police relations further, and that is more important than any amount of speeding fines or suggested safety improvements could ever be in my humble opinion.
Look what single minded speed enforcement has done to me! I resent police who drive past me over the limit while cutting lanes, no indications, no blues and two's. Yet if I did the same with the same level of competence I'd have the book thrown at me!
Can't have it both ways.
Dave
safespeed said:
To be an 'expert' on the standard of driving, it has been previously held that you need to at least hold an ADI. Very few Police instructors tend to hold ADIs, because they don't have to under the Road Traffic Act, and therefore can't actually comment on whether driving is dangerous or not.
Is this serious? I've met ADIs who know diddly squat about advanced or high speed driving. How has it 'been previously held'?
It is serious - if you are asking for an expert opinion, then one must be an expert. The only qualification that the courts respect in this regard is the ADI. Otherwise, all you can give is the evidence you personally saw/experienced. Of course anyone can claim to be an expert on anything. If you get challenged you often get a voir dire with the jury absent to decide whether you are an expert or not. Not having any recognised qualification is a good way of being disqualified from giving expert evidence.
I'd agree with you about the level of knowledge of most ADIs though...
Now you can see the court's problem, irrespective of the morals of the case.Flat in Fifth said:
So in the case of, oh let's say, someone charging down a crowded High Street, handbrake turns, J turns, and generally behaving like an arse, the evidence of Mrs Miggins, a driver but not an ADI, would be inadmissable then. Surely not.
Not inadmissible, but she would not be able to volunteer the opinion that driving was dangerous and any counsel eliciting such evidence would get a severe spanking from the judge
Flat in Fifth said:
As for the dangerous - I'd give it a good run as I find it highly unlikely that at night (assuming an unlit motorway) that he would be able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear.
But you need to consider the true speed which was not 159mph per earlier post. We will have to agree to disagree I think.
Like I said, it depends on the circumstances as to how far he could see. I've been driven at 145 mph at night on an unlit motorway by the BiB and I certainly couldn't see far enough ahead to be able to stop for such things as a lump of debris or an animal in the road - swerve would have been the only option. If you assume that there is no debris and nothing is going to change so quickly that you can't rub off the speed you need beforehand then of course you can drive at elevated speeds.
Flat in Fifth said:
As for the moral offence, guilty. At a time when relations between Police and drivers are being irrevocably damaged by the insistance on enforcement (and moreover enforcement after the event when no education can be imparted), to have an officer drive at headlining speeds and appear to get away with it can only harm things further.
But the moral offence as outlined in my earlier post, lack of restraint and respect is perhaps a disciplinary matter and not one for the courts.
I blame the politicians and the professional muck rakers involved in this.
Absolutely, however Policing is supposed to be by consent (and if you consider the number of them to the number of the rest of us, this must be true), then anything which is going to be considered extracting the urine by the celebrated man-in-the-street will serve to harm such relations.
StressedDave said:
To be an 'expert' on the standard of driving, it has been previously held that you need to at least hold an ADI. Very few Police instructors tend to hold ADIs, because they don't have to under the Road Traffic Act, and therefore can't actually comment on whether driving is dangerous or not.
Is this serious? I've met ADIs who know diddly squat about advanced or high speed driving. How has it 'been previously held'?
It is serious - if you are asking for an expert opinion, then one must be an expert. The only qualification that the courts respect in this regard is the ADI. Otherwise, all you can give is the evidence you personally saw/experienced. Of course anyone can claim to be an expert on anything. If you get challenged you often get a voir dire with the jury absent to decide whether you are an expert or not. Not having any recognised qualification is a good way of being disqualified from giving expert evidence.
I'd agree with you about the level of knowledge of most ADIs though...
I see your point. But why isn't a Police Advanced instructor 'suitably qualified'?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff