RE: 159mph PC to be convicted?
Discussion
Dave D said:
Apparently the designed field of vision on UK motorways either round corners or over crests is 325 yards or 975ft. Stopping distance from 159mph according to the official calculation is 475 yards or 1425ft so you are royally ed at that speed.
I think that's the minimum allowable vision distance isn't it? It certainly isn't the norm. Sometimes you have clear vision for literally a couple of miles.
Dave D said:
Stopping distance from 159mph according to the official calculation is 475 yards or 1425ft so you are royally
If I had a modern car with brakes that bad I wouldn't even drive it until it was fixed!
The figure I gave was realistic for a modern vehicle in the dry and on the flat.
Well lads, all good comments, but I think bottom line is he was exceeding the speed limit by over 100% and got away with it, we wouldnt have.
Had something occurred up the road from him, would he have been able to take adequate evasive action, probaly not.
The judges result angered a lot of motorist, and motoring organisations, and I, and no doubt a lot of our readers think that the judgement was inappropriate.
You and I get done for perhaps 5 mph over the set limits, why should he get away with being over by 85 mph?
Had it been a pre planned test drive, why did it ever get to court, ask yourself this?
And another thing, is he the only one to test his car, and if so, why arnt others caught, or do they sort of register the test first?
But I still think the cops should test/check their skills on race tracks, not on roads, where they may endanger joe public, after after all, how often do we hear of fast pursuits resuling in injury to the public, like Paul McCartney's wife, who lost a leg to a police car in pursuit, and sadly other innocent bystanders killed by police cars in pursuit running them down.
Yes, we need police drivers trained in high speed pursuit to carry out their duties, but why not train them on a race track, not the roads.
Wht if something had happended during this "test" of his car, suposing he had hit something on the road, crashed and caused others to be injured, would the judge have made the same judement?.
I appreciate as no doubt you will, that the police drivers have to be trained in driving in excess of set speed limits to respond to emergencies, but the training should not be carried out on public roads?
Last question, are ambulance and fire tender drivers allowed to drive in excess of the speed limit in order to test their vehicles?
>> Edited by vipers on Saturday 4th February 22:19
>> Edited by vipers on Saturday 4th February 22:23
>> Edited by vipers on Saturday 4th February 22:32
>> Edited by vipers on Saturday 4th February 22:33
Had something occurred up the road from him, would he have been able to take adequate evasive action, probaly not.
The judges result angered a lot of motorist, and motoring organisations, and I, and no doubt a lot of our readers think that the judgement was inappropriate.
You and I get done for perhaps 5 mph over the set limits, why should he get away with being over by 85 mph?
Had it been a pre planned test drive, why did it ever get to court, ask yourself this?
And another thing, is he the only one to test his car, and if so, why arnt others caught, or do they sort of register the test first?
But I still think the cops should test/check their skills on race tracks, not on roads, where they may endanger joe public, after after all, how often do we hear of fast pursuits resuling in injury to the public, like Paul McCartney's wife, who lost a leg to a police car in pursuit, and sadly other innocent bystanders killed by police cars in pursuit running them down.
Yes, we need police drivers trained in high speed pursuit to carry out their duties, but why not train them on a race track, not the roads.
Wht if something had happended during this "test" of his car, suposing he had hit something on the road, crashed and caused others to be injured, would the judge have made the same judement?.
I appreciate as no doubt you will, that the police drivers have to be trained in driving in excess of set speed limits to respond to emergencies, but the training should not be carried out on public roads?
Last question, are ambulance and fire tender drivers allowed to drive in excess of the speed limit in order to test their vehicles?
>> Edited by vipers on Saturday 4th February 22:19
>> Edited by vipers on Saturday 4th February 22:23
>> Edited by vipers on Saturday 4th February 22:32
>> Edited by vipers on Saturday 4th February 22:33
It costs around 7k per day to hire a race-track. I certainly wouldn't want that on my council tax.
The criminal aspect of this is pretty irrelevent. I would imagine he is going through the disciplinary process as we speak and I would imagine a P45 is coming his way. That's punishment enough surely?
The criminal aspect of this is pretty irrelevent. I would imagine he is going through the disciplinary process as we speak and I would imagine a P45 is coming his way. That's punishment enough surely?
vipers said:
You and I get done for perhaps 5 mph over the set limits, why should he get away with being over by 85 mph?
The problem here is not that he (might have) 'got away with it', but that we're all forced to stare at our speedos instead of driving safely.
We also deserve some of the discretion that he might have received.
purpleheadedcerb said:
It costs around 7k per day to hire a race-track. I certainly wouldn't want that on my council tax.
The criminal aspect of this is pretty irrelevent. I would imagine he is going through the disciplinary process as we speak and I would imagine a P45 is coming his way. That's punishment enough surely?
Well I think your right, hope his P45 is coming right enouth. But 7k a day, seems awfully expensive, then again most councils seem to spend money on things that are a waste of money anyway, so perhaps 7k on a track day for say 10 police drivers wouldnt be money wasted.
deltafox said:Retrial is not because they "changed the rules". It's becuase, either the Clerk failed to inform the magistrates that certain "evidence" was inadmissible or the magistrates ignored the Clerk's advice - Streaky
Gottim! The High Court has today overruled his Get-out-of-Jail card
Your glee is quite sickening. Thats precisely the kind of attitude id expect from a scammer.
Deltafox, I apologise for causing you involuntary gastric spasms and trust this didn't ruin your best tunicI may have mis-represented my meaning so have explained what I meant to say above.
BTW, you seem to be calling me names - a "scammer" - before I accept, or defend, your comment what is one of they/them?
>> Edited by AMG Merc on Wednesday 1st February 17:30
"Scammer", adj, speed camera operator. No it wasnt meant as a name calling exercise it was simply meant as a comparison. I dont see that someone exceeding the speed limit and then being punished cos they changed the rules to get him the second time is worth celebrating, which is what "scammers" do every time they get £60 for their wallet rape fund.....
BTW, the tunic is in a right old state, bananna custard doesnt seem to want to come out.........Cheers....
streaky said:
Retrial is not because they "changed the rules". It's becuase, either the Clerk failed to inform the magistrates that certain "evidence" was inadmissible or the magistrates ignored the Clerk's advice - Streaky
Although we have to consider that a defect was 'found' because they didn't like the original result.
safespeed said:
We also deserve some of the discretion that he might have received.
To be fair, the case is more than just 159 mph in Vectra
down the motorway in the middle of the night.
According to Channel four news, he also did 130 mph in a 60 limit,
and 91 in a 30 limit.
While the 159 doesn't bother me, and seems to be at or beyond the
capabilities of a Vectra, the 91 in a 30 in the middle of the
night really does bother me.
I think it's very very likely he's going to lose his job.
A scalp must be taken and he's right in the frame.
Im not defending his actions for one minute BUT, people are talking about 91 in a 30 etc etc without knowing the whole facts. Surely we need to know what roads these were on before we are quick to castigate.
I know some roads nearby which have a 30 limit when the limit could quite easily be 70 and on which IMO is safe to do 100 plus and on the other hand a little country lane which is a national limit which is 60 and which is not safe enough for a 30....20 in some places and its 20m from a kiddies playgroung.
Some speed limits make a complete mockery of common sense an d show that at times.......the law is an ass.
I know some roads nearby which have a 30 limit when the limit could quite easily be 70 and on which IMO is safe to do 100 plus and on the other hand a little country lane which is a national limit which is 60 and which is not safe enough for a 30....20 in some places and its 20m from a kiddies playgroung.
Some speed limits make a complete mockery of common sense an d show that at times.......the law is an ass.
Tonyrec said:
Im not defending his actions for one minute BUT, people are talking about 91 in a 30 etc etc without knowing the whole facts. Surely we need to know what roads these were on before we are quick to castigate.
I know some roads nearby which have a 30 limit when the limit could quite easily be 70 and on which IMO is safe to do 100 plus and on the other hand a little country lane which is a national limit which is 60 and which is not safe enough for a 30....20 in some places and its 20m from a kiddies playgroung.
Some speed limits make a complete mockery of common sense an d show that at times.......the law is an ass.
100% agree.
Tonyrec said:And these are the roads where the camera partnerships, supported by the Police, operate their speed traps. Remember the message given out by the Police 'speed kills'. The interest in the case of PC Milton has been caused by the draconian enforcement of the limit on the roads with the lowest risk i.e. those where the maximum number of drivers will be safely exceeding the speed limit by a small amount. I think Tony knows this but of course is powerless to change anything muckh like an employee of any large organisation. The camera partnership operations has caused major damage to Police - public relationships. Most of my friends and colleagues are the type of people who you would think would be supporters of the Police but they are now highly cynical of any powers given to them.
Im not defending his actions for one minute BUT, people are talking about 91 in a 30 etc etc without knowing the whole facts. Surely we need to know what roads these were on before we are quick to castigate.
I know some roads nearby which have a 30 limit when the limit could quite easily be 70 and on which IMO is safe to do 100 plus and on the other hand a little country lane which is a national limit which is 60 and which is not safe enough for a 30....20 in some places and its 20m from a kiddies playgroung.
Some speed limits make a complete mockery of common sense an d show that at times.......the law is an ass.
The outrage amongst most drivers at this guy getting off is a direct result of the over the top speeding policy now being applied in this country. If the reported facts of this case are correct then this policemen should be charged with dangerous driving and of course speeding. Afterall if a normal road using was caught doing 91 in a 30 he would be banned, 159 in a 70 he would be banned and perhaps be put in prison under the current blinkered approach to speed enforcement. If we continue to fine drivers for driving perfectly safely past a yellow box on an empty straight clear road at 6 mph over the posted limit then speeding policemen 'testing' cars will have to be punished too.
purpleheadedcerb said:
It costs around 7k per day to hire a race-track. I certainly wouldn't want that on my council tax.
Perhaps it could be funded from some of the scammers earnings.
Or perhaps the Government should fund it - afterall they reckon one Fatal costs the country £1.2m or some such dreamt up figure.
Lots of £7k's in £1.2m
Tonyrec said:
Im not defending his actions for one minute BUT, people are talking about 91 in a 30 etc etc without knowing the whole facts. Surely we need to know what roads these were on before we are quick to castigate.
I know some roads nearby which have a 30 limit when the limit could quite easily be 70 and on which IMO is safe to do 100 plus and on the other hand a little country lane which is a national limit which is 60 and which is not safe enough for a 30....20 in some places and its 20m from a kiddies playgroung.
Some speed limits make a complete mockery of common sense and show that at times.......the law is an ass.
Exactly. Well said Tony.
I believe many limits in built up areas have been set quite inappropriately in recent times, but our 60/70 mph NSL system is even worse, and it is quite useless as a guide to establishing a safe speed.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Tonyrec said:
Im not defending his actions for one minute BUT, people are talking about 91 in a 30 etc etc without knowing the whole facts. Surely we need to know what roads these were on before we are quick to castigate.
I know some roads nearby which have a 30 limit when the limit could quite easily be 70 and on which IMO is safe to do 100 plus and on the other hand a little country lane which is a national limit which is 60 and which is not safe enough for a 30....20 in some places and its 20m from a kiddies playgroung.
Some speed limits make a complete mockery of common sense an d show that at times.......the law is an ass.
But that ist whole point Liebchen... ordinary drivers are taken to cleaners und called all kind of rudest names by certain idiots who yell "Speed cams save lives" at loudest voices ... for what? In many cases 4 to 5 mph above the lollipop...
Jajawohl - we all know there are the stupidest of speed limits und these are the very ones that make the money und are enforced all the more....
As for PC Milton....
If I were to drive at 50 mph in 30 mph limit ... und got copped ... I would be pleading for my licence in court und grovelling a lot. Und if I were then spotted later at 138 mph on UK motorway - und claimed I was testing the Moggie (which ist capable of this as I ... er .... well ... let us just say the ol' gal has had a make over 
und HOW! WOW! Ist evil ... my lieber BiB cousin was praying at one point on track 
_ I had no idea it could do a drift like that ....until I did one.... 
) ...but no matter - back to PC Milton und not the Maddest Moggie of Moggies... ...part of me would like to see him acquitted und courts apply this same ruling of discretion to all drivers IF und only IF they can prove their driving was safe...but another part of me say that the rule as stands should apply to all und how many time has driver testing a new car und got carried away und been shown some understanding by a BiB....ist not that often ... I would bet...
TripleS said:
Im not defending his actions for one minute BUT, people are talking about 91 in a 30 etc etc without knowing the whole facts. Surely we need to know what roads these were on before we are quick to castigate.
I know some roads nearby which have a 30 limit when the limit could quite easily be 70 and on which IMO is safe to do 100 plus and on the other hand a little country lane which is a national limit which is 60 and which is not safe enough for a 30....20 in some places and its 20m from a kiddies playgroung.
Some speed limits make a complete mockery of common sense and show that at times.......the law is an ass.
Exactly. Well said Tony.
I believe many limits in built up areas have been set quite inappropriately in recent times, but our 60/70 mph NSL system is even worse, and it is quite useless as a guide to establishing a safe speed.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Some situations I dont understand are theese, you are not allowed to walk across a motorway, and no doubt you saying to yourselves "Bloody daft to do that", but on the A90 south of Aberdeen the NSL of 70 mph in in force, yet buses stop on the dual carriageway, (in a little layby of course), but passengers then have to cross over the road. Old dear killed a few years ago doing this. Belive me, at rush hour, its like the grand prix on that road.
lambo cop said:
I expect a lot of bad feedback from this statement but sorry.
You'll not get it from me - I said aerlier in the thread that I'd have less off a problem IF he'd been in pursuit of a crim at the time.
What I can't condone, whoever does it, is taking an untried, unfamiliar car to close to 100% of it's capability on the public highway.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff