One rule for the police.....
Discussion
A couple of things. Firstly although police drivers do need to know how to handle their cars at high speeds, is it really responsible to do it in a place where they are putting the public in danger needlessly? Ok so 159 on a motorway is high but if there's no traffic then it's not exactly the most dangerous thing in the world but 90 in a 30? That is reckless, dangerous and completly un-defensible. You can argue until you are blue in the face about 'oh somebody just put a sign there blah blah blah' but you keep seeing these adverts saying if you hit me 30 I have an 80% chance of survival, if you hit me at 40 etc. etc. but let me assure you if he had hit someone at 90 they probably would have had to use their dental records to identify them.
Whether or not you agree with the whole speed camera/speed kills philosphy the police seem to have, you can't deny that this guy has completly ignored the message being fed to the public for the last few years and for that reason why should he get off any more lightly than anyone else? I don't recall someone getting let off before because they had done their advanced driving course and the speed limit certainly doesn't change for people whose brakes can enable them to stop in half the distance of a normal car.
Whether or not you agree with the whole speed camera/speed kills philosphy the police seem to have, you can't deny that this guy has completly ignored the message being fed to the public for the last few years and for that reason why should he get off any more lightly than anyone else? I don't recall someone getting let off before because they had done their advanced driving course and the speed limit certainly doesn't change for people whose brakes can enable them to stop in half the distance of a normal car.
If only life was so simple Dan.
Yes F1 drivers are quick, but track driving is completely different from pursuit driving on the roads. That's why training needs to be as realistic as possible. "Train hard - Fight easy" works for me.
Do F1 drivers have to contend with darkness, pedestrians or oncoming traffic? I'd like to see how quick Jensen or Michael would be having to weave in and out of those damn electric invalid carriages.
I look at the country we live in today and see people commiting crime every day because they have no respect for the law of the land and have no fear of the police or the judicial system.
Instead of kicking our police in the balls and rendering them impotent, we should be giving them more teeth to enable them to compete with the criminal on an equal or better footing.
Convicting this Police Officer (on the 2nd attempt, only after the media whipped up a frenzy) has only weakened our position.
I sleep safe at night knowing these men & women are out there in all weathers, putting themselves in danger because I don't have the balls to do it myself.
If anyone thinks they can do a better job........stand up & be counted. The police are looking for part time 'Specials'.
Walk a few shifts in their shoes, see what abuse they have to put up with from little sh*ts on a daily basis.......then make your minds up.
Yes F1 drivers are quick, but track driving is completely different from pursuit driving on the roads. That's why training needs to be as realistic as possible. "Train hard - Fight easy" works for me.
Do F1 drivers have to contend with darkness, pedestrians or oncoming traffic? I'd like to see how quick Jensen or Michael would be having to weave in and out of those damn electric invalid carriages.
I look at the country we live in today and see people commiting crime every day because they have no respect for the law of the land and have no fear of the police or the judicial system.
Instead of kicking our police in the balls and rendering them impotent, we should be giving them more teeth to enable them to compete with the criminal on an equal or better footing.
Convicting this Police Officer (on the 2nd attempt, only after the media whipped up a frenzy) has only weakened our position.
I sleep safe at night knowing these men & women are out there in all weathers, putting themselves in danger because I don't have the balls to do it myself.
If anyone thinks they can do a better job........stand up & be counted. The police are looking for part time 'Specials'.
Walk a few shifts in their shoes, see what abuse they have to put up with from little sh*ts on a daily basis.......then make your minds up.
demolition man said:
I look at the country we live in today and see people commiting crime every day because they have no respect for the law of the land and have no fear of the police or the judicial system.
Does this include the police themselves. Whether his actions were safe or not, can be justified or not, he is paid to uphold the law not break it.
Dan_S V8 said:
....... but you keep seeing these adverts saying if you hit me 30 I have an 80% chance of survival, if you hit me at 40 etc..
As 308mate said earlier, just because a stretch of road has a 30mph limit, doesn't mean it's automatically dangerous/reckless (for a highly trained on duty Police Officer) to exceed that speed.
There are many factors that influence your risk assessment when exceeding the speed limit such as; Road & Weather conditions, Time of day, Light levels, Marked or Unmarked car, Blues & Two's, Training, Experience, Whether what you are deploying to at speed is worth the risk...... it all goes together to influence your decision.
Just because a 'civilian' thinks it is dangerous, doesn't mean it is. Some people might think that walking up to, then rendering safe a terrorist bomb is dangerous..... So should the bomb disposal teams not bother anymore? Should lifeboat crews not bother deploying until the sea is flat & calm? Should Mountain Rescue teams wait until the storm blows over before starting the search?
Cut these men & women some slack.
Though not related to driving I think it illustrates that there are problems with the system. My heavily pregnant sister in law arrived home early evening several months ago to find her house had been burgled and smashed up. She is 26 and her partner was away with a business trip. The police response.... We're doing other things at the moment. We'll be round to deal with it in the morning. Can you go somewhere else for the night? Absolutely disgusting. Though I take your point about people standing up to be counted (I have done and wear a uniform myself, though not police admittedly) the police are not perfect and a lot of there proceedures leave a lot to be desired.
You get tw@ts in all walks of life and in every profession, don't get me wrong, I respect what the police do and the vast majority of them should be praised but they are not above the law. They are here to enforce it and that's all.
I agree that in some respects, they have their hands tied and their powers should be extended but within reason. I don't consider 159mph to be reasonable for anybody on a public road and 90 in a 30 at whatever time of the morning is rediculous and even more so without lights and two-tones on.
There has to be a limit whatever the circumstances, that's what helicopters are for. If a chasing police car loses sight of a crim for the sake of public safety then so be it. Let the airbourne men guide them in. If a car thief gets away but any member of the public's life is saved because speeds were lower, I'd rather that than somebodys death. Imagine if one of your family was killed by a chasing officer. Would you be happy with "Awfully sorry your wife/son/daughter etc was killed Mr Demolition Man but we got the guy with no car tax"?
I realise every case is different and there could never be a pure black and white in many of them but driver familiarisation is such a poor excuse. Life isn't as simple as we all would like and that's the bottom line. Everybody has a unique perspective and differences of opinion are just that.
There endeth my rant.
You get tw@ts in all walks of life and in every profession, don't get me wrong, I respect what the police do and the vast majority of them should be praised but they are not above the law. They are here to enforce it and that's all.
I agree that in some respects, they have their hands tied and their powers should be extended but within reason. I don't consider 159mph to be reasonable for anybody on a public road and 90 in a 30 at whatever time of the morning is rediculous and even more so without lights and two-tones on.
There has to be a limit whatever the circumstances, that's what helicopters are for. If a chasing police car loses sight of a crim for the sake of public safety then so be it. Let the airbourne men guide them in. If a car thief gets away but any member of the public's life is saved because speeds were lower, I'd rather that than somebodys death. Imagine if one of your family was killed by a chasing officer. Would you be happy with "Awfully sorry your wife/son/daughter etc was killed Mr Demolition Man but we got the guy with no car tax"?
I realise every case is different and there could never be a pure black and white in many of them but driver familiarisation is such a poor excuse. Life isn't as simple as we all would like and that's the bottom line. Everybody has a unique perspective and differences of opinion are just that.
There endeth my rant.
Edited by Woody vt on Saturday 26th August 12:48
barking said:
Whether his actions were safe or not, can be justified or not, he is paid to uphold the law not break it.
No problem there. If he had raped someone or stole some money - hammer them.... but not for training himself up in order to better perform when needed.
OK, let's say to all the Emergency Services, stay within the speed limits, even when peoples lives are in danger.... watch the media frenzy then!
We're all quick to condem this Bloke, but would be equally quick if he had driven too slowly to an incident..... You can't have it both ways.
Edited by demolition man on Saturday 26th August 12:53
Everyone has a good point to make on both sides of the arguement
But what happens now???????
Will just the same happen with the cars 'electronic measures' 'disabled'
If the answer is yes, then depending which side of the fence your sitting on, you will have a diffrent point of view again
Discuss!
But what happens now???????
Will just the same happen with the cars 'electronic measures' 'disabled'
If the answer is yes, then depending which side of the fence your sitting on, you will have a diffrent point of view again
Discuss!
I accept that some element of training is required and necessary for people to do their jobs. The armed forces regularly kill themselves in training accidents.
The problem I have is when it endangers someone else. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) figures show a quadrupling of deaths cased by police driving over the last 5 years. Source.
Although the figures are low, the recent rise is alarming
The problem I have is when it endangers someone else. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) figures show a quadrupling of deaths cased by police driving over the last 5 years. Source.
Although the figures are low, the recent rise is alarming
308mate said:
What makes you say that V8? You've labelled this guy alot of things <snip> I can only assume you know that piece of road intimately...
You have a good point. I agree I am coming from this from a position of ignorance. In my defense a 30mph zone does imply a built-up area. A built-up area does imply the proximity of people. I don't think it is too much of a jump to conclude his actions were dangerous.
308mate said:
If you disagree with his actions, would it have been ok if he had lights and sirens on and was on his way to attend a burglary at your parents house?
No, but I understand your point. What constitutes acceptable risk? I think this is the crux of the issue. IMHO driving 90mph in a built-up area...
the_definition_of_dangerous_driving said:
falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it is obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
I am glad the magistrate agreed with me.
With regard to his sentence, thats another story!
V8 EOL said:
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) figures show a quadrupling of deaths cased by police driving over the last 5 years. Although the figures are low, the recent rise is alarming
Too right they're alarming! That's why the police need MORE training not LESS!
90 in a 30 and may not be classed as reckless etc ???
Are you serious ?? YOU sit in front of a judge on that same charge, and try and offer a defence.
I think that no matter what your motoring background, the judge would see it as dangerous driving, regardless of the road, regardless of the conditions. ANd if you even tried to defend yourself, the judge would probably laugh, and think "is this guy on drugs ?"
When the police ram down our throats, that "speed kills", despite knowing its total BS, when one of their own is caught at ridiculous speeds, he should be made an example of.
Saying it was to accustom him to the car is a joke....so the police would support 150mph+ car chases that might require such speeds ?? Isnt that an even worse proposition, than simply driving at 150+ on an empty road ?
Some of Demolition mans points are valid, the police do need to train etc, and they do ahve a difficult job.
But do you see them doing live weapons training in the high street ?? Why not, its a real life scenario, what better place to train ?
Surely any sort of training excersize, should require more than one person.
Are you serious ?? YOU sit in front of a judge on that same charge, and try and offer a defence.
I think that no matter what your motoring background, the judge would see it as dangerous driving, regardless of the road, regardless of the conditions. ANd if you even tried to defend yourself, the judge would probably laugh, and think "is this guy on drugs ?"
When the police ram down our throats, that "speed kills", despite knowing its total BS, when one of their own is caught at ridiculous speeds, he should be made an example of.
Saying it was to accustom him to the car is a joke....so the police would support 150mph+ car chases that might require such speeds ?? Isnt that an even worse proposition, than simply driving at 150+ on an empty road ?
Some of Demolition mans points are valid, the police do need to train etc, and they do ahve a difficult job.
But do you see them doing live weapons training in the high street ?? Why not, its a real life scenario, what better place to train ?
Surely any sort of training excersize, should require more than one person.
Demolition Man said:
V8 EOL said:
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) figures show a quadrupling of deaths cased by police driving over the last 5 years. Although the figures are low, the recent rise is alarming
Too right they're alarming! That's why the police need MORE training not LESS!
To this end perhaps the armed response unit should go let off a few rounds of live ammo within a busy shopping centre to 'train' themselves.
Point being this individual was driving at several times the limit and presumably didnt notify his superiors that he was going out to test the performance perameters of the car or this situation would not have occurred. I am sure testing is valid but presumably it would involve some form of risk assessment and a passenger as opposed to somebody deciding to go for a burnup with police badge protection.
There is a case to answer here - in terms of those that uphold the law need to conform to it, just imagine if being on the police payroll gave scope for any driver to not wear a seatbelt, respect red lights or the speed limit....
Bennno
Edited by bennno on Saturday 26th August 17:37
V8 EOL said:
falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it is obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous
Fair enough. Sadly, that still leaves the issue wide open because the question remains, in whose opinion was it dangerous and who was in danger?
If you could show via the footage he was caught by that the streets were deserted due to the time of day, then who was in danger and from what? Ive faced a reckless charge and it is wide open to interpretation. Its such an indefineable thing that it has to be because outside of actual recorded speeds, this allows the judge to use his discretion. In my case it was reduced to dangerous because I managed to show that my intent was not be deliberately dangerous. Bit backwards I know but that was in OZ.
With regard to police accidents increasing, that statistic by itself is useless. Is that on the whole or per 100 officers in the force? Has the crime rate risen with it? Has there been a new reporting procedure that means more of this is reported or in a different way? Has the force put more vehicles on the street in that time? Lets compare apples with apples here.
I agree that there is some argument to say that if Joe public was up before the beak, we wouldnt have got away with it (though noone could deny that if we had the same arguments up our sleeve as he does, we'd be using them) but I also think there are *some* extenuating circumstances.
Dont get the message from the Police mixed up with the message from the politicians. You get pulled at the roadside, pass the roadside attitude test and your speed wasnt ridiculous for the conditions, youll often get off with a caution. Police have and use discretionary powers.
Dont hate the players guys, hate the game. Its the pollies that thrust the message forth and force it on the force because they want to spend less money on looking after injured and dead people - which costs governments alot. Its all cost based. Biggest reduction in costs vs cheapest message to get across and enforce. Look at any transport issue and speed comes up trumps for both. Although there are many other things that road accidents are directly attributable to. How do you prove someone was driving tired? How do you measure the fatigue level of a passing motorist? Yet how many times do people get sleepy at the wheel, drift lanes etc? How many "Dont drive tired" ads have you seen?
As for training with live weapons in public - if you know what a risk matrix is, you would know that is not a valid comparison.
btw - I appreciate the thus far mature debate on this emotive issue. Hard to find on many forums.
PB
Edited by 308MATE on Saturday 26th August 19:49
The issue is not "did he break the law" he clearly did. The issue should be "is he entitled to break the law"! The answer is NOT without his superiors authority.
If responding to a serious incident (where loss of life is involved or similar) it seems he should then be allowed to break the law, but only where the benefit outweighs the risk. Even then he should be accountable for his actions and be able to demonstrate reasonable behaviour. Perhaps in this instance this is not reasonable behaviour, even his colleagues thought so or it would never have surfaced into the media.
Training should be performed in a controlled environment so feedback can be given usually from an impartial observer, this is what makes training valid.
All things considered he was just having some fun, he was caught, and so deserves to be punished.
On the other side of this I agree with Demo Man, the police do need B@lls to get the bad guys. This should have been dealt with outside the courts and inside the force
my twopeneth
If responding to a serious incident (where loss of life is involved or similar) it seems he should then be allowed to break the law, but only where the benefit outweighs the risk. Even then he should be accountable for his actions and be able to demonstrate reasonable behaviour. Perhaps in this instance this is not reasonable behaviour, even his colleagues thought so or it would never have surfaced into the media.
Training should be performed in a controlled environment so feedback can be given usually from an impartial observer, this is what makes training valid.
All things considered he was just having some fun, he was caught, and so deserves to be punished.
On the other side of this I agree with Demo Man, the police do need B@lls to get the bad guys. This should have been dealt with outside the courts and inside the force
my twopeneth
What a conveniently timed news piece from this fine resource.... 
www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=14812
PB
www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=14812
PB
Further more 
falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it is obvious to a competent and careful driver
Im fairly sure this argument could be easily and equally offset by saying if its your profession and your trained to drive quickly through difficult or potentially dangerous circumstances, you ARE competent and youre definitely being careful.
PB
V8 EOL said:
falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it is obvious to a competent and careful driver
Im fairly sure this argument could be easily and equally offset by saying if its your profession and your trained to drive quickly through difficult or potentially dangerous circumstances, you ARE competent and youre definitely being careful.
PB
Edited by 308MATE on Sunday 27th August 10:02
The guy deserves a ban as that is what the guidelines say.
The current anti speeding campaign www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/slowdown/slowdown.htm
How should the public take it seriously if those that are supposed to uphold the law do not.
The current anti speeding campaign www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/slowdown/slowdown.htm
How should the public take it seriously if those that are supposed to uphold the law do not.
308mate said:
With regard to police accidents increasing, that statistic by itself is useless.
I guess the The Independent Police Complaints Commission disagree!
308mate said:
Don't get the message from the Police mixed up with the message from the politicians.
Good point, is after all the crown that prosecutes and the criminal justice system that convicts people. Perhaps we forget that this was a re-trial, the first time he was found not guilty, this time he was guilty! Clearly whatever the merits or otherwise of driving 90mph in a 30mph zone, on this occasion it was found to be dangerous.
308mate said:
You get pulled at the roadside, pass the roadside attitude test and your speed wasn't ridiculous for the conditions, you'll often get off with a caution.
I can personally vouch for that!
308mate said:
Don't hate the players guys, hate the game.
I agree. Even so, people have to take responsibility for their own actions.
308mate said:
I appreciate the thus far mature debate on this emotive issue. Hard to find on many forums.
Here here!
Gassing Station | HSV & Monaro | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff