RE: 159mph PC to be convicted?
Tuesday 31st January 2006
Empty roads...The ruling that cleared PC Milton of the charge of dangerous driving, following his now-infamous drive at 159mph on the M54, is being challenged by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
159mph PC to be convicted?
DPP challenges local court acquittal
Empty roads...
Mark Milton was acquitted after magistrates heard that he was familiarising himself with the car (see story link below). He was supported by West Mercia Police's senior driving instructor who, giving evidence for the prosecution, refused to describe the Milton's driving as 'dangerous'.
However, the Director of Public Prosecutions is asking the High Court to set aside the decision.
Comment
At the time, Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, said: "Here's a clear and proper admission that in suitable circumstances even 159mph need not be dangerous. 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.
"There is so much more to safe driving than speed. Any speed at all can be deadly, and any speed at all can be adequately safe if conditions are suitable.
"Road safety depends on drivers selecting safe and appropriate speeds according to the conditions and the vast majority of us do it well and do it safely. But erroneous official messages have been undermining the process and deaths are going up. We have to get back to the policies that gave us the safest roads in the world in the first place, long before speed cameras and the pointless obsession with numerical speed."
Amen to that...
Related stories
Discussion
yep, amen to that...its not always speed that kills...it can be a factor not more then that, I had the same in the Netherlands same speed totally empty road(highway) in the middle of the night 03h lasergund...but judge says, with all your experience and the car you have and 23 years free of accidents, and the backup from the empty road I was no dangerous driving, only speeding, so a big ticked 1 month they hold my car
and 3 months no driverslicense(that was realy the worst! because I'm not a bad driver!)and 2 years be very carefull
GTRene
and 3 months no driverslicense(that was realy the worst! because I'm not a bad driver!)and 2 years be very carefull GTRene
danielsonson said:
So what was he driving?
A Vauxhall Vectra GSI police car.
I know the M54 well, only two lanes but quite a straight road and generally very empty at night.
I'd be interested to know if he was also clocked on the A442, as the section of this road that joins the M54 is going to be reduced from NSL to 40mph (along with a lot of roads in Telford).
>> Edited by Scaff on Tuesday 31st January 11:37
I’m no great fan of double-standards, but I do hope the Director of Public Prosecutions decides in the end to leave this case alone. Re-opening it, with the aim of punishing this officer, does nothing for sensible road users, but will play nicely into the go-slow camp’s hands.
Bigger fish need frying.
Bigger fish need frying.
Scaff said:
So what was he driving?
A Vauxhall Vectra GSI police car.
I know the M54 well, only two lanes but quite a straight road and generally very empty at night.
I'd be interested to know if he was also clocked on the A442, as the section of this road that joins the M54 is going to be reduced from NSL to 40mph (along with a lot of roads in Telford).
>> Edited by Scaff on Tuesday 31st January 11:37
As far as I remember, the car was taken out and the PC thought the camera recording gear was not set up. It was set up and basically he supplied the data to incriminate himself.
The guy was having a jolly and the police have closed ranks to protect him.
NormanD said:
I would be the first to say that 159 MPH in the right car and road conditions is NOT dangerous,
but it is the fact there is one law for the BiB and another for you and I
I'll totally second that.
It's either dangerous or it isn't, not dangerous for 'Jim' but safe for 'Bob'
(Names changed to protect the innocent
) I agree, i'm torn on this one! On the one hand I agree that on an empty road the speed can be safe but on the other hand I hate that he can get away with it because he's a pig. There is absolutely no way I'd get away with 159 mph or even 100mph because I was making myself familiar with my new Ferrari, they ban me for a year and give me a huge fine! I also think that maybe his first run in a new should have been taken a bit easier, I wouldn't want him doing 159mph near me when he's not used to the car!
But the point is that he may be required to drive after proper criminal scrotes in the course of his duty. How else can he get practice and the feel of vehicles travelling quickly.
The message put out by this revenge appeal is that not even Police should break the speed limit, I would expect that bodies representing Plod (Federations?) should put out advice to Plod never to break the speed limit.
So all that scrotes have to do is to tootle on at 71mph to evade justice!
159mph may in some circumstances be safer than 69mph if the scrotes are apprehended. Leave it to experienced Plod to decide how fast to drive whilst on duty, it may be dangerous but so can carrying guns.
The message put out by this revenge appeal is that not even Police should break the speed limit, I would expect that bodies representing Plod (Federations?) should put out advice to Plod never to break the speed limit.
So all that scrotes have to do is to tootle on at 71mph to evade justice!
159mph may in some circumstances be safer than 69mph if the scrotes are apprehended. Leave it to experienced Plod to decide how fast to drive whilst on duty, it may be dangerous but so can carrying guns.
Fire99 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
tvr 3x said:
But the point is that he may be required to drive after proper criminal scrotes in the course of his duty. How else can he get practice and the feel of vehicles travelling quickly.
Same way as the rest of us - off the public highway at a track day perhaps.
Afterall, he was just practicing so should we also allow armed officers to practice firng live rounds off in public. If speed kills then being hit by a bullet certainly don't do you any good!!!!!
Personally I'd have had less of a problem if he'd been doing 159mph in a car he knew well while actually pursuing criminals - although I doubt, and I stand to be corrected, that he would be required to drive at those speeds that often - surely that's what helicopters are for.
The whole thing seems to me to be just an average guy out enjoying himself in his new 'company' car - only difference being he happens to wear a blue uniform and can therefore give a good excuse.
His colleagues that 'did' him obviously considered his driving dangerous and framed the charges accordingly. He considered he was not driving dangerously and the court agreed. Both the arresting officers and the 'villain' had in all probability appeared in court as 'expert witnesses' when some other sucker was in the dock - Begs the question "What weight should be placed on the evidence of trafpol as 'expert' witnesses.
Can't even agree amongst themselves.
BigBob said:
Personally I'd have had less of a problem if he'd been doing 159mph in a car he knew well while actually pursuing criminals - although I doubt, and I stand to be corrected, that he would be required to drive at those speeds that often - surely that's what helicopters are for.
Wrong there. Next time a police video programme is on TV, watch the digital speed reading at the bottom of the screen.
In heavy traffic sometimes, too.....
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.
I don't like the way that member of the Fuzz got away with this speeding offense, but I do have to aggree with ubergreg, this would not be a good idea re-opening this case, just let him off and we can keep argueing that driving over a speed limit is not always dangerous, depending on certain conditions, and then we may get some common sense policing rather than these sodding scameras popping up everywhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...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
The guy thought he could get away with it, he took a car out for a jolly, didnt sign any of the proper paperwork to state he was "testing". He was caught out when the camera survailence gear in the car was connected up earlier than he thought.
He was not testing anything, he wasnt even qualified to drive at speed at that time.
If he is innocent then so are the rest of us with points on our licences for speeding.
Who says there is no curruption in the police force?
He was not testing anything, he wasnt even qualified to drive at speed at that time.
If he is innocent then so are the rest of us with points on our licences for speeding.
Who says there is no curruption in the police force?
I think the bottom line for me is that if i was caught at a speed anywhere near 159 mph regardless of conditions or that i had passed advanced driving courses etc, i feel i would be read the riot act stating how much of a blatant criminal i was and subsequently a large law book would be thrown at me..
I do see the very good point that we need to look at the big picture before throwing the book at the PC regardless of what appears of him being more guilty than mr Guilt of Guiltsville having a particularly guilty day!
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 do see the very good point that we need to look at the big picture before throwing the book at the PC regardless of what appears of him being more guilty than mr Guilt of Guiltsville having a particularly guilty day!
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!!
Fire99 said:
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...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff