RE: High speeds not dangerous, says judge
Discussion
TBH I reckon his infringement on the motorway was passable, if excessive (if it was Germany he wouldn't have been bollocked for it would he?), but 86 in a 30 is just plain irresponsible.
He claimed he was 'testing his car' but I don't even think the Police drive at 80+ in 30s, and I'm also sure the Police have places to test cars in too.
There are some people saying that the 30 zone he was in may have been recently lowered. True, but what would it have been lowered from? 40, most likely, so he was still doing over twice the speed limit.
As responsible petrolheads, I can't see how we can condone anyone driving very fast in urban areas, no matter how much we get annoyed by revenue cameras.
He claimed he was 'testing his car' but I don't even think the Police drive at 80+ in 30s, and I'm also sure the Police have places to test cars in too.
There are some people saying that the 30 zone he was in may have been recently lowered. True, but what would it have been lowered from? 40, most likely, so he was still doing over twice the speed limit.
As responsible petrolheads, I can't see how we can condone anyone driving very fast in urban areas, no matter how much we get annoyed by revenue cameras.
Speed kills. Simple. Sorry to piss on your fire Pistonheads, but grow up.
I have seen some God awful accidents in Germany on the Autobahn.
By the way, in Germany, there are many restrictions to speed on the Autobahn, not all are unre-stricted in fact not many are, and nay behaviour that is judged by agressive is expressly forbidden and when witnessed is often prosecuted.
I have seen some God awful accidents in Germany on the Autobahn.
By the way, in Germany, there are many restrictions to speed on the Autobahn, not all are unre-stricted in fact not many are, and nay behaviour that is judged by agressive is expressly forbidden and when witnessed is often prosecuted.
Should this post need a Troll warning
Ill bite
So if speed kills how come I an most of Pistonheads are not dead as most of the people on these fourums have at one time or another broken the speed limit.
I have driven a car at 140mph and suffered no ill effects.
pddmac said:
Speed kills. Simple. Sorry to piss on your fire Pistonheads, but grow up.
Ill bite
So if speed kills how come I an most of Pistonheads are not dead as most of the people on these fourums have at one time or another broken the speed limit.
I have driven a car at 140mph and suffered no ill effects.
Just to add my 2pworth
I agree that there is an enhanced degree of risk with driving at 150 mile/h. Having driven a Sierra Cosworth at 155 mile/h on a deserted motorway and with great care 10 years ago I cannot see that this speed is particularly dangerous. But the screams of outrage from the predictable and not so predictable quarters are only to be expected particularly as too many have fallen for the speed kills hype.
Re the 84 in a 30 - I do not know the road in question but there are far far too many 30's in rural areas here in the Welsh Borders that used to be or should be NSL; many with open fields either side to suit the demands of NIMBY councillors and avaricious Scumera partnerships.
As for hypocrisy of police and "justice" authorities in continuing to impose zero tolerance on the public while condoning this for themselves, this further re-inforces the belief that we are already in a 'police state'.
But I may find myself using this precedent in defence at some time in the future.
I agree that there is an enhanced degree of risk with driving at 150 mile/h. Having driven a Sierra Cosworth at 155 mile/h on a deserted motorway and with great care 10 years ago I cannot see that this speed is particularly dangerous. But the screams of outrage from the predictable and not so predictable quarters are only to be expected particularly as too many have fallen for the speed kills hype.
Re the 84 in a 30 - I do not know the road in question but there are far far too many 30's in rural areas here in the Welsh Borders that used to be or should be NSL; many with open fields either side to suit the demands of NIMBY councillors and avaricious Scumera partnerships.
As for hypocrisy of police and "justice" authorities in continuing to impose zero tolerance on the public while condoning this for themselves, this further re-inforces the belief that we are already in a 'police state'.
But I may find myself using this precedent in defence at some time in the future.
pddmac said:
Speed kills. Simple. Sorry to piss on your fire Pistonheads, but grow up.
I'll bite too!
The statement 'Speed Kills' is oversimplistic garbage, the effect of crashing at speed is likely to be nasty, however the speed in itself does not cause a crash. Crashes are caused by poor driving, mostly through inattention, poor skills, or aggressive behaviour. Driving fast does not automatically imply any of those.
Edited to add: The worst accident I have seen on the Autobahn took place at less than the UK motorway speed limit.
>> Edited by kevinday on Friday 20th May 12:55
pddmac said:
Speed kills. Simple. Sorry to piss on your fire Pistonheads, but grow up.
You’ll have to do better than that to put out my fire
pddmac said:
I have seen some God awful accidents in Germany on the Autobahn.
I've seen some God awful accidents in England, so where's the correlation?
pddmac said:........have you just contradicted yourself?
By the way, in Germany, there are many restrictions to speed on the Autobahn, not all are unre-stricted in fact not many are,.
Im sure I read somewhere that on a persuit, if its a "normal" police driver (i.e Panda car), if the chase goes over 20mph the limit, i.e 50 in a 30, 90 in a 70 its called off. Im sure the same article said that if its an advanced plod driver, its very rare chases are allowed to get to even double the limit, as the jellycopter would be used for these purposes (you can run but can hide ect).
pddmac said:
Speed kills. Simple.
www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=10722
No, it doesn't.
PDDMAC - Speed kills. Simple. Sorry to piss on your fire Pistonheads, butgrow up
Is logically correct - difficult to have a crash if you (and everyone else) are not moving.
BUT SERIOUSLY - PDDMAC - please step closer to the fire keep your old chap out and let's find out what heat does!
Is logically correct - difficult to have a crash if you (and everyone else) are not moving.
BUT SERIOUSLY - PDDMAC - please step closer to the fire keep your old chap out and let's find out what heat does!
Was Judge right to clear 159mph Cop?
Vote at;
www.shropshirestar.com/show_article.php?aID=33247
currently 69% No
>> Edited by catso on Friday 20th May 14:27
Vote at;
www.shropshirestar.com/show_article.php?aID=33247
currently 69% No
>> Edited by catso on Friday 20th May 14:27
Firstly I will say that I am all for a raising of limits in unpopulated areas and on main roads and improvements in road design in populated areas for limits to increase.
I enjoy driving quickly and well above speed limits where it is safe to do so - if I get caught I expect to cop a fine, not dangerous driving because I don;t do that.
However.
Speed kills.
No but the higher the speed involved in an accident the more likely someone will be killed - fact.
I can understand the guy not being done for dangerous driving but why was he not fined/points whatever for speeding ?
Also he may have been safe but what about due consideration for other road users - easy to pull out on someone if you think they are doing 90 and they're doing 159. Ok it was an empty motorway but 80+ in a 30 there must have been sideroads and or the potential for someone to cross the road.
If Ted thinks this a win because of the admission of a Magistrate that high speed does not neccessarily equate dangerous driving then he is mistaken. The majority will focus on the one law for them, one for us aspect and rightly so. Any mention of 159 is likely to raise indignation - if it was 95 on a Motorway it would have been a win.
80 odd in a 30 is not excusable.
The excuse used anyway is complete crap - there are police training courses and closed roads / circuits for driver training at these speeds.
Yes I agree that emergency services should be able to use whatever speed they deem appropriate according to circumstances in an emergency and they should be properly trained to do so. In a controlled environment. Not on public roads unless actually in an emergency. Never ever.
This was a serious lack of judgement by someone who is paid to exercise that judgement in the heat of the moment and he is therefore no longer fit to retain that position.
Unfortunately the positive message from this magistrate will be lost to the genral public in view of the overriding negative aspects - copper let off, 159MPH OMG, 80+ in a 30.
I enjoy driving quickly and well above speed limits where it is safe to do so - if I get caught I expect to cop a fine, not dangerous driving because I don;t do that.
However.
Speed kills.
No but the higher the speed involved in an accident the more likely someone will be killed - fact.
I can understand the guy not being done for dangerous driving but why was he not fined/points whatever for speeding ?
Also he may have been safe but what about due consideration for other road users - easy to pull out on someone if you think they are doing 90 and they're doing 159. Ok it was an empty motorway but 80+ in a 30 there must have been sideroads and or the potential for someone to cross the road.
If Ted thinks this a win because of the admission of a Magistrate that high speed does not neccessarily equate dangerous driving then he is mistaken. The majority will focus on the one law for them, one for us aspect and rightly so. Any mention of 159 is likely to raise indignation - if it was 95 on a Motorway it would have been a win.
80 odd in a 30 is not excusable.
The excuse used anyway is complete crap - there are police training courses and closed roads / circuits for driver training at these speeds.
Yes I agree that emergency services should be able to use whatever speed they deem appropriate according to circumstances in an emergency and they should be properly trained to do so. In a controlled environment. Not on public roads unless actually in an emergency. Never ever.
This was a serious lack of judgement by someone who is paid to exercise that judgement in the heat of the moment and he is therefore no longer fit to retain that position.
Unfortunately the positive message from this magistrate will be lost to the genral public in view of the overriding negative aspects - copper let off, 159MPH OMG, 80+ in a 30.
This may have been raised before, but isn't it the case that you cannot be had for both speeding and dangerous driving over the same incident?
In which case having 'gone for broke' on dangerous driving - against which there was a defence - there was no opportunity to prosecute for speeding.
Had CPS brought a case for speeding only then the outcome would have been down to whether it could be argued that the vehicle was being used for police purposes that justified exceeding the speed limit - which might have been more difficult for PC Whosit to show.
Tactical error by CPS?
In which case having 'gone for broke' on dangerous driving - against which there was a defence - there was no opportunity to prosecute for speeding.
Had CPS brought a case for speeding only then the outcome would have been down to whether it could be argued that the vehicle was being used for police purposes that justified exceeding the speed limit - which might have been more difficult for PC Whosit to show.
Tactical error by CPS?
pddmac said:
not very much and managed not to make a point
but I'd like to hear back from him. Maybe he accidentally exceeded 70mph this afternoon and ceased to be, along with countless others (perhaps he was still too busy p1ssing?).
As for growing up - no thanks.
>> Edited by zebedee on Friday 20th May 16:07
Nick_F said:
This may have been raised before, but isn't it the case that you cannot be had for both speeding and dangerous driving over the same incident?
Tactical error by CPS?
Normally only the more serious offence is prosecuted but I know of many occasions where this doesn't happen - lots of drink driving with speeding at the same time.
CPS must have been confident of the outcome - whilst the general message from the magistrate is good in that speeding by itself is not a causative factor in dangerous driving and needs to be put into context I can't really find any context that exonerates the copper in this incidence. 125 MPH maybe - 150 at the absolute outside, higher than the stated max speed of the vehicle then anyone can argue that its dangerous as it exceeds safe parameters for the vehicle.
snorky said:
so police are collecting cash off people who speed and make such a big thing about speed being about the only thing that causes accidents then go and justify it as being OK when they do it......
Yes all proceeds go directly into police bank accounts.
I'm pretty sure the money goes into a big pot for redevelopment of roads and stuff, and probably the pointless litigation brought against this guy who was always going to get off anyway.
I think the real injustice is the waste of police and court time on bollox like this.
In fairness to police, they don't make the rules, simply apply them.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff