RE: High speeds not dangerous, says judge
Discussion
no matter how much I hate scameras and all that support them I cannot find any justification for 159mph.
Whilst the situation remains the same then the officer should have been treated along the lines of every other driver - even advanced driver - in the UK. He should have been prosecuted for it.
If the rules do change and the police begin to concentrate on "driver education", "appropriate speed for the conditions", "forward planning" then I could accept this speed.
The story would have been so different had he caused an accident. I accept he did not but the risk was there. If the police really want to "familiarise themselves" with the vehicles dynamics then they should do so in the same manner we have to. Take it to a track.
Whilst the situation remains the same then the officer should have been treated along the lines of every other driver - even advanced driver - in the UK. He should have been prosecuted for it.
If the rules do change and the police begin to concentrate on "driver education", "appropriate speed for the conditions", "forward planning" then I could accept this speed.
The story would have been so different had he caused an accident. I accept he did not but the risk was there. If the police really want to "familiarise themselves" with the vehicles dynamics then they should do so in the same manner we have to. Take it to a track.
From my comments on the other thread:
It's not a question of 'was his driving dangerous' so much as 'was his driving unauthorised'. If unauthorised then the law as it stands, whether we agree with it or not, should apply together with any usual penalties one might expect for the offence.
If he was authorised to drive at that speed we should not have paid for a prosecution and it should have gone no further.
If he was not authorised then he should be the subject of a disciplinary hearing internally, notwithstanding the fact that the court has said he is not guilty of dangerous driving. Maybe this will, or has, already happened.
It's not a question of 'was his driving dangerous' so much as 'was his driving unauthorised'. If unauthorised then the law as it stands, whether we agree with it or not, should apply together with any usual penalties one might expect for the offence.
If he was authorised to drive at that speed we should not have paid for a prosecution and it should have gone no further.
If he was not authorised then he should be the subject of a disciplinary hearing internally, notwithstanding the fact that the court has said he is not guilty of dangerous driving. Maybe this will, or has, already happened.
cotty said:
One rule for them and one rule for us, makes you wonder what other laws the police are exempt from .
Just out of interest who else can legally break the speed limit without having lights and siren flashing
>> Edited by cotty on Thursday 19th May 12:47
bib: "Murder your honour? Lord no, I was just testing out my new gun!"
In a country where "speeding" is worse than burglary it is almost a surprise.
Police aren't exempt of the law, so, looking on the bright side, this verdict passes on a good message and that is that each transgression should be treated induvidually on the basis of its circumstances and not: oh you broke the speed limit you pay the fine, Kerching!
How about a database which contains all the Reg. No.s of all the Senior police(or all) officers, Police Authority, CPS, magistrates, politicians of the right or is it left persuasion. The scameras have access to this and auto eliminate them from any NIP system..............would you consider this as a one rule for.....etc Well we have reason to believe it exists. Can anybody confirm it!?.........it must be worth a few quid from the daily mail. On a practical point, I (going fishing)and the milkmEn on their floats and the postman in his van are all out very early in the morning and it is easy to assume that you are the only thing up that early. I hope our traffic cops, what few are left, don't pick the route I and the floats use! if they must do it they had better close the roads a la Monaco!
my 2ps worth
If scrotes drive at 80mph plus in 30 zone, why should not a copper practice that at a safe time of night. If the next night he caught a robber fleeing the scene in similar circs he would be a hero.
Why wasn't he just disciplined by the force? Does this mean anything done wrong at work lands you in court?
If scrotes drive at 80mph plus in 30 zone, why should not a copper practice that at a safe time of night. If the next night he caught a robber fleeing the scene in similar circs he would be a hero.
Why wasn't he just disciplined by the force? Does this mean anything done wrong at work lands you in court?
Very valid points Cooperman.
I do not know enough about the road conditions, weather, visibility, other traffic, capabilities of the car etc. etc. to comment on wether the driving was dangerous or not (plenty of 30mph clear straight, dual carriageways around here).
But hopefully all PistonHeaders will understand that speed per se is not dangerous.
What is encouraging & has already been mentioned by others here, is that the judge is in agreement that speed alone does not have to be dangerous.
I do not know enough about the road conditions, weather, visibility, other traffic, capabilities of the car etc. etc. to comment on wether the driving was dangerous or not (plenty of 30mph clear straight, dual carriageways around here).
But hopefully all PistonHeaders will understand that speed per se is not dangerous.
What is encouraging & has already been mentioned by others here, is that the judge is in agreement that speed alone does not have to be dangerous.
I've known about this from a friend of mine for a little while. and in this case, it's not so much the speed itself that makes me want to kill, kill, kill all police, it's the arrogance and irresponsibilty of the driver. driving at 160mph in a straight line on a 3 line high-way in the dead of night i'm sure is totally safe. the vehicle (Octavia RS i think?) has all the cons it needs to drive that fast; but the fact of the matter is, is that if the driver was unfamiliar with the vehicle, then he should have been learning to drive it somewhere nice and safe - like on a test-track. there's no justification for driving at 160mph unless you're on a priority 1 call, blues and twos blaring.
and if anyone thinks this is going to make an iota of difference to the attitude about speeding in this country - muwahahahahaaaa indeed.
the only thing it Should Spark Off; is sensible discussion about varying speed-limits for times of day: who wants to drive at 70mph on the motorway at 2am? only people who are falling asleep in the left-hand lane, that's who...
and if anyone thinks this is going to make an iota of difference to the attitude about speeding in this country - muwahahahahaaaa indeed.
the only thing it Should Spark Off; is sensible discussion about varying speed-limits for times of day: who wants to drive at 70mph on the motorway at 2am? only people who are falling asleep in the left-hand lane, that's who...
There is no "safe" time to be doing that kind of speed anywhere.
My parents were driving down a motorway many years ago, doing 70mph, it was 3am.
A car in the opposit direction, going well, well over 100mph (according to the coppers) had a blow out & ended up on their side of the motorway.
Both were in hospital for a year with their injuries, my father is in a wheelchair now.
Highly trained or not, at 100mph perhaps he can control an unforseen event like a blow out but at 160mph forget it.
There is no "safe" time to be doing that kind of speed anywhere.
Familiarising himself with the car.....at 159 That vauxhaull would have been at the very very limit of its roadholding, grip, braking, handling abilities etc - probably over them in reality.
>> Edited by roshambo on Thursday 19th May 13:34
My parents were driving down a motorway many years ago, doing 70mph, it was 3am.
A car in the opposit direction, going well, well over 100mph (according to the coppers) had a blow out & ended up on their side of the motorway.
Both were in hospital for a year with their injuries, my father is in a wheelchair now.
Highly trained or not, at 100mph perhaps he can control an unforseen event like a blow out but at 160mph forget it.
There is no "safe" time to be doing that kind of speed anywhere.
Familiarising himself with the car.....at 159 That vauxhaull would have been at the very very limit of its roadholding, grip, braking, handling abilities etc - probably over them in reality.
>> Edited by roshambo on Thursday 19th May 13:34
I think it's the inconsistencies that annoy me. Wasn't there a case a couple of years ago where an ambulance driver was done for excessive speed whilst transporting an organ for a transplant operation?
To initially learn a new car's capabilities I would suggest something like an airfield where break points can be safely tested. 159mph in a (fairly) straight line on a motorway - what's that going to teach you?!
To initially learn a new car's capabilities I would suggest something like an airfield where break points can be safely tested. 159mph in a (fairly) straight line on a motorway - what's that going to teach you?!
roshambo said:
There is no "safe" time to be doing that kind of speed anywhere.
My parents were driving down a motorway many years ago, doing 70mph, it was 3am.
A car in the opposit direction, going well, well over 100mph (according to the coppers) had a blow out & ended up on their side of the motorway.
Both were in hospital for a year with their injuries, my father is in a wheelchair now.
Highly trained or not, at 100mph perhaps he can control an unforseen event like a blow out but at 160mph forget it.
There is no "safe" time to be doing that kind of speed anywhere.
As sad as an event such as you describe is, you can't legislate for such rare occurences and thus say "...no-one can travel at that speed because..."
If we legislated for everything (like tyre blowouts), we'd ban ladder climbing, handgliding, mountineering, flying, swimming, diving and so on. Velocity doesn't mean danger by definition, there are many more significant causes of dangerous situations on the roads.
There have been other threads recently which show just how relatively minor is the danger on our roads in comparison with the vastly more numerous ways of meeting one's maker.
Also leaves them open to there Speed detectors (underhand money grabbing scum - go find rapists and murders and issue more asbos) to be in accurate.
This car spec is 154mph (presumably one person and low fuel and not loaded with coppers and all there kit) - must be over estimating by 9- 10 mph.
www.carpages.co.uk/guide/vauxhall/vauxhall-vectra-gsi-3.2i-v6-24v-5dr.asp?switched=on&echo=541330711
THIS GUY SHOULD BE IN JAIL.
>> Edited by jellison on Thursday 19th May 13:37
This car spec is 154mph (presumably one person and low fuel and not loaded with coppers and all there kit) - must be over estimating by 9- 10 mph.
www.carpages.co.uk/guide/vauxhall/vauxhall-vectra-gsi-3.2i-v6-24v-5dr.asp?switched=on&echo=541330711
THIS GUY SHOULD BE IN JAIL.
>> Edited by jellison on Thursday 19th May 13:37
flatsix said:
I think it's the inconsistencies that annoy me. Wasn't there a case a couple of years ago where an ambulance driver was done for excessive speed whilst transporting an organ for a transplant operation?
Thats the case I was trying to remember, I cant remember the outcome.
[In clearing him, the judge however said, "I can't help but see the irony that those that brought this prosecution are those very people who have purchased cars that go at this speed and paid for him (the defendant) to go to learn to drive at these speeds."]
Where can I 'learn to drive at these speeds'?
So that I can use it as a defense!
I'm pleased he was cleared and hope that the courts kick the blinkered 'speed kills' morons a few more times.
Where can I 'learn to drive at these speeds'?
So that I can use it as a defense!
I'm pleased he was cleared and hope that the courts kick the blinkered 'speed kills' morons a few more times.
jellison said:
Also leaves them open to there Speed detectors (underhand money grabbing scum - go find rapists and murders and issue more asbos) to be in accurate.
This car spec is 154mph (presumably one person and low fuel and not loaded with coppers and all there kit) - must be over estimating by 9- 10 mph.
www.carpages.co.uk/guide/vauxhall/vauxhall-vectra-gsi-3.2i-v6-24v-5dr.asp?switched=on&echo=541330711
THIS GUY SHOULD BE IN JAIL.
>> Edited by jellison on Thursday 19th May 13:37
154mph. Not possible with the police lighting gear on top. This would drop the speed to 130-140 range. But of course the police could never admit their equipment was inaccurate could they?
Maybe it was kph?
I think the bottom line in this case (and other similar ones that keep popping up) is this:
If there is a law, EVERYONE should be treated the same if they are caught breaking it. ADVANCED POLICE DRIVERS OR NOT!!
It completely makes a mockery of the police and totally undermines their authority that no charges have been brough against this example of wreckless driving.
If the Police want to scrape some little morsel of credibitlity back from this then they should make sure that this PC is made an public example of and prosecute him for DANGEROUS DRIVING!
There, thats better...
Right, I'm off to take my advanced driving test so that I become exempt from police prosecution!
If there is a law, EVERYONE should be treated the same if they are caught breaking it. ADVANCED POLICE DRIVERS OR NOT!!
It completely makes a mockery of the police and totally undermines their authority that no charges have been brough against this example of wreckless driving.
If the Police want to scrape some little morsel of credibitlity back from this then they should make sure that this PC is made an public example of and prosecute him for DANGEROUS DRIVING!
There, thats better...
Right, I'm off to take my advanced driving test so that I become exempt from police prosecution!
Another points missed is that this comes within a week fo acknowlegdement that police driving standards aren't all they should be and the increase in accidents with police drivers involved as prompted a move towards kitting out police cars with black boxes.
Then they let off some guy for driving at 159mph! I bet had he cracked the back of a Talbot Horizon driven by a gin rummy team and wiped them all out (had he survived) he wouldn't be getting off so lightly.
I think if we were treated with more tolerence and Big Brother was not on a mission to lead us to believe that speeding was the new Drink Driving we would indeed elevate the guy to folk hero. If the copper had been 2.3 times over the legal alcohol limit would he have got off? It;s the hypocracy.
And for information I would rather my tax was spend hiring race tracks for this kind of stuff than lining lawyers pockets.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff