147mph on motorway
Discussion
psi310398 said:
R8Steve said:
That would be the sensible thing to do.
Why anyone thought it was a good idea to let individual police officers have twitter accounts and be allowed to comment on such cases in such a manner i have no idea.
Agreed, but PC Foster is no different from many other police officers who feel the need to make sententious statements after judicial proceedings have concluded. We see it after many trials. And, on occasion, even when the defendant has been acquitted, the relevant police officer sees fit to cast doubt on the acquittal (without quite being explicit about it).Why anyone thought it was a good idea to let individual police officers have twitter accounts and be allowed to comment on such cases in such a manner i have no idea.
If anyone has to make such statements, surely it is for the judges and magistrates rather than the police to do so? I'd happily see the practice banned.
The Police should be allowed to use any reasonable means available to help them do their job, a social media tweet or even shows such as 'Police Interceptors' are all fair game IMHO. If you were to stop those you'd also have to ban any comment from the accused / convicted, along with their family and friends for impartiality and that's never going to be feasible. They post a tweet, you're free to say if you agree or not, all provided its after any case has concluded of course.
147mph may be safe, it may be dangerous, but underlying those opinions is the simple fact it's against the law and everybody knows that.
ElectricPics said:
CraigyMc said:
As do many of us. What's your point?
PC Foster gets to use the exemption, which means he's not breaking the law.
Joe Bloggs may well be a racing driver who trains policemen how to drive in pursuit situations, and could be in a better-prepped car for the purpose because it's not got half a ton of policing gubbins in the back.
PC Foster is not, in that situation, "safer" than Joe Bloggs, which is the point being made.
Many of us do may well have the skills to drive at high speed in a well-prepped car. Most of us don't have the opportunity to maintain those skills, and in any event, does that mean that police speed exemptions should be removed, or restricted?PC Foster gets to use the exemption, which means he's not breaking the law.
Joe Bloggs may well be a racing driver who trains policemen how to drive in pursuit situations, and could be in a better-prepped car for the purpose because it's not got half a ton of policing gubbins in the back.
PC Foster is not, in that situation, "safer" than Joe Bloggs, which is the point being made.
Making up a fictitious racing driver doesn't make or prove any point, especially as racing drivers drive on closed circuits.
You're simply attempting (and failing) to avoid the truth of the matter, which is that ultimately, the PC was also doing something equally dangerous as the accused.
Is there any other situation where a PC can perform exactly the same activity (or worse: he can go faster if needed) as the accused, without fear of prosecution?
If it really was as life-threatening as the PC suggested, the pursuit should not have been carried out - there are other ways to catch speeding drivers.
Haha.
Sorry Toltec, I was skim reading - apologies.
Blues and twos should be on at those speeds.
The idea is to look at vehicles in Lane 1/ Lane 2 and assess how fast they are gaining on the vehicle in front.
That gives you an idea if/ when they are going to pull out.
The idea of the training is to give yourself time to react - but as the speeds increase so does the risk.
Not easy at 150 MPH.
Sorry Toltec, I was skim reading - apologies.
Blues and twos should be on at those speeds.
The idea is to look at vehicles in Lane 1/ Lane 2 and assess how fast they are gaining on the vehicle in front.
That gives you an idea if/ when they are going to pull out.
The idea of the training is to give yourself time to react - but as the speeds increase so does the risk.
Not easy at 150 MPH.
The Surveyor said:
psi310398 said:
R8Steve said:
That would be the sensible thing to do.
Why anyone thought it was a good idea to let individual police officers have twitter accounts and be allowed to comment on such cases in such a manner i have no idea.
Agreed, but PC Foster is no different from many other police officers who feel the need to make sententious statements after judicial proceedings have concluded. We see it after many trials. And, on occasion, even when the defendant has been acquitted, the relevant police officer sees fit to cast doubt on the acquittal (without quite being explicit about it).Why anyone thought it was a good idea to let individual police officers have twitter accounts and be allowed to comment on such cases in such a manner i have no idea.
If anyone has to make such statements, surely it is for the judges and magistrates rather than the police to do so? I'd happily see the practice banned.
The Police should be allowed to use any reasonable means available to help them do their job, a social media tweet or even shows such as 'Police Interceptors' are all fair game IMHO. If you were to stop those you'd also have to ban any comment from the accused / convicted, along with their family and friends for impartiality and that's never going to be feasible. They post a tweet, you're free to say if you agree or not, all provided its after any case has concluded of course.
147mph may be safe, it may be dangerous, but underlying those opinions is the simple fact it's against the law and everybody knows that.
I recall one posting pictures of a PHers car for having illegal tyres. It turned out it was a brand new car with semi slicks (legal) for example.
vonhosen said:
R8Steve said:
vonhosen said:
If it wasn't dangerous, why imperative to use blues & twos?
I never said it wasn’t dangerous.Being more interested in a conviction than public safety perhaps.
vonhosen said:
PC Foster needs to get out a bit more.
What were they doing on his driving courses?
It's the usual party line - 'speeding is dangerous' as opposed to 'speeding is against the law'. These cringeworthy statements are real toe curlers. But then, saying outright that speed isn't inherently dangerous when used in a considered, appropriate fashion, would not be very popular with some 'partner agencies'. What were they doing on his driving courses?
CraigyMc said:
Is there any other situation where a PC can perform exactly the same activity (or worse: he can go faster if needed) as the accused, without fear of prosecution?
Plenty.I was seriously assaulted. I was medically retired as a result.
The other guy came off worse on the day (well, evening).
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 22 January 17:47
R8Steve said:
Red 4 said:
The other guy came off worse.
Statements like this are exactly the reason personal comments from police officers should be avoided.Someone asked a question and I gave an answer.
If you are suggesting I went overboard you are very wrong.
I did what I had to do. I was seriously injured and I lost my job as a result.
Some people (like you) have no idea.
R8Steve said:
vonhosen said:
R8Steve said:
vonhosen said:
If it wasn't dangerous, why imperative to use blues & twos?
I never said it wasn’t dangerous.Being more interested in a conviction than public safety perhaps.
It's you saying he should have blues/twos on here though, not PC Foster.
He has just chosen words poorly to the press. That's not a reason for having blues/twos on.
xjay1337 said:
I don't understand half the posters here.
Doing 140 odd on a motorway at 2am when you are the only car around is one thing, doing it in a RELATIVELY busy motorway is quite another.
I'd say he got off VERY lucky. Motorcyclists have gone to jail for less.
On most motorways the vision available there was better than it would be at 2AM.Doing 140 odd on a motorway at 2am when you are the only car around is one thing, doing it in a RELATIVELY busy motorway is quite another.
I'd say he got off VERY lucky. Motorcyclists have gone to jail for less.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff