RE: High speeds not dangerous, says judge
Discussion
apache said:
I think Paul Smith summed it up perfectly. We should see this as a small victory against the 'Safety Partnerships' whose murderous intentions focus on 'Speed Kills'
I dont see any victory, the police say he was a trained driver, the Safety Partnership will still see the general public as bumbling morons who arnt capable of handing a car at more than 70mph
anniesdad said:
159 in an unmarked car....just glad that I wasn't behind him trying to keep up!
Now the outcome of this would have been interesting!
My dad got let off for doing the same to a marked police car. 90mph no lights or siren. Not sure I would have the balls to do the same
Hmmm. On Vine's programme - they debated this. IAM chap was on BiB's side and even said the "Speed Kills" slogan ist too simplistic - as lot more to accidents than this. He argued that he was advanced, road was clear und the judge made his decision based on finding of facts as presented to him in court.
He also argued that joy riders do not drive on track und that ist essential for driver to get to know his car und lits limitations so that he can assess situation properly when on real shout.
Chap mit subjective bias said his son was killed when BiB collided at 100 mph through traffic lights - he was chasing joy riders. He admitted his son had not yielded to the sirens though.... und he should have done...nicht? But chap said that in real life - choppers would be used if it gets to silly pursuit speeds. Perhaps - und perhaps not. Think it depends on available resources - but it should be aborted if life ist in danger. Policy should consider safety perspective from each angle anyway - should it not?
IAM said that IAM drivers have to meet high standard to pass und this does mean observing speed limits. His qualification on this topic concerned a police requirement repsonse.
BBC travel chap before he gave travel sreports admitted that he had been trafpol for 9 years und once drove uup the prom mit car full of officers at 3 in morning at over 100 mph to sort out a riot in next town. He said it depended on circumstances - und this was life und death situation.
Mary Brake got in on act.... she cited Kent police who have told all BiB to obey traffic lights even on a shout - "because this saves lives"
Nien
Mary - This ist silly talk. If scrote breaks into my house und starts attacking me - I want that BiB there within seconds of dialling 999! Und I also want ambulance to assist me pretty sharpish too und fire engine to put out fire pretty quickly too.
Ist not good enough if someone dies because BiB or other emergency services are not allowed to get there quickly enough.
Und that ist difference und possibly why judge - who hears cases from far worse criminals und effects on their victims - made this decision.
But I also see the point of the guy on 9 points who phoned in as he has to sit out this for 2 years as he got all 9 points on one Gatso run - und no way blatting at ridiculous speed..... und ist in same area as this BiB....
Ist a tricky one - nicht? Can see both sides. But we do not know what internal disciplines may have been applied either.
>> Edited by WildCat on Thursday 19th May 14:06
He also argued that joy riders do not drive on track und that ist essential for driver to get to know his car und lits limitations so that he can assess situation properly when on real shout.
Chap mit subjective bias said his son was killed when BiB collided at 100 mph through traffic lights - he was chasing joy riders. He admitted his son had not yielded to the sirens though.... und he should have done...nicht? But chap said that in real life - choppers would be used if it gets to silly pursuit speeds. Perhaps - und perhaps not. Think it depends on available resources - but it should be aborted if life ist in danger. Policy should consider safety perspective from each angle anyway - should it not?
IAM said that IAM drivers have to meet high standard to pass und this does mean observing speed limits. His qualification on this topic concerned a police requirement repsonse.
BBC travel chap before he gave travel sreports admitted that he had been trafpol for 9 years und once drove uup the prom mit car full of officers at 3 in morning at over 100 mph to sort out a riot in next town. He said it depended on circumstances - und this was life und death situation.
Mary Brake got in on act.... she cited Kent police who have told all BiB to obey traffic lights even on a shout - "because this saves lives"
Nien
Mary - This ist silly talk. If scrote breaks into my house und starts attacking me - I want that BiB there within seconds of dialling 999! Und I also want ambulance to assist me pretty sharpish too und fire engine to put out fire pretty quickly too. Ist not good enough if someone dies because BiB or other emergency services are not allowed to get there quickly enough.
Und that ist difference und possibly why judge - who hears cases from far worse criminals und effects on their victims - made this decision.
But I also see the point of the guy on 9 points who phoned in as he has to sit out this for 2 years as he got all 9 points on one Gatso run - und no way blatting at ridiculous speed..... und ist in same area as this BiB....
Ist a tricky one - nicht? Can see both sides. But we do not know what internal disciplines may have been applied either.
>> Edited by WildCat on Thursday 19th May 14:06
cotty said:
I think Paul Smith summed it up perfectly. We should see this as a small victory against the 'Safety Partnerships' whose murderous intentions focus on 'Speed Kills'
I dont see any victory, the police say he was a trained driver, the Safety Partnership will still see the general public as bumbling morons who arnt capable of handing a car at more than 70mph
I wish you would be a bit more positive about this, the whole crux of the matter is the fact he got let off, personally the more the merrier, if we get all petulant because the cops get away with it and we don't, how does that benefit us? how does that make us look?
Know your enemy cotty, it isn't the cops, they do what they're told it's the Safety Partnerships, Mary bloody Williams, Dr David sodding Begg, Brake, T2000 and their supporters who are causing deaths and injuries on our roads because they believe 'SPEED KILLS'and if someone proves it doesn't then good on em
apache said:
apache said:
I think Paul Smith summed it up perfectly. We should see this as a small victory against the 'Safety Partnerships' whose murderous intentions focus on 'Speed Kills'
I dont see any victory, the police say he was a trained driver, the Safety Partnership will still see the general public as bumbling morons who arnt capable of handing a car at more than 70mph
I wish you would be a bit more positive about this, the whole crux of the matter is the fact he got let off, personally the more the merrier, if we get all petulant because the cops get away with it and we don't, how does that benefit us? how does that make us look?
Know your enemy cotty, it isn't the cops, they do what they're told it's the Safety Partnerships, Mary bloody Williams, Dr David sodding Begg, Brake, T2000 and their supporters who are causing deaths and injuries on our roads because they believe 'SPEED KILLS'and if someone proves it doesn't then good on em
I would like to be more positive as well but at the end of the day he is a police officer we are not, he got let off we will not.
It has been proved that speed alone does not kill. I did 120 the other day and im still alive - proof that speed does not kill. wont stop them thinking we cant drive
CAMPAIGN AGAINST INACCURATE
SPEED CAMERAS
www.notsoaccurate.com
PRESS RELEASE
DIFFERENT RULES APPLY TO SPEEDING POLICE
A perverse ruling by District Judge Morgan clears a West Mercia Constabulary police constable of speeding (159mph).
This ruling is so perverse it should be overturned therefore see
www.notsoaccurate.com/Page%201.htm
and insist that the CPS appeal to the Crown Court
Regards,
David Edgar
roshambo said:
Oh & we forget the woman prosecued for eating an apple at the wheel.....crawling along eating an apple or 159mph......mmmmmm
A bit off topic, but yesterday I was returning home from work when I saw a Police van coming towards me, with ... guess what... the driver tucking into a banana, whilst steering one-handed.
So the exemption for BiB applies to eating fruit whilst driving, as well as giving it serious welly???
apache said:
the whole crux of the matter is the fact he got let off
...BECAUSE HE IS A COPPER.
He hasn't proven anything new. The government know, the police know and everyone who has exceeded a speed limit and lived knows that speed in itself does not kill. It doesn't stop them telling us that it does though and enforcing the law on NON-POLICE motorists accordingly.
There is nothing good about this case. Things will not change because of it. If any MoP up on a speeding rap thinks that they're going to be treated the slightest bit differently in the future because of Milton's antics...
FORGET IT. If there was any need to pursue crims at 160mph by road then what are police helicopters for?
pistnbroke said:
I have always been under the impression that the police could only legally speed if they were on a blue light job. I must have been mis-informed.
You were. The *only* requirement is that the vehicle " ... is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, ... " and that " ... the observation of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose to which it is being put at the time".
No requirement for blues and twos, marked vehicles or even that they're on a shout. Just that it's on police business and observing the limit would obstruct that business. So, the Home Secretary's (police) driver speeding because the HS is late for a meeting is perfectly legal.
Of course, PC 159mph is taking the piss. I hope he gets the sack.
>> Edited by zumbruk on Thursday 19th May 14:54
DaveR said:
apache said:
the whole crux of the matter is the fact he got let off
...BECAUSE HE IS A COPPER.
He hasn't proven anything new. The government know, the police know and everyone who has exceeded a speed limit and lived knows that speed in itself does not kill. It doesn't stop them telling us that it does though and enforcing the law on NON-POLICE motorists accordingly.
There is nothing good about this case. Things will not change because of it. If any MoP up on a speeding rap thinks that they're going to be treated the slightest bit differently in the future because of Milton's antics...
If there was any need to pursue crims at 160mph by road then what are police helicopters for?
I don't give a rolling donut if he was a copper or a pole dancer, we need to see this as an example for all emergency services. Joe Bloggs isn't going to get any leniency because of this, no one suggested otherwise but, it brings in to the public domain that 'SPEED DOESN'T KILL'
and highlights the hypocrisy. As I said, know your enemy, at the moment we are all beginning to sound like Mary bloody Williams. edited to add, Paul Smith of Safespeed, Mark McChristie of ABD and even Ted adopts this view as positive, they being the grand total of people who publicly support the motorist in the UK
>> Edited by apache on Thursday 19th May 15:06
tvr_nut said:
[I was returning home from work when I saw a Police van coming towards me, with ... guess what... the driver tucking into a banana, whilst steering one-handed.
No, this is an entirely different set of circumstances, he was honing his single handed driving skills for times when he's having a w**k with the other.
This is a good result for the cause, as it confirms that driving at speed is NOT dangerous per say, albeit with many qualifications.
I think that this is the right result, but what surprises me is that the prosecution was brought in the first place for I would have thought that the Police and the CPS would know their own rules.
So what’s this all about? Was it done on purpose to expose the stupidity of the current attitude to "Speed Kills", unlikely. Was it just as the officer said, that he wanted to see what the car was like before using it in anger. This is almost certainly the real reason as it makes 100% sense, but there's more to this and I would like to know how the "video" came to light and who threatened to send it to whom. Was it that someone outside the force found out about the video and has made them do the politically correct thing as they were being effectively blackmailed into bringing a case against one of their own. They had the law on their side so the risk of going to court was small and they needed to make sure he was cleared to enable them to shut up the whinges from Transport 2000 and Brake who I suspect knew about this in advance and pressed for a court case in the hope of a big win, so we should all be very pleased it didn't work.
Be consistent with your attitudes, the fact that he is a police officer and out there pulling the rest of us for a few miles an hour over the stated limit is neither here or there, that's his job, that’s what he's been told to do, raise income. It's the same thing as the plumber overcharging to put a washer on your tap, it's a con, the price we have to pay, it's life, plain and simple.
If you want to avoid these problems, then, number one, work with others to attack the lies of Brake and Transport 2000 and all the other Tossers who think that road safety is so simplistic that reducing speed and erecting scammera's is the key, change the laws by sensible and factual argument and above all, don't fall into the divide and conquer trap by all rounding on a police officer because he allowed to do something we are not. Bloody good luck to him, I wouldn't want his job or wages for all the tea in China, damn glad he prepared to do the stinking job.
Number two, learn how to change a tap washer.
>> Edited by Racing Rod on Thursday 19th May 15:12
Isnt it the same old story.... just dont get caught! (unless you know a funny hand shake) We have all done it - but - touch wood - not been caught. A good one would be J Clarkson driving a new supercar on top-gear at 160mph on the M1 late at night - in the interests of the public knowing how well the car goes, in case the police wanted one as an unmarked car. A public service I would suggest.
Makes me want to get revolving numberplates and a radar jammer and tell the powers that be to stuff their speed limit where the sun don’t shine.
If they want to come and get me ill be the one with my foot to the floor, the NOS on full afterburn, leaning out the window yelling “YOULL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE COPPER”
If they want to come and get me ill be the one with my foot to the floor, the NOS on full afterburn, leaning out the window yelling “YOULL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE COPPER”
funkihamsta said:
OK head hurts.
What about the don't break speed limit/no police chase rulings other forces have made to cut down on accidents/fatalities involving police cars?
Decide one way or the other for crying out loud!
I have no problem with the police exceeding the speed limit during a high-speed pursuit or on the way to an emergency, what I have a problem with is police who exceed the limit for no reason other than they want to drive faster. Or in this case taking a car for a top speed run for the sake of it
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff