RE: High speeds not dangerous, says judge
Discussion
as I said in parallel thread:
Some of the posters here amaze me.
The judge, after hearing the case from the prosecution, as well as seeing the video evidence, made the informed decision that the plod’s drive was not dangerous.
So how can people, who have only seen some journalist’s interpretation in news articles (instead of actually viewing the evidence), who are likely to be using their own driving ability as a reference, conclude that what that plod did was dangerous? To do so shows ignorance.
(please note; I’m not saying this wasn’t dangerous, but one can’t assume that it is).
I admit that dangerous is not the same as wrong (in law), but this case is further proof that speed (may not necessarily) be detrimental to road safety. Hence I welcome this judgement.
Some of the posters here amaze me.
The judge, after hearing the case from the prosecution, as well as seeing the video evidence, made the informed decision that the plod’s drive was not dangerous.
So how can people, who have only seen some journalist’s interpretation in news articles (instead of actually viewing the evidence), who are likely to be using their own driving ability as a reference, conclude that what that plod did was dangerous? To do so shows ignorance.
(please note; I’m not saying this wasn’t dangerous, but one can’t assume that it is).
I admit that dangerous is not the same as wrong (in law), but this case is further proof that speed (may not necessarily) be detrimental to road safety. Hence I welcome this judgement.
Apologies for those who already know this site:-
Try this one you won't believe how close you've come to a ticket
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to research after a colleague got flashed/clocked on the A1 recently, we found out that recent Government legislation changing the Freedom of Information Act gives you access to speed camera offences registered within the last twelve months and is placed on a freely accessible website.
Did you know that every time you go even over a mile or so over the speed limit, it is registered and placed on the database? They only send a ticket if you are more than 10% plus 3 mph over, OR (and here is an interesting little known fact.. if you receive over 20 near misses"
You can now check how many you have against your car's registered number.
Check this page: www.e-database.co.uk/
It will ask you for a password - but just click on the 'need a password/'link and you'll be given one in a pop-up window. In the top right hand corner there is a "click-on" window and it even shows the picture taken by the camera!!!
Try this one you won't believe how close you've come to a ticket
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to research after a colleague got flashed/clocked on the A1 recently, we found out that recent Government legislation changing the Freedom of Information Act gives you access to speed camera offences registered within the last twelve months and is placed on a freely accessible website.
Did you know that every time you go even over a mile or so over the speed limit, it is registered and placed on the database? They only send a ticket if you are more than 10% plus 3 mph over, OR (and here is an interesting little known fact.. if you receive over 20 near misses"
You can now check how many you have against your car's registered number. Check this page: www.e-database.co.uk/
It will ask you for a password - but just click on the 'need a password/'link and you'll be given one in a pop-up window. In the top right hand corner there is a "click-on" window and it even shows the picture taken by the camera!!!
Had the speeding Policeman been involved in an accident, which would have ineviatably resulted in a fatality, it would have been a whole different matter and it would have been very hard for the Judge to justify his actions.The truth of the matter is that speed alone does not kill, it accidents caused by bad driving that kill.
Personally I think he was just out on a jolly, nice new shiny high powered car complete with video equipment, just to prove it to his mates how fast he went.The argument that he was "honing his driving skills" holds very little water.For one thing I would imagine it would be highly unlikely he would ever be involved in a 160 mph chase on empty roads.If he was in fact legitimately testing the car should it not have been marked with at least "Police training", as I have often seen, and should he not have been accompanied.
I have no axe to grind against the police and have been stopped for speeding myself, to which I immediately put my hands up and paid the penalty, after all it was my fault.I could have quoted 30 years driving performance cars, empty road and a more than capable car but it would have cut no ice with the officers who stopped me.
>> Edited by p7ulg on Thursday 19th May 16:11
Personally I think he was just out on a jolly, nice new shiny high powered car complete with video equipment, just to prove it to his mates how fast he went.The argument that he was "honing his driving skills" holds very little water.For one thing I would imagine it would be highly unlikely he would ever be involved in a 160 mph chase on empty roads.If he was in fact legitimately testing the car should it not have been marked with at least "Police training", as I have often seen, and should he not have been accompanied.
I have no axe to grind against the police and have been stopped for speeding myself, to which I immediately put my hands up and paid the penalty, after all it was my fault.I could have quoted 30 years driving performance cars, empty road and a more than capable car but it would have cut no ice with the officers who stopped me.
>> Edited by p7ulg on Thursday 19th May 16:11
cotty said:nice 1 couldnt agree more well said!!
So do you want him proscuted because his driving was dangerous or because you wouldn't get away with it?
Because I wouldnt get away with it.
The law is the law, I may not agree with it and I would like it changed but until that time he broke it and should suffer the same consequences as any other person.
daveyctvr said:
Rob_the_Sparky said:
So do you want him proscuted because his driving was dangerous or because you wouldn't get away with it?
Because I wouldnt get away with it.
The law is the law, I may not agree with it and I would like it changed but until that time he broke it and should suffer the same consequences as any other person.
nice 1 couldnt agree more well said!!
So, he wasn't done for speeding. Which he would have been guilty of.
He was done for dangerous driving. It was decided by the court that his driving was not dangerous, so, not guilty was the verdict.
The law is the law, and in this case it was upheld.
Lets not forget, the Police dont prosecute drivers, they are just there to uphold the law, the law which for better or worse (probably worse if your a motorist) is legislated by the self same Government that we vote into power.
If you want to have a dig, then do so against the CPS, now they ARE a load of self serving f****** & no mistake.
Sill cant help thinking though that if it was OK for a Police driver to speed at 159 mph on the basis that he is an "exceptional driver", then why last year did the entire contignent of the WRC in Wales (who lets face it put the F1 fellas to shame) get ticketed & fined whilst driving £300,000 4WD rally cars ?
If you want to have a dig, then do so against the CPS, now they ARE a load of self serving f****** & no mistake.
Sill cant help thinking though that if it was OK for a Police driver to speed at 159 mph on the basis that he is an "exceptional driver", then why last year did the entire contignent of the WRC in Wales (who lets face it put the F1 fellas to shame) get ticketed & fined whilst driving £300,000 4WD rally cars ?
modernbeat said:
So, he wasn't done for speeding. Which he would have been guilty of.
He was done for dangerous driving. It was decided by the court that his driving was not dangerous, so, not guilty was the verdict.
The law is the law, and in this case it was upheld.
I undertsand that you cannot be tried for the same crime twice, so they could not re-prosecute him for dangerous driving. However, when the judge acquited him for that, there should be no obstacle to then prosecuting him for speeding. [And I don't buy the exemption BS in the context of a late night burn!]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Still confusing the issues on this thread.
Nice to see some of you arent just whining about " They wouldnt let me off".
Its a partial victory: Driving at speeds above the limit IS NOT necessarily dangerous.
That being so, why all the complaints about him breaking a speed limit?
Im of the opinion that some vindictiveness is showing itself in some peoples responses on here.
Try being a little objective by separating the speeding, versus the dangerous driving versus the "unfair treatment" aspects and have a go at the last one.
The other two issues are a victory for common bloody sense!
ps- no way should he be in jail Jellison, thats just spiteful!
Still confusing the issues on this thread.
Nice to see some of you arent just whining about " They wouldnt let me off".
Its a partial victory: Driving at speeds above the limit IS NOT necessarily dangerous.
That being so, why all the complaints about him breaking a speed limit?
Im of the opinion that some vindictiveness is showing itself in some peoples responses on here.
Try being a little objective by separating the speeding, versus the dangerous driving versus the "unfair treatment" aspects and have a go at the last one.
The other two issues are a victory for common bloody sense!
ps- no way should he be in jail Jellison, thats just spiteful!
I'm not sure if this point has already been bought up, because there are now so many comments on this topic, I've skipped a few pages (or I'll be here until midnight). Most comments that I have read seem to be sour grapes, I can't get away with it so why should he, etc. The difference is that he, while having a bit of fun, was checking out a new tool given to him by his employers to allow him to do his job. My employer sometimes supplies me with equipment needed to do my job and I'll check it out to see how good it is before using it in a real life situation and risking ending up making a prat of myself in front of an audience.
I'd rather know that the trafpol chasing the little scroat who's just nicked my car is aware of exactly what his own car is capable of and what it's limits are. That can only be found out by trying it rather than waiting until he needs to do it under the pressure of a chase.
Apart from anything else, he did no more than any of us are allowed to do if we go to Germany! The guilty ones are whoever decided to forward the prosecution to the CPS in the first place. It's just a shame a few more judges aren't as clear thinking as this one obviously was.
I'd rather know that the trafpol chasing the little scroat who's just nicked my car is aware of exactly what his own car is capable of and what it's limits are. That can only be found out by trying it rather than waiting until he needs to do it under the pressure of a chase.
Apart from anything else, he did no more than any of us are allowed to do if we go to Germany! The guilty ones are whoever decided to forward the prosecution to the CPS in the first place. It's just a shame a few more judges aren't as clear thinking as this one obviously was.
[rant mode on]
my view on the whole thing is...
The laws are there for a reason sometimes right sometimes wrong, everyone pushes there luck occasionally and accept the fact if we get caught we pay the price weather its points, fine,or a ban.
Mr plod from what i can tell was out for a pointless blat in a new car doing unsafe speeds on various streatches of road why, because he thinks he can get away with it. unfortunatly he did this time, maybe next time he wont be so lucky he could blow a tyre, loose controll of the car and mybe kill someone. I very much doubt he will ever have a justifyed reason to drive at 83 in a 30 let alone 159 on a motorway.
If he caught one of us doing those speeds which no doubt he will do at somepoint he wont accept the excuse im familiarising myself with the car we will be banged up for 30 days and loose our license and in my case shortly after, my job if i cant drive i cant do my job.
If i want to test out my car i do it in a 'safer' enviroment, on a trackday or airfield day why didnt mr plod do the same???
[rant mode off]
Takes a few deep breaths grabs the wallet, im off to buy a new car and familiarise myself with it at 83MPH through the nearest 30 limmit
my view on the whole thing is...
The laws are there for a reason sometimes right sometimes wrong, everyone pushes there luck occasionally and accept the fact if we get caught we pay the price weather its points, fine,or a ban.
Mr plod from what i can tell was out for a pointless blat in a new car doing unsafe speeds on various streatches of road why, because he thinks he can get away with it. unfortunatly he did this time, maybe next time he wont be so lucky he could blow a tyre, loose controll of the car and mybe kill someone. I very much doubt he will ever have a justifyed reason to drive at 83 in a 30 let alone 159 on a motorway.
If he caught one of us doing those speeds which no doubt he will do at somepoint he wont accept the excuse im familiarising myself with the car we will be banged up for 30 days and loose our license and in my case shortly after, my job if i cant drive i cant do my job.
If i want to test out my car i do it in a 'safer' enviroment, on a trackday or airfield day why didnt mr plod do the same???
[rant mode off]
Takes a few deep breaths grabs the wallet, im off to buy a new car and familiarise myself with it at 83MPH through the nearest 30 limmit
One law fo... sorry, no law for them, law for us.
For the guy who said we we assuming it was dangerous without seeing the evidence.... GET A GRIP!
His car wont stop any quicker than my S2000, 86 in a 30, he wouldnt have a chance of stopping! in fact being tons heavier, ittl be way slower, so tell that to the family of the young man he ran over, crossing the road after getting the bus home after a night out. His training doesnt give him "Yoda-Like" ability to stop dead when someone wanders into the road. Are the CPS willing to ignore the speed limits after the pubs have shut?? It crackers. Unless hes on a shout, he should obey the law. and I cant possibly see how 86 in a 30 will ever be safe. Letshave our motorways like autobahns then, we can all do 159 (145 ish realisticly!) as long as its safe. Either that or join the force/parliament. WOuldnt it be a crack, if you could pull the evidence giving officers and the speeding officer for your speeding trial, get them to tell the judge that speed isnt the problem, that way they would have to get you on dangerous. to this point they have to provide evidence of you endangering someone.
There all so bloody arrogant, and its for this "them and us" atitude, that we have no respect any more for them!
For the guy who said we we assuming it was dangerous without seeing the evidence.... GET A GRIP!
His car wont stop any quicker than my S2000, 86 in a 30, he wouldnt have a chance of stopping! in fact being tons heavier, ittl be way slower, so tell that to the family of the young man he ran over, crossing the road after getting the bus home after a night out. His training doesnt give him "Yoda-Like" ability to stop dead when someone wanders into the road. Are the CPS willing to ignore the speed limits after the pubs have shut?? It crackers. Unless hes on a shout, he should obey the law. and I cant possibly see how 86 in a 30 will ever be safe. Letshave our motorways like autobahns then, we can all do 159 (145 ish realisticly!) as long as its safe. Either that or join the force/parliament. WOuldnt it be a crack, if you could pull the evidence giving officers and the speeding officer for your speeding trial, get them to tell the judge that speed isnt the problem, that way they would have to get you on dangerous. to this point they have to provide evidence of you endangering someone.
There all so bloody arrogant, and its for this "them and us" atitude, that we have no respect any more for them!
I think the saddest thing that this case has done is the damage it has caused to any respect the police had. Any fed who now stops a speeding motorist for a speeding offence is likely to have this story thrown at them. This is a time when the lack of law and order is on the front page of every newspaper, when senior offices admit they can't make in-roads to bring down crime numbers and children have turned ferrel and have no respect for the law. And can you wonder why! I am afraid this cop has done untold damage to public opinion that will take years to put right.
I wouldn't want their job but I think it has just got a whole lot tougher.
>> Edited by Mudflap on Thursday 19th May 19:22
>> Edited by Mudflap on Thursday 19th May 19:23
I wouldn't want their job but I think it has just got a whole lot tougher.
>> Edited by Mudflap on Thursday 19th May 19:22
>> Edited by Mudflap on Thursday 19th May 19:23
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff