RE: High speeds not dangerous, says judge
Discussion
deltafox said:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ps- no way should he be in jail Jellison, thats just spiteful!
if this idiot had hit someone travelling over 80 in a 30 he would be facing the possibility of prison time. Just because on this occasion the cop didn't cause an accident, maybe next time he and an innocent won't be so lucky.
If Police drivers want to go this fast shouldn't they do so on the race track?
It's just as well modern cars don't need as much running as as they did years ago or he'd have seized up. That would definately have spoilt his day.
It would be nice to think that this helped to balance the scales somewhat in favour of other people who quite safely exceed the speed limit - but I'm not so naive. I discovered the truth about Father Christmas many years ago!
It's just as well modern cars don't need as much running as as they did years ago or he'd have seized up. That would definately have spoilt his day.
It would be nice to think that this helped to balance the scales somewhat in favour of other people who quite safely exceed the speed limit - but I'm not so naive. I discovered the truth about Father Christmas many years ago!
I wonder? If I was travelling in car at 159 mph safely and the police spotted me, would they let me off as I am trained to drive at high speeds under stressful situations? Or would they throw the book at me and possibly give me a short custodial sentence and ignore the fact that as a civilian I should not be driving at this speed despite my experience? By the way I'm not Jack Straw's Chauffer
zumbruk said:
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.
>> Edited by zumbruk on Thursday 19th May 14:54
So why was the ambulance driver delivering the heart(?), who was obviously on an emergency call prosecuted? HE had his lights etc. on at the time as well.
cho said:
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.
>> Edited by zumbruk on Thursday 19th May 14:54
So why was the ambulance driver delivering the heart(?), who was obviously on an emergency call prosecuted? HE had his lights etc. on at the time as well.
Are you talking about the ambulance driver Mike Ferguson, Caught speeding on the A1. Fortunely and quite rightly, the charges were dropped by the CPS a week before going back to court. Atb Derek.
jessica said:
Speeds above 120 should be kept for the track and that alone.
experience or none...........
as for 80 in a 30.residential or not.
sorry but that is disgusting.
none excusable and from a traffic cop even more so.
Whoa!
Just take a step back for a second.
Youre condemming a guy for his speed in a 30 when that 30 may have been artificially lowered! It could have been a former 60 limit!
WAY WAY too much aggression being directed towards him for what a lot of US have done, without having FULL facts.
deltafox said:Are you not supporting his aquital without the full facts. We all make judgements based upon the information to hand. Most roads that are 30 have been 30 for many many years. There are a handfull which have been artificaly lowered but it is much more likely that he was doing 84 in a built up area.
Speeds above 120 should be kept for the track and that alone.
experience or none...........
as for 80 in a 30.residential or not.
sorry but that is disgusting.
none excusable and from a traffic cop even more so.
Whoa!
Just take a step back for a second.
Youre condemming a guy for his speed in a 30 when that 30 may have been artificially lowered! It could have been a former 60 limit!
WAY WAY too much aggression being directed towards him for what a lot of US have done, without having FULL facts.
sorry but these speeds were highly dangerous doing 40 in a 30 zone if its safe to do so (i'e long clear road an clearly a case of speed having been set to low) can be reasonably argued after all most ppl will most likly be doing 35 anyway but 83 mph is madness u'l be gaining on other traffic at the rate of around 50 miles an hour there no room for any error on urs or the other driver part (most ppl make the odd mistake when driving an thats usally no problem as you correct it before a problem arises but at 83 mph your not gonna have time to correct anything) as for the 159 mph that almost as bad if someone change into the lane in front of you you'l be gaining on them at 60 or 70 mph these tests should be done with another officer present not jus him on his todd jumping behind the wheel an thinking hmm lets see what she can do. if this had been a member of the puplic they would have been in serious trouble. Even the rally stars in there race cars got tickets when they were speeding through welsh back roads an most of them only exceeded the limit by 30 or less not the 50 mph this moron was doing
Munta said:
Most roads that are 30 have been 30 for many many years. There are a handfull which have been artificaly lowered but it is much more likely that he was doing 84 in a built up area.
Hey Mary, sorry Munta, a handfull?!!! as I said before know your enemy, it's not some copper having a freebie, it doesn't matter a bit, the fact is he was let off so speed obviously doesn't kill.
Safespeed, the ABD and Ted all agree this is a positive decision (they are on our side remember?)
If you want to bleat on about high speed being highly dangerous because some faceless mandarin said so then bugger off and join Brake or T2000.
This is Pistonheads, something I seem to have to remind myself of a little too often these days and I fear the creeping, insidious, mantra is infecting a once proud and PC free place of hydrocarbon heaven, maybe goodbye, it was nice while it lasted
>> Edited by apache on Thursday 19th May 23:51
apache said:
Munta said:
Most roads that are 30 have been 30 for many many years. There are a handfull which have been artificaly lowered but it is much more likely that he was doing 84 in a built up area.
Hey Mary, sorry Munta, a handfull?!!!
err yeah. In my town, lets say, there are around 10,000 roads. As its in town, these are 30mph and always have been. I'm sure that at the most, there would be say 100 artificialy lowered roads on the outskirts of my town ie 60, 50 or 40 lowered to 30.
I.E. much more likely that a 30 limit is 30 for a good reason (built up area) than for making money.
>> Edited by Munta on Thursday 19th May 23:48
apache said:
Safespeed, the ABD and Ted all agree this is a positive decision (they are on our side remember?)
If you want to bleat on about high speed being highly dangerous because some faceless mandarin said so then bugger off and join Brake or T2000.
The sad thing is, that the support of anyone driving at 84 in a 30 will play right into the hands of Brake.
So you may all be supporting this result but I think its going to put the idea of sensible speed enforcement back many years.
apache said:I believe in appropriate speed limits in the right circumstances. In general, I am a firm supported of 30mph limits except where the limit has been reduced as part of a cynical money making exercise.
let me ask you something, do you agree with speed limits without question or do you believe in appropriate speed in the right circumstances?
totally agree with the person earlier that said about those rally drivers getting prosecuted for speeding, at the end of the day those rally drivers are way more experienced at driving at high speeds on any type of road and would be more than capable of dealing with any situation they may have been faced with, but they were prosecuted and some even banned if i remember correctly. how can this be right? some p.c thats doing way over the legal limit gets away with it when you or i would be banned for doing less than 100 mph whether or not it was a clear nite and no other traffic about. This is clearly a case of your a policeman and we the magistrates are more than happy with you to keep your job because if we banned you you would probably get fired so continue breaking the law you should be enforcing as much as you wish and we will let you off everytime no matter what the pathetic excuse is. the question should have been were you in a police car answering a 999 call? no you werent you were off duty booting about in your new car the tax payer paid for and subsequently your answerable to the law and will be banned.
The Judge likened the training the police driver to that of a concert pianist. What utter tosh? A few weeks training to play any of the major piano concerti ... I don't think so.
Just one illustration of the unworldliness of some judges ... and especially this one.
Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Friday 20th May 05:36
Just one illustration of the unworldliness of some judges ... and especially this one.
Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Friday 20th May 05:36
There has to be a simple message out of this - and fortunately it flies in the face of "Speed Kills", proving that was too simple a message in any event.
There is another more sinister message though - different rules for them, different rules for us, so I can understand why some (especially those with points) feel aggrieved, especially if they were only a few mph over the limit in similar, quiet motorway and possibly A-road locations. I could never advocate 80+ in a 30 zone though, however quiet - there is always the chance of a pedestrian, car/cycle pulling out of a junction - his senses and skills were probably buzzing on over-drive, but no-one else around would expect to see a car travelling at that speed and would not be able to react in time - nor would he.
What also surprises me is how often people on this forum harp on about driver training being the answer and not artificially low speed limits. How many of these people have joined the charity the Institute of Advanced Motorists and voluntarily improved their standard of driving for practically no cost whatsoever? Sounds like an easy fix to me but I'll wager many who say driver training is the answer haven't done so, and probably a good few of them could do with doing so... (For the avoidance of any remaining doubt, I have done it!)
Finally, as for the spec of the police car, the camera was running so I'm sure the speed would be pretty much bang on. As I understand it, a lot of police vehicles are far from standard, with uprated engines, suspension, brakes etc and are serviced meticulously. It may well be that the car was therefore within its limits at 159mph on a quiet motorway - my view is we can't legislate for blowouts etc - especially on a police car that probably had its tyres checked that very morning. There are therefore some valid factors which mean the fact he was a highly trained police driver in a high spec, well maintained vehicle would make a difference here.
There is another more sinister message though - different rules for them, different rules for us, so I can understand why some (especially those with points) feel aggrieved, especially if they were only a few mph over the limit in similar, quiet motorway and possibly A-road locations. I could never advocate 80+ in a 30 zone though, however quiet - there is always the chance of a pedestrian, car/cycle pulling out of a junction - his senses and skills were probably buzzing on over-drive, but no-one else around would expect to see a car travelling at that speed and would not be able to react in time - nor would he.
What also surprises me is how often people on this forum harp on about driver training being the answer and not artificially low speed limits. How many of these people have joined the charity the Institute of Advanced Motorists and voluntarily improved their standard of driving for practically no cost whatsoever? Sounds like an easy fix to me but I'll wager many who say driver training is the answer haven't done so, and probably a good few of them could do with doing so... (For the avoidance of any remaining doubt, I have done it!)
Finally, as for the spec of the police car, the camera was running so I'm sure the speed would be pretty much bang on. As I understand it, a lot of police vehicles are far from standard, with uprated engines, suspension, brakes etc and are serviced meticulously. It may well be that the car was therefore within its limits at 159mph on a quiet motorway - my view is we can't legislate for blowouts etc - especially on a police car that probably had its tyres checked that very morning. There are therefore some valid factors which mean the fact he was a highly trained police driver in a high spec, well maintained vehicle would make a difference here.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff