Police chief car caught at 97 mph
Discussion
Cast not the first stone Paul....
My info is that he was in the BACK SEAT returning from a day of work in the smoke and as a resulkt no doubt he would be either catching up on paperwork or nodding.
The rate of progress meter would not be visible to him.
So when you are in the back seat not involved in driving them you are always aware of the speed you are travelling?????
Note also that he has not used the perfect get out for his driver.
DVD
My info is that he was in the BACK SEAT returning from a day of work in the smoke and as a resulkt no doubt he would be either catching up on paperwork or nodding.
The rate of progress meter would not be visible to him.
So when you are in the back seat not involved in driving them you are always aware of the speed you are travelling?????
Note also that he has not used the perfect get out for his driver.
DVD
I don't think the fact that he was in the back seat changes a lot. If he couldn't tell the difference between 70 and 97 mph from the back seat, he must be a bit dopey.
Furthermore his driver was displaying a great deal of disrespect for his boss if he was speeding without his bosses knowledge or approval.
Furthermore his driver was displaying a great deal of disrespect for his boss if he was speeding without his bosses knowledge or approval.
Dwight VanDriver said:But he's in charge of, and responsible for, the car and the driver isn't he? If someone was accompanying a learner and he nodded off while the learner did "nearly" 100mph is he not more guilty then the driver? In fact, hasn't there already been a case of someone (Chief Constable?
he was in the BACK SEAT returning from a day of work in the smoke and as a resulkt no doubt he would be either catching up on paperwork or nodding.
) being found guilty in the same circumstances? Dwight VanDriver said:
The rate of progress meter would not be visible to him.
So when you are in the back seat not involved in driving them you are always aware of the speed you are travelling?????
An ordinary driver is expected to be able to tell the difference between 30 and 35, or even 70 and 77 without continually taking his eyes off the road, but someone in charge of, and promoting, scamera policy, and telling us that, isn't expected to be able to tell the difference between 70 and 97 actual (assuming it wasn't through roadworks, and assuming the traffic cop hadn't been generous and booked him under 100)?
Dwight VanDriver said:
Note also that he has not used the perfect get out for his driver.
Which is what? That he wasn't driving, it was one of his employees, but he didn't know which one, or ones, were in the car, never mind driving, at the time of the alleged offence?
>> Edited by diesel ed on Sunday 21st November 00:10
andygo said:
I don't think the fact that he was in the back seat changes a lot. If he couldn't tell the difference between 70 and 97 mph from the back seat, he must be a bit dopey.
Can you tell how fast you are travelling when you are asleep? (if indeed he was?)
andygo said:
Furthermore his driver was displaying a great deal of disrespect for his boss if he was speeding without his bosses knowledge or approval.
And no doubt he will pay the price.
You also seem to be forgetting something. WHO WAS IT THAT CAUGHT HIM???? Paddy Hopkirk? The Scarlet Pimpernell?
>> Edited by gone on Saturday 20th November 16:48
diesel ed said:
Which is what? That he wasn't driving, it was one of his employees, but he didn't know which one, or ones, were in the car, never mind driving, at the time of the alleged offence?
As I said before, not much knowledge there 'D'-ed
The out would have been 'Used for Policing purposes' and that would have been the end of it!
Still not surprised you didn't know about that from past experience of reading your diatribes
:diesel ed said:
But he's in charge of, and responsible for, the car and the driver isn't he? If someone was accompanying a learner and he nodded off while the learner did "nearly" 100mph is he not more guilty then the driver? In fact, hasn't there already been a case of someone (Chief Constable?
Absolutely
. Everybody who happens to be in a position of responsibility is guilty of their subordinate doing something they should not be if they are present at the time . What an ideal tool to beat the public with. I will put it in the suggestion box and hope that it is taken up by the next Home Office policy meeting 
Was the driver a learner? I wonder
'D'-ed said:
An ordinary driver is expected to be able to tell the difference between 30 and 35, or even 70 and 77 without continually taking his eyes off the road, but someone in charge of, and promoting, scamera policy, and telling us that, isn't expected to be able to tell the difference between 70 and 97 actual (assuming it wasn't through roadworks, and assuming the traffic cop hadn't been generous and booked him under 100)?
Who said anything about Traffic Cop! Most staff drivers are civvies
Does your boss look over your shoulder every second you are at work to make sure you do not digress? I begin to think maybe he should
As usual, full of assumptions 'D'-ed
>> Edited by gone on Saturday 20th November 14:31
gone said:
I don't think the fact that he was in the back seat changes a lot. If he couldn't tell the difference between 70 and 97 mph from the back seat, he must be a bit dopey.
Can you tell how fast you are travelling when you are asleep? (if indeed he was?)
Well I can't, and certainly my elderly cousin slept very well in the rear seat of our Jaguar V12 Sovereign when we tootled serenely along at 120 mph for a mile or two. We didn't need a motorway for it either.
Anyhow my most frequent passenger (my wife Eileen) has recently been known to describe my current driving style as somewhat boring. I now travel greater distances at higher speeds than I used to, but somehow she seems to find it less entertaining. Funny eh?
Enjoy your driving, but take care folks.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
gone said:Really? Sorry, I'd missed the fact that this was a serious exam.
Which is what? That he wasn't driving, it was one of his employees, but he didn't know which one, or ones, were in the car, never mind driving, at the time of the alleged offence?
gone said:And they would be?
The out would have been 'Used for Policing purposes' and that would have been the end of it!
gone said:
Still not surprised you didn't know about that from past experience of reading your diatribes
Still waiting for you to enlighten me. gone said:Am I right in assuming you are being sarcastic. Actually, if you care to check, you might even find the employer doesn't even have to present at the time.
But he's in charge of, and responsible for, the car and the driver isn't he? If someone was accompanying a learner and he nodded off while the learner did "nearly" 100mph is he not more guilty then the driver? In fact, hasn't there already been a case of someone (Chief Constable?
gone said:As usual, the point seems to have gone right over your head.
Was the driver a learner? I wonder
gone said:Ah, so civvies can do "97" on police business too. That's alright then. I'll have to remember that one.
An ordinary driver is expected to be able to tell the difference between 30 and 35, or even 70 and 77 without continually taking his eyes off the road, but someone in charge of, and promoting, scamera policy, and telling us that, isn't expected to be able to tell the difference between 70 and 97 actual (assuming it wasn't through roadworks, and assuming the traffic cop hadn't been generous and booked him under 100)?
gone said:Well, someone certainly is.
Does your boss look over your shoulder every second you are at work to make sure you do not digress? I begin to think maybe he should
As usual, full of assumptions 'D'-ed
gone said:
'D'-ed
gone said:
>> Edited by gone on Saturday 20th November 14:31
Several BiB have said:Well, I take 'D'-ed to be highly "abusive" and "insulting", and it causes me "distress" to the point of feeling subject to "harassment!
A person is guilty of an offence if he
- uses threatening, abusive, insulting words or disorderly behaviour
OR
- displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress
I take it you wiil be arresting yourself pretty sharpish and marching yourself down to the station.
Gone? What are you on? This guy is a staunch lentilhead. 75 mph is considered by him to be quite ludicrous and people should be prosecuted for it. At 100 mph the car is travelling so quickly that the red blue shift truly becomes apparent. At this speed collision is so inevitable that if caught the standard paractice is now to ban people and often ruin the lives of their dependands such is the severity of the crime.
Yet the moron is so unaware of reality he was not able to detect travelling at this lethal speed that warrants a ban? He is either a liar or a fool. Regardless, he should lose hios job and pension for openners. There cannot be one serious consequence for us and none for the watcher.
'd'-ed said:
Well, I take 'D'-ed to be highly "abusive" and "insulting", and it causes me "distress" to the point of feeling subject to "harassment!
I take it you wiil be arresting yourself pretty sharpish and marching yourself down to the station.
A little touchy/sensitive tonight eh 'D'?
Just abbreviating your profile name to save typing!
I seem to remember you doing the same to mine, something like
said:
I am not sure that someone can actually arrest ones self, I will go away and think about it whilst other stuff passes overhead. In any case, a crime has to have been committed to allow the use of an arrest so there will be no point as there has been no crime!
nonegreen said:
Gone? What are you on? This guy is a staunch lentilhead. 75 mph is considered by him to be quite ludicrous and people should be prosecuted for it.
I expect that his driver will be!
nonegreen said:
He is either a liar or a fool.
Maybe both, but he is not a speeder, just a passenger!
nonegreen said:
Regardless, he should lose hios job and pension for openners. There cannot be one serious consequence for us and none for the watcher.
So you advocate that the passengers of speeders should be guilty of the drivers offence. I will pop that into the suggestion box too. That will be a great help with the ticket statistics
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff