One law for them (2)
Discussion
A police inspector in the Metropolitan Police Traffic Division, writing in the Sunday Telegraph (29 May 2005) says that he is immensely relieved by the decision to acquit Pc Mark Milton of speeding after he drove at 159mph, and refers to the exception for the police provided in Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
He goes on to state that, having been called out while off duty, he may also avail himself of the exemption in his own car.
He then suggests that the exception "would provide a strong defence, say, to a member of the public who, unable to secure the attendance of an ambulance used his private vehicle as an ambulance to rush a person whose life were threatened to hospital."
Does anyone have any evidence to suggest whether or not this has been used and how successful or not it was?
For those in the Met, ([i]TonyReg[/i] especially, the inspector shares his name with an Australian, Olympic gold-medallist speed-skater (initials SB).
Streaky
He goes on to state that, having been called out while off duty, he may also avail himself of the exemption in his own car.
He then suggests that the exception "would provide a strong defence, say, to a member of the public who, unable to secure the attendance of an ambulance used his private vehicle as an ambulance to rush a person whose life were threatened to hospital."
Does anyone have any evidence to suggest whether or not this has been used and how successful or not it was?
For those in the Met, ([i]TonyReg[/i] especially, the inspector shares his name with an Australian, Olympic gold-medallist speed-skater (initials SB).
Streaky
Couple of points Streaky.
I read it somewhere (in a rush so didn't note ) that in actual fact the speed was 139 mph, falsely recorded at the upper because the speed video thingy had not been calibrated. Anybody else.
Re the exemption for emergency service vehicles in relation to speeding :
Section 87 Road Traffic regulation Act, 1984:
No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on
motor vehicles shall apply to ANY VEHICLE (repeat ANY VEHICLE)on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or Police purposes if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.
What the High Court have said:
Strathern v Gladstone [1937] - a private person who is trailing a police car with a view to obtaining evidence to prosecute its driver fro speeding cannot claim this exemption.
Aitken v Yarwood [1964] - Car taking a Plod to court to give evidence broke down and was then fixed. Held that in those circumstances he was entitled to exceed the speed limit to get to court. This would not apply if he hadn't set off in good time.
Gaynor v Allen [1959] - Exemption does not effect a driver's liability to prosecution for dangerous or careless driving.
Haven't any thing specific on the private car/ambulance purpose other than a comment in one of my books that a car taking a casualty to hospital in an URGENT case is being used for ambulance purposes (exempt) but it is doubtful that a Doctor hurrying to an urgent case is using his car for ambulance purpose as ambulance defined as a vehicle conveying the wounded.
Likewise a Fire Officer has a need to get to the scene of a fire asap but exemption would not cover his return home after the fire.
Question of fact for the beaks to decide?
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Sunday 29th May 15:49
I read it somewhere (in a rush so didn't note ) that in actual fact the speed was 139 mph, falsely recorded at the upper because the speed video thingy had not been calibrated. Anybody else.
Re the exemption for emergency service vehicles in relation to speeding :
Section 87 Road Traffic regulation Act, 1984:
No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on
motor vehicles shall apply to ANY VEHICLE (repeat ANY VEHICLE)on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or Police purposes if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.
What the High Court have said:
Strathern v Gladstone [1937] - a private person who is trailing a police car with a view to obtaining evidence to prosecute its driver fro speeding cannot claim this exemption.
Aitken v Yarwood [1964] - Car taking a Plod to court to give evidence broke down and was then fixed. Held that in those circumstances he was entitled to exceed the speed limit to get to court. This would not apply if he hadn't set off in good time.
Gaynor v Allen [1959] - Exemption does not effect a driver's liability to prosecution for dangerous or careless driving.
Haven't any thing specific on the private car/ambulance purpose other than a comment in one of my books that a car taking a casualty to hospital in an URGENT case is being used for ambulance purposes (exempt) but it is doubtful that a Doctor hurrying to an urgent case is using his car for ambulance purpose as ambulance defined as a vehicle conveying the wounded.
Likewise a Fire Officer has a need to get to the scene of a fire asap but exemption would not cover his return home after the fire.
Question of fact for the beaks to decide?
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Sunday 29th May 15:49
Interesting one this. It is quite common (happened at my nick last week) - a detainee needed to go to hospital urgently. Ambulance service had nobody to send so he was taken in a Police van. I'm quite sure that the Police could claim the exemption on the basis the vehilce is being used as an ambulance.
With Doctors and use of green lights - this does not give them an exemption. The green light is there to "aid lawful progress." Although I very much doubt a BiB would pull a vehilce being driven by a Doctor with green flashing lights.
With Doctors and use of green lights - this does not give them an exemption. The green light is there to "aid lawful progress." Although I very much doubt a BiB would pull a vehilce being driven by a Doctor with green flashing lights.
- StreakyI think it's more important than legality arguments.
Is it good - or even reasonable, for the Police to ignore speed limits when it isn't necessary and rely on "special case pleading" for themselves ?
IMO, No. I have no problem with cops speeding when required, but they should show some intelligence and discretion and not roundly abuse the regulations as Milton did, whether his "getting off" was legal or not.
Is it good - or even reasonable, for the Police to ignore speed limits when it isn't necessary and rely on "special case pleading" for themselves ?
IMO, No. I have no problem with cops speeding when required, but they should show some intelligence and discretion and not roundly abuse the regulations as Milton did, whether his "getting off" was legal or not.
Dwight VanDriver said:
I read it somewhere (in a rush so didn't note ) that in actual fact the speed was 139 mph, falsely recorded at the upper because the speed video thingy had not been calibrated. Anybody else.
Correct obi-wan.
I had it at 138, but 139/138, neither here nor there.
Similar logic re the 84mph.
xxplod said:
... I very much doubt a BiB would pull a vehilce being driven by a Doctor with green flashing lights.
I read elsewhere on PH that a Doctor stopped using his green light because he was fed up being stopped and asked to justify its use.
I've also seen several comments that the public ignore them anyway.
As I understand it, part of requirements and assessment in Police advanced driver training is the continued assessment of whether use of the exemption is *necessary*.
In other words, restraint on behalf of the driver to restrict himself to the speed limit despite no legal compulsion to do so.
Wonder how this is worked in practice.
In other words, restraint on behalf of the driver to restrict himself to the speed limit despite no legal compulsion to do so.
Wonder how this is worked in practice.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff