Mark Milton - wider issues

[safespeed]

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 14:02 this afternoon:

PR349: Mark Milton - public divided by speed

news comment: for immediate release

The case of the 159mph cop, Mark Milton, decided today in Ludlow Magistrates
Court should please no one, Safe Speed warns.

PC Mark Milton was this morning convicted of dangerous driving, but handed an
absolute discharge. The defence is appealing against conviction and the case
will rumble on, doing damage every time it makes news.

Clearly the public is deeply divided about the issues. On the one hand people
are demanding PC Milton's head: 'because 159mph must surely be very dangerous';
while others are more concerned about their own experiences of speed
enforcement: 'How come he's got away with 159mph when I was convicted of 35mph
in a 30?'

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The public is now deeply and dangerously divided
about the issues of speed, speed cameras and 'speeding drivers'. Countless
millions of pounds worth of 'speed kills' publicity has convinced many that
speed in miles per hour is the measure of safety. 'If only drivers would slow
down' they cry. But experienced drivers and Police drivers understand that
vehicle speed in miles per hours tells you little or nothing about safety."

"20 years ago the public was not sharply divided and the Mark Milton case
wouldn't even have happened, let alone made news. These days with road safety
policy focused on vehicle speeds, everyone seems to be calling for someone
else's head. Meanwhile driver quality and roads policing are in free fall."

"The greatest tragedy of all is that we have a massive focus on vehicle speeds,
when what we need is a massive focus on safe driving."

"Everyone wants safer roads, but vehicle speed is the wrong target; speed
cameras are the wrong policy; and dividing the public with propaganda was a
deadly mistake."

"You can't measure safe driving in miles per hour."

<ends>

I thought you folks might be interested.

[deltafox]

Im always interested in stuff like this and can thankfully see past the cries of people demanding his head "cos he got treated different".
The point i think is whether or not he was safe. If he was, then i see no problem.

[turbobloke]

deltafox said:

Im always interested in stuff like this and can thankfully see past the cries of people demanding his head "cos he got treated different".
The point i think is whether or not he was safe. If he was, then i see no problem.

Agreed

[james_j]

Yes, if he was safe in the circumstances, which I expect he was, then what's the problem? He's really saying the speed he was doing was OK in the circumstances (even if over the probably too low fixed limit). Many BIB have done this before already, as have revenue camera representatives , MPs and so on.

[FortJefferson]

safespeed said:

"The greatest tragedy of all is that we have a massive focus on vehicle speeds,
when what we need is a massive focus on safe driving."

The problem is, they can't cure bad driving, so all they can do is slow everything down so when the bad driving cause's and accident. there is'nt such a mess. John

[supermono]

Me: "It was a new car I was unfamiliar with it and it didn't feel like 90mph"
Magistrates: "What??!!! You were speeding AND driving a car you weren't used to!!!"

PC159er: "I was testing out a new car at 159mph to see how it went"
Magistrates: "Oh, that's ok then."

SM

[safespeed]

FortJefferson said:

safespeed said:

"The greatest tragedy of all is that we have a massive focus on vehicle speeds,
when what we need is a massive focus on safe driving."

The problem is, they can't cure bad driving, so all they can do is slow everything down so when the bad driving cause's and accident. there is'nt such a mess. John

Well, it'd be nice if things were so simple.

No, you can't cure bad driving but you can make it less with better training, the right information and decent roads policing..

Slower vehicles would make crashes less messy, if you could make vehicles travel slower without making drivers worse at the same time.

And just making them slower isn't enough either (even if you could) because it doesn't much matter how fast they are going where there are few hazards. What matters is how fast they are going when danger is present.

[turbobloke]

supermono said:

Me: "It was a new car I was unfamiliar with it and it didn't feel like 90mph"
Magistrates: "What??!!! You were speeding AND driving a car you weren't used to!!!"

PC159er: "I was testing out a new car at 159mph to see how it went"
Magistrates: "Oh, that's ok then."

SM

Aahhhh the rancid smell of double standards and malodorous putrefying justice

[esselte]

james_j said:

Yes, if he was safe in the circumstances, which I expect he was, then what's the problem? He's really saying the speed he was doing was OK in the circumstances (even if over the probably too low fixed limit). Many BIB have done this before already, as have revenue camera representatives , MPs and so on.

apparently the mag. or whoever didn't think he was safe hence the Dangerous Driving conviction.Or is DD some how safe?I fail to see how he can be found guilty of dangerous driving yet get an absolute discharge

[turbobloke]

esselte said:

I fail to see how he can be found guilty of dangerous driving yet get an absolute discharge

Mags are free to 'sentence' like this but don't do so unless they get the feeling they'er up the proverbial scatological creek and lack any means of propulsion. In such situations they hope people won't notice a bit of extra bull5h1t

[esselte]

turbobloke said:

esselte said:

I fail to see how he can be found guilty of dangerous driving yet get an absolute discharge

Mags are free to 'sentence' like this but don't do so unless they get the feeling they'er up the proverbial scatological creek and lack any means of propulsion. In such situations they hope people won't notice a bit of extra bull5h1t

Would he get points on his ticket for this (I suspect not).It does smell a bit doesn't it?

[Flat in Fifth]

turbobloke said:

deltafox said:

Im always interested in stuff like this and can thankfully see past the cries of people demanding his head "cos he got treated different".
The point i think is whether or not he was safe. If he was, then i see no problem.

Agreed

seconded, thirded , fourthed and of course :ahem: fifthed

[7db]

turbobloke said:

supermono said:

Me: "It was a new car I was unfamiliar with it and it didn't feel like 90mph"
Magistrates: "What??!!! You were speeding AND driving a car you weren't used to!!!"

PC159er: "I was testing out a new car at 159mph to see how it went"
Magistrates: "Oh, that's ok then."

SM

Aahhhh the rancid smell of double standards and malodorous putrefying justice

TB - are you suggesting that the Police shouldn't have an exemption?

[esselte]

7db said:

turbobloke said:

supermono said:

Me: "It was a new car I was unfamiliar with it and it didn't feel like 90mph"
Magistrates: "What??!!! You were speeding AND driving a car you weren't used to!!!"

PC159er: "I was testing out a new car at 159mph to see how it went"
Magistrates: "Oh, that's ok then."

SM

Aahhhh the rancid smell of double standards and malodorous putrefying justice

TB - are you suggesting that the Police shouldn't have an exemption?

What from,dangerous driving?

[regmolehusband]

I'm sending this letter to my local paper this evening, though I haven't read Paul's press release yet.

So PC Milton has been found guilty of dangerous driving, albeit thankfully discharged.

Sadly his persecution by some campaigners and a portion of the public is a backlash from the misguided speed kills campaign promoted by the non-police Safety Camera Partnerships to justify their commercial activities. When people are being penalised for minor infringements whilst driving safely then there is bound to be a feeling of why should there be two sets of rules.

However this blinkered attitude has only one inevitable outcome. Crooks, child abductors and paedophiles can now make their escape down the M54 having practiced driving at 159mph at night without fear of being pursued by a de-skilled and fearful police force.

[esselte]

regmolehusband said:

I'm sending this letter to my local paper this evening, though I haven't read Paul's press release yet.

So PC Milton has been found guilty of dangerous driving, albeit thankfully discharged.

Sadly his persecution by some campaigners and a portion of the public is a backlash from the misguided speed kills campaign promoted by the non-police Safety Camera Partnerships to justify their commercial activities. When people are being penalised for minor infringements whilst driving safely then there is bound to be a feeling of why should there be two sets of rules.

However this blinkered attitude has only one inevitable outcome. Crooks, child abductors and paedophiles can now make their escape down the M54 having practiced driving at 159mph at night without fear of being pursued by a de-skilled and fearful police force.

I see no problem with the speed but if he was guilty of dangerous driving then surely he should get some penalty? After all he was not in a pursuit.Don't West Mercia have a helicopter available to chase paedophiles and child abductors? (although I think you used these words to try to dramatise the objections to PC Miltons critics.)

[regmolehusband]

Senior police officers had viewed the video, they stood up in court and said his driving was not dangerous. That's good enough for me.

It's all about the speed figure and appeasing road safety campaigners and some members of the public brain washed by "speed kills"

And yes I've dramatised it to make people consider the wider issues.

A car doing 159 mph will be long gone and merged with traffic by the time the helicopter pilot has strapped himself in, fixed his helmet and done his safety checks.

Edited by regmolehusband on Friday 25th August 19:47

[esselte]

regmolehusband said:

Senior police officers had viewed the video, they stood up in court and said his driving was not dangerous. That's good enough for me.

It's all about the speed figure and appeasing road safety campaigners and some members of the public brain washed by "speed kills"

Well to be honest you couldn't expect them to hang "one of their best" out to dry could you?What would that say about the force's driving standards?I'm not looking to argue,I would just like to know how you can be convicted of DD yet get no punishment.

[deltafox]

regmolehusband said:

Senior police officers had viewed the video, they stood up in court and said his driving was not dangerous. That's good enough for me.

It's all about the speed figure and appeasing road safety campaigners and some members of the public brain washed by "speed kills"

And yes I've dramatised it to make people consider the wider issues.

A car doing 159 mph will be long gone and merged with traffic by the time the helicopter pilot has strapped himself in, fixed his helmet and done his safety checks.

Edited by regmolehusband on Friday 25th August 19:47

Nailed squarely.

[shuvitupya]

Sorry, must dash out.

I have to go and test my new car to see how it feels at 150MPH

After all, nobody is going to prosecute me are they ?