RE: 159mph cop hurts speed debate
Tuesday 29th August 2006
Safety's the issue not speedA road safety campaign reckons that the case of the 159mph cop, Mark Milton, decided on Friday by Ludlow Magistrates Court should please no-one.
159mph cop hurts speed debate
Case focuses on speed not safety, warns Safe Speed
Safety's the issue not speed
PC Mark Milton was convicted of dangerous driving, but handed an absolute discharge. The defence is appealing against conviction and the case will rumble on.
This will, warned campaigner Safe Speed, do damage every time it makes news. That's because 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 react following their own experiences of speed enforcement: 'How come he's got away with 159mph when I was convicted of 35mph in a 30?'
Campaign founder Paul Smith 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 hour tells you little about safety.
"Twenty 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 freefall.
"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."
Discussion
Whilst i agree with SafeSpeed. I feel i have to agrue the curve a bit. There must be a point when speed starts to become a factor. I assume paul has figures for when speed does start to play a part. 159mph should be into the curve. At some point it should be able to put an absolute DD charge. Someone mentioned that normal headlights only cover enough distance for 120mph. If this is true, and the fact is know by the officer. Then ite should be considerd DD. Also during the day. Line of sight/stopping distance should dictate max speed.
Please read and consider, rather then flamming.
Please read and consider, rather then flamming.
Dont see any circumstance when 159 mph is not dangerous on the public highway. No other road user should expect closing speeds of that magnitude. Have found it bad enough driving a modern land rover, when clowns expect it to be approaching a junction @ 40 mph, when she is pootling @ 60. 159 mph should have strict liability. Travelling at 100 on the motorway is a different matter, and + 30mph on closing distance is a world away from + 89 mph.
Can you get road tyres speed rated to 159 mph?
Can you get road tyres speed rated to 159 mph?
Youcan get road tyres rated for sustained speed in excess of 200mph, tyre technology is more than capable of dealing with speeds of this magnitude. SO ARE OTHER ROAD USERS, as evidenced in Germany where you can quite happily hit this speed on the way to the shops on a Sunday afternoon if you wish. Just because the witless idiots WE share our roads with would struggle to drive cattle, let alone a car safely, does not mean we should drag everyone down to their level.
chris_crossley said:
Whilst i agree with SafeSpeed. I feel i have to agrue the curve a bit. There must be a point when speed starts to become a factor. I assume paul has figures for when speed does start to play a part. 159mph should be into the curve. At some point it should be able to put an absolute DD charge. Someone mentioned that normal headlights only cover enough distance for 120mph. If this is true, and the fact is know by the officer. Then ite should be considerd DD. Also during the day. Line of sight/stopping distance should dictate max speed.
Please read and consider, rather then flamming.
Please read and consider, rather then flamming.
It's all about the conditions and hazard awareness so the 'curve' for different stretches of road at differrent times of day with different traffic levels, etc, will all be different. In fact the 'curve' will always be changing potentially from second to second.
There are no absolutes and crossing the line from safe to unsafe speed is usually only seen in the aftermath of an accident or near miss... Two different people will have different perceptions of safe for any given circumstance.
So we have limits in place that are unfortunate, unpleasant but necessary. Rigid enforcemtn is the real problem.
chris_crossley said:
Whilst i agree with SafeSpeed. I feel i have to agrue the curve a bit. There must be a point when speed starts to become a factor. I assume paul has figures for when speed does start to play a part. 159mph should be into the curve. At some point it should be able to put an absolute DD charge.
For any given set of precise circumstances there's a speed that is too fast. 5mph may be too fast in a crowded market street. 5mph is definitely too fast when the traffic 3 feet ahead has stopped.
Where they do land speed record testing at 600+mph, 159mph is rather less than a walk in the park.
On dereistricted Autobahns, 1% of traffic is travelling in excess of 150mph in suitable conditions (according to authorative looking figres recently received by email)
In short there is no possibility that there will ever be a magic number that in a general sense signifies the onset of special danger.
chris_crossley said:
Someone mentioned that normal headlights only cover enough distance for 120mph. If this is true, and the fact is know by the officer. Then ite should be considerd DD. Also during the day. Line of sight/stopping distance should dictate max speed.
Please read and consider, rather then flamming.
Please read and consider, rather then flamming.
Yes. I suspect that inadequate light made PC Milton's driving dangerous. But I don't know that having not been there nor having seen the video. I might not even be able to tell for sure even AFTER studying the video. The human eye is simply miles ahead of any video camera.
159 mph is also "different" when it can be reached very quickly. FOr example, on a straight bit of road with no one around. As opposed to some Vectra that needs miles to get to that speed.
As has been said, its the blinkered rigid enforcment of "speed kill" thats the problem.
Oh, and the one rule for them etc attitude.
I have more problem with the 90 mph in a 30 limit. Can that EVER be OK?
As has been said, its the blinkered rigid enforcment of "speed kill" thats the problem.
Oh, and the one rule for them etc attitude.
I have more problem with the 90 mph in a 30 limit. Can that EVER be OK?
It is my understanding that PC Milton was given an absolute discharge because of what he has already gone through.
I assume he is bringing an appeal so he can go through even more - maybe enough to get compensation.
Maybe sales of his video will be boosted by the additional publicity
I assume he is bringing an appeal so he can go through even more - maybe enough to get compensation.
Maybe sales of his video will be boosted by the additional publicity
I simply dont think speed should ever be in the courts. It is frankly irrelevant that this PC was doing 159mph. If he had had an accident then the speed would have effected the outcome and that would be a diffrent matter. But you cant define dangerous driving. One persons dangerous driving is another persons walk in the park. It becomes very arbitary indeed and I dont think it can be legislated for accurately, ,not to the extent that you can simply and effectively define it out on the roads. This is where experience and common sense come into play. although as we all know common sense isnt that common. However the courts cant cope with common sense so legisalture gets created and the courts then need to act on it. It is all so arbitrary and thats why speed limits are illogical. Which is why people become so angry about the subject when really wether one does 60 mph along an open road through the country side or 50mph or even 70 mph is nobdoies business but their own.
safespeed said:
chris_crossley said:
Whilst i agree with SafeSpeed. I feel i have to agrue the curve a bit. There must be a point when speed starts to become a factor. I assume paul has figures for when speed does start to play a part. 159mph should be into the curve. At some point it should be able to put an absolute DD charge.
For any given set of precise circumstances there's a speed that is too fast. 5mph may be too fast in a crowded market street. 5mph is definitely too fast when the traffic 3 feet ahead has stopped.
Where they do land speed record testing at 600+mph, 159mph is rather less than a walk in the park.
On dereistricted Autobahns, 1% of traffic is travelling in excess of 150mph in suitable conditions (according to authorative looking figres recently received by email)
In short there is no possibility that there will ever be a magic number that in a general sense signifies the onset of special danger.
chris_crossley said:
Someone mentioned that normal headlights only cover enough distance for 120mph. If this is true, and the fact is know by the officer. Then ite should be considerd DD. Also during the day. Line of sight/stopping distance should dictate max speed.
Please read and consider, rather then flamming.
Please read and consider, rather then flamming.
Yes. I suspect that inadequate light made PC Milton's driving dangerous. But I don't know that having not been there nor having seen the video. I might not even be able to tell for sure even AFTER studying the video. The human eye is simply miles ahead of any video camera.
Whilst I am aware that there is no possibility of a nice algorithm to calculate a “curve”. To my mind these are calculated by competent drivers on a second by second basis. The PC was unfortunate that the video caught all the second by seconds calculated by his brain. My “Curve” argument was along the lines that as speed increases the accidents will increase. Given an average of good, bad drivers. This could be used as a guide by competent drivers. In a two second rule kind of way. (It’s a good rule and served be well). I assume this could be applied to the PC. If he could not see two seconds ahead. Then he was driving irresponsibly. Regardless of his car control.
I am a car nut. I have been done for speeding 3 times. All very minor infrindgements. Just so you know my stand point. I still think that 159 at night on public roads is madness. As for the 91 in a 30. Where people would expect slowing traffic is just plain stupidity on a large scale. He deserves the book throwing at him. If he is the best they can offer after extensive training them god help us. I should image a lot of speeds cops are shaking the heads as well!
aww999 said:
Youcan get road tyres rated for sustained speed in excess of 200mph, tyre technology is more than capable of dealing with speeds of this magnitude. SO ARE OTHER ROAD USERS, as evidenced in Germany where you can quite happily hit this speed on the way to the shops on a Sunday afternoon if you wish.
But then (according the SafeSpeed's website) German autobahns are twice as dangerous as motorways in the UK. safespeed said:
Where they do land speed record testing at 600+mph, 159mph is rather less than a walk in the park.
This seems to be key to the whole "high speed not dangerous by definition" arguement. It's correct (and pretty obvious) that travel at a certain speed is either safe or dangerous depending on the conditions. But how do you determine what is and what isn't? Would it be upto the individual Police officer's opinion? And if so how would you ensure fair and even application of the law, and avoid indefinate appeals against such a sujective judgement? Parhaps we should have a "speed licence" under which, having passed a certain test, or driver for a certain time without accidents, you're allowed to driver incrementally quicker. I like that idea, I may have to patent it!
chickensoup said:
Dont see any circumstance when 159 mph is not dangerous on the public highway.
The Germans clearly don't agree.
Neither do I.
The Hosts of Asgard, too, I shouldn't wonder.
Or indeed anybody with a mind of their own and a God damned sexual Tyrannosaur of an engine straining 'neath their respective hoods.
This is numpty, commie thinking and I'm afraid will see the end of motoring in Britain.
I weep that PH carries such blithering drivel.
unobtainum said:
159 mph is also "different" when it can be reached very quickly. FOr example, on a straight bit of road with no one around. As opposed to some Vectra that needs miles to get to that speed.
As has been said, its the blinkered rigid enforcment of "speed kill" thats the problem.
Oh, and the one rule for them etc attitude.
I have more problem with the 90 mph in a 30 limit. Can that EVER be OK?
As has been said, its the blinkered rigid enforcment of "speed kill" thats the problem.
Oh, and the one rule for them etc attitude.
I have more problem with the 90 mph in a 30 limit. Can that EVER be OK?
totally agree, i have driven at 150mph on an empty motorway with good conditions and visibility in a perfectly capable car and not considered it dangerous, however, the one rule for us one rule for them business certainly annoys. But as unobtainum says, 90mph in a 30mph limit must surely be dangerous at any time in any conditions especially as it was a new car to him. Surely a little bit of time behind the wheel would be wise before trying to find out how a car handles at three times the speed limit?
Bungle
www.turbobungle.com
As many have said before it's the 91 in a 30 limit that is the real problem.
I recently watched a video containing a number of Police-Camera-Action episodes. The maximum speed that I saw a police car reach on a 30 or 40 limit SC road was 73mph and that was in an attempt to catch up to a car he was pursuing. So when would the police need to drive at 91 in a 30 limit? Any police driver like to comment?
I recently watched a video containing a number of Police-Camera-Action episodes. The maximum speed that I saw a police car reach on a 30 or 40 limit SC road was 73mph and that was in an attempt to catch up to a car he was pursuing. So when would the police need to drive at 91 in a 30 limit? Any police driver like to comment?
unobtainum said:
I have more problem with the 90 mph in a 30 limit. Can that EVER be OK?
every time this line gets trotted out.
and yes but not usually in town!
try the A13 out of east london.
a mixture of 30/40 dual/triple lane carriageway with sliproads/flyovers/unders/well lit and no pavements/traffic lights.
another example spring to mind back home where northants SCP idiots have seen good to turn 2 miles of NSL into 30mph to 'join up villages'.
all speed is inherently unsafe
110 years ago the first person killed on the road was hit at 4.5 mph - the cars top speed. witness said it was driving at a "reckless pace". speed is irrelevant, not crashing in the first place is more important.
aww999 said:
Just because the witless idiots WE share our roads with would struggle to drive cattle, let alone a car safely, does not mean we should drag everyone down to their level.
Unfortunately the UK road network is for everyone, not just track day enthusiasts and saloon car racers.
spnracing said:
aww999 said:
Just because the witless idiots WE share our roads with would struggle to drive cattle, let alone a car safely, does not mean we should drag everyone down to their level.
Unfortunately the UK road network is for everyone, not just track day enthusiasts and saloon car racers.
Not being some kind of enthusiast is no excuse for poor driving skills!
Bungle
www.turbobungle.com
Without commenting on this particular case, the only times I have been flashed (luckily not prosecuted) were for doing 75-ish on empty 3-lane highways in the middle of the night. No one can tell me that danger is any part of that.
Paul Smith is quite right -- SAFE driving is the issue, not speed by itself.
So many limits are institutional madness anyway -- is perfectly legal to drive through my home village at 30 mph, but it is safe only at 18-20 mph.
Paul Smith is quite right -- SAFE driving is the issue, not speed by itself.
So many limits are institutional madness anyway -- is perfectly legal to drive through my home village at 30 mph, but it is safe only at 18-20 mph.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff