Security Services
Discussion
imbecile said:
MI5/6, etc. As far as I'm concerned they should have an exemption just like the emergency services on the roads*, and presuambly they do, so where is it?
*Possibly even an exemption to drive dangerously in extreme circumstances.
*Possibly even an exemption to drive dangerously in extreme circumstances.
They haven't on their own.
Neither have bomb disposal, life guard, organ tansplant vehicles, blood donor vehicles etc got an exemption for speed.
SOCA have been added to the speed exemption (to join Fire, Police & Ambulance) & the new road safety bill may give the secretary of state powers to allow an exemption for other purposes he/she prescribes.
Nobody is exempt from dangerous driving.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 17th September 22:07
Obviously I don't know anything about this*, but I would have thought that under some circumstances it would be convenient for SIS to be operating in the UK, and even if that is not the case it would surely be sensible for some of them to be trained in high speed driving at least partly in the UK.
*Anyone who italicises/bolds that statement - I saw you coming :P
*Anyone who italicises/bolds that statement - I saw you coming :P
vonhosen said:
imbecile said:
MI5/6, etc. As far as I'm concerned they should have an exemption just like the emergency services on the roads*, and presuambly they do, so where is it?
*Possibly even an exemption to drive dangerously in extreme circumstances.
*Possibly even an exemption to drive dangerously in extreme circumstances.
They haven't on their own.
Neither have bomb disposal, life guard, organ tansplant vehicles, blood donor vehicles etc got an exemption for speed.
SOCA have been added to the speed exemption (to join Fire, Police & Ambulance) & the new road safety bill may give the secretary of state powers to allow an exemption for other purposes he/she prescribes.
Nobody is exempt from dangerous driving.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 17th September 22:07
I believe that if an Armed Forces Officer instructs the driver to exceed the speed limit then they have to exceed the limit. I believe if a soldier does not have a licence he can still be ordered to drive a vehicle.
Edited by telecat on Sunday 17th September 22:51
telecat said:
vonhosen said:
imbecile said:
MI5/6, etc. As far as I'm concerned they should have an exemption just like the emergency services on the roads*, and presuambly they do, so where is it?
*Possibly even an exemption to drive dangerously in extreme circumstances.
*Possibly even an exemption to drive dangerously in extreme circumstances.
They haven't on their own.
Neither have bomb disposal, life guard, organ tansplant vehicles, blood donor vehicles etc got an exemption for speed.
SOCA have been added to the speed exemption (to join Fire, Police & Ambulance) & the new road safety bill may give the secretary of state powers to allow an exemption for other purposes he/she prescribes.
Nobody is exempt from dangerous driving.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 17th September 22:07
I believe that if an Armed Forces Officer instructs the driver to exceed the speed limit then they have to exceed the limit. I believe if a soldier does not have a licence he can still be ordered to drive a vehicle.
They've no exemption under the Road Traffic Regulation Act, if you want to show where they have an exemption then please enlighten us.
Police used to be able to move a vehicle without a licence.
Realistically, I'm sure speeding tickets just arrive with a "please explain" and are quietly dropped if circumstances are reasonable.
Here, this certainly has been known to happen. Our exemption only applies when using EVS (Emergency Vehicle Systems). Further, the police are highly unlikely to stop marked vehicle on emergency callouts even when not using EVS as we work closely together.
Having said that, the DD requirements are very stringent, since when the lights & siresn are on drivers are responsible for the most stupid actions of civilians (if on EVS someone panics and crashes, it's your fault).
regards
dave
Here, this certainly has been known to happen. Our exemption only applies when using EVS (Emergency Vehicle Systems). Further, the police are highly unlikely to stop marked vehicle on emergency callouts even when not using EVS as we work closely together.
Having said that, the DD requirements are very stringent, since when the lights & siresn are on drivers are responsible for the most stupid actions of civilians (if on EVS someone panics and crashes, it's your fault).
regards
dave
davidra said:
Realistically, I'm sure speeding tickets just arrive with a "please explain" and are quietly dropped if circumstances are reasonable.
Here, this certainly has been known to happen. Our exemption only applies when using EVS (Emergency Vehicle Systems). Further, the police are highly unlikely to stop marked vehicle on emergency callouts even when not using EVS as we work closely together.
Having said that, the DD requirements are very stringent, since when the lights & siresn are on drivers are responsible for the most stupid actions of civilians (if on EVS someone panics and crashes, it's your fault).
regards
dave
Here, this certainly has been known to happen. Our exemption only applies when using EVS (Emergency Vehicle Systems). Further, the police are highly unlikely to stop marked vehicle on emergency callouts even when not using EVS as we work closely together.
Having said that, the DD requirements are very stringent, since when the lights & siresn are on drivers are responsible for the most stupid actions of civilians (if on EVS someone panics and crashes, it's your fault).
regards
dave
The Emergency services are sent a NIP now for camera activations. The driver will have to claim the exemption & if they are not able to legally do so they may be prosecuted.
In future (with the new road safety bill) the extra hurdle of being able to show that you have passed an approved high speed driving course will also be present. You will have to show both that you held a legal exemption for the purpose & that you have had the training required to be able to claim that exemption.
>>>>I believe that if an Armed Forces Officer instructs the driver to exceed the speed limit then they have to exceed the limit. I believe if a soldier does not have a licence he can still be ordered to drive a vehicle.<<<<<<
Hang onto your hats we are going back in time..........warp F 2....
In the mid 1960's as a young keen Motor Patrol Officer I stopped and reported a soldier for speeding in an WD Minivan on the A.19. Two days later I was summoned to see God (Supt. Traffic) to be informed that the soldiers Commanding Officer had written in to point out that a certain Statutory Instrument exempted service personnel whilst driving a military vehicle from the offence of speeding. God showed me the SI.
I can no longer recall that SI nor has it since appeared in any of my books and notes etc. In the gunge at the back of my head behind the right ear is a foggy reference that WD vehicles are also exempt when proceeding to a threatre of war.
Bit like another SI that we unearthed about Cattrerick Garrison that gave power to police to arrest anyone for ANY offence committed on the Camp. We had to hide this from certain officers. I understand that this has since been repealed.
Warp F 3.............now back to 18092006.
dvd
Found it...
No speed limit is imposed on motor vehicles for combative purposes, training,conveyance of personnel, use with guns, mobile cranes for aircraft, tracklayers for combat or guns, fire tenders and ambulances, owned by the Admiralty Ward department or Air Force and used for naval, military or air force purposes or vehiclkes so used whilst being driven by persons for the time being subject to orders of any member of the armed forces of the Crown.
Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1947. This was still in force in 1961 (Moriarty's Police Law 16th Edition)
Von.....you have avenues beyond me. Is it still in being hidden in the passage of time?
dvd
Hang onto your hats we are going back in time..........warp F 2....
In the mid 1960's as a young keen Motor Patrol Officer I stopped and reported a soldier for speeding in an WD Minivan on the A.19. Two days later I was summoned to see God (Supt. Traffic) to be informed that the soldiers Commanding Officer had written in to point out that a certain Statutory Instrument exempted service personnel whilst driving a military vehicle from the offence of speeding. God showed me the SI.
I can no longer recall that SI nor has it since appeared in any of my books and notes etc. In the gunge at the back of my head behind the right ear is a foggy reference that WD vehicles are also exempt when proceeding to a threatre of war.
Bit like another SI that we unearthed about Cattrerick Garrison that gave power to police to arrest anyone for ANY offence committed on the Camp. We had to hide this from certain officers. I understand that this has since been repealed.
Warp F 3.............now back to 18092006.
dvd
Found it...
No speed limit is imposed on motor vehicles for combative purposes, training,conveyance of personnel, use with guns, mobile cranes for aircraft, tracklayers for combat or guns, fire tenders and ambulances, owned by the Admiralty Ward department or Air Force and used for naval, military or air force purposes or vehiclkes so used whilst being driven by persons for the time being subject to orders of any member of the armed forces of the Crown.
Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1947. This was still in force in 1961 (Moriarty's Police Law 16th Edition)
Von.....you have avenues beyond me. Is it still in being hidden in the passage of time?
dvd
Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Monday 18th September 08:56
DVD you've gone too far back in time 
everything you say certainly USED to be true, alas the armed forces lost what used to be known as "Crown Immunity" some time around 1990. Before then orders were orders and that was that, now however if an order is unlawful or dangerous and someone gets hurt you can be found personally liable and prosecuted in civilian courts. It was particulary relevant on H&S issues but has had the knock on effect that loads of other exemptions have disappeared.
everything you say certainly USED to be true, alas the armed forces lost what used to be known as "Crown Immunity" some time around 1990. Before then orders were orders and that was that, now however if an order is unlawful or dangerous and someone gets hurt you can be found personally liable and prosecuted in civilian courts. It was particulary relevant on H&S issues but has had the knock on effect that loads of other exemptions have disappeared. vonhosen said:
telecat said:
vonhosen said:
imbecile said:
MI5/6, etc. As far as I'm concerned they should have an exemption just like the emergency services on the roads*, and presuambly they do, so where is it?
*Possibly even an exemption to drive dangerously in extreme circumstances.
*Possibly even an exemption to drive dangerously in extreme circumstances.
They haven't on their own.
Neither have bomb disposal, life guard, organ tansplant vehicles, blood donor vehicles etc got an exemption for speed.
SOCA have been added to the speed exemption (to join Fire, Police & Ambulance) & the new road safety bill may give the secretary of state powers to allow an exemption for other purposes he/she prescribes.
Nobody is exempt from dangerous driving.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 17th September 22:07
I believe that if an Armed Forces Officer instructs the driver to exceed the speed limit then they have to exceed the limit. I believe if a soldier does not have a licence he can still be ordered to drive a vehicle.
They've no exemption under the Road Traffic Regulation Act, if you want to show where they have an exemption then please enlighten us.
Police used to be able to move a vehicle without a licence.
If an armed forces officer got in my vehicle and told me to "bloody well shift it, neeee--oooooowwww"...I'd not worry too much about speeding. Not saying this is legal, but I think it's what the reasonable person would/should do. Not suggesting wreckless / dangerous, but certainly without limitations set solely by an arbitrary posted limit.
<spooks mode>Somebody gets in your car, tells you they're MI5 and waves a badge - tells you it's a matter of national security...floor it.
I would. Would probably keck my pants too...but the speed limit might not be the first thing on my mind
</spooks mode>
Thought that when "National Securitaaah" was at risk that pretty much anything went anyway.
tigger1 said:
vonhosen said:
telecat said:
vonhosen said:
imbecile said:
MI5/6, etc. As far as I'm concerned they should have an exemption just like the emergency services on the roads*, and presuambly they do, so where is it?
*Possibly even an exemption to drive dangerously in extreme circumstances.
*Possibly even an exemption to drive dangerously in extreme circumstances.
They haven't on their own.
Neither have bomb disposal, life guard, organ tansplant vehicles, blood donor vehicles etc got an exemption for speed.
SOCA have been added to the speed exemption (to join Fire, Police & Ambulance) & the new road safety bill may give the secretary of state powers to allow an exemption for other purposes he/she prescribes.
Nobody is exempt from dangerous driving.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 17th September 22:07
I believe that if an Armed Forces Officer instructs the driver to exceed the speed limit then they have to exceed the limit. I believe if a soldier does not have a licence he can still be ordered to drive a vehicle.
They've no exemption under the Road Traffic Regulation Act, if you want to show where they have an exemption then please enlighten us.
Police used to be able to move a vehicle without a licence.
If an armed forces officer got in my vehicle and told me to "bloody well shift it, neeee--oooooowwww"...I'd not worry too much about speeding. Not saying this is legal, but I think it's what the reasonable person would/should do. Not suggesting wreckless / dangerous, but certainly without limitations set solely by an arbitrary posted limit.
<spooks mode>Somebody gets in your car, tells you they're MI5 and waves a badge - tells you it's a matter of national security...floor it.
I would. Would probably keck my pants too...but the speed limit might not be the first thing on my mind
</spooks mode>
Thought that when "National Securitaaah" was at risk that pretty much anything went anyway.
The decsision to exceed the speed limit is yours.
A Police officer can't be ordered to exceed the limit, it's their decision & they have to justify it's use. Just as they do using the blue lights or not using them.
[quote=tigger1
<spooks mode>Somebody gets in your car, tells you they're MI5 and waves a badge - tells you it's a matter of national security...floor it.
I would. Would probably keck my pants too...but the speed limit might not be the first thing on my mind
</spooks mode>
Thought that when "National Securitaaah" was at risk that pretty much anything went anyway.[/quote]
To be honest they'd be more like to say "I'm MI5, I'm taking your car, now get out" Then what would you do?
<spooks mode>Somebody gets in your car, tells you they're MI5 and waves a badge - tells you it's a matter of national security...floor it.
I would. Would probably keck my pants too...but the speed limit might not be the first thing on my mind
</spooks mode>
Thought that when "National Securitaaah" was at risk that pretty much anything went anyway.[/quote]
To be honest they'd be more like to say "I'm MI5, I'm taking your car, now get out" Then what would you do?
vonhosen said:
In future (with the new road safety bill) the extra hurdle of being able to show that you have passed an approved high speed driving course will also be present. You will have to show both that you held a legal exemption for the purpose & that you have had the training required to be able to claim that exemption.
AAAAAAAaaaaaaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh!!!
More bloody stupid un-necessarry paper-pushing nonsense.
ing useless paracitic beaureau-ing-cratic ers. We need less nonsense regulation, not more.
What on earth is this stupid
ing idiocy meant to achieve? Edited by fluffnik on Wednesday 20th September 00:33
fluffnik said:
vonhosen said:
In future (with the new road safety bill) the extra hurdle of being able to show that you have passed an approved high speed driving course will also be present. You will have to show both that you held a legal exemption for the purpose & that you have had the training required to be able to claim that exemption.
AAAAAAAaaaaaaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh!!!
More bloody stupid un-necessarry paper-pushing nonsense.
ing useless paracitic beaureau-ing-cratic ers. We need less nonsense regulation, not more.
What on earth is this stupid
ing idiocy meant to achieve? What is it meant to achieve? two words, arses + covered.
Speaking to people who have had dealings with GCHQ and signed official secrets act etc etc, they did say that there were cars that were on some sort of "do not stop" list, and they were instructed not to stop if signalled to do so by law enforcement.
This may all be talk, and would have been a good few years back now.
This may all be talk, and would have been a good few years back now.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff