High speeds not dangerous, says judge
'Speed kills' myth exploded in court hearing
159mph is legal - no, really...
PC Mark Milton was recorded by a patrol car's video camera on the M54 travelling at 159mph near Telford in the small hours of 5 December 2003. The police officers who apprehended him said in the court hearing in Ludlow that he was not driving dangerously, and he was judged not guilty.
In clearing him, the judge however said, "I can't help but see the irony that those that brought this prosecution are those very people who have purchased cars that go at this speed and paid for him (the defendant) to go to learn to drive at these speeds."
Reactions included Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, who said, "Here's a clear and proper admission that in suitable circumstances even 159mph need not be dangerous. If 159mph can be safe enough not to endanger the public, then surely this is a clear official admission that driving a few miles per hour over the speed limit isn't necessarily dangerous either.
"There is so much more to safe driving than speed. Any speed at all can be deadly, and any speed at all can be adequately safe if conditions are suitable.
"Road safety depends on drivers selecting safe and appropriate speeds according to the conditions and the vast majority of us do it well and do it safely. But erroneous official messages have been undermining the process and deaths are going up. We have to get back to the policies that gave us the safest roads in the world in the first place, long before speed cameras and the pointless obsession with numerical speed."
More predictable reactions included that of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which said it was shocked that Milton was not convicted. "Police are governed by health and safety laws just the same as any other employer. We don't believe 159mph can ever be justified on public roads. Even in emergencies we consider that driving at 100mph or more is too dangerous."
There are few things really raise my hackles, but this really does. How can this possibly be just. Unfortunately this doesn't set a presedent if you get caught speeding, unless you are a copper of course, but what sort of example to copper's follies set for the rest of us, getting hammered for doing 7mph over the limit?
Are any of the drivers support organisations arranging a protest on the back of this? I for one am tempted to write to the Home Secretary about this.
Another points missed is that this comes within a week fo acknowlegdement that police driving standards aren't all they should be and the increase in accidents with police drivers involved as prompted a move towards kitting out police cars with black boxes.
Then they let off some guy for driving at 159mph! I bet had he cracked the back of a Talbot Horizon driven by a gin rummy team and wiped them all out (had he survived) he wouldn't be getting off so lightly.
I think if we were treated with more tolerence and Big Brother was not on a mission to lead us to believe that speeding was the new Drink Driving we would indeed elevate the guy to folk hero. If the copper had been 2.3 times over the legal alcohol limit would he have got off? It;s the hypocracy.
And for information I would rather my tax was spend hiring race tracks for this kind of stuff than lining lawyers pockets.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff