147mph on motorway
Discussion
ElectricPics said:
PC Foster has the benefit of having been trained to drive at high speed in a manner that mitigates against the inherent danger, in a car that's prepared and maintained to travel at high speed. You know, tyres with the correct speed rating set to the correct pressures, brakes in excellent condition, POWER check every shift change, that sort of thing.
PC foster got a bit of a wiggle on left and right when he approached 150mph. Didn't look totally in control?As for his words, its following the party line, one should expect that. I see nothing wrong in him saying those words as these are the policy of the police.
jogger1976 said:
I'm sure PC Foster is a highly trained and competent member of the Hants Roads Policing team and I'm equally sure if that his vehicle was maintained to a high standard. Equally I'm well aware that blues and twos can be used at discretion.
However, what I can't fathom is why PC Foster though it safe to drive at 150mph in an unmarked car without using lights to warn other road users.
Did he feel he needed to follow to collect evidence? In which case how then is about safety? If he thought his excessive speed was unsafe why did he now try to immediately bring it to a halt, which turning on his Blues would probably have done.However, what I can't fathom is why PC Foster though it safe to drive at 150mph in an unmarked car without using lights to warn other road users.
psi310398 said:
Just one persons view in an online article? No, it wasn't, it was a policeman's purported official view in an online article.
I guess my point is that saying, crudely, sod off to Germany if you want to speed is not a complete answer to those who can obey/respect the law but who are pointing out its deficiencies, and the mindset of those policing that law.
In a healthy democracy we can lobby for laws to be changed. Raising/removing the limit on the motorways is not an unreasonable thing to ask for. Autoroutes and autobahns in my experience are considerably more civilised places to drive on than British motorways.
I still don't get your point. My personal opinion is that it is dangerous too. Simple fact of the matter is he wasn't charged with dangerous driving. If he was, that would be for a court to decide if it was dangerous or not. I guess my point is that saying, crudely, sod off to Germany if you want to speed is not a complete answer to those who can obey/respect the law but who are pointing out its deficiencies, and the mindset of those policing that law.
In a healthy democracy we can lobby for laws to be changed. Raising/removing the limit on the motorways is not an unreasonable thing to ask for. Autoroutes and autobahns in my experience are considerably more civilised places to drive on than British motorways.
Whether the autobahn is safe or not is irrelevant. This is a completely different country with different laws and outlooks on things. It's like saying it's ok to sleep with a 12 year old because it's legal in the Philippines.
psi310398 said:
HantsRat said:
He wasn't charged with driving dangerously? It was just one persons view in an online article? I don't see your point.
Just one persons view in an online article? No, it wasn't, it was a policeman's purported official view in an online article. I guess my point is that saying, crudely, sod off to Germany if you want to speed is not a complete answer to those who can obey/respect the law but who are pointing out its deficiencies, and the mindset of those policing that law.
In a healthy democracy we can lobby for laws to be changed. Raising/removing the limit on the motorways is not an unreasonable thing to ask for. Autoroutes and autobahns in my experience are considerably more civilised places to drive on than British motorways.
The traffic levels make it a more unpleasant experience, whether the limit is 70 or 80 etc makes pretty much no difference to that.
If I'm on an autoroute that has nose to tail traffic that is no more pleasant an experience than such conditions are in the UK.
agtlaw said:
HantsRat said:
Excessive. Absoutely no question that he should appeal against sentence. It does tend to help if D actually attends court.
HantsRat said:
I still don't get your point. My personal opinion is that it is dangerous too. Simple fact of the matter is he wasn't charged with dangerous driving. If he was, that would be for a court to decide if it was dangerous or not.
Whether the autobahn is safe or not is irrelevant. This is a completely different country with different laws and outlooks on things. It's like saying it's ok to sleep with a 12 year old because it's legal in the Philippines.
Exactly. It would be for a court to decide if it was dangerous or not. But here we have someone in his official capacity passing judgement on a named individual's behaviour. It is for the police to investigate and detect possible crimes impartially and objectively and to present their findings to the prosecuting authorities, not to editorialise. Whether the autobahn is safe or not is irrelevant. This is a completely different country with different laws and outlooks on things. It's like saying it's ok to sleep with a 12 year old because it's legal in the Philippines.
If the police felt they had evidence of dangerous driving, why was he not charged? But it really is not for PC Foster or any other officer to pass judgement.
As to your second point, really?!
Red 4 said:
Plenty.
I was seriously assaulted. I was medically retired as a result.
The other guy came off worse on the day (well, evening).
genuinely sorry to hear that happened to you. genuinely happy to hear the other party came off worse. i recently saw footage of what looked like an 8 stone wpc have her head bounced off the ground by some utter pond life ,i can only imagine the crap you had to put up with dealing with the dregs of society on a daily basis.I was seriously assaulted. I was medically retired as a result.
The other guy came off worse on the day (well, evening).
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 22 January 17:47
psi310398 said:
Exactly. It would be for a court to decide if it was dangerous or not. But here we have someone in his official capacity passing judgement on a named individual's behaviour. It is for the police to investigate and detect possible crimes impartially and objectively and to present their findings to the prosecuting authorities, not to editorialise.
If the police felt they had evidence of dangerous driving, why was he not charged? But it really is not for PC Foster or any other officer to pass judgement.
As to your second point, really?!
I'm a police officer and it's also my personal opinion it's dangerous. If asked for an article I was also say it was dangerous. Doesn't mean there is evidence to prosecute for dangerous driving though. Believing something is dangerous and a prosecuting for dangerous driving are two separate things. If the police felt they had evidence of dangerous driving, why was he not charged? But it really is not for PC Foster or any other officer to pass judgement.
As to your second point, really?!
We're not robots and we can speak our minds you know.
HantsRat said:
psi310398 said:
Exactly. It would be for a court to decide if it was dangerous or not. But here we have someone in his official capacity passing judgement on a named individual's behaviour. It is for the police to investigate and detect possible crimes impartially and objectively and to present their findings to the prosecuting authorities, not to editorialise.
If the police felt they had evidence of dangerous driving, why was he not charged? But it really is not for PC Foster or any other officer to pass judgement.
As to your second point, really?!
I'm a police officer and it's also my personal opinion it's dangerous. If asked for an article I was also say it was dangerous. Doesn't mean there is evidence to prosecute for dangerous driving though. Believing something is dangerous and a prosecuting for dangerous driving are two separate things. If the police felt they had evidence of dangerous driving, why was he not charged? But it really is not for PC Foster or any other officer to pass judgement.
As to your second point, really?!
If you aren't using the legal definition for dangerous in relation to driving, what definition or rationale are you using to conclude it as dangerous?
Would you be happy to drive a Police vehicle without blue lights on at those speeds in those conditions (as your colleague appeared happy to do)?
ElectricPics said:
R8Steve said:
Red 4 said:
Things tend to happen (and go wrong) very quickly on public roads at those speeds.
Is it dangerous ? Yup.
But not for PC Foster?Is it dangerous ? Yup.
Like the police like to remind us, at those sorts of speeds you have little or no reaction time to react.
vonhosen said:
Most of the autoroutes & autobahns I drive on have far less traffic on than the motorways I drive on in the UK.
The traffic levels make it a more unpleasant experience, whether the limit is 70 or 80 etc makes pretty much no difference to that.
If I'm on an autoroute that has nose to tail traffic that is no more pleasant an experience than such conditions are in the UK.
Agreed on traffic volumes. That for me is a reason why a big jump in the motorway limit over here wouldn't be a great idea. Too many vehicles. The traffic levels make it a more unpleasant experience, whether the limit is 70 or 80 etc makes pretty much no difference to that.
If I'm on an autoroute that has nose to tail traffic that is no more pleasant an experience than such conditions are in the UK.
The lane discipline is generally better in Germany and France than over here too, which makes a big difference.
vonhosen said:
Interesting.
If you aren't using the legal definition for dangerous in relation to driving, what definition or rationale are you using to conclude it as dangerous?
Would you be happy to drive a Police vehicle without blue lights on at those speeds in those conditions (as your colleague appeared happy to do)?
I simply stated I thought it was dangerous in my personal opinion. Whether I would report for that or CPS agree with me is a different matter. If you aren't using the legal definition for dangerous in relation to driving, what definition or rationale are you using to conclude it as dangerous?
Would you be happy to drive a Police vehicle without blue lights on at those speeds in those conditions (as your colleague appeared happy to do)?
Yes I would be happy to drive a Police car at those speeds without blues and I have done. We are trained to. It's a very intensive month long course with regular refreshers. There is a risk involved but this job is full of risks.
XDA said:
ElectricPics said:
R8Steve said:
Red 4 said:
Things tend to happen (and go wrong) very quickly on public roads at those speeds.
Is it dangerous ? Yup.
But not for PC Foster?Is it dangerous ? Yup.
Like the police like to remind us, at those sorts of speeds you have little or no reaction time to react.
What could reasonably be expected to pull out in front of him?
Have you ever suffered a high speed blow out & experienced what actually happens, or are you relying on what you think happens?
Space is more critical than time. People react in pretty much a given time for their state of alertness etc, what's important is how much space they have when they start using up the time.
HantsRat said:
vonhosen said:
Interesting.
If you aren't using the legal definition for dangerous in relation to driving, what definition or rationale are you using to conclude it as dangerous?
Would you be happy to drive a Police vehicle without blue lights on at those speeds in those conditions (as your colleague appeared happy to do)?
I simply stated I thought it was dangerous in my personal opinion. Whether I would report for that or CPS agree with me is a different matter. If you aren't using the legal definition for dangerous in relation to driving, what definition or rationale are you using to conclude it as dangerous?
Would you be happy to drive a Police vehicle without blue lights on at those speeds in those conditions (as your colleague appeared happy to do)?
Yes I would be happy to drive a Police car at those speeds without blues and I have done. We are trained to. It's a very intensive month long course with regular refreshers. There is a risk involved but this job is full of risks.
There's risk in all driving, what marks it out as dangerous is when it is at unacceptable risk levels to safety.
Exceeding the speed limit is merely unacceptable by virtue that it has exceeded the line in the sand. Risks can be raised but but not to unacceptable levels whilst committing the offence. It requires no danger element to be complete.
I wouldn't be happy for me to drive at speeds I consider dangerous in the circumstances, I'm happy with managing slightly higher risks but I draw the line at it crossing it into unacceptable safe risk levels (where it now becomes dangerous).
HantsRat said:
Yes I would be happy to drive a Police car at those speeds without blues and I have done. We are trained to. It's a very intensive month long course with regular refreshers. There is a risk involved but this job is full of risks.
The problem is that the risk is not only to yourself but to other members of the public in these circumstances.R8Steve said:
HantsRat said:
Yes I would be happy to drive a Police car at those speeds without blues and I have done. We are trained to. It's a very intensive month long course with regular refreshers. There is a risk involved but this job is full of risks.
The problem is that the risk is not only to yourself but to other members of the public in these circumstances.We have to differentiate between marking out acceptable & unacceptable risk.
vonhosen said:
R8Steve said:
HantsRat said:
Yes I would be happy to drive a Police car at those speeds without blues and I have done. We are trained to. It's a very intensive month long course with regular refreshers. There is a risk involved but this job is full of risks.
The problem is that the risk is not only to yourself but to other members of the public in these circumstances.We have to differentiate between marking out acceptable & unacceptable risk.
"He was not only risking his own life but the lives of other innocent road users and that is unacceptable."
I'll do the same right behind him anyway, but that's ok. This is the message this sends out.
Poor choice of words perhaps but that's the way it comes across. That's why i think Police and many other professions should stay away from social media.
I have had two experiences of Hants unmarked policing where I have passed one of their cars, once on a DC and again on a motorway where I was a few clicks over the limit on cruise, but far from excessive - within frequently quoted tolerances.
Their response was to accelerate and attempt to re-pass me on the inside, essentially giving me an option to accelerate harder and increase my speed to clear them, or slow and tuck back in behind them. I would assume that many drivers in a capable car would accelerate to clear the perceived idiot, resulting in a larger nick for the officer. So essentially, some Hants unmarked officers IMHO will try to goad and increase the offence - not all, I repeat, some in my experience.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this officer was one of the two that I have encountered that will allow / encourage a driver to commit a greater offence. I believe that the lights should have been put on as soon as the level of excess was estimated, especially given the officer’s later comments on safety. Let’s face it, if you are way over the top and you spot blues in your mirror, you are hardly going to keep on it -unless there is something else going on.
The officers response to an obvious excessive speed maybe in line with official speed recording policy, but perhaps the policy needs changing when there is instant video evidence to show excess.
Their response was to accelerate and attempt to re-pass me on the inside, essentially giving me an option to accelerate harder and increase my speed to clear them, or slow and tuck back in behind them. I would assume that many drivers in a capable car would accelerate to clear the perceived idiot, resulting in a larger nick for the officer. So essentially, some Hants unmarked officers IMHO will try to goad and increase the offence - not all, I repeat, some in my experience.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this officer was one of the two that I have encountered that will allow / encourage a driver to commit a greater offence. I believe that the lights should have been put on as soon as the level of excess was estimated, especially given the officer’s later comments on safety. Let’s face it, if you are way over the top and you spot blues in your mirror, you are hardly going to keep on it -unless there is something else going on.
The officers response to an obvious excessive speed maybe in line with official speed recording policy, but perhaps the policy needs changing when there is instant video evidence to show excess.
R8Steve said:
vonhosen said:
R8Steve said:
HantsRat said:
Yes I would be happy to drive a Police car at those speeds without blues and I have done. We are trained to. It's a very intensive month long course with regular refreshers. There is a risk involved but this job is full of risks.
The problem is that the risk is not only to yourself but to other members of the public in these circumstances.We have to differentiate between marking out acceptable & unacceptable risk.
"He was not only risking his own life but the lives of other innocent road users and that is unacceptable."
I'll do the same right behind him anyway, but that's ok. This is the message this sends out.
Poor choice of words perhaps but that's the way it comes across. That's why i think Police and many other professions should stay away from social media.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff