147mph on motorway
Discussion
R8Steve said:
PC Foster believes these circumstances to be an unacceptable risk, yet he chose to continue anyway.
"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 agree with this. "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.
Audi man deserves to lose his licence, he was travelling at more than twice the speed limit when other traffic was present and failed to notice or think about why a car was following him at that speed, he’s an idiot and he should reflect on that for 9 months. But I also agree that if plod want to label that dangerous then they have to accept that their actions were also dangerous since they were doing exactly the same thing in a marginally less capable vehicle. I understand the need to get Audi mans attention and bring his stupidity to an end which is why the moment his speed went from just a bit over the limit to moronic the blues and twos should be on. There’s nothing to be gained from following him like that without alerting him to just how badly he’s f
ked up.
djc206 said:
I agree with this.
Audi man deserves to lose his licence, he was travelling at more than twice the speed limit when other traffic was present and failed to notice or think about why a car was following him at that speed, he’s an idiot and he should reflect on that for 9 months. But I also agree that if plod want to label that dangerous then they have to accept that their actions were also dangerous since they were doing exactly the same thing in a marginally less capable vehicle. I understand the need to get Audi mans attention and bring his stupidity to an end which is why the moment his speed went from just a bit over the limit to moronic the blues and twos should be on. There’s nothing to be gained from following him like that without alerting him to just how badly he’s fked up.
Of course it's dangerous and carries risk. That's the job and role of a Police officer for any job we go to.Audi man deserves to lose his licence, he was travelling at more than twice the speed limit when other traffic was present and failed to notice or think about why a car was following him at that speed, he’s an idiot and he should reflect on that for 9 months. But I also agree that if plod want to label that dangerous then they have to accept that their actions were also dangerous since they were doing exactly the same thing in a marginally less capable vehicle. I understand the need to get Audi mans attention and bring his stupidity to an end which is why the moment his speed went from just a bit over the limit to moronic the blues and twos should be on. There’s nothing to be gained from following him like that without alerting him to just how badly he’s f
ked up.SeeFive said:
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.
The way evidence is gathered is in response to what courts require as best practice/good evidence for a safe conviction in relation to that offence.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.
If courts were happy to reliably convict with a single officer clicking their fingers & pronouncing 'that was 147mph', rather than any measurement etc, that's the way it would be done.
HantsRat said:
djc206 said:
I agree with this.
Audi man deserves to lose his licence, he was travelling at more than twice the speed limit when other traffic was present and failed to notice or think about why a car was following him at that speed, he’s an idiot and he should reflect on that for 9 months. But I also agree that if plod want to label that dangerous then they have to accept that their actions were also dangerous since they were doing exactly the same thing in a marginally less capable vehicle. I understand the need to get Audi mans attention and bring his stupidity to an end which is why the moment his speed went from just a bit over the limit to moronic the blues and twos should be on. There’s nothing to be gained from following him like that without alerting him to just how badly he’s fked up.
Of course it's dangerous and carries risk. That's the job and role of a Police officer for any job we go to.Audi man deserves to lose his licence, he was travelling at more than twice the speed limit when other traffic was present and failed to notice or think about why a car was following him at that speed, he’s an idiot and he should reflect on that for 9 months. But I also agree that if plod want to label that dangerous then they have to accept that their actions were also dangerous since they were doing exactly the same thing in a marginally less capable vehicle. I understand the need to get Audi mans attention and bring his stupidity to an end which is why the moment his speed went from just a bit over the limit to moronic the blues and twos should be on. There’s nothing to be gained from following him like that without alerting him to just how badly he’s f
ked up.If not, what marks out when it does become dangerous?
For it to have any true meaning it has to be relatable & consistent, otherwise when you say danger it means little/nothing because it means completely different things to different people.
vonhosen said:
So is everything that carries any risk at all to be marked out as dangerous?
Yes.You're looking into this way too deeply. Just lookup the definition of dangerous... https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dange... that's how most people see it.
"Able or likely to cause harm or injury"
The chances of causing harm or injury at 155mph is far greater than 70 in my opinion.
vonhosen said:
The way evidence is gathered is in response to what courts require as best practice/good evidence for a safe conviction in relation to that offence.
If courts were happy to reliably convict with a single officer clicking their fingers & pronouncing 'that was 147mph', rather than any measurement etc, that's the way it would be done.
Whilst I understand that you cannot be convicted of speeding purely on the uncorroborated opinion evidence of a Police Officer, and that it is a requirement that the Police Officer, having formed an opinion that a vehicle is exceeding a speed limit, then uses an approved speed detection device to corroborate his personal opinion.If courts were happy to reliably convict with a single officer clicking their fingers & pronouncing 'that was 147mph', rather than any measurement etc, that's the way it would be done.
How long was that video showing excessive speed before the blues came on to warn the driver that he was out of order and was required to stop? Surely that should be acceptable and used with an ability to estimate? That policy change in conjunction with immediate blues upon real excess would potentially prevent certain unmarked officers pushing drivers to higher offences by pretending to race them or similar - and yes, I know that racing on the road is seriously verboten, so one should not respond to officers trying to encourage it.
And yes, I reckon he deserves a solid penalty for that speed in the traffic conditions.
HantsRat said:
Of course it's dangerous and carries risk. That's the job and role of a Police officer for any job we go to.
HantsRat said:
Of course it's dangerous and carries risk. That's the job and role of a Police officer for any job we go to.
Risk has to be justified and where possible mitigated, blues and twos the moment that halfwit got above a bit pacey and into daft territory would have reduced the risk to everyone.vonhosen said:
So is everything that carries any risk at all to be marked out as dangerous?
If not, what marks out when it does become dangerous?
For it to have any true meaning it has to be relatable & consistent, otherwise when you say danger it means little/nothing because it means completely different things to different people.
Which is why PC Foster should have kept his trap shut and there shouldn't have been a bus claiming the NHS would get 350 million a week.If not, what marks out when it does become dangerous?
For it to have any true meaning it has to be relatable & consistent, otherwise when you say danger it means little/nothing because it means completely different things to different people.
As there are going to be some people whose opinions will be reinforced or altered by that nonsense.
HantsRat said:
djc206 said:
I agree with this.
Audi man deserves to lose his licence, he was travelling at more than twice the speed limit when other traffic was present and failed to notice or think about why a car was following him at that speed, he’s an idiot and he should reflect on that for 9 months. But I also agree that if plod want to label that dangerous then they have to accept that their actions were also dangerous since they were doing exactly the same thing in a marginally less capable vehicle. I understand the need to get Audi mans attention and bring his stupidity to an end which is why the moment his speed went from just a bit over the limit to moronic the blues and twos should be on. There’s nothing to be gained from following him like that without alerting him to just how badly he’s fked up.
Of course it's dangerous and carries risk. That's the job and role of a Police officer for any job we go to.Audi man deserves to lose his licence, he was travelling at more than twice the speed limit when other traffic was present and failed to notice or think about why a car was following him at that speed, he’s an idiot and he should reflect on that for 9 months. But I also agree that if plod want to label that dangerous then they have to accept that their actions were also dangerous since they were doing exactly the same thing in a marginally less capable vehicle. I understand the need to get Audi mans attention and bring his stupidity to an end which is why the moment his speed went from just a bit over the limit to moronic the blues and twos should be on. There’s nothing to be gained from following him like that without alerting him to just how badly he’s f
ked up.HantsRat said:
Of course it's dangerous and carries risk. That's the job and role of a Police officer for any job we go to.
Members of the public are (or should be) grateful that the police are willing to assume a risk of danger to themselves as part of their job. But the point being made here is that the pursuing officer created what appears to be an unavoidable risk of danger to other road users, which was little to no different to the risk of danger that the Audi driver created.
HantsRat said:
20 seconds to gather the evidence and then light him up is not excessive to me.
Again. most people would accept there is a need to collect evidence. But when the clip starts the pursuing vehicle is in the outside lane, has already matched the speed of the Audi at 137mph, and both cars are still accelerating hard. In other words, the video records the story from part-way through: neither car went from 70 to 137 in the blink of an eye. I don't know whether it is possible to tell from the video or the footage whether the unmarked car had its blue lights turned on during the video. But the point (as I see it) that's being made is that it seems odd to an outsider that the pursuing car hadn't "lit up" when the Audi hit 100, 110, or some other arbitrary number, and instead appears still to have been "unlit" at over 150.
R8Steve said:
HantsRat said:
djc206 said:
I agree with this.
Audi man deserves to lose his licence, he was travelling at more than twice the speed limit when other traffic was present and failed to notice or think about why a car was following him at that speed, he’s an idiot and he should reflect on that for 9 months. But I also agree that if plod want to label that dangerous then they have to accept that their actions were also dangerous since they were doing exactly the same thing in a marginally less capable vehicle. I understand the need to get Audi mans attention and bring his stupidity to an end which is why the moment his speed went from just a bit over the limit to moronic the blues and twos should be on. There’s nothing to be gained from following him like that without alerting him to just how badly he’s fked up.
Of course it's dangerous and carries risk. That's the job and role of a Police officer for any job we go to.Audi man deserves to lose his licence, he was travelling at more than twice the speed limit when other traffic was present and failed to notice or think about why a car was following him at that speed, he’s an idiot and he should reflect on that for 9 months. But I also agree that if plod want to label that dangerous then they have to accept that their actions were also dangerous since they were doing exactly the same thing in a marginally less capable vehicle. I understand the need to get Audi mans attention and bring his stupidity to an end which is why the moment his speed went from just a bit over the limit to moronic the blues and twos should be on. There’s nothing to be gained from following him like that without alerting him to just how badly he’s f
ked up.I think people are getting hung up on a poor choice of words.
HantsRat said:
vonhosen said:
So is everything that carries any risk at all to be marked out as dangerous?
Yes.You're looking into this way too deeply. Just lookup the definition of dangerous... https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dange... that's how most people see it.
"Able or likely to cause harm or injury"
The chances of causing harm or injury at 155mph is far greater than 70 in my opinion.
You aren't drawing a line, the way you are viewing it 1mph is dangerous because it's able to cause harm or injury.
Dangerous becomes meaningless without the likely part & a crossover between acceptable risk & unacceptable risk.
By virtue of that everything PC Foster said in relation to danger posed by the Audi driver he was also saying about himself because what he used to justify as danger by the Audi driver he also did when & where the Audi driver did it. For the Audi to be dangerous & him not his actions have to somehow be different.
In fact looking at the video the only evidence that can clearly be seen of any genuine concern in relation to real tangible danger is that when PC Foster approached the Volvo & Audi in lane 2 he never lifted off the throttle for even a moment whilst assessing their potential (but I'm prepared to cut him a little slack on that because of potential foreshortening from the lens relative to the capability of his eyes). It's a lot harder to tell whether the car he was following didn't lift off momentarily but PC Foster most certainly didn't' lift.
It's even worse than that using your rationale for considering dangerous, because using that everybody on the road was dangerous.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 23 January 12:13
Breadvan72 said:
Not everyone checks mirrors and not everyone correctly judges the speed of a vehicle approaching from behind, especially as most drivers aren't expecting traffic to be closing at over twice the speed limit.
Then they shouldn't be driving on the motorway. Or even AT ALL. My driving teacher must have been a rare gem, he taught me "no matter what the posted limit is, and no matter how fast you are travelling in relation to it, you should always perform a shoulder check when changing lanes as there may very well be someone a lot quicker coming up behind you, emergency services or merely another car in more of a hurry than you"
Police officer does job, gets slated.
Police officer doesn’t do job, gets slated.
The dangerous comment made was made after court proceedings had ended as far as I can see.
Never is he going to say crack on at 147, it’s safe, the car was capable of doing that speed.
He was always going to say it’s dangerous because it is.
How anyone can blame the officer for following is beyond me. fking snowflakes.
Police officer doesn’t do job, gets slated.
The dangerous comment made was made after court proceedings had ended as far as I can see.
Never is he going to say crack on at 147, it’s safe, the car was capable of doing that speed.
He was always going to say it’s dangerous because it is.
How anyone can blame the officer for following is beyond me. f
king snowflakes. cmaguire said:
Why do they feel the need for all the melodrama? 150 there is a piece of cake going by that video yet we're always told it is only by luck that armageddon was avoided
Because the media in this country is the force that shapes opinion and we can't divert from the script that "speed kills" so even if nobody got killed they have to tell everyone just how badly they might have got killed just in case they think that because nobody got killed, speed doesn't kill. vsonix said:
Breadvan72 said:
Not everyone checks mirrors and not everyone correctly judges the speed of a vehicle approaching from behind, especially as most drivers aren't expecting traffic to be closing at over twice the speed limit.
Then they shouldn't be driving on the motorway. Or even AT ALL. My driving teacher must have been a rare gem, he taught me "no matter what the posted limit is, and no matter how fast you are travelling in relation to it, you should always perform a shoulder check when changing lanes as there may very well be someone a lot quicker coming up behind you, emergency services or merely another car in more of a hurry than you"
vsonix said:
Because the media in this country is the force that shapes opinion and we can't divert from the script that "speed kills" so even if nobody got killed they have to tell everyone just how badly they might have got killed just in case they think that because nobody got killed, speed doesn't kill.
Increase the speed - increase the likelihood of serious injury/ death.You don't come back from being dead to argue your case.
Neither do the laws of physics care what anyone thinks.
Motorways, eh ?
Really safe ? I posted this on another thread;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lf8rA-mDmmk
Yes, it is raining, the motorway is busy, etc. etc. but it's an example of how quickly things can go wrong. Speed is a factor.
Nobody was killed. Luckily.
Edited by Red 4 on Tuesday 23 January 12:19
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff