147mph on motorway

[agtlaw]

HantsRat said:

https://www.hampshire.police.uk/news/general/video...

Only disqualified for 9 months with £325 fine.

Excessive. Absoutely no question that he should appeal against sentence.

It does tend to help if D actually attends court.

[ghe13rte]

If PC Forster said this:
“You can see from the footage just how dangerous it was.

“He was not only risking his own life but the lives of other innocent road users and that is unacceptable.

“It is sheer luck that Hornby’s driving that day did not cause a collision, because if it had the consequences at that speed would have undoubtedly been fatal.

“There is absolutely no excuse for such reckless and totally irresponsible driving and we will take action against those who put lives at risk.”

...then why was the only charge speeding?

[psi310398]

R8Steve said:

That would be the sensible thing to do.

Why anyone thought it was a good idea to let individual police officers have twitter accounts and be allowed to comment on such cases in such a manner i have no idea.

Agreed, but PC Foster is no different from many other police officers who feel the need to make sententious statements after judicial proceedings have concluded. We see it after many trials. And, on occasion, even when the defendant has been acquitted, the relevant police officer sees fit to cast doubt on the acquittal (without quite being explicit about it).

If anyone has to make such statements, surely it is for the judges and magistrates rather than the police to do so? I'd happily see the practice banned.

[CraigyMc]

If it's so dangerous to drive at that speed, why did the patrol car do it?

[Red 4]

Haha.

All the speed demons and driving Gods on this thread.

Things tend to happen (and go wrong) very quickly on public roads at those speeds.

Is it dangerous ? Yup.

And no, I cba looking at the footage.

But yes, I've been faster.

[R8Steve]

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?

[Toltec]

From the video it looks like driver was going past the cars in L2 a bit slower, then accelerated and pulled away from the police car even though it was also accelerating.

[FurtiveFreddy]

Perhaps the 155mph limiter should be removed on unmarked cars?

[R8Steve]

Toltec said:

From the video it looks like driver was going past the cars in L2 a bit slower, then accelerated and pulled away from the police car even though it was also accelerating.

Probably thought the person behind fancied a race because instead of putting the blue lights on the police car decided to push on without to get the highest speed possible recorded.

[WJNB]

Makes me glad I stick to a maximum of 47mph not 147mph wherever I go.

[Red 4]

R8Steve said:

But not for PC Foster?

Yes - 155 MPH (as the onboard recorded - I've now looked at it, just for you) is dangerous on a public road.

Awaits "Why did the cop do it then ?", "Why wasn't the driver convicted of dangerous then ?", "Speed isn't dangerous", "No bunny rabbits were harmed" ..... blah blah.

[RumbleOfThunder]

agtlaw said:

HantsRat said:

https://www.hampshire.police.uk/news/general/video...

Only disqualified for 9 months with £325 fine.

Excessive. Absoutely no question that he should appeal against sentence.

It does tend to help if D actually attends court.

How on earth is that excessive?? I'm not gonna pretend that he's some sociopathic murderer, but 147mph is brainless and deserves everything he gets at that speed. That's the risk you take when flouting the law so blatantly.

Edited by RumbleOfThunder on Monday 22 January 16:56

[ElectricPics]

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?

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.

[R8Steve]

Red 4 said:

R8Steve said:

But not for PC Foster?

Yes - 155 MPH (as the onboard recorded - I've now looked at it, just for you) is dangerous on a public road.

Awaits "Why did the cop do it then ?", "Why wasn't the driver convicted of dangerous then ?", "Speed isn't dangerous", "No bunny rabbits were harmed" ..... blah blah.

Not from me, i understand why he did it and wasn't convicted, etc, etc. It's his comments that grate somewhat.

Is it not sheer luck that Foster’s driving that day did not cause a collision as well? If not, why not? And if so, perhaps he should save the dramatics and let the courts do the talking.

[CraigyMc]

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?

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.

As do many of us. What's your point?

PC Foster gets to use the exemption, which means he's not breaking the law.
Joe Bloggs may well be a racing driver who trains policemen how to drive in pursuit situations, and could be in a better-prepped car for the purpose because it's not got half a ton of policing gubbins in the back.

PC Foster is not, in that situation, "safer" than Joe Bloggs, which is the point being made.

[MitchT]

“You can see from the footage just how dangerous it was."

Really? Doesn't look dangerous at all from that footage. The only ones in any danger of feeling the wake as he goes past are a handful of MLMs.

[psi310398]

RumbleOfThunder said:

How on earth is that excessive?? I'm not gonna pretend that he's some sociopathic murderer, but 147mph is brainless and deserves everything he gets he gets at that speed. That's the risk you take when flouting the law so blatantly.

Yes, it's illegal and he was asking for it. I think he got off very lightly, given the motoring Ayatollahs in this country.

But his behaviour (except for the blatantness of it) was hardly brainless; you see those speeds driven by hundreds every day in Germany and the world continues to turn.

[Toltec]

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.

Out of interest what techniques can a police officer use to mitigate against a 60 - 70 mph speed differential to the vehicle in the next lane that are not available to a civilian?

Blues and twos come to mind, but as pointed out they were not being used, what else?

[ElectricPics]

CraigyMc said:

As do many of us. What's your point?

PC Foster gets to use the exemption, which means he's not breaking the law.
Joe Bloggs may well be a racing driver who trains policemen how to drive in pursuit situations, and could be in a better-prepped car for the purpose because it's not got half a ton of policing gubbins in the back.

PC Foster is not, in that situation, "safer" than Joe Bloggs, which is the point being made.

Many of us do may well have the skills to drive at high speed in a well-prepped car. Most of us don't have the opportunity to maintain those skills, and in any event, does that mean that police speed exemptions should be removed, or restricted?

Making up a fictitious racing driver doesn't make or prove any point, especially as racing drivers drive on closed circuits.

[Red 4]

@ Toltec

Helicopter*

• unless there's a slight breeze/ a bit of drizzle/ one is available/ it's grounded for maintenance

Edited by Red 4 on Monday 22 January 17:10