For those that followed the 159mph incident...
Discussion
Although some driving conditions may permit travelling at 159mph, in this case, it appears the PC has broken his police force's policy by exceeding the 120mph limit allowed for practice/training.
Since I wasn't at the scene of the alleged offence, I cannot comment whether the speed of 159mph was appropriate or not. What does seem certain, though, is that PC Milton broke the apparently reasonable rules within which he has been instructed to operate. That alone justifies some corrective action to be taken against him.
>> Edited by Jungles on Wednesday 1st February 22:45
Since I wasn't at the scene of the alleged offence, I cannot comment whether the speed of 159mph was appropriate or not. What does seem certain, though, is that PC Milton broke the apparently reasonable rules within which he has been instructed to operate. That alone justifies some corrective action to be taken against him.
>> Edited by Jungles on Wednesday 1st February 22:45
Jungles said:
Although some driving conditions may permit travelling at 159mph, in this case, it appears the PC has broken his police force's policy by exceeding the 120mph limit allowed for practice/training.
Since I wasn't at the scene of the alleged offence, I cannot comment whether the speed of 159mph was appropriate or not. What does seem certain, though, is that PC Milton broke the apparently reasonable rules within which he has been instructed to operate. That alone justifies some corrective action to be taken against him.
sorry but completely wrong.
There were NO rules in force at the time, not even guidelines. ouch
The PC do-good-w*nkers are out to get this guy to make an example of him. He has, no doubt, had the most serious of bollockings and been the instigator of a process of "guideline review" already. But now they're determined to hurt him through the courts...
The problem is that whilst they are at it they will put the vast majority of prudent and professional police drivers into an impossible position.
Do you drive to the best of your ability at the fastest possible safe speed to get to the situation - at which you are likely to be first on the scene and absolutely critical in the handling of it very likely with lives st stake - or do you follow the rules and get there when you can: knowing you could have done better.
What if someone dies?
How did the world get to the point where the do-good-PC-eco-w*nkers hate cars and drivers so much they'll happily cut off their nose to spite their face?
The problem is that whilst they are at it they will put the vast majority of prudent and professional police drivers into an impossible position.
Do you drive to the best of your ability at the fastest possible safe speed to get to the situation - at which you are likely to be first on the scene and absolutely critical in the handling of it very likely with lives st stake - or do you follow the rules and get there when you can: knowing you could have done better.
What if someone dies?
How did the world get to the point where the do-good-PC-eco-w*nkers hate cars and drivers so much they'll happily cut off their nose to spite their face?
Don, this whole thing just sickens me.
On the radio last night the fed man plus a few ex job callers pointed out some home truths to the speed kills w*nkers who were glorifying in the situation. Gratified that more or less for a whole hour, ordinary MoP phoned up with support and sensible comments.
Whole issue results bad lack of judgement from the powers that be.
Sadly for sure this policy will extend from the thin end of this wedge.
Already in West Mercia it is assumed (yes I do know what they say about assume
) that this will also apply to every emergency vehicle, police, fire & rescue, ambulance, paramedic, emergency doctors, bomb squad, security services and so on.
If I get the chance on this or another thread I'll take and post a picture of n example of rural dual carriageway which, from now on, such vehicles on a full bells and whistle shout will be limited to 60, as in limit 40 + 20 = 60.
You just couldn't make it up.
On the radio last night the fed man plus a few ex job callers pointed out some home truths to the speed kills w*nkers who were glorifying in the situation. Gratified that more or less for a whole hour, ordinary MoP phoned up with support and sensible comments.
Whole issue results bad lack of judgement from the powers that be.
Sadly for sure this policy will extend from the thin end of this wedge.
Already in West Mercia it is assumed (yes I do know what they say about assume
) that this will also apply to every emergency vehicle, police, fire & rescue, ambulance, paramedic, emergency doctors, bomb squad, security services and so on. If I get the chance on this or another thread I'll take and post a picture of n example of rural dual carriageway which, from now on, such vehicles on a full bells and whistle shout will be limited to 60, as in limit 40 + 20 = 60.
You just couldn't make it up.
I wish the Criminal Protection Society (also know as the CPS) would concentrate on prosecuting Disqualified drivers, P heads who drive home from pubs every night and other similar motoring offences. I'm not saying the PC was right to do it (even though there is a statutory defence in the 1988 Road Traffic Act) but for Cliff's sake, get your priorities right!!!!!
markr said:
He may have been in control of the vehicle, but at those speeds (91mph in a 30limit I heard yesterday) he was not in control of whats around the next corner.
So you know he went round a corner at a speed faster than his line of sight? 30 can be too fast in some 30 limits, likewise 159 can be perfectly fine on certain roads in the right car.
I'm sure he was totally safe in doing so, the problem is the hypocrisy that if he was safe doing so, why is it unsafe for others to do so?
This is the problem with setting absolutes when it comes to speed. 120mph and 159mph are not that different on an empty flat, straight motorway in observational terms, so if he can travel 120mph, what is the problem with 159mph really next to 120mph?
Both are far in excess of what could be deemed acceptable in anything but very quiet or empty road conditions, so the risk is already high at 120mph if we deem that to be high risk to begin with. Especially considering 70mph is safe and 80mph is seen as leathal.
Whichever way you look at it, it's yet another safe considerate driver being penalised for a number picked out of thin air (albeit a "law", irrespective of the actual conditions and risks that he posed at that time!
Dave
This is the problem with setting absolutes when it comes to speed. 120mph and 159mph are not that different on an empty flat, straight motorway in observational terms, so if he can travel 120mph, what is the problem with 159mph really next to 120mph?
Both are far in excess of what could be deemed acceptable in anything but very quiet or empty road conditions, so the risk is already high at 120mph if we deem that to be high risk to begin with. Especially considering 70mph is safe and 80mph is seen as leathal.
Whichever way you look at it, it's yet another safe considerate driver being penalised for a number picked out of thin air (albeit a "law"
, irrespective of the actual conditions and risks that he posed at that time! Dave
Mr Whippy said:
I'm sure he was totally safe in doing so, the problem is the hypocrisy that if he was safe doing so, why is it unsafe for others to do so?
This is the problem with setting absolutes when it comes to speed. 120mph and 159mph are not that different on an empty flat, straight motorway in observational terms, so if he can travel 120mph, what is the problem with 159mph really next to 120mph?
Both are far in excess of what could be deemed acceptable in anything but very quiet or empty road conditions, so the risk is already high at 120mph if we deem that to be high risk to begin with. Especially considering 70mph is safe and 80mph is seen as leathal.
Whichever way you look at it, it's yet another safe considerate driver being penalised for a number picked out of thin air (albeit a "law"
Dave
I don't know about 159 mph, that's rather outside my scope, but I would say 120 mph does not present much of a problem in itself. It very much depends on how much other traffic is around and how those drivers are behaving. If they are also cracking on a bit but keeping decent spacing, and there are no large speed differentials involved, I don't have too much concern about it.
(...remembering some good trips on the M5 this past year or two...
Best wishes all,
Dave.
159mph is out of my scope too.
But to a trained driver who could go 120mph legally and supposedly "safely", I know that if we can consider 50mph over the normal legal limit of 70mph "safe", almost double the limit, then what difference is another 39mph?
I'm sure a 911 Turbo could be at 120mph one moment, 159mph the next, and back at 120mph when conditions didn't allow any more.
We already wonder where the 70mph limit comes from. Everyone drivers 80mph, some 85mph, and it is quite natural to exceed it. However, it's considered dangerous to go over it.
But now 120mph for a training police officer is acceptable? How does safe suddenly jump from 70mph to 120mph? If it's so easy to justify a 50mph jump is it so hard to accept more; or is it just more blind rule following doctrine that now means 120mph is totally fine, but 125mph would have been wreckless.
They keep setting arbritary numbers with no bearing on what they mean in the real world in the appropriate conditions!
Dave
But to a trained driver who could go 120mph legally and supposedly "safely", I know that if we can consider 50mph over the normal legal limit of 70mph "safe", almost double the limit, then what difference is another 39mph?
I'm sure a 911 Turbo could be at 120mph one moment, 159mph the next, and back at 120mph when conditions didn't allow any more.
We already wonder where the 70mph limit comes from. Everyone drivers 80mph, some 85mph, and it is quite natural to exceed it. However, it's considered dangerous to go over it.
But now 120mph for a training police officer is acceptable? How does safe suddenly jump from 70mph to 120mph? If it's so easy to justify a 50mph jump is it so hard to accept more; or is it just more blind rule following doctrine that now means 120mph is totally fine, but 125mph would have been wreckless.
They keep setting arbritary numbers with no bearing on what they mean in the real world in the appropriate conditions!
Dave
Been reading up on this thread and as a copper I can say that you would have to be there to judge the situation. Speed limits are in place and I know that most people think that higher speeds could be driven on an empty three lane motorway but you have to remember the standard of driving that we get when we first learn to drive, after you learn and do your test it all comes down to what we learn from experience. I'm not saying I agree with what the officer did, he may well have been familiarising himself with a new vehicle in which case I fully agree that if the conditions are right and he can push the car to see how well the vehicle responds he should within reason, but if he was just driving for a laugh then I stronger disagree with his actions. In my driving course I would drive at far slower speeds during times I may have just put my foot down around a corner but on open roads with clear vision ahead I would be able to floor my car to 135 plus. Driving around country lanes at an average speed of 90 - 100. I'm sure there are many people here who have done an advanced driving course and they would fully understand that it would depend on the conditions of the road and surroundings at the time. Speeding for one person at 120 down the motorway for one person may well be within their skills but to another that could be extremely dangerous so speed limits are something I totally agree with. I think that Police forces will start capping speeds for us, I know that some have already. I don't agree with it because as someone has mentioned, capping speeds to 20 over the limit on a clear road is insane, we are trained to drive at high speeds safely, I can do 10 thru heavy traffic making progress whilst on a dual carriageway with sideroads clear and no pedestrians I could easily do much higher. Not trying to say that Police drivers are the best but we do get trained well and it's just that there are always going to be a few individuals that take what they learnt forgranted or are just an embarrasment to us.
Anyway, hello to all.
Anyway, hello to all.
Whats all the fuss about, would they rather they stuck to the speed limits untill they have to one day chase a nutter in there supercar, It would be a good idea to use a race track for initial training, they could easily make one replicate a road (drive on the left only ect)
BUT There seem to be hundereds of Police helicopters about, there must be a time to draw the line between pursuit and obsevering from a distnace, Whats the point in chasing someone down the motorway if there is no junction for say 50 miles when they could get a Helicopter in the sky before they have chance to get off.
Either that or snippers on bridges!!
BUT There seem to be hundereds of Police helicopters about, there must be a time to draw the line between pursuit and obsevering from a distnace, Whats the point in chasing someone down the motorway if there is no junction for say 50 miles when they could get a Helicopter in the sky before they have chance to get off.
Either that or snippers on bridges!!
Guess it depends on which force you're with, using a track would cost so much money to try and replicate hundreds of miles a day of different situations. The point is to ensure that with the ever changing situation a driver is faced with on the road they consider all the options and alternatives and then decide which options are to be used. you can't use a track as observation is one of the biggest things and with so many hazards on the road in real life it would be impossible to copy that onto a track. As for helicopters they are always an option and in the Met we use them as regularly as posible. But we only have two of them, one west and one east. It would depend on what their status would be, if they're on patrol and running low on fuel then they'd have to return to base, they could already be on a call which means they're busy or if there's a demonstration or festival they could more than likely be working that. I like the snipers on bridges idea though, shall I put that in the suggestion box, lol.
What I'm saying is that it's not all about speed but about the system. You cannot train a driver on a track to notice everyday hazards on a road. You know that there is no traffic coming towards you and even the layout of the track. How many times have you driven down a track and seen a streetlight on the right side of the road indicating a junction on the left or seen trees ahead leading to the right to indicate a right turn ahead. It's not practical and doesn't test enough.
Haven't heard of this shooting tags thing though.
Haven't heard of this shooting tags thing though.
I am not surprised this officer is being hounded by political correctness. I believe it quite safe to drive a car at 159mph when the circumstances permit. Speed doesn't kill it is the inappropriate use of speed. It is quite likely this officer will be expected to drive this car in adverse conditions near his and the car's limit and he will do that far more safely if he is confident of the vehicle.
The same lynch mob will of course be the first to complain when the police take too long to arrive at an emergency or a driver loses control of his vehicle because he is unfamiliar with its limitations. To expect police officers to make crucial daily judgments when there are no fixed rules is wrong.
The same lynch mob will of course be the first to complain when the police take too long to arrive at an emergency or a driver loses control of his vehicle because he is unfamiliar with its limitations. To expect police officers to make crucial daily judgments when there are no fixed rules is wrong.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff