For those that followed the 159mph incident...
Discussion
thing is...theres a lot of difference between 120mph and 159mph...just imagine what the tyres are gong through. If they arent up to scrach..imagine a blow out at 160mph!
I think we should have a varied speed limit, which changes due to conditions. Like electronic boards howing the speedlimit. At night, on well lit motorways..after midnight, the motorways are fairly deserted..100mph would be saffe, especially withnew cars and technology. The speedlimit was put in place at a time when safety was amajor concern..coz it was crap!
I think we should have a varied speed limit, which changes due to conditions. Like electronic boards howing the speedlimit. At night, on well lit motorways..after midnight, the motorways are fairly deserted..100mph would be saffe, especially withnew cars and technology. The speedlimit was put in place at a time when safety was amajor concern..coz it was crap!
7db said:
it's just the dangerous charge that's gone back.
I really hope its quashed a second time.
Frankly I WANT my Police Officers extremely highly trained, familiar with their vehicles and driving as fast as humanly possible - with all proper due regard for safety - to get to whatever Emergency it may be.
They can't possibly do that if they don't practice when there is no Emergency.
YES this bloke deserves an ear bashing from his boss...for not arranging ahead of time to do a "training and practice" run. NO he does not deserve to lose his livelihood (for this is what it means).
Don said:
What if his driving was actually dangerous?
Didn't a number of his peers review the video and decide that it wasn't?
A number of peers reported him in the first place, his supervisors/force made sure a file went to the CPS & the CPS prosecuted on the evidence they received. The CPS also appealed against the original verdict because they felt it flawed. It's his own force & colleagues that have made all the running here & nobody would have known without them doing so.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 19th May 16:07
vonhosen said:
It's his own force & colleagues that have made all the running here & nobody would have known without them doing so.
IIRC they had some "expert witnesses" (Police Drivers) who would not go so far as to say it had been dangerous. Clearly there is some dispute about this if his own force "dobbed him in"!
It would be bad, bad thing for a case like this to set a precedent. It may well have been dangerous (its an individual case and should be considered on its own merits) but, sadly, should this proved I am certain it will be applied to *all* cases regardless of their individual merits.
Don said:
IIRC they had some "expert witnesses" (Police Drivers) who would not go so far as to say it had been dangerous. Clearly there is some dispute about this if his own force "dobbed him in"!
It would be bad, bad thing for a case like this to set a precedent. It may well have been dangerous (its an individual case and should be considered on its own merits) but, sadly, should this proved I am certain it will be applied to *all* cases regardless of their individual merits.
Nice use of the quotes around 'expert witnesses' - at least part of the problem in the case is that precedent may well have ruled some of their evidence inadmissible. As for setting a precedent, my experience of these things (and I've been at a few involving Police vehicles crashing at speeds not hugely different - and when not answering an immediate call) is that the CPS would rather do anything than prosecute a Police Officer for dangerous driving. It's very easy to condemn or pardon without benefit of viewing the evidence personally. I have my doubts that basing the case on an in-car camera which will have significantly different sensitivity to the human eye is likely to result in conviction. There are already plenty of precendents in law indicating that speed in and of itself is not dangerous, so it would be down to the examining justices to decide whether in these circumstances it was.
Specifically, Hallet seemed to indicate that the capability of the driver was not to be taken into account in the objective test (that with the careful and competent driver), which is why the "expert" opinion was dismissed -- it relied on knowing that the driver was a qualified Police driver.
Personally think that Hallet is flawed in that view, but hey, that's why I'm not on the Appeals Bench.
Personally think that Hallet is flawed in that view, but hey, that's why I'm not on the Appeals Bench.
StressedDave said:
IIRC they had some "expert witnesses" (Police Drivers) who would not go so far as to say it had been dangerous. Clearly there is some dispute about this if his own force "dobbed him in"!
Nice use of the quotes around 'expert witnesses' - at least part of the problem in the case is that precedent may well have ruled some of their evidence inadmissible.
Just in case people reading the thread don't pick up on the nuances above these are worth spelling out I feel.
The chief of a force driving school didn't condemn the drive having seen the evidence.
The problem referred to above appears to be that the precedent is around who can and cannot be considered expert witness re driving standards. Seems that precedent holds that only holders of the ADI (Approved Driving Instructors Certificate) can be considered expert by a court; in short, people who have been shown to be capable of instructing others to drive in return for payment. Remember it's not just a driving qualification but also, more importantly perhaps, a teaching qualification issue.
Police instructors are not holders of ADI certificates because the legislation specifically says they do not have to be holders. The forthcoming Road Safety Bill :spit: continues this situation.
Therefore it appears that the evidence of qualified police instructors / drivers is inadmissible in court as evidence of driving standards.
[Tongue in cheek mode=on] Of course that doesn't stop their opinion being admissible when 'expert opinion' of driving standard is given in cases against MoP, so one wonders why the difference here? [t-i-c off]
Unfortunately as said earlier someone is out to get this individual or possibly something more sinister, in which case tbh I dare not comment further.
The other 'offence' someone committed from my understanding was being a bit of a smart alec around the place.
Hence being dobbed in and then picked up by AN Other Politically Correct Speed Kills Do-Good W*nker. I think that was the term used earlier by someone.
(Lot of that about in West Mercia. Remember the toy golliwogs seized for being racially offensive? Professional sh*t stirrer, say no more.)
FiF
Flat in Fifth said:
Police instructors are not holders of ADI certificates because the legislation specifically says they do not have to be holders. The forthcoming Road Safety Bill :spit: continues this situation.
Not true in a lot of cases though. May not be a requirement in law, but a lot now are ADIs (Also many hold other external qualifications as well) in some forces.
TripleS said:
It does seem nonsensical that an 'ordinary' ADI can be accepted as an expert witness in a case like this, and yet a Police Advanced Driving Instructor (unless also ADI qualified) can not.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
You can only give expert opinion on evidence that relates to your area of expertise.
Where we are talking about giving opinion on our reasonable, prudent & competent base level driver, who is best placed to give opinion about that ?
(And that is the level of driving that is being questioned in careless & dangerous driving).
You've got to remember that the standard being applied in all careless driving & dangerous driving cases is that of the DSA standard/Highway code/Law. Speed in & of itself does not equal careless or dangerous driving so being above the limit doesn't mean you commit the offence, but where you have fallen below the standards expected of a reasonable, prudent & competent driver (our base level driver), you commit the offence (the actual offence dependent on degree).
So who are those best "qualified" to judge that standard ?
Those "qualified" to test & instruct it ?
Anybody could go to a court & claim expertise, but the court will decide whether you can give opinion because of that claim.
In doing that the court will determine from a trial within a trial, if you firstly can be considered an expert in the field you claim & then, to what degree your expertise is relevant to the evidence you give in relation to the charge & the scope within which your opinion is valid & can be expressed.
The DSA appear to be extending their sphere of influence over more & more areas of driver training.
The ADI register started out as a voluntary regsiter, but for cars has become compulsory.
There are other voluntary only registers for trainers, such as LGV & fleet training.
In future I think we can expect that DSA will exert greater control over all training (making the above voluntary registers mandatory like the car one) & even emergency service training will require formal DSA qualification & registration.
DSA ADI fleet website said:
It would be part of the Agency's wider role in improving road safety by ensuring higher standards of instruction for different types of driver and rider - in particular, modernising the qualification and registration arrangements for all classes of professional driving and riding instruction.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 20th May 13:37
vonhosen said:
You can only give expert opinion on evidence that relates to your area of expertise.
Where we are talking about giving opinion on our reasonable, prudent & competent base level driver, who is best placed to give opinion about that ?
(And that is the level of driving that is being questioned in careless & dangerous driving).
Anybody could go to a court & claim expertise, but the court will decide whether you can give opinion because of that claim.
In doing that the court will determine from a trial within a trial, if you firstly can be considered an expert in the field you claim & then, to what degree your expertise is relevant to the evidence you give in relation to the charge & the scope within which your opinion is valid & can be expressed.
Been there, done that, got the scars to prove it... In many cases the easiest way to discount evidence it not to hear it in the first place - although occasionally I've seen it backfire spectacularly. I remember one defence barrister asking one question too many in a voir dire and torpedoing the rest of his case in front of the judge.
von's point about the level being assessed is well made - an ADI who trains to the 'safe driving for life' standard will be considered to be 'better qualified' as an expert than a Police instructor who wouldn't necessarily know the DSA standard.
Are you really saying that what I referred to as an 'ordinary' ADI is better qualified to be accepted as an expert witness than a Police Advanced Driving Instructor for the purpose of assessing the safety of the driving in PC Mark Milton's case? That case, IIRC, involved him driving at 80 - 90 mph in a built up area, and at up to 159 mph on a motorway, all of it during the hours of darkness.
Perhaps I'm mistaken but I would have thought the driving involved there was not something that could be evaluated by any normal driving instructor, as it is too specialised and quite outside their scope.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Perhaps I'm mistaken but I would have thought the driving involved there was not something that could be evaluated by any normal driving instructor, as it is too specialised and quite outside their scope.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
Are you really saying that what I referred to as an 'ordinary' ADI is better qualified to be accepted as an expert witness than a Police Advanced Driving Instructor for the purpose of assessing the safety of the driving in PC Mark Milton's case? That case, IIRC, involved him driving at 80 - 90 mph in a built up area, and at up to 159 mph on a motorway, all of it during the hours of darkness.
Perhaps I'm mistaken but I would have thought the driving involved there was not something that could be evaluated by any normal driving instructor, as it is too specialised and quite outside their scope.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Where you are charged with dangerous driving, there is no specialist scope. Police aren't exempt from dangerous driving & the standard they will be judged against is exactly the same as what the public would be.
The public couldn't be convicted on the terminal speed achieved alone (as shown by the 21 year old aquitted of doing 150mph in his dad's Porsche) & neither can the Police officer.
You are going to have to show why it was actually dangerous to travel at that speed at that time.
For him to be convicted of speeding is a different matter & not in common with the ordinary driver view (because he is not subject to a limit if lawfully claiming an exemption), it would in that case need to be shown that what he was doing was not a Police purpose & therefore not entitled to use a legal exemption.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 20th May 16:07
Funnily enough, I reckon 159 in a Vectra probably is pushing it.
I've not driven my 911 for a long, long time now and have found myself speed sensitised by which I mean, suffering a lower threshold at which the "sh1t, I'd better back off" reaction kicks in.
Starnge how it works, too because previously, I'd have thought nothing of booting up to 150+ (where conditions allow) in the old Beemer but now, anything over 120-130 has me feeling ultra cautious and resizing the hazard quotients at hand. It actually feels quite fast.
Then again, I'm not sure to what extent that's paranoia about being pulled (where conditions might not allow) but in any event, given the anal probings of the commies at hand, that's probably no bad thing.
E.Borgnine.
I've not driven my 911 for a long, long time now and have found myself speed sensitised by which I mean, suffering a lower threshold at which the "sh1t, I'd better back off" reaction kicks in.
Starnge how it works, too because previously, I'd have thought nothing of booting up to 150+ (where conditions allow) in the old Beemer but now, anything over 120-130 has me feeling ultra cautious and resizing the hazard quotients at hand. It actually feels quite fast.
Then again, I'm not sure to what extent that's paranoia about being pulled (where conditions might not allow) but in any event, given the anal probings of the commies at hand, that's probably no bad thing.
E.Borgnine.
derestrictor said:
Then again, I'm not sure to what extent that's paranoia about being pulled (where conditions might not allow) but in any event, given the anal probings of the commies at hand, that's probably no bad thing.
E.Borgnine.
I quite agree though I have been in a car at 170 on a UK motorway late at night and we were never pulled. I have also watched an SL65 steam past at around 120 during the rush hour and a Diablo seemingly much faster late in the evening on the M62. These guys were not stopped whereas I have heard of people gettting tickets for 79 on certain motorways and scared to drive any faster. I usually drive at 90ish on the motorway when conditions allow yet I always feel the need to look around me for cameras, unmarked vans and cars, heck I even slow down as I pass any Volvo estate car or 5 series until I am 100% sure that it isn't a police unmarked car. Paranoid - damn right we are!!
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff