Questions re speeding Police
Discussion
I realise we've discussed this before and come to the conclusion that essentially police are immune to speed limits because of the nature of their jobs.
I don't necessarily have an issue with this. We generally see BiBs driving quickly but safely. However, in another thread there's a pointer to the ACPO Traffic-related documents website (www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/v3/roadsafe/acpo/). The purpose of that reference was to highlight the processes for handling a road death, but I noticed the police driving guidelines.
In part 4 of the manual, in stage 2, section "The law and you", it says:
The thing that surprises me is the highlighted phrase. There is a statutory requirement not to drive in a way which would be considered driving without due care and attention.
An obvious statement. However, there are an increasing number of people who are being accused of DWDCA simply for driving above the speed limit, say 120 on a motorway. The circumstances are not considered, simply the speed itself is deemed to be DWDCA.
How should we interpret this? Are the police themselves now limited to a particular top speed in order to avoid the charge? How is the manual's guidance obeyed on the ground?
I don't necessarily have an issue with this. We generally see BiBs driving quickly but safely. However, in another thread there's a pointer to the ACPO Traffic-related documents website (www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/v3/roadsafe/acpo/). The purpose of that reference was to highlight the processes for handling a road death, but I noticed the police driving guidelines.
In part 4 of the manual, in stage 2, section "The law and you", it says:
police driving guidelines said:
Speed limits
(Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Section 87)
No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for Fire Brigade, Ambulance or Police purposes if the observance of that provision will be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.
While exempt from adhering to speed limits when engaged in response, there still remains a statutory requirement to maintain safety margins - legal exemptions for police do not include driving at a speed or in a manner which would amount to driving without due care and attention.
The thing that surprises me is the highlighted phrase. There is a statutory requirement not to drive in a way which would be considered driving without due care and attention.
An obvious statement. However, there are an increasing number of people who are being accused of DWDCA simply for driving above the speed limit, say 120 on a motorway. The circumstances are not considered, simply the speed itself is deemed to be DWDCA.
How should we interpret this? Are the police themselves now limited to a particular top speed in order to avoid the charge? How is the manual's guidance obeyed on the ground?
No, we are not exempt from driving offences, far from it as a fellow BIB ph'er recently posted. (whv70)
There are no specific guidelines in relation to speed, but if an incident occurs, every factor is taken into account, such as road surface, speed travelled, manner of driving, what sort of job was the officer attending, etc etc...
There are no specific guidelines in relation to speed, but if an incident occurs, every factor is taken into account, such as road surface, speed travelled, manner of driving, what sort of job was the officer attending, etc etc...
In my force, standard (Panda) drivers on emergency shouts are limited to 20mph above red ringed speed limits (if safe and necessary to do so).
Advanced drivers get a bit more leeway in certain circumstances (which I'm not going into for reasons of operational security).
I think the only definitive answer would be a test case of a PC at Court for due care, the only factor being the speed of the vehicle, not taking into account any other factors. The problem with this is that on one occasion 51 in a 30 could be dangerous, at other times not.
Advanced drivers get a bit more leeway in certain circumstances (which I'm not going into for reasons of operational security).
I think the only definitive answer would be a test case of a PC at Court for due care, the only factor being the speed of the vehicle, not taking into account any other factors. The problem with this is that on one occasion 51 in a 30 could be dangerous, at other times not.
Dibble said:In my house, NOTHING is MY fault ... it used to be one of the kids, but now I blame the dogs! - Streaky
No, we are not exempt from driving offences, far from it as a fellow BIB ph'er recently posted. (whv70)
I've changed my profile name now from the rather unwieldy "WMHV70" to the much more user friendly "Dibble" - it's Streaky's fault!
silverback mike said:
There are no specific guidelines in relation to speed, but if an incident occurs, every factor is taken into account, such as road surface, speed travelled, manner of driving, what sort of job was the officer attending, etc etc...
To me, that is exactly what a lot of people have been asking for for some time. That is, don't focus on speed for the sake of it if it is not causing a problem. However, if an "incident" occurs, take the speed into account in apportioning blame. Effectively, scrap the speed limits but come down hard on dangerous driving.
Now why can't we have the same rule applied to civilians?
Gazboy said:
I'd like to know the outcome of that,
No legal action possible; no NIP within 14 days (that does not mean that they would have had they known about it within 14 days, just that none was possible anyway).
No disciplinary action.
Gazboy said:
plus the car, and type of copper at the wheel. Civilians would be doing time for that speed.
Unmarked Volvo T5, no blues & twos.
Driver 5 (IIRC) years traffic experience, passenger 12 years experience.
Gazboy said:
The video still could be misleading, it could be a very open road, doesn't appear so though.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Sunday 13th June 03:11
JA, These are the MOST disturbing pictures I think I have ever seen.
If as you say, it was from an unmarked car with NO blues & two's (and even if it was), on a road like that, 123mph can only be described as RACING.
God only knows what the driver of the on coming car must have thought. I assume he is still alive to tell the tale! No thanks to the Police driver.
Anyone else would be in jail for doing this on a MOTORWAY! let alone on a winding minor road like that.
I can't think of a possible situation which could warrant such a use of speed in such a place. Other than say; Knock Hill, Oulton Park, Etc.
I really hope all you Bib's are not so reckless!
If as you say, it was from an unmarked car with NO blues & two's (and even if it was), on a road like that, 123mph can only be described as RACING.
God only knows what the driver of the on coming car must have thought. I assume he is still alive to tell the tale! No thanks to the Police driver.
Anyone else would be in jail for doing this on a MOTORWAY! let alone on a winding minor road like that.
I can't think of a possible situation which could warrant such a use of speed in such a place. Other than say; Knock Hill, Oulton Park, Etc.
I really hope all you Bib's are not so reckless!
8Pack said:The BTCC lap record at Knock Hill has an average lap speed of 87.56mph (Audi A4). If a (laden with police gear) Volvo T4 could wind itself up to 123 after Taylors the brakes would probably fade at Ruffus Dip
JA, These are the MOST disturbing pictures I think I have ever seen.
If as you say, it was from an unmarked car with NO blues & two's (and even if it was), on a road like that, 123mph can only be described as RACING.
[ ... ]
I can't think of a possible situation which could warrant such a use of speed in such a place. Other than say; Knock Hill, Oulton Park, Etc.
Streaky
PS - can't see the pictures
- S1 picture in isolation does not tell the whole tale, and whilst you feel that the speed may be excessive, the driver, who if trained to an advanced level, has been through various driving courses and had a lot of time, money and effort spent on them to get them to a very high standard of police driving. He/she may have been in total control of the vehicle and be able to safely deal with the bend and stop safely.
In the first picture the officer could have been reading the road, the bend, the limit point and thus feel that with all the information the speed was correct for the road conditions.
In the second one, whilst approaching a brow of a hill which, by the tree line shows that it dips to the right, again they may have been off-gas, finished braking, whatever and still be in the right position, speed and gear to negotiate the bend.
To truly judge if it was 'correct' one would have to see the whole clip and then see how the vehicle/driver coped with both situations.
In the first picture the officer could have been reading the road, the bend, the limit point and thus feel that with all the information the speed was correct for the road conditions.
In the second one, whilst approaching a brow of a hill which, by the tree line shows that it dips to the right, again they may have been off-gas, finished braking, whatever and still be in the right position, speed and gear to negotiate the bend.
To truly judge if it was 'correct' one would have to see the whole clip and then see how the vehicle/driver coped with both situations.
8Pack said:
JA, These are the MOST disturbing <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=pictures&v=56">pictures</a> I think I have ever seen.
If as you say, it was from an unmarked <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=car&v=56">car</a> with NO blues & two's (and even if it was), on a road like that, 123mph can only be described as RACING.
God only knows what the driver of the on coming <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=car&v=56">car</a> must have thought. I assume he is still alive to tell the tale! No thanks to the Police driver.
Anyone else would be in jail for doing this on a MOTORWAY! let alone on a winding minor road like that.
I can't think of a possible situation which could warrant such a use of speed in such a place. Other than say; Knock Hill, Oulton Park, Etc.
I really hope all you Bib's are not so reckless!
First point, AFAIK Racing requires a minimum of two cars.
Second point, From the two stills shown I cannot see an 'oncoming' vehicle that would have had a problem, the police car is clearly on its own side of the road, as are the vehicles going the other way.
We also do not have any information concerning any backup the police car had, he may have had a helicopter telling him the road was clear, we just do not know. IMHO your 'reaction' is a little over the top, I prefer to support the BiB (when I am in the UK) rather than try to bring them down. They get enough hassle from the idiots in power without the general populace adding to it.
The oncomming lorry in the first pic could be oscuring a car or bike that decides to pull out to check for a clear overtaking gap.
It's also obviously a very rural area, even the BIB have no control over foxes, deer etc. running into the road.
I have no problems with trained and experienced BIB driving well above the speed limit as long as they are not putting members of the public at risk. 123mph on a road that size with oncomming traffic is clearly unacceptable. The stopping distance at 95mph, going by HC guidelines, is around 546feet. Clearly most cars will be able to stop considerably more quickly, but how far from the crest of that hill is the BIB in the second picture? If there were a tractor or queue of traffic etc on the other side of the hill I think the results would be quite predictable.
It's also obviously a very rural area, even the BIB have no control over foxes, deer etc. running into the road.
I have no problems with trained and experienced BIB driving well above the speed limit as long as they are not putting members of the public at risk. 123mph on a road that size with oncomming traffic is clearly unacceptable. The stopping distance at 95mph, going by HC guidelines, is around 546feet. Clearly most cars will be able to stop considerably more quickly, but how far from the crest of that hill is the BIB in the second picture? If there were a tractor or queue of traffic etc on the other side of the hill I think the results would be quite predictable.
I was waiting at a red light earlier today at a cross roads with traffic lights in the town centre, speed limit 30mph.
Then (and i didnt even hear them coming) a police car with blues and twos on, appears from nowhere and flashes across the junction right to left infront of me followed by another one about 2 seconds behind.
I would estimate their speed to be 80mph certainly no less. They appeared to be showing off to each other.
I would guess they were on their way to a pub fight, what with the England match tonight.
I sat there shaking my head in disbelief to be honest.
There are pavements, side roads, driveways and shops all along that road. 50mph would have been ample and safe.
And another incident on the M5 last week - I was doing 75/80 in lane one, saw two lorries ahead on the hard shoulder so i pulled out to lane two incase of doors swinging open etc. As i was reaching the back of the first lorry , still about fifty feet away, a police car pulls straight out onto lane one from a small gap between the two lorries. I swear he never even looked. It made me jump anyway and i swerved to the outside edge of lane two as there was traffic in three. Unbelievable!
I'm not anti police before you think i am either.
>> Edited by deeps on Monday 14th June 00:10
Then (and i didnt even hear them coming) a police car with blues and twos on, appears from nowhere and flashes across the junction right to left infront of me followed by another one about 2 seconds behind.
I would estimate their speed to be 80mph certainly no less. They appeared to be showing off to each other.
I would guess they were on their way to a pub fight, what with the England match tonight.
I sat there shaking my head in disbelief to be honest.
There are pavements, side roads, driveways and shops all along that road. 50mph would have been ample and safe.
And another incident on the M5 last week - I was doing 75/80 in lane one, saw two lorries ahead on the hard shoulder so i pulled out to lane two incase of doors swinging open etc. As i was reaching the back of the first lorry , still about fifty feet away, a police car pulls straight out onto lane one from a small gap between the two lorries. I swear he never even looked. It made me jump anyway and i swerved to the outside edge of lane two as there was traffic in three. Unbelievable!
I'm not anti police before you think i am either.
>> Edited by deeps on Monday 14th June 00:10
It's very easy to jump to conclusions looking at a single photograph and my immediate thought was, that the speed this car was travelling at, was excessive.
What we can't see is the road preceeding this section. It may have been positioned in such a way that the driver could see the way ahead of the wagon and (in the second photo, the hill), was clear. I very much doubt that this is the case, however, I only make judgements after hearing the full facts.
Only after watching the full video footage would I be prepared to say if the driver was driving dangerously.
Perhaps I should be a magistrate?
What we can't see is the road preceeding this section. It may have been positioned in such a way that the driver could see the way ahead of the wagon and (in the second photo, the hill), was clear. I very much doubt that this is the case, however, I only make judgements after hearing the full facts.
Only after watching the full video footage would I be prepared to say if the driver was driving dangerously.
Perhaps I should be a magistrate?
Byff said:
It's very easy to jump to conclusions looking at a single photograph and my immediate thought was, that the speed this car was travelling at, was excessive.
What we can't see is the road preceeding this section. It may have been positioned in such a way that the driver could see the way ahead of the wagon and (in the second photo, the hill), was clear. I very much doubt that this is the case, however, I only make judgements after hearing the full facts.
Only after watching the full video footage would I be prepared to say if the driver was driving dangerously.
Perhaps I should be a magistrate?
Yes but, Byff, What was the Emergency which "warranted" this speed? The first rule in dealing with an emergency is: DON'T put "yourself" or "others" in further danger by your own actions.
Killing yourself or others is not going to help anyone. 123 mph on this type of road is surely excessive if not reckless.
On THIS type of road you are likely to come across: walkers, Cyclists,family groups with children out for the day, turning traffic ( I notice what looks like an entrance to something on the left), oncomining traffic, overtaking traffic. Just imagine the result of an head-on with the blue oncoming car. No, I'm sorry Byff OM, I have to disagree, 123 mph on this road is plain reckless in any circumstance.
8 pack said:
Just imagine the result of an head-on with the blue oncoming car. No, I'm sorry Byff OM, I have to disagree, 123 mph on this road is plain reckless in any circumstance.
Amazed at your reaction, particularly on this forum. I assume your driving is normally confined to cities.
Your reaction seems to be typical of those who assume that speed per se is dangerous and that should an unexpected situation present itself the driver will be powerless ( and by implication incompetent ) to avoid it and a horrendous accident will result.
These speeds are quick but not that quick !
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff