Anti speed cop does 97
Discussion
Deryshire chief constable David Coleman was being driven by his chauffeur, Kenneth Campbell was stopped in Hertfordshire after being clocked at 97mph.
The anti speeding campaigner was travelling back from london in November last year.
Campbell will appear before Hemel Hempstead magistrates Court.
Now, while it wasnt actually him driving, he was allowing himself to be carried was he not?
This reeks of hypocrisy. After all he is an "anti speeding" campaigner.
While i dont believe the speed he was doing was necessarily dangerous it demonstrates the whole problem with the current "speed kills" morons and those pushing this simpletons ideas of "safety".
If anything Coleman should get a bloody ban as well.
The anti speeding campaigner was travelling back from london in November last year.
Campbell will appear before Hemel Hempstead magistrates Court.
Now, while it wasnt actually him driving, he was allowing himself to be carried was he not?
This reeks of hypocrisy. After all he is an "anti speeding" campaigner.
While i dont believe the speed he was doing was necessarily dangerous it demonstrates the whole problem with the current "speed kills" morons and those pushing this simpletons ideas of "safety".
If anything Coleman should get a bloody ban as well.
I know others will disagree, but I think we should absolutely throw the book at these people.
The CC should be asked if he realised his driver was exceeding the speed limit (how could he not have?) and then he should be charged with aiding and abetting the offence, or conspiracy/incitement etc if he actually commanded him to drive fast for some reason.
I also think that as he was on duty then the Force should be charged with allowing its employee to exceed the speed limit (corporate speeding, if you like).
What I’m really hoping for is that with the above level of charges being brought, a huge trial would demonstrate that there actually isn’t, per se, a problem with driving at 97MPH.
The CC should be asked if he realised his driver was exceeding the speed limit (how could he not have?) and then he should be charged with aiding and abetting the offence, or conspiracy/incitement etc if he actually commanded him to drive fast for some reason.
I also think that as he was on duty then the Force should be charged with allowing its employee to exceed the speed limit (corporate speeding, if you like).
What I’m really hoping for is that with the above level of charges being brought, a huge trial would demonstrate that there actually isn’t, per se, a problem with driving at 97MPH.
..and yet another one in "authority" who quite clearly truly believes that travelling at that speed in the right circumstances is OK. And I agree.
It's just a shame that there are so many "do as I say, not as I do" people who are only doing what they are doing because they are paid to do so.
Effectivly another nail in the coffin for the "obsession with controlling speed" fraternity.
It's just a shame that there are so many "do as I say, not as I do" people who are only doing what they are doing because they are paid to do so.
Effectivly another nail in the coffin for the "obsession with controlling speed" fraternity.
Streetcop said:
The driver commits the offence...
Are you saying that it's the senior police officers fault for not watching the speedometer of the vehicle...from potentially the rear seat?
Liebchen - even from back seat I would expect this chap to "feel the speed" und tell his chauffeur to lift foot off throttle. By acquiescing to be driven at that speed - he ist saying it ist OK for him to be driven at speed because he has mismanaged his time und ist late for some all expenses paid dinner - but not other peoples whose posh dinner dates are equally improtant to them.
He ist bloke in charge of a police force und ist criminal of him to allow his chauffeur to speed him around Herts mit scant regard fo children und other road users.
That ist what this Coleman bloke spouts to others who drive 5 mph above a speed limit - nicht?
Ist a hyppocrite!
Streetcop said:
The driver commits the offence...
Are you saying that it's the senior police officers fault for not watching the speedometer of the vehicle...from potentially the rear seat?
No, it's the drivers fault ; unless he was given instructions to go that fast.
However, the SPO does bear some responsibility ; I cannot believe he was not aware the driver was breaking the limit.
At nearly a mere 27 MPH above the speed limit its pretty easy to get an idea that you are breaking the limit. My rudamentary mathematics estimates this to be over 35% above the speed limit...!!! If a passenger in law enforcement cant estimate this, then I suspect us mere mortals dont stand much chance. Remember we have 10% + 2MPH, other than looking at our speedo's all the time...!!
However, I would find it somewhat unusual that a chaffeur (sp?) would speed knowing that he had a Chief Constable in the back of the car. In fact, a chaffeur (sp?) risks his job to be caught this way.... which then leads to the most likely scenario - he was asked to go quickly in order for said CC to get to where he was going.....
Double standards? Yes
Hypocracy of the highest order? Yes
Yet another instance of a high-ranking officer with scant regards for the rules? Yes
Doesnt exactly instill confidence of the impartiality and fairness of the Police Force. Spectacularily dim on behalf of the CC.....
However, I would find it somewhat unusual that a chaffeur (sp?) would speed knowing that he had a Chief Constable in the back of the car. In fact, a chaffeur (sp?) risks his job to be caught this way.... which then leads to the most likely scenario - he was asked to go quickly in order for said CC to get to where he was going.....
Double standards? Yes
Hypocracy of the highest order? Yes
Yet another instance of a high-ranking officer with scant regards for the rules? Yes
Doesnt exactly instill confidence of the impartiality and fairness of the Police Force. Spectacularily dim on behalf of the CC.....
Zod said:
97 is considerably faster than 70 and the guy should have noticed. Of course he is not responsible in law, but morally he is a hypocrite. I wonder if he can [B]sleep[/B] now that he has realised the terrible danger he was in when he travelled in a car at 97 mph.
You know he may have been sleeping at the time...... The last time you were in a car/buss/train asleep did you know what speed you were travelling at?
Throw the book at the driver, and reprimand the boss for not having his staff act properly.
It makes me shudder when a thread like this comes along. You are following the same rules that we are fighting against - guilty until proven innocent.
I would guess that no one who posted on here has the full story or was in the car at the time?
Maybe the guy had told his driver to slow down? several times?
Maybe he was on the phone and didn't notice the speed?
..watching a video? ..reading a report?
When you know the FULL story then please pass judgement and talk about hypocricy
>> Edited by echo on Tuesday 15th February 13:15
I would guess that no one who posted on here has the full story or was in the car at the time?
Maybe the guy had told his driver to slow down? several times?
Maybe he was on the phone and didn't notice the speed?
..watching a video? ..reading a report?
When you know the FULL story then please pass judgement and talk about hypocricy
>> Edited by echo on Tuesday 15th February 13:15
echo said:
It makes me shudder when a thread like this comes along. You are following the same rules that we are fighting against - guilty until proven innocent.
We should throw the book at him even if there was no evidence against him, precisely because the idea that someone is guilty until proven innocent is totally wrong and this is the best chance to highlight the issue.
echo said:
I would guess that no one who posted on here has the full story or was in the car at the time?
No, so we go with the little information we have. If we receive updates which render some of the conclusions invalid then I'm sure people would withdraw them. Don't see this as an issue - this is a discussion group, not a court of law.
echo said:
Maybe the guy had told his driver to slow down? several times?
Hardly likely considering that the "guy" in question was a high ranking police officer and could have ended the drivers' career (or at least suspended it for several months) had he so chosen.
echo said:
Maybe he was on the phone and didn't notice the speed?
..watching a video? ..reading a report?
Possible, but back to the previous point - what are the chances that the driver would break the law with The Law in the back seat, unless it was understood that it was ok?
It's clear (in the absence of any further information) that the copper was simply doing what any reasonable person would do and using his judgement - he considered the speed safe for the conditions so he didn't complain. I think it further highlights the fact that speeding persecution has more do to with targets, profits and elections than sincere concern for road safety.
alexf said:
..what are the chances that the driver would break the law (speed?) with The Law in the back seat..
Same reasons why anyone would speed with 'the law' pointing a laser gun at them?
Or with a speed-camera in plain view? Or with 'the law' driving behind in a marked car? Puzzling isn't it
but it happens every day.As a servicing police officer, he has 2 choices.
1 - Book the guy for speeding
2 - ues his discression and let him off with a warning.
However, unlike most police officers who are in a position to charge speeding motorists, he was benefiting from the "crime". As such, the 2nd option is not available to him.
A police officer should be aware of things around him and any potential crimes being commited under his nose. So if we take all of this into consideration, the cop either
1 - didn't notice.
2 - didn't act
3 - asked the guy to speed.
Either way, this should be a diciplinary at the very least for the Chief C.
1 - Book the guy for speeding
2 - ues his discression and let him off with a warning.
However, unlike most police officers who are in a position to charge speeding motorists, he was benefiting from the "crime". As such, the 2nd option is not available to him.
A police officer should be aware of things around him and any potential crimes being commited under his nose. So if we take all of this into consideration, the cop either
1 - didn't notice.
2 - didn't act
3 - asked the guy to speed.
Either way, this should be a diciplinary at the very least for the Chief C.
'King Deadly said:
The driver commits the offence...
Are you saying that it's the senior police officers fault for not watching the speedometer of the vehicle...from potentially the rear seat?
I thought police officers were expert at estimating speed?
This has been said before in aprevious thread about this incident.
Maybe he was asleep!
gone said:
Streetcop said:
The driver commits the offence...
Are you saying that it's the senior police officers fault for not watching the speedometer of the vehicle...from potentially the rear seat?
I thought police officers were expert at estimating speed?
This has been said before in aprevious thread about this incident.
Maybe he was asleep!
Whilst on duty
echo said:
..what are the chances that the driver would break the law (speed?) with The Law in the back seat..
Same reasons why anyone would speed with 'the law' pointing a laser gun at them?
Puzzling isn't it
Irrelevant. Drivers get caught by laser as there speed can be detected long before the scam van comes into clear view (that is, if it isn't hiding behind shrubs etc).
Drivers that get Gatso'd or are not aware of marked plod follwing are clearly not being observant enough and probably need a wake up call.
Are you perhaps saying the chauffeur was so inobservant that he didn't notice the CC sitting in the car? If I had a Chief Constable in my car on a public road, I would be making damn sure my driving wasn't breaking any laws.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff