Appeal over 159mph police officer
Discussion
"Ludlow Magistrates were told the officer, who is also trained in the use of firearms, was recorded travelling at 159mph on the deserted motorway near Telford in the early hours of 5 December 2003. "
So if I train in firearms and get advanced training, can the general public do that too?
Think not.
Look forward to hearing the result of this one. If 85 on the motorway is dangerous, then 158 must be off the scale!
So if I train in firearms and get advanced training, can the general public do that too?
Think not.
Look forward to hearing the result of this one. If 85 on the motorway is dangerous, then 158 must be off the scale!
7db said:
It was probably a bit quick, but I don't understnad why anyone thinks that he was either guilty of speeding (you can't on police business) or dangerous driving.
I think the fact that he was doing 159mph on anything but a track is dangerous by itself. My Tuscan had great brakes but I would dread to see the stopping distance if you had to scrub 89mph off your speed if someone overtook and pulled out in front of you.
Although the Skoda the guy was driving may have been one with a decent spec, the brakes probably werent designed for that kind of work...
justinp1 said:
I think the fact that he was doing 159mph on anything but a track is dangerous by itself.
I don't think you can possibly say that without knowing the circumstances, unless the car itself is inherently dangerous at that speed (exceeding tyre speed rating etc). I've driven at those speeds on and off public roads without feeling that I was putting myself or anyone else at risk. Granted that it *could be* dangerous to drive at those speeds, but that doesn't mean that it always is.
justinp1 said:
Look forward to hearing the result of this one. If 85 on the motorway is dangerous, then 158 must be off the scale!
I think it would be of greater benefit to the public at large to think of this the other way around. 158/159 is not so dangerous in the right circumstances as people find on the Autobahns regularly I believe, so 85 can't be a problem at all - unless there are some other factors that make it so and which would perhaps suggest dangerous driving.
I don't see that the CPS would take this on unless they had been assured they would win - they only bet on certainties. So I would be very surprised to see the logical justice of the first court upheld.
Oh well, so much for English jurisprudence. I guess it had run its course. No point in debating the merit of a case any longer unless you have enough cash to buy your way out of any penalty.
>> Edited by LongQ on Thursday 6th October 13:19
justinp1 said:
...I would dread to see the stopping distance if you had to scrub 89mph off your speed if someone overtook and pulled out in front of you...
And where would they come from? Aliens drop them from outerspace? At 160mph, observation and anticipation would have to be amazing, it's true.
deltafox said:
He should be fined, banned and jailed. Just like everyone else would be, whether they had advanced driver training or not.
Wrong! He was driving "SAFELY", so the problem is???
I'll presume you were being sarcastic there. The point I meant to put across was although he was saying everything was safe and under control, a member of the public would have been tarred with a different brush. At the end of the day he is just a member of the public, but with a different job.
7db said:
...I would dread to see the stopping distance if you had to scrub 89mph off your speed if someone overtook and pulled out in front of you...
And where would they come from? Aliens drop them from outerspace? At 160mph, observation and anticipation would have to be amazing, it's true.
I was thinking perhaps a car pulling out to overtake a lorry in the inside lane. The person pulling out may be used to judging the speed of cars coming from over their shoulder at 10-20mph but at 90mph it would be a factor about five times as quick.
I just know that people have pulled out in front of me when I was travelling say 20mph faster than the traffic inside and if I hadnt have braked I would have hit the back of their car even before they had even got fully into the outside lane. Had they looked properly in their mirrors? Maybe, maybe not. Had they failed to judge my closing speed? Without a doubt. Regardless of that, if I had hit that car with a closing speed of 60mph (if I were travelling at 159 and managed to scrub 30mph off my speed whilst panic braking) the result would have been I would have propelled the car in front either into the central reservation or infront of moving vehicles in the other lanes. Did the PC have the licence or authority to take the calculated risk of putting the chance of a serious accident over his 'training'? Obviously not, otherwise the case would not have been bought against him or taken this far.
Was the CPS right to reopen the case? I certainly think the outcome would be in the public's interest, whatever the final ruling at the higher level.
I fully agree that on an Autobahn a speed of 150 may be safe, but that said on the Autobahn the average speed of traffic in general is faster, thus the closing speed is less. Most importantly though, the lane discipline on motorways in the UK is diabolical, whereas in Germany courtesy and proper overtaking is not just a polite option but mandatory in preventing accidents.
I suppose my major bone of contention is that if a civilian, even if they were an advanced driver with a car capable of travelling at that speed, I believe that the charge of dangerous driving as well as speeding would also be accused. So, in this case why should it be different?
His being cleared of dangerous driving should stand, as there is no proof that he drove dangerously (speed is not a measure of danger), and clearly it was safe to travel at the speeds he did at that particular time in those particular conditions. QED - he did not cause anyone any harm.
However, he should most certainly be done for speeding, as there is irrefutable evidence against him and it appears rather hypocritical - unless of course the "police business" that he was allegedy on holds enough weight for him to be aquitted, then fair enough.
>> Edited by jacobyte on Thursday 6th October 09:00
However, he should most certainly be done for speeding, as there is irrefutable evidence against him and it appears rather hypocritical - unless of course the "police business" that he was allegedy on holds enough weight for him to be aquitted, then fair enough.
>> Edited by jacobyte on Thursday 6th October 09:00
If he walked into a high street and discharged his firearm to "familiarise" himself with the feeling, would he be let off?
The answer is no, and for that reason he does his training in a controlled environment.
His admission that he was to not used to the car is proof in itself that he was driving dangerously.
Whilst i have no issue with speed, he should not have been practicing high speed in a strange car on the motorway.
The answer is no, and for that reason he does his training in a controlled environment.
His admission that he was to not used to the car is proof in itself that he was driving dangerously.
Whilst i have no issue with speed, he should not have been practicing high speed in a strange car on the motorway.
7db said:
It was probably a bit quick, but I don't understnad why anyone thinks that he was either guilty of speeding (you can't on police business) or dangerous driving.
I would contend that it is possible that in the circumstance an officer could be guilty of speeding. Whilst the law exempts "police business" there is an implication that there should be a vaild reason to break the speed limit and rely upon that exemption.
To contend that there is no additional justification required other than simply being a police vehicle is to accept the premise that a vehicle driven by an officer on duty can never be guilty of speeding and consequently that the intent and purpose of the law was to allow any police car to travel at any speed at any time or place for any reason at the total discretion of the driver. This is clearly not the intent and purpose of the legislation and hence some additional justification is clearly required.
I accept that training is a vaild use of the "police business" exemption from the speed limt. However the problem I have with the courts decision is that to agree that it is appropriate for an officer to train himself in such a manner must imply that the formal and structured training and assessment which he has received is inadequate. This calls into question the notion that he was highly trained and consequently safe.
Put simply I would argue if he was safe because he is highly trained then we accept that his formal training was adequate and consequently he has no reasonable cause to train himself and is guilty of speeding because there was no justification to apply the "police business" exemption. If we accept that he had reasonable cause to be training himself then we acknowledge that his formal training was not adequate and he is guilty of dangerous driving.
In this, the most clear-cut example of both excessive speeding, and hypocracy of the British court system in recent times, it was only a matter of time before the CPS reviewed the case and decided to refer it.
The comments of the presiding judge in the case are as irrelevant as they are absurd.
It is largely immaterial that West Mercia Constabulary had a “total lack of policy” where high speed driving is concerned; the fact of the matter is central government and local authorities formulate general policy, namely national speed limits.
This seems to have been completely overlooked by the District Judge.
The foolishness of the DJ’s comments could be applied to all aspects of life, especially the namby-pamby politically-correct times we currently live. Where does one stop?
Common sense has not been displayed in this case, and it is about time – for the general good – that it was.
Again, “familiarisation” of any tool should be undertaken sensibly and in a controlled environment. The fact this wasn’t in the case of the car, speed and driver admission, displays a serious weakness in the courts original decision.
The comments of the presiding judge in the case are as irrelevant as they are absurd.
It is largely immaterial that West Mercia Constabulary had a “total lack of policy” where high speed driving is concerned; the fact of the matter is central government and local authorities formulate general policy, namely national speed limits.
This seems to have been completely overlooked by the District Judge.
The foolishness of the DJ’s comments could be applied to all aspects of life, especially the namby-pamby politically-correct times we currently live. Where does one stop?
Common sense has not been displayed in this case, and it is about time – for the general good – that it was.
Again, “familiarisation” of any tool should be undertaken sensibly and in a controlled environment. The fact this wasn’t in the case of the car, speed and driver admission, displays a serious weakness in the courts original decision.
djohnson said:
It was probably a bit quick, but I don't understnad why anyone thinks that he was either guilty of speeding (you can't on police business) or dangerous driving.
I would contend that it is possible that in the circumstance an officer could be guilty of speeding. Whilst the law exempts "police business" there is an implication that there should be a vaild reason to break the speed limit and rely upon that exemption.
To contend that there is no additional justification required other than simply being a police vehicle is to accept the premise that a vehicle driven by an officer on duty can never be guilty of speeding and consequently that the intent and purpose of the law was to allow any police car to travel at any speed at any time or place for any reason at the total discretion of the driver. This is clearly not the intent and purpose of the legislation and hence some additional justification is clearly required.
I accept that training is a vaild use of the "police business" exemption from the speed limt. However the problem I have with the courts decision is that to agree that it is appropriate for an officer to train himself in such a manner must imply that the formal and structured training and assessment which he has received is inadequate. This calls into question the notion that he was highly trained and consequently safe.
Put simply I would argue if he was safe because he is highly trained then we accept that his formal training was adequate and consequently he has no reasonable cause to train himself and is guilty of speeding because there was no justification to apply the "police business" exemption. If we accept that he had reasonable cause to be training himself then we acknowledge that his formal training was not adequate and he is guilty of dangerous driving.
You are right - the "police business exemption" is stated more correctly as:-
RTRA 1984
"if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion"
(the provision being the speed restriction)
However, your argument on training is slightly flawed.
Continuous training is necessary to maintain skills, even without formal assessment. He *may* have been doing this in a structured way. From the magistrates comments, it appears that he wasn't, but that the lack of local force policy meant that this could be construed as training, despite the lack of formal order to do it.
Very poor form on behalf of the local force, but not illegal for the driver.
Again, various posters are assuming that 159 is inherently dangerous. It is not. Nothing that has been said so far suggests that he was actually driving dangerously, and judging by the original court's decision I think it is very likely that he was driving perfectly safely. So the question becomes: If he was driving safely at 159 mph, should he be penalised?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff