Appropriate speed ???
Discussion
A few years ago, a good friend of mine (metropolitan special officer), was involved in a fatal accident on the A303 in Somerset. At the time of the accident his speed was approximately 55mph (70mph limit). This was verified by the skidmarks his vehicle left on the road. Unfortunately he struck and killed a pedestrian walking in the middle of lane 1. The pedestrian was wearing non reflective dark clothing. He had already been reported walking down the carriageway by a truck driver who had narrowly missed him. The police were already on route to the scene before the accident occured. The road was closed, and a phorensic examination of the scene completed, and the vehicle was seized for examination. This was a complete tragedy, that could have so easily been avoided.
One thing I would say to any reckless speeders who read this, please consider your actions before risking your own/others lives. My friend, and the family of the victim were totally destroyed by this accident.
Why have I bored you with this lenghty story?
The local plod were good enough to give my mate a lift home as his car had been seized for examination (something they don't have to do), the police driver "made good progress", so good in fact he was nearly twice the national speed limit for motorway traffic.
Who decides which of these two speeds is appropriate? if they are going to issue tickets, regardless of circumstances this officer would likely have gone to prison.
Before anybody starts to flame me, I am pro bib, but would love to see a bit of common sense when it comes to the speed issue. Speeding in built up areas is just stupid, speeding on a deserted motorway at 2am is hard not to do !!!!!!!!!
Let's please have the officers discretion, instead of some automated camera generated fine, which criminalises a large percentage of the population.
To answer an earlier posting "would I help", yes I would, and have done in the past. Would I report someone hanging a tyre around a gatso?........well I'd have to make sure that I waited until it was safe to do so, as I don't have a hands free kit for my phone it could be ages before it was safe to make the call.
Philthy
One thing I would say to any reckless speeders who read this, please consider your actions before risking your own/others lives. My friend, and the family of the victim were totally destroyed by this accident.
Why have I bored you with this lenghty story?
The local plod were good enough to give my mate a lift home as his car had been seized for examination (something they don't have to do), the police driver "made good progress", so good in fact he was nearly twice the national speed limit for motorway traffic.
Who decides which of these two speeds is appropriate? if they are going to issue tickets, regardless of circumstances this officer would likely have gone to prison.
Before anybody starts to flame me, I am pro bib, but would love to see a bit of common sense when it comes to the speed issue. Speeding in built up areas is just stupid, speeding on a deserted motorway at 2am is hard not to do !!!!!!!!!
Let's please have the officers discretion, instead of some automated camera generated fine, which criminalises a large percentage of the population.
To answer an earlier posting "would I help", yes I would, and have done in the past. Would I report someone hanging a tyre around a gatso?........well I'd have to make sure that I waited until it was safe to do so, as I don't have a hands free kit for my phone it could be ages before it was safe to make the call.
Philthy
i'm sorry. Philthy(sp?), but what was your point? While I'm very sorry for the loss of your friend and the pedestrian, as far as I can make out, your mate was doing 15mph BELOW the speed limit and unfortunately hit a person who waswalking along the road at night while wearing dark non reflective clothing.
The Bib who took him home probably realised he was in shock.
The person responsible for deciding 'appropriate speed' is always the driver, regardless of the posted limit. Only drive as fast as your consience allows. (i.e. If I have an accident now and someone dies, but I live, would my consience be clear?)
The Bib who took him home probably realised he was in shock.
The person responsible for deciding 'appropriate speed' is always the driver, regardless of the posted limit. Only drive as fast as your consience allows. (i.e. If I have an accident now and someone dies, but I live, would my consience be clear?)
Fair points Philthy and food for thought. This has never happened to me but I would like to think I would claim off the pedestrians estate for damages to my car and health etc. If the slightest infringement of a speed limit is a major crime then totally irresponsible jaywalking in black clothes at night should not go unnoticed. :flameproofjacketon:
My point was, that although my friend was 15mph below the speed limit, an accident still occured. His speed was "appropriate". The officer that gave him a lift home at nearly 130mph was travelling at an "inappropriate" speed without using his blue lights. It seems to me, that if you or I had travelled at 130mph we'd be serving a custodial sentence. Why was it ok for this officer to travel at this speed, when for anyone without blue lights and reflective panels it was not?
BTW my mate didn't die, and recently received a commendation from his chief constable.
BTW my mate didn't die, and recently received a commendation from his chief constable.
philthy said:
My point was, that although my friend was 15mph below the speed limit, an accident still occured.
You've got it in one. It was an accident. No matter how hard this gonverment tries there will always be accidents. Speed is not and will never be the only cause of accidents.
philthy said:
My point was, that although my friend was 15mph below the speed limit, an accident still occured. His speed was "appropriate". The officer that gave him a lift home at nearly 130mph was travelling at an "inappropriate" speed without using his blue lights. It seems to me, that if you or I had travelled at 130mph we'd be serving a custodial sentence. Why was it ok for this officer to travel at this speed, when for anyone without blue lights and reflective panels it was not?
BTW my mate didn't die, and recently received a commendation from his chief constable.
Philthy
The over-riding principle of Roadcraft (the police drivers guide to advanced driving) is "Never travel so fast that you cannot stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your own side of the road".
Personally, it would sem that your mate was travelling too fast (as he couldn't stop in time) and the police officer may have been driving at an appropriate speed (but we will never know)
The speed of vehicles is irrelevant as long as they can stop in time and the driver is using their forward vision properly.
rospa said:
The speed of vehicles is irrelevant as long as they can stop in time and the driver is using their forward vision properly.
It looks like we've got to the crux of the matter. If this commonsense attitude was adopted there would be no need for speedtraps/gatsos/specs whatever.
Philthy
philthy said:
The speed of vehicles is irrelevant as long as they can stop in time and the driver is using their forward vision properly.
It looks like we've got to the crux of the matter. If this commonsense attitude was adopted there would be no need for speedtraps/gatsos/specs whatever.
Philthy
Indeed. Advanced driving. IAM/RoSPA formally under the DSA. More unmarked TrafPol. THAT is the way forward!
rospa said:
The over-riding principle of Roadcraft (the police drivers guide to advanced driving) is "Never travel so fast that you cannot stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your own side of the road".
Unfortunately, every single driver, including IAM and RoSPA members, violates this rule at night on motorways/dual carriageways.
If there is oncoming traffic, and you dip your lights, how far can you see? 20-30 yards? Is there a pedestrian walking in the road wearing dark clothing? You would never travel above 20mph for this to be true...
The lessons here are: If it's dark, make yourself visible. And if a car is coming, get out of the road. rospa Liebchen
The numpty pedestrian was j-walking on road where common-sense should have told him otherwise - and he was wearing dark clothes. Even at 20mph - he could have been killed!
Was he drunk? High on something?
(Pity j-walking is not criminal offence - in Switzerland & Germany - hefty fine if caught!)
From scenario - where was "emergency" that warranted high speed to get the bloke home? Understandable if chap needed hospital - but then - he would have been in ambulance with blue flashing lights and a siren. Cops are just like us - they have to obey the law and I do not give a
about their "superior" training either! In any case as a RoSPA Gold myself - plus lots of foreign travel, track day and a childhood spent watching the F1s and F3s in the family "strut their stuff" - can match 'em! 
But that does not mean I drive at high speeds on UK M/ways! Nor does it mean that I flout the law willy nilly - but no 
either because (honest bod) I know I have drifted over a speed limit - but not near a talivan nor a Gatso - as being observant bod - do spot 'em in good time - and can anticipate where they may lurk (though the BiBs in family have given some tips on this! )
Agree with you about the training, the increase of trafpol (but think they should be in marked cars as presence does make you aware of driving and speeds) Whole point of making all this visible is to make us slow down. Invisible policing will just make folk scream "persecution" just the same!
The numpty pedestrian was j-walking on road where common-sense should have told him otherwise - and he was wearing dark clothes. Even at 20mph - he could have been killed!
Was he drunk? High on something? (Pity j-walking is not criminal offence - in Switzerland & Germany - hefty fine if caught!)
From scenario - where was "emergency" that warranted high speed to get the bloke home? Understandable if chap needed hospital - but then - he would have been in ambulance with blue flashing lights and a siren. Cops are just like us - they have to obey the law and I do not give a
about their "superior" training either! In any case as a RoSPA Gold myself - plus lots of foreign travel, track day and a childhood spent watching the F1s and F3s in the family "strut their stuff" - can match 'em! But that does not mean I drive at high speeds on UK M/ways! Nor does it mean that I flout the law willy nilly - but no either because (honest bod) I know I have drifted over a speed limit - but not near a talivan nor a Gatso - as being observant bod - do spot 'em in good time - and can anticipate where they may lurk (though the BiBs in family have given some tips on this! ) Agree with you about the training, the increase of trafpol (but think they should be in marked cars as presence does make you aware of driving and speeds
) Whole point of making all this visible is to make us slow down. Invisible policing will just make folk scream "persecution" just the same! Size Nine Elm said:
The over-riding principle of Roadcraft (the police drivers guide to advanced driving) is "Never travel so fast that you cannot stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your own side of the road".
Unfortunately, every single driver, including IAM and RoSPA members, violates this rule at night on motorways/dual carriageways.
If there is oncoming traffic, and you dip your lights, how far can you see? 20-30 yards? Is there a pedestrian walking in the road wearing dark clothing? You would never travel above 20mph for this to be true...
I think the 'see to be clear' thing is actually a bit hard to nail down though. If there's a truck parked in the road you can see it a lot further away than for instance a small dark object lying in the road. I guess in the end it comes down to driving so that you can cope with the sort of things you could reasonably expect to encounter, rather than expecting everyone to drive slow enough to scrutinise every square inch of tarmac before driving over it. If it was common to come across pedestrians wandering across the road in the middle of nowhere it would be a different matter, but I don't think it is common and I would put the onus on the pedestrian not to stand in the road and expect vehicles to avoid them.
WildCat said:
rospa Liebchen
The numpty pedestrian was j-walking on road where common-sense should have told him otherwise - and he was wearing dark clothes. Even at 20mph - he could have been killed!
(Pity j-walking is not criminal offence - in Switzerland & Germany - hefty fine if caught!)
From scenario - where was "emergency" that warranted high speed to get the bloke home? Understandable if chap needed hospital - but then - he would have been in ambulance with blue flashing lights and a siren. Cops are just like us - they have to obey the law and I do not give a
Agree with you about the training, the increase of trafpol (but think they should be in marked cars as presence does make you aware of driving and speeds
Wildcat
When a vehicle is being used for police purposes it is exempt from certain restrictions. The vehicle does not need to be a marked vehicle, nor does the vehicle need to be a police officer.
I have no problem at all with police drivers driving at any speed an any time. Honestly. If, however, they have a fault collision, they should have the book thrown at them.
Do you think the roads would be a lot safer if everyone was an advanced driver? I certainly do.
>> Edited by rospa on Thursday 8th April 15:35
greenv8s said:
rospa said:
The over-riding principle of Roadcraft (the police drivers guide to advanced driving) is "Never travel so fast that you cannot stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your own side of the road".
Unfortunately, every single driver, including IAM and RoSPA members, violates this rule at night on motorways/dual carriageways.
If there is oncoming traffic, and you dip your lights, how far can you see? 20-30 yards? Is there a pedestrian walking in the road wearing dark clothing? You would never travel above 20mph for this to be true...
I think the 'see to be clear' thing is actually a bit hard to nail down though. If there's a truck parked in the road you can see it a lot further away than for instance a small dark object lying in the road. I guess in the end it comes down to driving so that you can cope with the sort of things you could reasonably expect to encounter, rather than expecting everyone to drive slow enough to scrutinise every square inch of tarmac before driving over it. If it was common to come across pedestrians wandering across the road in the middle of nowhere it would be a different matter, but I don't think it is common and I would put the onus on the pedestrian not to stand in the road and expect vehicles to avoid them.
From personal experience of driving at the speed limit on a motorway with dipped lights, only to discover a car sideways across the outside lane in the dark with no lights on, there are some tricky occasions...
rospa said:
Do you think the roads would be a lot safer if everyone was an advanced driver? I certainly do.
I agree but you can't put the onus all on the drivers. Better education for kids, cyclists, pedestrians is the only way to make the roads safer, it's not just drivers out there! Unfortunately the motorist is an easy target for todays blame culture society!
If someone is walking down a dark lane then they should be taking the precautions not the driver of the vehicle who is driving within their means. If someone steps out into the road without looking and gets killed by an on-coming vehicle, it's the pedestrians fault not the drivers! Unfortunately because the driver is in a car they are usually deemed at fault and more likely than not speed will be come into the equation at some point.
rospa Liebchen!
Of course we should bring your easy peasy L-test to a better standard. In ideal world it would set at advanced level too - as I do not see it is beyond the abilily of the majority.
Police drivers should not be allowed to flout the law just because they are police trained any more than we should because we took time, trouble and money to learn how to drive properly.
My query was - was driving the poor shaken gent home an emergency which required an OTT speed of 130mph (which I would not question on an A/bahn, but do question on a UK A road or M/way). My cousins (UK BiB) tell me that they are not exempt and that lots of dosh is wasted establishing whether or not the cop ca wich pinged the Gatso was on emergency or not
The situation does not sound like genuine emergency to me!
Last thing I would have wanted if in state of extreme shock, horror, "guilt" (because even though innocent - he'd have felt it), would be a high speed charge at 130mph whoever was driving! Nice calm relaxed steady speed would have been appropriate under circumstances. What if another numpty J-walker or prat@arsing pretzel had got in the way? Think his nerves would have coped?
Not against the BiBs driving at high speeds they are capable of whilst on official business - but uniform, training and flash cop car should not mean that they can flout the rules - and most especially so when we are being hammered for slightest transgression!
Of course we should bring your easy peasy L-test to a better standard. In ideal world it would set at advanced level too - as I do not see it is beyond the abilily of the majority.
Police drivers should not be allowed to flout the law just because they are police trained any more than we should because we took time, trouble and money to learn how to drive properly.
My query was - was driving the poor shaken gent home an emergency which required an OTT speed of 130mph (which I would not question on an A/bahn, but do question on a UK A road or M/way). My cousins (UK BiB) tell me that they are not exempt and that lots of dosh is wasted establishing whether or not the cop ca wich pinged the Gatso was on emergency or not
The situation does not sound like genuine emergency to me!
Last thing I would have wanted if in state of extreme shock, horror, "guilt" (because even though innocent - he'd have felt it), would be a high speed charge at 130mph whoever was driving! Nice calm relaxed steady speed would have been appropriate under circumstances. What if another numpty J-walker or prat@arsing pretzel had got in the way? Think his nerves would have coped? Not against the BiBs driving at high speeds they are capable of whilst on official business - but uniform, training and flash cop car should not mean that they can flout the rules - and most especially so when we are being hammered for slightest transgression!
It never ceases to amaze me how careful pedestrians can be when walking through a field with numerous cow-pats, and yet on the road - with moving and more dangerous hazards about - they don't seem to care at all! Obviously this does not apply to all pedestrians in the same way that not every driver travelling faster than the posted limit is driving dangerously.
Wouldn't it be nice nice if society remembered that one has no rights except those that one earns by fulfilling the appropriate responsibilities.
Wouldn't it be nice nice if society remembered that one has no rights except those that one earns by fulfilling the appropriate responsibilities.
Solid fact: Peds cause 80% of the accidents in which they are involved. you cannot argue this.
Cars belong on the road, peds on pavement. peds may cross when road is clear of cars. Why o why is this such a hard concept? Just cus your on foot patrol doesn't give you the right to walk in the road. The council built pavements with you in mind, with your money you demented fools!
Cars belong on the road, peds on pavement. peds may cross when road is clear of cars. Why o why is this such a hard concept? Just cus your on foot patrol doesn't give you the right to walk in the road. The council built pavements with you in mind, with your money you demented fools!
Coming home from Weston super mare one evening, my friend was driving as he had chosen not do drink that night, doing 60 on the A370 (n/s road), a car coming towards us flashes lights so we slow down a bit not knowing why he's flashing, then literally out of nowhere theres a bloke standing in the middle of our lane - dark clothes barely visible, you would think you would see him easily but honestly you couldnt.
Mate hits the brakes and swerves and we stop - just missing the idiot.
Got out of car and said 'what the fxxx you doin'
he replied 'im trying to kill myself'.
If my mate had chosen to have one drink and had hit him , probs would have been done for manslaughter.
Mate hits the brakes and swerves and we stop - just missing the idiot.
Got out of car and said 'what the fxxx you doin'
he replied 'im trying to kill myself'.
If my mate had chosen to have one drink and had hit him , probs would have been done for manslaughter.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff