147mph on motorway
Discussion
Well this thread escalated quickly.
Whether it was dangerous or not is irrelevant. It's just one PC's view that it was dangerous. He wasn't charged for dangerous driving but for excess 70mph motorway limit at 147.
We undergo a month long extremely intensive advanced course to drive at those speeds and have regular refreshers plus we have legal exemptions to do those speeds. Blues/Twos don't need to be used. Yes it carries some element of risk but so does pretty much every call in this job.
Simple fact of the matter is in the UK the limit is 70mph and this driver broke that.
"But but but the autobahn blah blah...." Well go drive on the Autobahn then
Whether it was dangerous or not is irrelevant. It's just one PC's view that it was dangerous. He wasn't charged for dangerous driving but for excess 70mph motorway limit at 147.
We undergo a month long extremely intensive advanced course to drive at those speeds and have regular refreshers plus we have legal exemptions to do those speeds. Blues/Twos don't need to be used. Yes it carries some element of risk but so does pretty much every call in this job.
Simple fact of the matter is in the UK the limit is 70mph and this driver broke that.
"But but but the autobahn blah blah...." Well go drive on the Autobahn then
Edited by HantsRat on Tuesday 23 January 08:18
psi310398 said:
I think we all accept your first point.
Re the second, I think you are missing the point: the autobahn is relevant to the assertion that he was driving dangerously.
He wasn't charged with driving dangerously? It was just one persons view in an online article? I don't see your point. Re the second, I think you are missing the point: the autobahn is relevant to the assertion that he was driving dangerously.
psi310398 said:
Just one persons view in an online article? No, it wasn't, it was a policeman's purported official view in an online article.
I guess my point is that saying, crudely, sod off to Germany if you want to speed is not a complete answer to those who can obey/respect the law but who are pointing out its deficiencies, and the mindset of those policing that law.
In a healthy democracy we can lobby for laws to be changed. Raising/removing the limit on the motorways is not an unreasonable thing to ask for. Autoroutes and autobahns in my experience are considerably more civilised places to drive on than British motorways.
I still don't get your point. My personal opinion is that it is dangerous too. Simple fact of the matter is he wasn't charged with dangerous driving. If he was, that would be for a court to decide if it was dangerous or not. I guess my point is that saying, crudely, sod off to Germany if you want to speed is not a complete answer to those who can obey/respect the law but who are pointing out its deficiencies, and the mindset of those policing that law.
In a healthy democracy we can lobby for laws to be changed. Raising/removing the limit on the motorways is not an unreasonable thing to ask for. Autoroutes and autobahns in my experience are considerably more civilised places to drive on than British motorways.
Whether the autobahn is safe or not is irrelevant. This is a completely different country with different laws and outlooks on things. It's like saying it's ok to sleep with a 12 year old because it's legal in the Philippines.
psi310398 said:
Exactly. It would be for a court to decide if it was dangerous or not. But here we have someone in his official capacity passing judgement on a named individual's behaviour. It is for the police to investigate and detect possible crimes impartially and objectively and to present their findings to the prosecuting authorities, not to editorialise.
If the police felt they had evidence of dangerous driving, why was he not charged? But it really is not for PC Foster or any other officer to pass judgement.
As to your second point, really?!
I'm a police officer and it's also my personal opinion it's dangerous. If asked for an article I was also say it was dangerous. Doesn't mean there is evidence to prosecute for dangerous driving though. Believing something is dangerous and a prosecuting for dangerous driving are two separate things. If the police felt they had evidence of dangerous driving, why was he not charged? But it really is not for PC Foster or any other officer to pass judgement.
As to your second point, really?!
We're not robots and we can speak our minds you know.
vonhosen said:
Interesting.
If you aren't using the legal definition for dangerous in relation to driving, what definition or rationale are you using to conclude it as dangerous?
Would you be happy to drive a Police vehicle without blue lights on at those speeds in those conditions (as your colleague appeared happy to do)?
I simply stated I thought it was dangerous in my personal opinion. Whether I would report for that or CPS agree with me is a different matter. If you aren't using the legal definition for dangerous in relation to driving, what definition or rationale are you using to conclude it as dangerous?
Would you be happy to drive a Police vehicle without blue lights on at those speeds in those conditions (as your colleague appeared happy to do)?
Yes I would be happy to drive a Police car at those speeds without blues and I have done. We are trained to. It's a very intensive month long course with regular refreshers. There is a risk involved but this job is full of risks.
djc206 said:
I agree with this.
Audi man deserves to lose his licence, he was travelling at more than twice the speed limit when other traffic was present and failed to notice or think about why a car was following him at that speed, he’s an idiot and he should reflect on that for 9 months. But I also agree that if plod want to label that dangerous then they have to accept that their actions were also dangerous since they were doing exactly the same thing in a marginally less capable vehicle. I understand the need to get Audi mans attention and bring his stupidity to an end which is why the moment his speed went from just a bit over the limit to moronic the blues and twos should be on. There’s nothing to be gained from following him like that without alerting him to just how badly he’s f
ked up.
Of course it's dangerous and carries risk. That's the job and role of a Police officer for any job we go to.Audi man deserves to lose his licence, he was travelling at more than twice the speed limit when other traffic was present and failed to notice or think about why a car was following him at that speed, he’s an idiot and he should reflect on that for 9 months. But I also agree that if plod want to label that dangerous then they have to accept that their actions were also dangerous since they were doing exactly the same thing in a marginally less capable vehicle. I understand the need to get Audi mans attention and bring his stupidity to an end which is why the moment his speed went from just a bit over the limit to moronic the blues and twos should be on. There’s nothing to be gained from following him like that without alerting him to just how badly he’s f
ked up.vonhosen said:
So is everything that carries any risk at all to be marked out as dangerous?
Yes.You're looking into this way too deeply. Just lookup the definition of dangerous... https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dange... that's how most people see it.
"Able or likely to cause harm or injury"
The chances of causing harm or injury at 155mph is far greater than 70 in my opinion.
La Liga said:
There are some very simplistic assessments of risk, too. Is it better to have two cars at 150 for 5 miles or one car at 150 for 50 miles, for example? A temporary increase of short term risk can prevent longer-term and greater total risk.
Someone does have a brain! Edited by La Liga on Tuesday 23 January 12:58
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff