>>Makes you wonder...
Things like, if you didn't see the camera then what else did you not see or might you have not seen ?
Its not that difficult to miss seeing them until you're close, or even past, but to miss it altogether ? Perhaps the visibility wasn't quite as good as you thought ?
|
|
Well, it's not as if you could see and react to anything at 170mph. Also, if it's plonked on a bridge or something, I imagine it's very easy to miss. How many people look at bridges as they drive under them?
|
hang on a mo. He was cleared of Dangerous Driving. So are arguing that he was driving dangerously or just to fast?
Regards dangerous driving then he's not guilty.If he was in control, and within his limits then no. And so the judge thought so.
guilty of speeding is a different matter.
|
|
|
How many people look at bridges as they drive under them?
::tentatively raises hand::
Erm, I do. We had a spate of "Bridge Brickings" on roads and motorways I use throughout the South a couple of years back. Since then I've made a point of casting my eye over bridges as I approach.
I also scan sliproads as I approach, am alongside and pass them, watching for everything from SuperRep (tm) hurtling out at some daft speed and angle to assume his/her rightful place in lane 3 to suspiciously parked Octavia RS and little black boxes on tripods.
Might have a connection with my clean licence, despite my enthusiastic approach to driving. Simply assuming an empty road is a safe one to blast along is a false premise. You have to continually ensure it remains clear and safe.
|
|
There is no "might" about it. I have a clean license BECAUSE I look at bridges. Because I observe all the time while driving, I see the favourite spots were plod and kodaks like to hang out, I know where they are likely to be (even given a road I dont know) because they are creatures of habit and little creativity are our little policemen bless them.
|
|
|
|
It is all a little curious.
His superiors did indeed prosecute him, probably because he videod himself and they could not be sure that a copy of the video would not leak out and then if he hadn't been prosecuted all hell would have broken loose.
I am not suprised that the magistrate let him off. Its like the Chief Constables driver getting done for speeding, you know he's going to get let off. I am willing to bet I have had more advanced driver training than him, not to mention high speed experience on tracks, but if I was caught then it would be chokey for me. Just another incident that brings the law that little bit further in to disrepute.
Finally the 'getting to incidents fast and saving lives' bit just doesn't wash any more. The police may get near to potentially violent incidents quickly but they then set up a perimeter and do a risk assessment and do not go further until they are sure there is no risk to themselves. They also stop ambulance crews from proceeding. So I would rather they didn't speed around killing 30+ a year in London alone as when they get there they are pretty much useless anyway.
|
|
I too scan bridges as I approach them. Cameras on motorway bridges are a Northamptonshire favourite now plus as No Dosh says kids standing on the bridge now make me very nervous...
|
|
|
OK. There have been valid posts here, but also some downright offensive ones. I am not a 'uniformed thug' nor do I 'get near and set up a perimeter'. I could say much more, but it isn't relevant and would only be addressed towards those who display such ignorance.
Fact1:- Top speed was 138mph. Car was brand new and video had not been calibrated. Data recorder in vehicle accurately recorded max speed, press chose to ignore this fact.
Fact2:- Officer did not work on the unit this vehicle was allocated too. He took it upon himself to take it out.
Fact3:- Video was discovered by day shift and given to supervisor.
Fact4:- I have never known any other officer who drives at such speeds in order to 'test' the vehicle.
Fact5:- widespread disbelief at verdict and recognition that this will have adverse effect on publics attitude.
Fact6:- Senior Officers blew the case with their unbelievable ineptness and contradictions in court.
Fact 7;_ We'll still get on and do the job regardless.
Have a nice day!!
|
Thanks for that MLC - I think you're as near the horses mouth as we are likely to get.
Don't know about you, but I find the polarisation of attitudes on the matter a bit depressing
|
|
|
Can't argue with that, nice to have an 'inside' opinion.
So basically he nicked the keys and took it out for a jolly.
|
|
|
Fact2:- Officer did not work on the unit this vehicle was allocated too. He took it upon himself to take it out.
Was he even insured then?
|
|
|
Fact5:- widespread disbelief at verdict and recognition that this will have adverse effect on publics attitude.
Ooooooohhh yes.
Fact 7;_ We'll still get on and do the job regardless.
Glad to hear it. Best wishes.
|
Mlf,
You may not like what I posted but I am sure your aware of the case I am obliquely refering to and no it is not an isolated incident what happened is all as per operational guidelines that are still in force.
As we are getting off motoring I will leave it there.
|
|
the whole case is totaly daft .if he had any authorisation for driving at this speed would a risk assesment not have to be made by his superiors leaving them open to prosecution by the health and safety executive in the event of something going wrong(the police are not above this but that is a differant case).of course police have to learn to drive fast but it is reasonable for this to be in marked cars on predesignated routes.
|
|
|
|
A couple of comments.
Someone said that about 30 people a year die due to police cars 'speeding'. True, but the vast majority are joy riders who lose control. Not PC, but I think that is Darwinian evolution in action. ACPO have expressed their concern at the deaths.
Someone objected to the police speeding when we can't. I do object to normal police speeding as they are (I believe) not trained to advanced driving standards. Properly trained police drivers are something different, and mostly they are expert drivers, who can judge safe speeds, which might exceed the limits.
The issue here IMO is not the speeding, but whether or not the speed was dangerous given conditions, vehicle and driver's skill level. I worry more about the 80 in a 30 than the ~160 in a 70. What if there had been a cyclist without lights, or someone pulling out from a side road without looking.
I watchout for local police cars when they in a hurry, and most of the drivers are obviously skilled. But I did see two race across a T junction at might through a red light, and that worried me. Presumably these were not traffic police.
Leif
|
Bottom line for me is:
If he legitimately needs to 'practice', and it's acceptable that this involves doing 84mph on a road that has been deemed 'hazardous enough' that the rest of us should be prosecuted for doing 35mph on it, why is it also acceptable that it can be carried out in an unmarked car?
I don't care if it was the dead of night: On a public road, any member of the public *could* have legitimately pulled out from a side road around a bend ahead of him. This kind of practice ought to be illegal unless carried out in a mechanically-identical car with full police livery and better-than-blackpool flashing lights.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that you should and will carry on doing the job regardless, and indeed I am glad! I think people are being "offensive" because the whole thing reeks of cock-up.... unfortunately, MCL, the actions of your colleagues and peers will impact on the whole force. People are becoming more and more resentful of the police, wrongly in my opinion, but a few bad eggs making the headlines like this makes your already difficult job more difficult. And I wish people would understand it was the CPS, NOT the police that acquitted him!
|
And I wish people would understand it was the CPS, NOT the police that acquitted him!
Most do realise that.
However any chance to 'knock' the police will not be missed.
|
|
There is a wider discussion to be had (though probably not on here) as to why we have gone from absolute respect for the police to absolute contempt in less than 20 years and there may be many factors to explain it but I truely believe that Tax Cameras have played a major part in this. The full extent of the public relations disaster of these devices may never be really understood as no one will research it but it is there.
|
There is a wider discussion to be had (though probably not on here) as to why we have gone from absolute respect for the police to absolute contempt in less than 20 years
"we"? "absolute contempt"?
You couldn't have illustrated my point about knocking the police better Thommo.
|
|
|
MLC I take that that as support for my condemnation of our colleague.
Police Driver Training is quite specific in its guidelines whilst under training - and that is that speed limits WILL be adhered to other than the national limits ie 60 and 70 MPH on the prescried roads. And then progress can be made in a safe manner. Therefore those guidelines have been broken although he was not under 'training' at the time. These are the basic parameters and guidelines that should be stuck to in the abscence of a policy or practice direction
It has been argued that the road was deserted during the night and therefore it was safe to do 159MPH. There are no standard fit headlights on earth that can safely accomodate that speed. He would have been driving almost into a black hole between hard shoulder and Armco unable to react to any debris or animal that chose to stray onto the quiet motorway. A daylight 'burn' would have been safer. A point possibly overlooked "me lud".
MLC states the car was brand new and uncalibrated. How new? Was it run in? Was everything bedded in and secure.
I am sure Vauxhall have invested millions of £ into 'Testing' of their product and it has a clean bill of health.
Sorry on this occasion I cannot support.
Fullchat
|
|
I think the police are on a loser whatever they do! 30+ forms and 2 hours in the station for a simple arrest of some minor criminal. You can't guarantee any real investigation into a £5000 burglary, just a crime number and a "Dear Victim" letter from Victim Support. Yet, last week, my local paper reported an armed response unit, a police dog unit, and 6 cars turned out for a mentally confused 77 year old, indoors and waving a carving a knife about. Overall police are good people trying to a B awful job; they are not led - they are managed and they have to do ludicrous things in ludicrous ways to meet "performance indicators" - targets to those of us who live in the real world! They are not helped by the miniscule percentage of their members who do widely publicised stupid things. My locals bugged the cells in which some accused were in conference with their defence lawyers; just today a policeman has been suspended for allegedly racially abusing a Kurd whom he was cautioning/arresting. This is bad but policemen are not.
|
Qoute from earlier in the thread
"Only in England would there be so many people on a forum ready to moan about double standards and discuss grey areas in such detail."
We have fought Wars to preserve and exercise the right to comment and discuss double standards without the fear of having our doors kicked in and being arrested by the thought police, as in the old days East of the Iron Curtain. Grey areas need discussing as it might help them to be resolved into something near black or white IMHO!
|
I have no wish to start anecdotal stuff about police failings, but we are less than human if our feelings are not affected by our own experience.
Some months ago, a bullet came through a window pane of Badger Towers. Had Lady Badger been standing where she was a minute before, she would have been hit in the head.
I phoned the police -- the way you do when someone is taking potshots at the house. They responded by sending an officer, 24 hours later, to the wrong address -- I discovered that only when a neighbour, after a further 24 hours, gave me a card that the copper had shoved through his letter box.
Forgive me if I am 'knocking the police', when I say that I am less than impressed by the justification that speeds of 159mph somehow have a place in things today.
|
Mods... There is, I believe, a policy of not 'naming and shaming' on this site. I do not know enough about this case to decide whether the actions of the officer were IN MY OPINION justified. However, bearing in mind that a Judge has found as FACT that he was not driving dangerously and that as FACT that he was entitled in the circumstances to use his lawful exemption from the speed limit, some of the accusations which appear in the thread - inter alia, dangerous driving, 'speeding' (by which presumably is meant exceeding a speed limit, to which in in the circumstances the judge found he was not subject) and even taking without consent - appear to be defamatory rather than fair comment.
Bearing in mind some of the better informed contributions - the black box having recorded 138, not an uncalibrated 159 mph (and probably proportionately less in the other reported speeds); the fact that the '30 limit' was a road which used to be a 60 limit... is this hysteria fair?
Ultimately, if for example the cop normnally drives, at work, an S60 T5 - or a 530D - but recognises that he may have occasion to use this very different car (a beast? I think not - except in respect of the comedy indicators, or perhaps a mythical beast! Surely there is no 3 litre Vectra, they're 3.2... and they feel slower than the old Cavalier V6) he could quite rightly have taken the view that he should familiarise himself with the characteristics of the car at speed before having to drive it at those speeds in a real emergency? If he hadn't, and had crashed whilst attending an emergency or a pursuit, and his lack of familiarity with that type of car at speed had been discovered, would he not have been equally, but perhaps more correctly, crucified? The exemptions do NOT allow dangerous driving, and with the benefit of viewing a video of the drive, a judge has decided this wasn't. The exemption does include where it would 'hinder the use to which a vehicle used for police purposes is being put' ... which would seem to include such a case, as the judge has agreed. If you don't like that law, perhaps campaign to get it changed...but why criticise the cop, who has received the backing of a judge?
HJ is spot on, on this one!
Neil
|
. . . some of the accusations which appear in the thread - . . appear to be defamatory rather than fair comment.
It is not defamatory to suggest that a judge is human, and therefore fallible, or that he should explain his reasoning on a controversial case more fully.
|
Indeed, Badger. As I mentioned before, the perception of police, which frustratingly for them is only caused by a minority of policemen, is that they are arrogant and think they are above the law. Were I of a more hot-headed mien, I could come up with many examples of why I could think this: i) I sent a letter to our local police complaining about their lack of any response to mine and my neighbour's reports of "chav collectives" on our local car parks, and received back an unfeasibly arrogant letter from the chief constable questioning my right to question any aspect of police operations.. seeing as I help pay, I think I have a say? ii) I once saw a police officer go the wrong way down a supermarket lane in the car park and, 99% tongue-in-cheek, said something to him when he came in the shop, only to receive a sarcastic "well, I'll bear that in mind as it's SO important"... if I had done it, I would no doubt have received a lecture! However, I do NOT in general have an anti-police feeling as good evidence outweighs bad.. for the record, an attempted break-in at my house recently was reported by a neighbour, and the police turned up, went in my house, tidied up the mess caused AND found my work address and rang me! As Badger says, feelings are affected by experience, and this simple act of kindness above and beyond "duty" was much appreciated by a very stressed-out almost-burglary sufferer!
NOTHING to do with speeding at all, I know... but what's important is that ALL of the actions of the police affect our perception of them... that's just the way it is.
|
|
In placing my last post above that by stevied, I may have given the impression that his opening words approve my point. In fact my post is timed after his.
|
|
Thanks Badger for that! However, I DO agree with you completely anyway, so no worries there! It is a shame if the peasants feel that they can't question a decision or judgement by the juduciary. I think this country suffers from a strange oxymoronic view of life: we have the "Trisha" folk who think that the law is something contemptible and they have NO regard for it at all, and treat the judicial system with contempt, and then people, usually d'un certain age and lower middle-class, who think that there is some higher being that makes laws and that, by definition, the police and the judicial system are beyond reproach. Somewhere in-between are lively, intelligent funksters like us who take advantage of the democratic right to free speech. Before you mock, be glad you don't live somewhere where you CANNOT do that!
|
I take on board the need for police drivers to practise their skills etc - but - after nearly 30 years of conviction / accident free driving I was caught doing 41mph in a 30 mph speed limit about 6 years ago. Clear road - not a person in sight (apart from 2 policemen hiding behind a wall with a speed gun.)
This cost me 3 penalty points, a £40 fine and several years of higher insurance premiums - and because I still haven't had my licence 'cleaned' by DVLC it will also cost me a further fee for a new licence.
Now I'm not arguing for a moment that I wasn't 'breaking the law' - of course I was, but at the time, I was driving in an entirely safe and responsible manner, given the road conditions.
I can't agree that this policeman was doing that - yet he got off scot free.
On a slightly different tack, I came home from work tonight behind a tractor and (overloaded) trailer. He drove at 25mph for 15 miles with 13 cars behind him - despite the fact that there were empty lay byes etc that he could have pulled into to clear the backlog. I was 3 cars behind him. Eventually a chance to pass came - the 2 cars in front of me pulled out and passed. I decided that there wasn't a safe enough gap for me to follow suit, but a 4X4 behind me stormed past - and narrowly missed an oncoming car. Yes - it was still his responsibiity to make sure the road was clear, but there was a natural frustration caused by the tractor driver's blatant lack of road manners.
I would have taken his number - but of course he didn't have a number plate on the back of the trailer..........Lights would also have been a unnecessary luxury.But what the heck? If he didn't have an indicator to show he was turning right and turned right across your bows that wouldn't be too serious - would it?
My point is that speed in itself is not necessarily a danger - going too slowly can be every bit as bad. If the police want us to accept that their 'practice' driving is safe then they must also start being realistic about 'moderate speeding' in the context of a safe and responsible driver, who is simply using common sense and good manners - AND they hould act in cases where drivers are driving so slowly they are causing an obstruction and consequent frustration.
Sorry about that rant/ramble!
Graeme
|
Now I'm not arguing for a moment that I wasn't 'breaking the law' - of course I was, but at the time, I was driving in an entirely safe and responsible manner, given the road conditions.
But you don't have a legal exemption in law to exceed the speed limit, whether or not you are an Advanced Driver or not. You, when driving your own car or a hire car or any other car *must* adhere to the speed limit at *all* times - while emergency service drivers, whilst engaged in 'Job Time', do have the exemption.
-----
Im not plain stupid, just a special kind of stoopid.
|
I was alongside a police car today, navigating an island. We were both in straight-on lanes (he being on my offside). Suddenly he decided to turn right, crossing a solid white line at the same time. I am not even sure if he indicated to move over.
The fact is that members of the public shouldn't have to accept that the police can drive in a manner which would not be accepted if you or I did it. An emergency is a different matter but even then we expect warning lights and sirens.
As far as 80 mph in a built up area is concerned, that is just plain crazy. How can anyone assume that there would be nobody about, whatever time of day it might be?
|
The fact remains that since he wasn't on an emergency call, he was obligated to stick to the rules of the road. The cameras clearly show him breaking the speed limit. Whether it's dangerous driving or no, he's broken the law. Why hasn't he been convicted?
You can't have one rule for someone and another for everyone else.
|
The fact that someone doesn't have a legal exemption doesn't excuse them. It also doesn't stop them, and others questioning the use of it. From one of the posts above it becomes clear that there was more to this than meets the eye. It does raise the issue of whether the exemption should be withdrawn in certain cases.
I would suggest that for a majority of people the only dealings which they have with the police are either when a NIP arrives through the letterbox or when they are given a crime number over the phone, knowing full well that in both cases any further contact is futile.
Then a case like this occurs and respect for the police drops even further.
HJ, you are correct, I have little experience of driving saloons at extremely high speeds. There is nowhere in this country to legally do it under realistic conditions.
|
Having read all the posts so far, and taken a couple of days to think this over, my tuppence worth is that the guy should have been punished. For whatever reason, he hasn't. Some papers state that the Judge was quite scathing in his summing up.
I would hate to think that any of the people on this thread who are defending him, would still have defended him if he had hit and killed someone whilst doing this.
But as has been stated already , there seems to be more to this than meets the eye. ie why did the CPS not manage to secure a successful prosecution?
But, thankfully he never maimed or killed himself or anyone else and we should just be grateful for that and try and forget about it.
However, whether the press reporting is accurate or not, as we all know by now, facts just get in the way of a good story. And the story here is one rule for the police, and another, quite different rule for everyone else. And that in itself will take years to overcome, if at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>Makes you wonder... Things like, if you didn't see the camera then what else did you not see or might you have not seen ? Its not that difficult to miss seeing them until you're close, or even past, but to miss it altogether ? Perhaps the visibility wasn't quite as good as you thought ?
Yet another one of your patronising posts Mark. The camera vans in Eastbourne hide on used car forcourts and behind the Tesco hoardings. So please get your facts right before criticising backroomers.
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
|
|
|
|
