View Full Version : Speeding - guilty as charged.
One of the boys in blue gets caught and sentenced.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7186940.stm
This is unusual, a police man getting caught and punished for speeding, normally they seem to get away with it.
Ceri JC
15-01-08, 09:59 AM
"The former head of a police force driving school has been banned from driving after admitting speeding at 118mph on the M9 motorway near Falkirk.
Paul Gee, 48, who recently retired from Durham Constabulary,..."
I think the things I've highlighted in bold are key factors here. ;)
Once again, they claim it's training/familiarisation, but they're unable to produce a paper trail showing a senior officer granting permission for the give driver/vehicle/time and hence it cannot reasonably be considered training at all. Do they really think the magistrates are dim enough to believe that whenever they speed off duty it's because they're actually concientious and working off the clock, or is it just that like most of us, they speed in their own time?
The last minute plea change (ostensibly to get leniency) smacks of guilt too.
I know its the "law" but does anyone else think this just seems backwards evolution and not forwards??????
" have sat here on many occasions saying to motorists that people who drive over 100 miles an hour cannot expect to keep their driving licences. http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif"
Why? I've sat at much higher speeds, in comfort, with the car/bike under my complete control? Another (basically) desk monkey.....
:mad:
Caddy2000
15-01-08, 10:15 AM
If he's 48 then he's had a very very hard life!!!!
If he's 48 then he's had a very very hard life!!!!
He must have had a long paper round - It's grim oop north.
lookskyward1
15-01-08, 10:31 AM
It appears that he was on duty in uniform in a marked vehicle en-route to pick up a colleague from a convenesant home.
He should NOT have been speeding in these circumstances and knowing this he tried avoid the camera by braking and changing lanes. He also tried to claim a legal exemption saying it was a 'risk assessment run'. This excuse was blown out of the water resulting in him changing his plea prior to the trial.
He has obviously retired between the incident and the court attendance. Was this planned or was he pushed?
In the circumstances he was lucky to get away with the light sentence he received.
Luckypants
15-01-08, 10:37 AM
The offence was committed in 2006 but has only just come to court. It says he is recently retired. My take is he did the offence while a serving officer but has 'retired' because he was about to be banned. There is a well known culture of retiring from civil service before the brown stuff hits the fan - being sacked loses you your pension, so retirement is a 'better' option.
He tried lying to the court that it was 'training' but had not been sanctioned. He was pretty screwed when the Scottish force decided to prosecute.
Biker Biggles
15-01-08, 10:39 AM
Dunno about the actual offense,but I too am interested in how he can retire between being caught and going to court:D
Can police really retire at 48?Nice work if you can get it.
Or has there been a bit of a scam here where senior officers look after one of their own and "sort" a retirement when any mere mortal would have been on a disciplinary for that?
Ceri JC
15-01-08, 10:42 AM
I know its the "law" but does anyone else think this just seems backwards evolution and not forwards??????
" have sat here on many occasions saying to motorists that people who drive over 100 miles an hour cannot expect to keep their driving licences. http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif"
Why? I've sat at much higher speeds, in comfort, with the car/bike under my complete control? Another (basically) desk monkey.....
:mad:
Yep. I genuinely don't understand why more of the populace don't feel this way. Even quite intelligent people seem to unquestioningly believe, "well, it must be more dangerous", yet don't think twice about doing 70 in heavy traffic and appalling weather conditions. I don't for one moment approve of the people who do 3 figure speeds when it's not appropriate and certainly not when it impinges on other road users, but I really don't see why the motorway speed limit for cars and bikes couldn't be raised to 90, if not 100. A knock on effect might be decent lane discipline; an end to the sanctimonious ***t sitting at an indicated 69 (so, about 63-64) in the outside lane thinking, "well, I'm not pulling in, I'm already doing the limit".
The only argument against it I hear is: Blah, blah, environment, blah, blah, people who can't drive anyway would crash, blah, blah. Neither of which are sound reasonss- a vehicle with low emissions at 100 is still better than one with high emissions at 70. Most accidents occur at way below the speed limit, no one would be forced to drive at 100- the inside lane would still be full of lorries for those not comfortable at driving so fast and I dare say the middle lane would be full of people doing 70-80.
lookskyward1
15-01-08, 10:47 AM
Dunno about the actual offense,but I too am interested in how he can retire between being caught and going to court:D
Can police really retire at 48?Nice work if you can get it.
Or has there been a bit of a scam here where senior officers look after one of their own and "sort" a retirement when any mere mortal would have been on a disciplinary for that?
At 48 years old he had completed his full 30 years service and paid his pension contributions in full, so could retire or stay on as he chooses. The impending court case would only influence his decision to retire. No 'scam' involved.
lookskyward1
15-01-08, 10:53 AM
I know its the "law" but does anyone else think this just seems backwards evolution and not forwards??????
" have sat here on many occasions saying to motorists that people who drive over 100 miles an hour cannot expect to keep their driving licences. http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif"
Why? I've sat at much higher speeds, in comfort, with the car/bike under my complete control? Another (basically) desk monkey.....
:mad:
This guy would be one of the highest qualified and safest drivers in the country, at 118mph on a motorway he was just getting warmed up. If he could have proved his speed for the journey was necessary for 'police purpose' he would have been legally justified to drive at or above this speed.
Luckypants
15-01-08, 11:10 AM
This guy would be one of the highest qualified and safest drivers in the country, at 118mph on a motorway he was just getting warmed up. If he could have proved his speed for the journey was necessary for 'police purpose' he would have been legally justified to drive at or above this speed.
No question he was a 'good' driver if he was a copper and driving was his job. Fact is he was not authorised to travel at those speeds. If the speed was necessary for 'police purpose' then surely he should have had blues on? Which he could not as he was not authorised.
This guy would be one of the highest qualified and safest drivers in the country, at 118mph on a motorway he was just getting warmed up. If he could have proved his speed for the journey was necessary for 'police purpose' he would have been legally justified to drive at or above this speed.
Thats not the point.
Its the point that a judge, someone who is supposed to be "educated" still has the opinion that speeding is very dangerous and peopel should loose their licesense because of it.
Even though its been prooved speeding isn't the cause for accidents or deaths.
But its the ignorence towards modern technology. I mean, look at the braking distances. I can stop in half the distance doing a greater speed than what the "highway code" suggests. And its old opinions from desk monkies that dictate the laws.
Even Europe has a higher speed limit on its motorways. We are meant to be one of the leading western countries, we even have boats doing over 100mph.. But its a car, its dangerous.
This I think is where the law falls down (well one example of it) The law does not take into account the skill of the driver, nor the type of car. A car is not just a car. Is a BMW 5 series in the same league as say a Fiat Punto for example? Both can do a tonne, but the BMW can stop quicker, corner quicker and so on, yet both types of car are governed by the same laws. I think the whole speeding issue has many sides to it, but this just goes to show that even the best drivers get it wrong. Not much hope for the rest of us then.
Still nice to see that even though a legitimate excuse was offered, cough, the man was successfully prosecuted, just like the rest of us would be.
In fact, he got FAR worse a punishment than I did for higher speeds :lol:
Bluepete
15-01-08, 01:04 PM
And just so you all know, I routinely did 140mph and over on my advanced driving course in a white T5 or Omega with no livery or blue lights. This is how driver training is done.
This bloke tried his best to avoid the prosecution, but saw sense in the end. It is probably the case that if he had pleaded guilty at first, then he may have been still serving. By pleading not guilty until trial, he avoided being "done" by the job too as he had retired.
I would add though, his observational skills were pretty poor if he failed to see the speed camera early enough to not have to take avoiding action!
Pete
SO true........ Personnally at 100+ lepton per hour, NOTHING interupts my concentration, eyes are focussed on whats ahead directly, and whats ahead as far as the eye can see.
Bluepete
15-01-08, 01:12 PM
Daimo, don't forget the check the mirrors too, there may be a T5 there running VASCAR! :wink:
DanAbnormal
15-01-08, 01:15 PM
Daimo, don't forget the check the mirrors too, there may be a T5 there running VASCAR! :wink:
Generally if any car is keeping up with me when I am being naughty, I slow down move over and let it pass until I am satisfied that said vehicle is not being driven by an officer. Once said check is done I tear off at some miles an hour provided it is clear and safe to do so. :D
Daimo, don't forget the check the mirrors too, there may be a T5 there running VASCAR! :wink:
Thats how I got caught. Unmarked sitting about 1/4 mile OFF my ass, at night.... I jsut thought he wanted a play :( Ahh wellllll :lol: Just lucky he was doign his average timing whilst I had to stamp on the brakes :lol:
If anything, that made me a worse driver, as i was looking more in my mirrors than I was in front. It made me a worse driver for a while, not a better one.
Luckypants
15-01-08, 01:57 PM
And just so you all know, I routinely did 140mph and over on my advanced driving course in a white T5 or Omega with no livery or blue lights. This is how driver training is done.
But you had authorisation for this as you were on official training. However, I do have an issue with unmarked cars being driven at that speed on the highway. The 140 was not on a motorway was it Pete? Even with good obs, checking my mirrors with you bearing down on me at that speed I might move into your path - if you were showing blue lights I'd do a double take and see you were flying.....
As you know, I was nearly taken out by an unmarked car training on the 'crashing road' a while ago. The driver got it wrong (which is what training is all about) and we had a narrow miss - had I panicked I could have been off. Not sure that this high speed training should be on the public road.
Not having a pop here, I know the standards for advanced police drivers are high and also that training in the real world sure beats a track. But when the trainee gets it wrong it will have the same result as joe public getting it wrong, therefore the same laws apply.
Do you think I could get government funding grant to build a 5mile long bit of road, add a few cone chicanes for high speed manouvering, 100m wide
Could happily rent it out for high speed car/bike testing, emergency service training, drag strip testing etc.....
Hmmmmm, ponders....
Bluepete
15-01-08, 02:16 PM
Not sure that this high speed training should be on the public road.
But when the trainee gets it wrong it will have the same result as joe public getting it wrong, therefore the same laws apply.
Yep, I understand exactly what you mean, and that's why when it does go wrong, we do get prosecuted. Like, for instance the two lads currently being potted for death by dangerous. here (http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Traffic-cops-face-death-charge.3604760.jp) and IPCC statement (http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr310107_lancashire.htm)
There has to be a need for real life training, on real roads. Needless to say, I was doing 140mph plus only on motorways, but even then, we always slow down when there are cars in view in front, just in case they are driven by people who cannot judge the speed of other cars correctly.
Luckypants
15-01-08, 03:04 PM
There has to be a need for real life training, on real roads. Needless to say, I was doing 140mph plus only on motorways, but even then, we always slow down when there are cars in view in front, just in case they are driven by people who cannot judge the speed of other cars correctly.
Absolutely agree about the need for real life training.
BUT, your point about folks not judging speed of other vehicles correctly is not valid. I look in my mirrors and see a car half a mile behind me, on UK motorways it will take x seconds to reach me. A conditioned response to experience of driving on UK roads. But if the approaching car is doing double the limit, then I will misjudge his speed as it is so far out of my normal experience. So I do Mirror-signal-life saver (even in car)-manoeuvre and you right up my chuff. It's the same argument the authorities use to say 140 by Joe Public deserves the clink.... Like I said, if the car had flashing blues I'd check again and see you were doing 140 and coming up fast.
Biker Biggles
15-01-08, 03:20 PM
I think the essential point here is that the police car wont be doing 140 if it is coming up behind another vehicle.Empty road---yes,but as soon as there is other traffic in the way the fast car must take responsibility for not interfering with it.Just like biking really,you have to expect other traffic to behave stupidly.
Bluepete
15-01-08, 03:21 PM
:winner: Correct, as per my post. :D
Just lucky he was doign his average timing whilst I had to stamp on the brakes :lol:
Lucky, i was doing near on BluePetes speed, when a Land rover doing 60mph pulled out on me (pretty damn close too!!!!). I was paying attention, i hit my brakes, and slowed down with room still. This is what saved me.
If i was looking in my mirror at that point (you shouldn't be at these speeds) I would have missed the braking point and rammed him up the aris doing at least a tonne still.
So if your paying attention to what your doing, both as the driver of the speeding car, AND as the driver of the slower car, you wouldn't pull out in the first place. If you were paying proper attention, you would note the car catching up at a very fast pace when you checked your mirror, BEFORE indicating, so in fact wouldn't/shouldn't pull out at all. Its the responsibility of the speeding car AND the slower car to be paying attention and be able to take the appropriate action. Not just one sided.
But then I don't agree with the speed limits (nor the quality of driving instruction/test hardness) in this country. People could go much faster if they paid attention.
Luckypants
15-01-08, 04:39 PM
I think the essential point here is that the police car wont be doing 140 if it is coming up behind another vehicle.Empty road---yes,but as soon as there is other traffic in the way the fast car must take responsibility for not interfering with it.Just like biking really,you have to expect other traffic to behave stupidly.
:winner: Correct, as per my post. :D
I agree BB. I was taking issue with Pete's observation that other road users cannot judge speed correctly. Why should we judge the speed when the limit is 70? There is no way I'd expect someone to be doing 140 on a UK road..... As I said experiential learning from driving UK motorways. Still no one has given me a reason why these training exercises should not be done with blue lights flashing.
OTH - in France I look harder at my mirrors cos the speed limits are higher and on unrestricted Autobahns I take a good look before pulling out.
Bluepete
15-01-08, 04:48 PM
Mike, I wasn't saying all other road users can't judge speed correctly. Just some.
I was taught from the start by my parents to use the mirrors all the time. That way, I was never surprised by things. I would hope that the mirrors are checked often, especially on motorways, not just when a lane change is needed.
Luckypants
15-01-08, 04:52 PM
Fair point, I obviously did not take your original statement fully on board.
My mirrors are used a lot, it was an example. I am not often surprised on the road.
Bluepete
15-01-08, 05:13 PM
I am not often surprised on the road.
Mmmmmm. I spy a challenge for the NW3 :D :D :D :D
Luckypants
15-01-08, 05:28 PM
Mmmmmm. I spy a challenge for the NW3 :D :D :D :D
no fair! you are a trained sneaky upper copper type. And if you do, I'll kick you in the leg...... bit of a SMIDSY thing.... :D :D :D :D
And putting the thread back on track :rolleyes:
Cop from English force reported by Scamera Partnership (normally manned by excops with a grudge to bear, rarely traffic) in Scotland and he hoped to get off ;)
Bluepete
15-01-08, 06:36 PM
Cop from English force reported by Scamera Partnership (normally manned by excops with a grudge to bear, rarely traffic) in Scotland and he hoped to get off ;)
Do you write headlines for the Daily Sport? :rolleyes:
Do you write headlines for the Daily Sport? :rolleyes:
Better than the Independent :rolleyes:
lookskyward1
16-01-08, 12:43 PM
No question he was a 'good' driver if he was a copper and driving was his job. Fact is he was not authorised to travel at those speeds. If the speed was necessary for 'police purpose' then surely he should have had blues on? Which he could not as he was not authorised.
Agreed that he was not 'authorised to speed at this time and was rightly convicted, but your argument regarding the use of 'blues and twos or AV equipment is invalid.
As Blue Pete has pointed out there is no need for police or any other emergency organisation to use the equipment when using the legal exemption from prosecution. There are many times and reasons why the Police will travel at speed, disregard traffric lights etc without using this equipment. All the AV equipment does is signal to other road users that you are there and wish to make progress, stop traffic etc.
lookskyward1
16-01-08, 01:16 PM
http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k186/lookskyward1/speedi10.jpg
Couldn't resist this :thumbsup:
I like this one...
http://images20.fotki.com/v369/photos/4/48802/3111132/Speedcamerassavelives-vi.jpg
Luckypants
16-01-08, 01:41 PM
Agreed that he was not 'authorised to speed at this time and was rightly convicted, but your argument regarding the use of 'blues and twos or AV equipment is invalid.
As Blue Pete has pointed out there is no need for police or any other emergency organisation to use the equipment when using the legal exemption from prosecution. There are many times and reasons why the Police will travel at speed, disregard traffric lights etc without using this equipment. All the AV equipment does is signal to other road users that you are there and wish to make progress, stop traffic etc.
Why is my argument invalid? The basis of my argument is that cars travelling at high speed 'on training' should be showing blue lights (did not suggest sirens) to warn other road users of their presence and speed. Nothing in your post invalidates that argument.
You state there is no need to use them when they are under the exemption from prosecution. Now this to me suggests you are thinking from the coppers perspective of getting nicked. This is not my argument at all, but to warn other road users of the speed the vehicle is travelling at.
The 'many reasons' why Police will travel at high speed and run red lights without the 'AV Equipment' are probably not many where it is necessary, but I'm sure there are many where it suits the copper. (end of shift, chips getting cold etc - sorry I AM a cynic). However I do accept there are times when this is a legitimate practice.
Your final statement
All the AV equipment does is signal to other road users that you are there and wish to make progress, stop traffic etc. neatly sums up my argument why it should be used on training runs etc.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.