View Full Version : 159mph? Illegal? Not anymore...
Halonic
18-05-05, 03:04 PM
looky:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm
A police constable who reached 159mph on a motorway has been cleared of speeding and dangerous driving.
Pc Mark Milton, 38, from Telford, Shropshire, was recorded by the patrol car's video camera on the M54 in 2003, Ludlow Magistrates' Court heard.
District Judge Bruce Morgan acquitted him after calling the constable the "creme de la creme" of police drivers.
Pc Milton is trained in advanced driving and was "familiarising himself" with a new car, the court was told.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :twisted: :twisted: :lol: :lol:
I believe we have a legal system based on case law in this country, binding precedent and the like....
cant help think that this case may come in handy in the future
real nice, so i could say i want to sell my bike and just want to test out the bike to see if it can reach the max speed said on spec sheet without killing myself and the new buyer... :twisted: :twisted:
Ceri JC
18-05-05, 03:14 PM
But the Police Federation defended the driving of Pc Milton, who is also known to have travelled at 120mph in a 60mph zone and at more than 60mph in a 30mph zone.
Sorry, but if that's a built up area, it doesn't matter what time of day it is, that's an unacceptable speed to do in a cage. You spoon it and clip a kerb and you could take someone's house out. You would almost certainly kill anyone you hit.
I thought there were particular roads the police closed to do high speed chase training on? Not for officers to just go for a blat on any road they feel like and declare it was 'training'. :roll:
Anyone else reckon the bloke looks a bit like "Finch" from the office? :D
Biker Biggles
18-05-05, 03:14 PM
If he was "familiarising himself"in the car at that speed he should have been done for gross indecency,surely,not to mention due care and attention.
More seriously,he must have been pretty sure of his ground to do that with the camera running.The issue must have been if it was safe or not.
Rather than attacking his aquital we should concentrate on the safe or not debate about speed generally.
Ceri JC
18-05-05, 03:18 PM
More worryingly, I thought current cameras couldn't detect you if you were over 157mph? :?
Carsick
18-05-05, 03:20 PM
More worryingly, I thought current cameras couldn't detect you if you were over 157mph? :?
It was his onboard camera that caught him, I thought.
Ceri JC
18-05-05, 03:23 PM
"Even in emergencies we consider that driving at 100mph or more is too dangerous."
Ha ha, good luck catching people who really speed then :lol:
Carsick: Ah, right- Glad I can go back to my dream of having a busa and just rolling the throttle on all the way whenever I see the dragon's teeth approaching :)
Halonic
18-05-05, 03:25 PM
Rather than attacking his aquital we should concentrate on the safe or not debate about speed generally.
Oh I'd say a definate no on that one
in the early hours of 5 December 2003
so we're talking dark, extremely cold roads where both visibility and grip are greatly reduced.
159mph would seem suicide in these conditions
Couerdelion
18-05-05, 03:27 PM
So would it be ok for Nigel Mansell/ Jenson Button to Speed down the M6 at those speeds? I mean he was/is the creme de la creme of drivers and is trained to a high standard :roll:
Carsick
18-05-05, 03:27 PM
Ok, but aside from his aquittal, we have senior police offers declining to say that 159mph is dangerous.
Ceri JC
18-05-05, 03:30 PM
So would it be ok for Nigel Mansell/ Jenson Button to Speed down the M6 at those speeds? I mean he was/is the creme de la creme of drivers and is trained to a high standard :roll:
Wasn't the speed limit introduced on motorways because people were testing F1 cars on them at night, or is that an urban myth?
northwind
18-05-05, 03:31 PM
What a bag of s***. Ture, he'd be as safe as anyone could be while doing it, I'm sure, and that should probably be taken into account, but to acquit him is just insane.
The main reason they don't usually pursue at above 100 is because it increases the risk of the pursued driver crashing unacceptably- it's better to let them get away or to back a pursuit off than it is to force them into an error which would probably have worse consequences. Just sensible really.
Once I do my IAM do you think I'll be allowed to ride my SV at 60 through a 30? Since Sv650.org members are clearly the creme de la creme of bikers already :)
Halonic
18-05-05, 03:34 PM
Once I do my IAM do you think I'll be allowed to ride my SV at 60 through a 30? Since Sv650.org members are clearly the creme de la creme of bikers already :)
We're bikers and we're still alive (technically)
We must be doing something right :D
Okay what's the problem? He's a highly trained police driver on a deserted motorway with a brand new high spec vehicle. Personally I'd be worried if he was allowed out to chase villains at that speed without having familiarised himself at that speed first.
.
Halonic
18-05-05, 03:47 PM
Okay what's the problem? He's a highly trained police driver on a deserted motorway with a brand new high spec vehicle. Personally I'd be worried if he was allowed out to chase villains at that speed without having familiarised himself at that speed first.
.
could they no have paid for him to do a track day first? or, considering that they are the police, closed a road?
Captain Nemo
18-05-05, 03:51 PM
fnuckni cops they get away with murder,
just look at his tasche thats a crime in itself
Biker Biggles
18-05-05, 03:56 PM
Im not saying he was right to do that speed at that time,Im just suggesting this sort of case can help to move the argument beyond the now normal speeding /guilty of child murder nonsense.
Incidently while sitting here this afternoon I witnessed a car hitting a bus outside my house caused by--------poor forward vision.Its all much more complex than what the speedo says.
Ceri JC
18-05-05, 03:56 PM
Okay what's the problem? He's a highly trained police driver on a deserted motorway with a brand new high spec vehicle. Personally I'd be worried if he was allowed out to chase villains at that speed without having familiarised himself at that speed first.
.
It's the double standard- an IAM instructor with 40 years riding experience, on a brand new ZX-12R on a deserted highway would not be acquitted.
"Pc Milton was driving in accordance with his training, honing his skills while possible and testing the vehicle's capabilities so that if he was required on an urgent call he would be driving safely."
And its obviously not possible to do any of these on a track or a private road ...
I think the issue that infuriates most people is the one rule for them and a different rule for the rest of us..
If one of us did over a 100 on an empty motorway in the dead of night we would most likely get banned regardless of our a level of ability / training. However if a policeman does the same, purely to test his skills/vehicle, then it is deemed acceptable.
northwind
18-05-05, 04:00 PM
He also did 60 in a 30 zone, which is a totally different kettle of fish.
The problem is double standards, I think. Any skilled driver could take a well-prepared vehicle out onto a deserted motorway and do the same, without endangering another human being, but if you or I were to do the same and get caught we'd probably get a jail sentence. We'd definately get a ban.
One of my customers is an ex-police biker with 30 years of experience, and before he left the force 2 years ago he was qualified at the highest police standard. He also holds IAM and Rospa Gold certificates. But when he got caught doing 120 on the M8 at 4 in the morning on a Blackbird, he got a 6 month ban and a fine and thought himself lucky. What's so different about that?
Ceri JC
18-05-05, 04:04 PM
There is also the issue of who decides it's training? If I was in his position, I'd regulary go for dawn rides and max the bike out and if I was caught, then I'd claim I was just 'training'. The only thing, to my mind, that makes training a viable excuse is if permission is granted by a senior officer (whom the responsibility would then lie with).
In my job, I don't just do reckless, fun things for a laugh, then claim I was 'trying them out' when I get caught. I ask permission, get management approval and then get a safe environment to do it in. This is for something as mundane as servers and databases. You would hope something 'real world' like 160mph on a motorway would have similar (or even, ideally, more strict) processes in place.
could they no have paid for him to do a track day first? or, considering that they are the police, closed a road?
As a Class 1 advanced police driver he would undoubtedly have done much in the way of closed road driving, including track, speed pans and very low tyre pressure driving. I honestly don't think it unreasonable for him to speed-test the car in a real world environment providing it was safe to do (which is what it appears to have been).
It's the double standard- an IAM instructor with 40 years riding experience, on a brand new ZX-12R on a deserted highway would not be acquitted.
I take your point, but think there's no real parallel. Although most IAM instructors are ex (or serving) police riders they don't have the need to go at 160 on a public road and ought to have the maturity to refrain from doing so, particularly as they should be setting an example. This particular police driver's job entails high speed pursuit driving and therefore (I suggest) the need to understand the car fully warrants the exercise of taking it to 160.
.
Ceri JC
18-05-05, 04:10 PM
Perks of the job. :lol:
Fair one! :D
richwill68
18-05-05, 04:16 PM
Does seem a bit off when I got three points for a minor infraction. HOWEVER, I feel comfortable in the knowledge that there are professional individuals out there capable of driving in as safe a manner as possible at such high speeds. Who knows, he might need to get to help YOU in a real hurry, or catch the scumbag who just :- nicked /robbed/beat/murdered (please insert your own words here, until you are suitably angry enough to see the point).
My Mum always said 'Life isn't fair'. She was right. Mind you, she also said spaghetti grew on trees....... :shock:
My Mum always said 'Life isn't fair'. She was right. Mind you, she also said spaghetti grew on trees... :shock:
:lol:
Perks of the job
That's certainly true as well. If I joined the cops and couldn't drive as fast as I liked I'd be mighty peeved :lol: .
.
Ceri JC
18-05-05, 04:26 PM
Does seem a bit off when I got three points for a minor infraction. HOWEVER, I feel comfortable in the knowledge that there are professional individuals out there capable of driving in as safe a manner as possible at such high speeds. Who knows, he might need to get to help YOU in a real hurry, or catch the scumbag who just :- nicked /robbed/beat/murdered (please insert your own words here, until you are suitably angry enough to see the point).
My Mum always said 'Life isn't fair'. She was right. Mind you, she also said spaghetti grew on trees....... :shock:
I think most people here (myself included) actually believe there was very little risk involved and are glad he did it, for the reasons you mentioned. It's just that, in spite of his superior training, we resent the fact that he can decide (legally- most of us can do it practically) what is a safe speed for the condition, whereas we are not granted the same freedom. Hence us collectively playing devil's advocate . :twisted:
I would imagine that most bikers are of the opinion that there is very little danger, if the conditions/your vehicle/your abilities are right, in touching 101 miles an hour, yet we would still lose our licences for (hypothetically, officer! :wink: ) doing it.
I would imagine that most bikers are of the opinion that there is very little danger, if the conditions/your vehicle/your abilities are right, in touching 101 miles an hour, yet we would still lose our licences for (hypothetically, officer! :wink: ) doing it.
Er try keeping two neatly-folded crisp fifty pound notes in your plastic licence cover ("for emergency situations officer" :-dd ) :lol: .
* Was this the reason they've introduced the credit card sized photo licence me wonders? :wink:
.
"In reaching his verdict, Mr Morgan noted that two police officers who gave evidence for the prosecution, including West Mercia Police's senior driving instructor, had declined to classify the defendant's driving as dangerous."
That could sound to some people like a bit of a precedent...
OK 150+ MPH would probably go down as proveably dangerous for most people most of the time. But what about 70 in a deserted 60 when the sun's out?
The judge has pretty much said 'You were definitely speeding, but the prosecution didn't (or couldn't) prove it was dangerous to do so'
Never work for us mortals of course...
richwill68
18-05-05, 04:33 PM
Yeah mate, I couldn't agree more with the "freedom to choose" issue you so rightly put forward. That's why I joined MAG and actively rally for riders rights! :wink:
Anonymous
18-05-05, 04:39 PM
I honestly don't think it unreasonable for him to speed-test the car in a real world environment providing it was safe to do (which is what it appears to have been).
It appeared to be safe because he didn't hit anyone or anything. So, is that now to be an acceptable excuse for ALL speeders, or only the Old Bill?
Will it now be all right to drive home at 3mph when ****ed out of your brains, as long as you don't hit anything? Or only if you are an experienced drinker?
Is NOT having an accident to be an acceptable excuse for doing anything brainless? What about the Bomb Disposal Squad testing the disarming of a small radiological bomb in the Underground?
Jonboy, with great respect, look up the definition of "hypocrisy"....if the cap fits, then PC Whats-'is-face should be wearing it.
Anonymous
18-05-05, 04:42 PM
Yeah mate, I couldn't agree more with the "freedom to choose" issue you so rightly put forward. That's why I joined MAG and actively rally for riders rights! :wink:
Oh no there's a MAG activist in the house....... :wink: :lol: :lol:
richwill68
18-05-05, 04:46 PM
Yeah mate, I couldn't agree more with the "freedom to choose" issue you so rightly put forward. That's why I joined MAG and actively rally for riders rights! :wink:
Oh no there's a MAG activist in the house....... :wink: :lol: :lol:
Ooops, out of the closet, huh? It's a dirty job but someones got to do it...
Okay what's the problem? He's a highly trained police driver on a deserted motorway with a brand new high spec vehicle. Personally I'd be worried if he was allowed out to chase villains at that speed without having familiarised himself at that speed first.
As I see it, the problem is that it was the police themselves who brought the case, i.e. prosecuted one of their own, following examination of video recording. The inference is, therefore, that he did it without the knowledge or permission of his senior officers - and it is those same senior officers who would have authorised the prosecution. The therefore felt it appropriate and in the public interest.
Bottom line is that the car was there and he succumbed to temptation.
Whilst not quite a TWOC-er, it's not far off, IMHO.
As I see it, the problem is that it was the police themselves who brought the case, i.e. prosecuted one of their own, following examination of video recording.
Which I'm quite sure was down to political correctness that's rampant in the higher echelons of the police force.
The therefore felt it appropriate and in the public interest.
Yeah right, see above ;).
Bottom line is that the car was there and he succumbed to temptation.
Maybe, but I still think my original argument stands.
It appeared to be safe because he didn't hit anyone or anything. So, is that now to be an acceptable excuse for ALL speeders, or only the Old Bill?
No only the Old Bill as I make clear in my arguments. He was qualified to the nth degree, was on duty and was testing a new high speed pursuit vehicle.
One law for them and one for us? Well of course, surely you don't expect anything different? :?
.
Okay what's the problem? He's a highly trained police driver on a deserted motorway with a brand new high spec vehicle. Personally I'd be worried if he was allowed out to chase villains at that speed without having familiarised himself at that speed first.
.
well if i was an advanced motorist. and i got caught, i bet your cotton socks they would prosecute me. (as i should have known better)
dunno if you remember, but there was a gatso left on in the pit stop of a rally course, and because it was a pitstop, it was still a 30 zone, so the rally drivers were going through there at 45 - 50, getting three points every time they done a lap of the circuit.
now most of them are banned and have to get a lift to their races.
Godikus
18-05-05, 08:17 PM
He could have at least put the lights on. atleast then if he did loose control anyone that was out of sight of a crashing car would have some warning.
I don't really think it matters that the conditions were safe. it's against the law, and that law is for everyone. People in his position have to be especialy careful to obay the rules to set examples. He's also trained in the use of firearms. wonder what people would say if he got a new gun and tested it in a field at night.
If he really wanted to test the car and get used to how it handles, then i'm sure he would have been able to get permission to go do it at an oficial testing grounds. not on a public road at his discresion.
I'm just a bit ****ed off right now because i got caught safely speeding yesterday (only by 5mph mind) on an empty open road. I was speeding, and it was safe to do so, but i aint gonna argue because it's against the law. i knew what i was doing and i'll take the points and a fine. He knew what he was doing, and he knew it was ilegal. he can't just expect to get away with it because he knows what he is doing.
northwind
18-05-05, 08:56 PM
Not your week is it Godikus...
Godikus
18-05-05, 08:59 PM
Not really. faild my mot and got caught speeding on the way. o well. just means i deserve this beer more than usual *raises glass to the fine people of SV650.org*
I'm all for speeding safely, under the right conditions. just don't complain if you get caught. especialy if it's by your own camera
weegaz22
18-05-05, 10:02 PM
So would it be ok for Nigel Mansell/ Jenson Button to Speed down the M6 at those speeds? I mean he was/is the creme de la creme of drivers and is trained to a high standard :roll:
Wasn't the speed limit introduced on motorways because people were testing F1 cars on them at night, or is that an urban myth?
i beleive it was caroll shelby and the AC cobra that brought the speed limits in after he came to england to test out the AC and got caught doing 196mph up the M1, which led to a speed limit being brought in in 1964
Well Oiled
18-05-05, 10:21 PM
I did a bikesafe course, so now I'm a Police trained rider. Maybe me and the others who've done it can be legal at 150mph?
They're avin a laff - what the hell are test tracks for if they aren't goin to use them for this kind of stuff?
No excuses - public road - doing nearly 3 x speed limit - should have been banned.
I got caught doing 90 in a 60 zone on an open, empty, straight stretch of road!
Maybe i should suggest this case to the judge,and insist that my speed given the circumstances was safe.
And also point out that i should recieve equal treatment in the eyes of the law?
T*SSERS!!!
Anonymous
18-05-05, 11:25 PM
I was speeding, and it was safe to do so, but i aint gonna argue because it's against the law. i knew what i was doing and i'll take the points and a fine. He knew what he was doing, and he knew it was ilegal. he can't just expect to get away with it because he knows what he is doing.
You're an honest man Godikus. =D>
I'm not anti police - far from it - but I am against dual standards.
So here's one: as I understand it, a policeman can stand by the road, watch a motorist go by, decide he/she is speeding - and that's that. It won't matter what you plead - there's no defence, no recourse, a fine and points on the licence. Goodnight.
In this case, there was uncontested video camera evidence that shows the driver did 159mph on the motorway, 131 on a local unrestricted A-Road, and 84mph in a 30 limit. He pleads not guilty and gets off with not a single penny or a point against him. :?
I probably care far less about his driving than I do with a Judge's interpretation that he didn't do anything wrong! Excuse me?? And who on earth has been footing the bill for this case which has been ongoing for 18 months?
(Oh, and does anyone remember The Secret Policeman's Ball and Peter Cooke's satire of the Judge's summing up in the Jeremy Thorpe trial?)
Red ones
19-05-05, 05:27 AM
So he got off?
Anyone wondered how the Police can operate their radio when driving? Because they have had the appropriate training! Now there's another piece of training I want too!
Halonic
19-05-05, 08:27 AM
ok all the arguments about double standards, rights and wrongs are all lovely but this is the really real world and, as has been pointed out, life is unfair, what'ya gonna do boot it?
The fun bit comes with what the judge has said. In his summary, the judge has concluded that driving at those speeds, in those conditions with that level of training and experience, is NOT considered dangerous driving. Now we would have to be very specific about his wording and I dont have a transcript to hand (it'll be a month before it turns up in an updater - probably ALL ER or at least on Halsburys, I'll have to ask) but it is possible that the idea of Orbita Dicta could be applied, a persuasive but not binding argument. I cant remember what level the court was that gave this verdict but I'm sure with this on the books, and a clever Brief, well, we can have all sorts of fun
:twisted: :twisted: :lol: :lol: :twisted: :twisted:
...but it is possible that the idea of Orbiter Dicta could be applied, a persuasive but not binding argument. I cant remember what level the court was that gave this verdict but I'm sure with this on the books, and a clever Brief, well, we can have all sorts of fun
Which means we'd all better get down to the IAM and when we've done that get a ROSPA Gold, as without the latter qualification you won't stand a chance, but... certainly food for thought, not so much with speeding as I suggest that's an absolute (in that you either were or weren't) but more with something like "driving without due care" etc where your accredited level of skill could be brought before the court to convey the defence of "reasonable doubt".
.
Halonic
19-05-05, 08:49 AM
Which means we'd all better get down to the IAM and when we've done that get a ROSPA Gold, as without the latter qualification you won't stand a chance, but... certainly food for thought, not so much with speeding as I suggest that's an absolute (in that you either were or weren't) but more with something like "driving without due care" etc where your accredited level of skill could be brought before the court to convey the defence of "reasonable doubt".
This is where we have to be really careful, its down to the specific phrases used in summing up, picking apart interpretations is where the most entertaining legal money is made, so all this is nothing but an idea, but every idea is potentially dangerous. :twisted:
Even a reclassification from "Dangerous driving" to "driving without due care" has large implications.
We'll wait and see what his exact words were, then we start the evil cackling
Surely you will also need some years of driving under the police instrcutors/conditions for you to even consider this argument?
Flamin_Squirrel
19-05-05, 09:57 AM
From a stricktly legal point of view, currently the law does not distinguish between the police and the public in cases like this. So the way I see it, the fact that he is a policeman with the experience to do those kind of speeds safely should have no bearing on his guilt, because he IS guilty. His experience should only have a bearing on the sentance received.
I just think that generally they're very well trained, unlike most other motorists. Certainly not perfect but on the whole they deserve a little respect.
I'm also amazed at how so many peeps in this thread find the fact that he got off so amazing. For Christ's sake he's a copper, what do you expect? The real world out there has no notion of fairness and I think it incredibly naive that someone should start shouting when they realise there's a "them and us" situation - it's always been that way! Accept it and move on.
.
By saying that "if you're a skilled (police) driver, you can drive at 150+ without causing a danger" totally proves that speed DOES NOT kill. Inappropriate use of speed does; hence speeding should not be dealt with in the way it is!
That's a totally different issue though, however it's certainly one that I whole-heartedly agree with, but I honestly can't think of a way that there could be an acceptable implementation of a tiered licence system that allowed differential speed limits dependent upon the level of proven competence. I mean how politically incorrect would that be? :lol: :roll:
.
northwind
19-05-05, 10:18 AM
I'm also amazed at how so many peeps in this thread find the fact that he got off so amazing. For Christ's sake he's a copper, what do you expect? The real world out there has no notion of fairness and I think it incredibly naive that someone should start shouting when they realise there's a "them and us" situation - it's always been that way! Accept it and move on.
Pretty defeatist attitude there... And by the same token, when someone on here starts getting stuck into traffic cops etc, should we just keep out of that and not worry about our various plod members, assuming that they'll accept that it's "them and us" as well?
richwill68
19-05-05, 10:29 AM
Inappropriate use of speed does (kill); hence speeding should not be dealt with in the way it is![/quote]
Amen to that! More Cops, less cameras I say. At least with a Cop you get an opportunity to state your case to someone who was there at the time of the offence, who has a full overview of traffic and weather conditions, and hopefully a 'human side' to which you can appeal. I'd rather have a bollocking at the road side and eat humble pie then go away a little wiser and endorsement free, than just get flashed with no real opportunity to appeal.
Carsick
19-05-05, 10:31 AM
By saying that "if you're a skilled (police) driver, you can drive at 150+ without causing a danger" totally proves that speed DOES NOT kill. Inappropriate use of speed does; hence speeding should not be dealt with in the way it is!
That's a totally different issue though, however it's certainly one that I whole-heartedly agree with, but I honestly can't think of a way that there could be an acceptable implementation of a tiered licence system that allowed differential speed limits dependent upon the level of proven competence. I mean how politically incorrect would that be? :lol: :roll:
It's not a different issue at all.
It's a worrying thing when I come to agree with Lee, but I do.
It's not the fact that he got off that we're complaining about, it's the fact that this is such an extreme example of speeding. There is no doubt in the slightest that he is guilty of speeding. Even without a dangerous driving charge the speeding itself is still an offence (getting my point?) but he was let off because of the claim that he was safe while doing it.
If he can claim it's safe, then there is room for a claim that others are safe and not guilty of speeding as a result.
Pretty defeatist attitude there...
Nope, just what I consider to be a realistic one.
And by the same token, when someone on here starts getting stuck into traffic cops etc, should we just keep out of that and not worry about our various plod members, assuming that they'll accept that it's "them and us" as well?
The "them and us" is simply a situation that's arisen because of the System. Individually there really isn't a problem and anyone who's a member of our excellent community will be treated with equality (unless they ride a H*rnet :lol: ) otherwise Admin2 will get pretty narked indeed ;).
.
By saying that "if you're a skilled (police) driver, you can drive at 150+ without causing a danger" totally proves that speed DOES NOT kill. Inappropriate use of speed does; hence speeding should not be dealt with in the way it is!
That's a totally different issue though, however it's certainly one that I whole-heartedly agree with, but I honestly can't think of a way that there could be an acceptable implementation of a tiered licence system that allowed differential speed limits dependent upon the level of proven competence. I mean how politically incorrect would that be? :lol: :roll:
It's not a different issue at all.
Yes it is. There are two major questions here:
1) Was the police officer wrong to have driven at 160 (even though the Police Force he works for said it was within his remit)?
2) Is it right for normal unqualified and often utterly hapless motorists to be allowed to break the speed limits just because they feel it's safe and feel victimised if they're not?
.
Flamin_Squirrel
19-05-05, 02:09 PM
By saying that "if you're a skilled (police) driver, you can drive at 150+ without causing a danger" totally proves that speed DOES NOT kill. Inappropriate use of speed does; hence speeding should not be dealt with in the way it is!
That's a totally different issue though, however it's certainly one that I whole-heartedly agree with, but I honestly can't think of a way that there could be an acceptable implementation of a tiered licence system that allowed differential speed limits dependent upon the level of proven competence. I mean how politically incorrect would that be? :lol: :roll:
It's not a different issue at all.
Yes it is. There are two major questions here:
1) Was the police officer wrong to have driven at 160 (even though the Police Force he works for said it was within his remit)?
2) Is it right for normal unqualified and often utterly hapless motorists to be allowed to break the speed limits just because they feel it's safe and feel victimised if they're not?
.
Legally yes it is wrong for him to do 160mph because as I see it (and I may be wrong here so correct me if I am) the law doesn't distingush between the policeman in this case and said inept/unqualified driver.
If there was a legal distinction between the two, i.e. a law that said it was ok for the police to dive at high speed if they're qualified then the double standard wouldn't exist and we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
Biker Biggles
19-05-05, 02:14 PM
I think we are getting there with this issue on this thread now.Instead of whinging about how he got off and I didnt because ACAB and double standards we should celebrate this result because it has the potential to rip present policy apart.A debate on that can only be a good thing.
Incidently the fact that he was prosecuted by his own bosses comes as no surprise to me.Welcome to life in the public services where your greatest risk is your boss.In my job I am issued with body armour which I very rarely use,but I am pleased to have when my boss walks in. :shock:
Anonymous
19-05-05, 02:18 PM
STOP STOP STOP.......focus on the single most important issue here....
.....he has a ginger 'tache :shock: Prison's too good for 'em.
Anonymous
19-05-05, 02:22 PM
In my job I am issued with body armour...
Cripes, didn't realise that cleaning offices could be that dangerous! :lol:
(Sorry in advance!)
Anonymous
19-05-05, 02:28 PM
I think we are getting there with this issue on this thread now.
Kiss of death :lol:
...he has a ginger 'tache :shock: Prison's too good for 'em.
Well I didn't want to be the one that mentioned it... :lol:
.
thegibdog
19-05-05, 07:21 PM
There's only one thing to consider in this: If you can't stop in the distance you can see ahead of you then you are driving dangerously. How fast was he going? An this was at night, Your Honour?
He must have some damn good headlights.
The real problem here is that 159 mph is not a problem, neither is 95 or 100 on any motorway in the right vehicle in the right circumstance. 3 am nothing there good surface, in fact same goes for the day.
The law is out of date for modern vehicles.
But it stands to reason that the law is the law and he should have been banned for exceding the limit to the excess that he did ginger tash or not.
Now what is wrong here. The fact that he got away with it or the fact that everyone else is treated like a criminal like a murderer for exceeding the limit. An artificial limit at that.
Its too difficult to apply a judgment to normal road users about how safe a situation really is and much simpler and more lucrative to fine and persecute the rider or driver who judges the condiitions for themselves.
20 miles an hour next to a school is often too fast although the limit is 30. and 100 mile an hour on race bred machinery is perfectly safe, safer than 30 year old bangers doing 60 on the same road.
We live in an over bearing unjust opressive nanny state that blatently defends its own at the expense of us and our liberty. Remember the biker that got 2 years in jail for doing 160 mph. and videoing himself doh. 2 years man!
By saying that "if you're a skilled (police) driver, you can drive at 150+ without causing a danger" totally proves that speed DOES NOT kill. Inappropriate use of speed does; hence speeding should not be dealt with in the way it is!
That's a totally different issue though, however it's certainly one that I whole-heartedly agree with, but I honestly can't think of a way that there could be an acceptable implementation of a tiered licence system that allowed differential speed limits dependent upon the level of proven competence. I mean how politically incorrect would that be? :lol: :roll:
It's not a different issue at all.
Yes it is. There are two major questions here:
1) Was the police officer wrong to have driven at 160 (even though the Police Force he works for said it was within his remit)?
So its okie for Mr Rossi & Co to do 180Mph down the M1, because of course, this is within their job remit.
So its okie for Mr Rossi & Co to do 180Mph down the M1, because of course, this is within their job remit.
:?: Have you been smoking something?
.
Flamin_Squirrel
20-05-05, 08:10 AM
So its okie for Mr Rossi & Co to do 180Mph down the M1, because of course, this is within their job remit.
:?: Have you been smoking something?
.
I'm glad someone else said it 8)
Anonymous
20-05-05, 08:33 AM
So its okie for Mr Rossi & Co to do 180Mph down the M1, because of course, this is within their job remit.
:?: Have you been smoking something?
.
I'm glad someone else said it 8)
I think "smoking something" would be illegal...unless, of course, you are in the Drug Squad, when it would probably be within your job remit. New substance evaluation, and all that.......
Thought you might be interested in this thread from another forum about the same matter - interesting to see what people think about it all!
http://www.honda-varadero-uk.org/forum/index.php?topic=2703.0
Ceri JC
20-05-05, 01:43 PM
Remember the biker that got 2 years in jail for doing 160 mph. and videoing himself doh. 2 years man!
Yep, poor bugger- 160 on mountain roads with no one else about, where the only thing other than himself he might hurt would be a sheep. There was an interview with him a while ago in one of the bike magazines. He wasn't in some low security 'you've been a bit naughty' prison, there were murderers and rapists in there too. :shock: Worringly, the number of people in prison in the UK for motoring offences exceeds those for burglary. :(
Sobering thought, eh... :?
Stormspiel
20-05-05, 01:53 PM
Ok so here's my 2p's worth.
160mph is in his normal job duties chasing criminals.B******S, how many people have run of the mill cars stolen that a thief could bang down the M54 at 160mph in. I Know for a fact most cars are never gonna get to 160mph in their life unless they're pushed off a realllllllly big cliff. Most performance bikes top out around that.
He should be sacked and sent to prison to be buggered by bigger boys :twisted: :shock: :twisted:
This whole thing of course must be an absolute PR "gift from the gods" for Vauxhall. I wonder just how many extra 3.2 Vectra's they've sold in the last week ;).
.
Ceri JC
20-05-05, 03:00 PM
This whole thing of course must be an absolute PR "gift from the gods" for Vauxhall. I wonder just how many extra 3.2 Vectra's they've sold in the last week ;).
.
Yep, a petrolhead mate pointed that out to me, 'Never mind the copper-the real story is that a vectra can touch 160' :)
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.