159mph copper 'not dangerous' BBC report

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
glojo said:
.........Formula 1 drivers practice their skills in EXACTLY the enviroment within which they race!!!!!! Rally drivers are in the same 'boat'... They only exceed any speed limit on special closed sections.

John

Kidding right???

Never been myself but my mate was almost killed by a certain Colin McCrae in his works 555Subaru between stages!!! 10 years ago on the Lombard in Wales - my mate is a good Karter and bought a half decent XR2 to go to rally in - C Mc almost drove him off the road he was going that much faster than my mate who has a proper lead foot - I appreciate a Race/Rally spec car is much much different to a bog standard Ford but we are talking decent speeds on country lanes with two way traffic not rally stages here!
 
league67 said:
3rd paragraph from the end ...

Regards Voya

Hi Voya,
Thank you very much indeed for the link. Unfortunately it supports my point quite clearly. The Police Federation is NOT the West Midlands Police, it is simply the trade union. They are quite rightly supporting their member, and hopefully that is what trade unions are about. If you read the very next paragraph of your link you will see my point:

PC Milton's solicitor David Twigg said the appeal would challenge the judge's view that his client's advanced driving skills were irrelevant to the charge.

This officer has simply done what any other member of the public will do, and that is employ legal counsel (possibly through the Police Federation) His counsel has recommended they appeal the courts decision. The West Midlands Police have absolutely NOTHING to do with this, but again 'Never let the truth spoil a good story' Hopefully I have helped clarify the situation?

To make things much simpler, here are three questions:

1. Who do you think prepared the case against this individual?

2. Who do you think recommended prosecution?

3. Who do you think requested a retrial?

The folks that are most vocal about this case are usually the same folks that say 'one law for us, one law for them!' yet it is the Police that have put this person into the public eye.

I am no friend of the Police Traffic Department, I have NO opinion on the rights or wrongs of this particular case, I have NO idea of the speeds he drove at through built up residential areas. I have no idea of the conditions at the time, but if I, or my family were screaming for help I would go ballistic if the attending officers cruised to my aid complying with all the national speed limits. I would also be most unhappy if the very first time an officer exceeded the speed limits unaccompanied by an instructor was in response to an emergency.

Now as a generalisation,
It would be crass stupidity of the highest order to attempt to travel at 150mph in a built up residential area and perhaps anyone attempting such a feat would not be around to brag about their recklessness.

Regards,
John
 
I see ...

Just shows how much I know about police force. Thanks for clarifying the difference between WM force and federation.

He should be subject to the same law as anyone else. If you loose job because you loose license ?? Better that then killing someone at 91mph.

Regards Voya
 
league67 said:
He should be subject to the same law as anyone else. If you loose job because you loose license ?? Better that then killing someone at 91mph.

Regards Voya

I totally agree, and just like everyone else, he is obtaining the best available counsel.

There are numerous web sites that solely advice motorists how to get away with speeding prosecutions, I wonder how many subscribers to those sites are screaming about this incident?

As you have now found out the truth is seldom the best selling 'story' ;) ;) Unfortunately it pays newspapers to exaggerate any incident, they are in the business of making money and the truth might not be the most successful way of selling their product.

John
 
league67 said:
He should be subject to the same law as anyone else. If you loose job because you loose license ?? Better that then killing someone at 91mph.

Regards Voya

First of all, I am not defending this driver because I do not know all the facts. But " Honing your driving skills" is probably one of the most important things a specialist driver can do and is expected and encouraged.......but doing it sensibly is also encouraged. Videoing it is just plain stupid!

But, regarding Voyas quote above, there are many reported cases where people who rely on their car for work have totted up over 12 points ( usually speeding) and the courts have let them keep their license! They have proved that they are continually poor drivers by amassing so many points, but are still allowed to drive. I would say these people are more likely to cause a fatal accident ( and do) than every Police Advanced Driver who has ever driven on the roads in the UK! Yet, most people seem to want to sack any Police Officer who commits a driving offence with the associated loss of pension rights and chances of further employment.

For those who criticise the ability of Police Advanced drivers, I suggest you train to that level or at the very least take an advanced driving course. If you find that difficult, multiply it ten times to get an idea what a proper advanced course is like.

Of course, if you disagree with "honing" then I hope you are never in a position where your life depends , second by second, on the quick, safe arrival of a member of the emergency services.

Allan
 
Ok I'll bite ...

bibamus said:
...

Of course, if you disagree with "honing" then I hope you are never in a position where your life depends , second by second, on the quick, safe arrival of a member of the emergency services.

Allan

honing skills at 91mph in 30mph zone ?? I'm returning to 91mph and not to 159mph, simply I can agree that you can do 159mph safely on motorway. But 91mph at 30 ??? Sorry no go. I don't care if your surname is Alonso.

And I do hope that you are never in a position to have someone you care about crossing the road in 30mph zone while police is 'honing' their skills. If there is a need to drive 91mph in real emergency, surely honing can be done on the test track, hell, line up old bangers and make it look like 'proper street' , surely much cheaper then killing someone.

Voya
 
And after reading through the whole thread again, it would appear that the representative of Rospa is not really in touch with reality if he thinks 100mph is too fast to drive.
I also just remembered something from my police days at WM Police. I might add that our Traffic and Motorway depts worked very closely with Staffs Police ( where the Officer came from) , there are many many miles of motorways in that area and I would expect the officer was well used to driving at all speeds on them.

It is also incredibly important to get to know the car you are driving and understand its limitations. You could get into a pursuit or situation where you need to drive that car at high speed the second you get in it.

In the late 90`s, we all drove Volvo T5`s. Top speed was almost 150 mph and the later cars could easily top this. One of these Volvo`s had an unexplained fatal RTC ( no other cars involved ), the conclusion was that there was a fault with the car and until it was found, we were instructed not to drive at the cars maximum speed till the problem was sorted.
So, we were expected and encouraged to use the cars to their full potential, or else, whats the point?
During training, we used high powered unmarked cars. On many trips, three or four cars went in convoy on 300 mile round trips. We were all driving at or near to the cars maximum speeds on unrestricted roads and motorways. We were never once told there was an upper speed limit and a line of cars all doing upwards of 140mph was a common occurance.
But, not every person who was accepted on the course got to that stage. You had to have a very obvious driving ability and demeanour to even get a place on the course. It was not just your driving ability that counted, your mental state and responses to all the situations you were faced with was continually assessed and you could be rejected at any stage.

Anyway, happy days. I never had an accident, but dealt with thousands of people who had, some of whom might be dead or severely disabled now if I had been limited as to the speed that I could safely get to them by anything other than prevailing road and traffic conditions.

Allan

Oh yes, and the helicopter is not always available to take over a pursuit, sometimes there is more than one going on, sometimes the weather is too bad, sometimes its broken.
 
I totally agree with Bibamus here. The level of training on even a police standard course is very high, and advanced drivers have to undergo a further 4 weeks FULL time training to be qualified. To say automatically that 91mph in a 30 limit is dangerous is crass and an over-generalisation. We are taught to travel as fast as the conditions permit. I frequently travel at 70-80mph in 30 zones in an emergency IF IT IS SAFE TO DO SO. Conversely there are areas that I would not dream of exceeding the speed limit, even in emergency situations, due to the conditions and hazards.

People constantly point to the rising number of police accidents, but when you contrast the nature of the driving required and the minor nature of most of these, the rate is very very low.

I HATE the fact people have got on their high horses about this. The "Copper" WAS NOT let off, he was CONVICTED. He did not endanger anyone, no-one was hurt, killed and it is not as if he attempted to conceal the fact he was driving fast. What exactly would be the point of disqualifying him?

And another thing, police do NOT have to have their emergency equipment on to exceed the speed limit. It is necessary to drive quickly regularly to keep skill levels as high as they should be, and I am unconcerned whether anyone thinks this a feeble "Excuse".

Sometimes we have to drive fast, not for jollies, not because we are "late for our tea" but ultimately to protect the general public and catch people breaking the law.

Whilst you sleep safely tonight my colleagues and I will be out and about keeping you that way.

If I need to drive quickly I will do so, because I am trained to do so and am aware of the dangers of doing so. Next week it could be your son being beaten up.

Would you prefer me to get there in a hurry, or not?

Rant over.
 
Some fair points made, but

Carrotchomper said:
.... To say automatically that 91mph in a 30 limit is dangerous is crass and an over-generalisation....


Comes a little tough on anyone who has passed through a Safety Camera at 41mph at 1am :crazy: All enforcement gets bunched together...;)
 
I can see both sides of this sorry tale and I think the underlying cause of all the angst is because motorists are now so often facing penalties themselves for often trivial offences because they are soft targets.

I have never heard of a layperson trying to use the grounds of being a n experienced or qualified driver to defend themselves for a speeding offence.

The fact that this officer pretty much got away with this. As he was safe is a slap in the face for millions of motorists nationwide who have been penalised for doing 34 on an open road with a 30 limit at 2 am or some such thing.

Only the other day I was in court for speeding. I brought it to the courts attention that the highly trained officer did not consider my driving to be anyway unsafe nor that I was acting with undue care regarding other road users. You know what, it made no difference at all. If the same logic was applied as in this officers case, it should have had a similar end result but it didn't.

If it was safe to do so, frankly so what if I was over the posted limit, it means the limit was wrong, not that I should be banned from driving. Its an antiquated system that needs updating with a more appropriate method of posting limits such as variable limits like on the M25. A dry empty 4 lane motorway does not need a 70 limit - simple as.

The courts have unfortunately opened up a monster them and us situation by interpreting the law very differently for this very public offence. I'm happy for the officer and hopefully he now has closure and can resume his responsibilities but I'm less than happy that the law doesn't seem to apply the same common sense for the rest of us.

(Currently doing a six hour daily commute due to the speed limit being incorrect) :)
 
Last edited:
Some officers are trained to drive at excesive speeds in plain cars too remember:devil: . You don't know half of it.
 
andy_k said:
here's another example of "us and them"
Hi Andy, I can perhaps understand why you have posted this but I disagree with your "us and them" heading. How many times have we read about drivers killing pedestrians and NOT even being disqualified? This Police Officer has been disqualified so is she a victim of 'one rule for them and another for us' type argument?

The courts found this officer guilty of careless driving, whilst responding to an emergency call, but did she have her headlights on, blue lights illuminated, and an audible warning device operating? I am asking this simply because it was alleged, "the elderly couple were crossing Grand Parade from behind parked cars and may have been distracted by another emergency vehicle going the other way."I don't like using journalists reports, hence my use of the word alleged, but IF this officer had all the audible and visual devices operating then should that be used in mitigation???

In most instances the emergency driver is damned if they do, and damned if they don't??? How many of us criticise the emergency services for taking their time in responding to a 999 call?

I stand by my opinion that perhaps the case that this thread is all about might not have been in 'The Public Interest' to prosecute. It has only helped fuel posts that allege this one rule theory!!

Regards,
John
 
andy_k said:
here's another example of "us and them"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5312564.stm

Kill somebody, get banned then appeal and effectively get the ban overturned and drive home - perfectly fair and reasonable. I'm only surprised they didn't repay the fine she paid :)

Andy
Tell me what you would like the Police to do then. In stages, of course. i.e
1.
2......
3........
 
andy_k said:
here's another example of "us and them"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5312564.stm

Kill somebody, get banned then appeal and effectively get the ban overturned and drive home - perfectly fair and reasonable. I'm only surprised they didn't repay the fine she paid :)

Andy

And another two examples of "them and us".....

John Ward,
a lorry driver, fell asleep at the wheel, ploughed into the back of a council maintenance lorry and killed two workmen. The trial jury acquitted him of causing death by dangerous driving and found him guilty of careless driving. He was fined £350, banned from driving for 9 months and ordered to pay £50 prosecution costs.
(CEN 13-Jun-1996)

and second.....

Paul Thompson, aged 36, a van driver, went into the back of a family car on the A1M near Stevenage, killing a 5-week-old girl and injuring her twin sister. He was fined £1000 for driving without due care and attention, plus £300 costs and banned for 6 months.
(Ceefax 27-Jan-1999)

Or, perhaps the Police Officer should have filed a claim stating that the couple were the cause of the accident, like Mr Rose... See the BBC news article below.......
Martin Rose, aged 39, of Smeeth, Kent, was convicted of a drink-driving offence in which a couple and their son died. Their daughter had serious injuries. He failed to stop his van at a junction near Ashford and ploughed into their car. He also refused a breath test and to provide a blood specimen to the Police. He had 3 previous convictions for drunk-driving. He then tried to claim against the family's insurers for his injuries, asserting that the wife (the other driver) was negligent.
(Ceefax and Teletext 15-Jul-1999, CEN 16-Jul-1999)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/395024.stm

The mind boggles.........

Allan
 
timmy said:
Tell me what you would like the Police to do then. In stages, of course. i.e
1.
2......
3........




1, to abide by and respect the laws they are paid (by us) to enforce and to be bound by the judicial system they are part of.

2, to uphold the law, not create, misinterpret or deliberately manipulate it to their own advantage.

3, to be fair, even handed and beyond reproach.

Maybe if as an organisation (rather than a few individuals) they could achieve just one of those aims in the short term then we'd get less threads like this :)

Andy
 
andy_k said:
1, to abide by and respect the laws they are paid (by us) to enforce and to be bound by the judicial system they are part of.

2, to uphold the law, not create, misinterpret or deliberately manipulate it to their own advantage.

3, to be fair, even handed and beyond reproach.

Maybe if as an organisation (rather than a few individuals) they could achieve just one of those aims in the short term then we'd get less threads like this :)

Andy

Well firstly, Police Officers pay taxes too, so your comment 'respect the laws they are paid (by us) to enforce' is inaccurate. The ' I pay your wages' comment is rubbish.

Secondly, the vast majority of serving Police Officers do uphold the law. At the end of the day, it's a speeding conviction. It's no big deal, just a speeding conviction. He has not been dishonest or corrupt, it's just a speeding conviction.

Any large organisation will have poor examples of employees. Nobody is perfect. Your utopia vision of the Police being beyond reproach is quite frankly, ridiculous . This is the 21st century. There are cops who are far worse than the people they are there to protect. Fortunately, they are few and far between, but they do exist am afraid. The good thing is that the Police have ways of dealing with them, and nine times out of ten, they are weeded out.

You maybe confusing Police with priests, but believe me, cops are simply folk who enforce the law, and occassionally, break it too. They are not angels.
 
timmy said:
Well firstly, Police Officers pay taxes too, so your comment 'respect the laws they are paid (by us) to enforce' is inaccurate. The ' I pay your wages' comment is rubbish.

We do pay them - unless you can explain how the funding appears out of the ether :)

timmy said:
. At the end of the day, it's a speeding conviction. It's no big deal, just a speeding conviction.

sorry, I thought dangerous driving was also mentioned in the original charges

timmy said:
The good thing is that the Police have ways of dealing with them, and nine times out of ten, they are weeded out.

I wonder how many of them are curently on long term sickness pay?

timmy said:
You maybe confusing Police with priests, but believe me, cops are simply folk who enforce the law, and occassionally, break it too. They are not angels.

no confusion, if you want peoples respect then the Police must be seen to be upholding the laws they are enforcing. If they don't want to abide by those laws then they shouldn't be in the job.

Andy
 
Words fail me. I can't reason with you. Everybody in employment pays for a Police service, which includes Police Officers paying taxes too.

I fail to see what long term sickness has to do with this discussion either, unless it's something else that you would like to beat the Police up with.

And finally, the Police lost the public's respect long ago. It's no longer about that. There are some bad Police officers , just like there are bad lorry drivers, milkmen, etc etc. . Fortunately, there are not that many.

I can see you have a hatred for all things cops, but please try to be reasonable in your argument. It was a judge remember who decided the outcome of this case, so why not have a go at judges instead.
 
I have no hatred for "all things cops" but I have a hatred for an organisation which seems to be above the laws it is supposed to be enforcing, an organisation which in the past has done little or nothing to put right any of the wrongs it (or it's members) have been responsible for, an organisation to whom a whole diffferent set of criteria seems to apply to yet that continues to apply "the law" as it's individual members see fit.

I have a hatred for all the miscarriages of justice we have seen in the past and yet despite all the supposed investigations I cannot recall ONE criminal prosecution against any serving Police officer - there have been numerous successful private prosecutions but none brought about by the CPS

example :-

"Jimmy Robinson, cleared for the murder of newspaper boy Carl Bridgewater in 1997, says: "The CPS took no action against the eleven officers in my case, despite Appeal Court judges urging them to do so." Unable to gain satisfaction in the criminal justice system many have chosen to pursue their grievances through the civil courts. In 1996/97 the Met paid £2,658,000 in damages (either awarded by, or settled out-of, court), in over 1,100 civil actions."

- Why do you think that is?

Here's the full article

http://www.squall.co.uk/squall.cfm/ses/sq=2001061940/ct=2

You say the Police lost the public's respect and just dismiss that as almost trivial, well despite what you think it is about that and perhaps they should (as an organisation) work out how they intend to win back the public's trust and respect.

Putting their own house in order would be a very good place to start.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom