Leslie

Its all a matter of degree and 159 mph really does reduce the safety margins. Generally most people are annoyed that he was doing those speeds purely for his own reasons and also his speeds in the 30 MPH zone certainly were unjustifiably dangerous.

He was prosecuted because of evidence submitted by his own force so obviously they did not think too much of it either.

Les

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Each force has its own. Except West Mercia, which had none, so he couldn't possibly be breaking guidelines. ACPO can lay down suggestions, but forces can ignore them if they want, provided they don't break the law.


M

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Strange really, because the force next door (w.mids) does have the guidelines.

TBH I'm not sure how it got to court, I would have thought it would have been an internal hearing and a reprimand. Presumably there are no rules because they should know better and they use their own discretion (being a Policeman afterall). But as always, if you have no rules you'll always have one idiot who pushes it too far like our blues and twos joyrider (but without the blue and twos though ). Personally I can't why it is so hard to stick him behind the desk or bust him to civil duties for few months so he is not driving patrol cars and can cool off his need to "test" cars.

Sprint Chief

My issue with this is not so much to do with getting this individual into trouble but more to do with the fact that the law as it exists must be wrong.

Speed limits are present as a safety issue, and I've always held the view that mph is not a good measure of safety, and attempting to use this as a rule of law is flawed and open to abuse [and the expansion of scameras is the embodiment of that abuse].

This case is evidence that the law needs sorting out in several areas. I haven't seen the video, so I cannot be completely sure, but 80+mph in a residential area is almost certainly not safe, even at 3am, unless there were no blind spots or hiding places around 10-15 metres to the left or right of his vehicle. 159mph on a motorway is, I would suggest, a less serious offence although this would only really be acceptably safe if there was no traffic, on a clear, sunny day - not at 3am unless the motorway was lit; there are no headlights fitted to a standard vehicle that support these kind of speeds after dark.

I don't really care what happens to this individual, I'm sure he will be tried fairly in accordance with how the law stands today. What is of more interest is that it should inspire debate in terms of the direction the law should be changed for the future, to ensure safe driving is enforced without the arbitrary persecution of drivers who are not necessarily amongst the most dangerous on the road. Discussing how people perceive this guy should have been dealt with [if the law were not an ***] seems a valid approach to this debate.

Leslie

Whatever you say about speed not being the biggest factor in road safety, it cannot be denied that the faster you go, the more the safety margins are reduced. In the case of an external occurrence by another vehicle, or sudden adverse road conditions, or a failure such as a tyre failure etc., the faster you are going, the more difficult it will obviously be to escape any consequences.

At very high three figure speeds the inherent danger of a drastic accident is very high indeed however well the driver is trained. I wonder if police drivers are encouraged to drive at those sort of speeds during a car chase or driving to an incident bearing in mind the risks to the general public which are involved. Is it really worth risking innocent peoples' lives in order to catch a criminal or a car driver on the run who is being encouraged to drive at those speeds in an effort to escape?

In all honesty, there is no justification to drive at those speeds on the public highway. This country is just too crowded for that.

Les

harvey

iTrader: (48)

In response to what The Moose posted on page 1.
This guy did not "get off with it"
The district judge upheld the law in that police drivers are exempt from obeying certain laws if certain circumstances. The judge accepted the explanation given.
The CPS and the police would do better to spend their time constructively than having a second bite attempting to overturn a judgement that has caused some of them very considerable embarrassment.
Why did the case get as far as the CPS?
What politics exist within the police division in question?
Who took the decision to prosecute?
Why did that persons more senior officer allow it to proceed.
Was the DCC aware that one of his officers was being prosecuted and what did he do?
What is morale and leadership like in that force?
Has effective action been taken to ensure this cannot happen in future as there will be unambiguous guidelines in place which hopefully cater for operational needs?
What actions have been taken by the DCC and CC?

Seems to me that if this sort of prosecution is allowed to happen within a particular division then clearly there are problems and I wonder if the senior officers are up to the job.

Whether you like it or not, police are exempted from a number of laws and also have authority not accorded to lesser mortals.
If you expect a trained police officer to get to the scene of a crime or incident asap would it not be a good idea for him to know the capabilities of his vehicle, be trained to a high standard and current in his experience?
Hopefully the selection and vetting proceedure which is on going throughout the career of a police officer will ensure that wreckless, suicidal clowns, that lack judgement do not get onto traffic.
Now if you are a civilian you might think it is one law for them (the police) and one law for me. That is true but by necessity.

jasey

The phrase you're looking for is "Non-Pigs" .

paul-s

true