159mph Police Officer

[ProfJohnL]

I do not wish to be vindictive, but I am certainly very pleased that the policeman who blatantly broke the speed limits, in both a built up area and on the M54 has at last been convicted.

Even if he was a Grade 1 driver, he should not have even considered using that car in that way, and apparently the Judge agrees.

I do not agree with the judge about sentencing. This officer has been convicted, the judge considers him to have been adequately punished, resulting from the time delay between the offence and that publicity that this case has collected. If it had been a member of the public, then I am sure the appropriate fine/custodial sentence points on licence/ban would have been issued even with this delay.

I would encourage the DPP to challenge this leniency.

I will also be very disappointed if the subsequent police enquiry fails to identify and publish its findings - Did the police force either instruct officers to test cars in this way, or did they give the impression that such testing was justifiable? If either of these scenarios or anything similar is established, then the Counties Chief Constable should be brought up on corporate Health and Safety charges for endangering the public without just cause.

I am sorry if this traffic officer becomes a scapegoat for the failure of proper police procedures, but a very clear signal must be sent to all drivers that to break the law carries appropriate penalties of equal severity for the public or police officers.

Officers must of course become familiar with the vehicles they use, and there are enough high-speed test tracks around the country to cater for this need, but when on public roads they must be subject to the same restrictions, except when responding with authorisation to an emergency situation.

 

[Damian]

John, I fully agree with your sentiments, if this had been you or I, we would have automatically been banned for at least a year, a huge fine and points on licence.

This kind of response by the legal system is one reason why I personally have absolutely no faith in the Police, the Courts or any of the legal system as it stands.

In this day and age, there is absolutely no need for high speed chases, thats what forces have, or have access to, helicopters and stingers for, to reduce the chances of innocent others on the road becoming part of the scenario and being killed or injured because some Policeman decides to drive at irresponsible speeds to achieve what could be done so very safely by other means.

 

[rayc]

John, just one point and that is that he did not break the speed limit because he was using the exemption to exceed the limits that was his right. He was cleared of speeding at his original trial and this was not persued in the retrial. The retrial was granted in relationship to the Dangerous Driving charge. I have not read the transcript of the judgement so I do not know if he was found guilty of Dangerous Driving only on the grounds of the speeds he attained or because there was something else about his actions that proved dangerous driving beyond doubt.

Personally I have no sympathy with him when Dorset police are setting fixed and mobile cameras for enforcement levels below the ACPO guidline of 10%+2mph.

One thing is for sure and that is that somebody in his own organisation had it in for him. Of course if he had simply erased the tape, or indeed not had it switched on in the first place, nobody would know what he did that night so perhaps he was either naive or arrogant.

 

[ProfJohnL]

John, just one point and that is that he did not break the speed limit because he was using the exemption to exceed the limits that was his right. He was cleared of speeding at his original trial and this was not persued in the retrial. The retrial was granted in relationship to the Dangerous Driving charge. I have not read the transcript of the judgement so I do not know if he was found guilty of Dangerous Driving only on the grounds of the speeds he attained or because there was something else about his actions that proved dangerous driving beyond doubt.

Personally I have no sympathy with him when Dorset police are setting fixed and mobile cameras for enforcement levels below the ACPO guidline of 10%+2mph.

One thing is for sure and that is that somebody in his own organisation had it in for him. Of course if he had simply erased the tape, or indeed not had it switched on in the first place, nobody would know what he did that night so perhaps he was either naive or arrogant.

Hello Ray

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Ray

 

[Damian]

I have a question about a comment ray made

"John, just one point and that is that he did not break the speed limit because he was using the exemption to exceed the limits that was his right"

Where, exactly, is it written that a police driver can use the exemption, which IS allowed to answer EMERGENCY calls with or without Blues and Twos, to play with his new toy?

He was NOT on an emergency, he was NOT answering any kind of call, so where is he "absolved" from the rules and regulations applying to every other driver on the road.

 

[CliveV]

Personally I think the whole thing is a politically correct load of twaddle hyped up by that bastion of truth - "The UK Journalist". Just reading the headline at a service station then spouting an opinion is hardly fair. After all - anyone who has read the letter in this months CC Mag will see that one guy was deliberately misquoted by Journalists when he said that large mobile homes should be transported at night on the narrow roads where he lived. This was reported as him saying that "Caravans should only be towed at night". As always - our lowest of the low UK Journalist never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.

I bet all those above moaning about this guy practicing in his new police car in the dead of night would be the same people who would moan if their family was in danger and the police response times were poor! I think the guy's solicitor put it extremely well - If the Government and the public want "Response Times" for the emergency services then they have to be able to practice. You cannot have it both ways.

Personally I would rather have experienced and well trained officers rather than someone having to respond to an emergency who feels uncomfortable going above the speed limit because he is inexperienced.

At least he was practicing to "be there" for someone. In the days of policing by Speed Camera I find his actions more reassuring than threatening.

Denying these guys the ability to practice is a like saying to a police marksman "We want you to be 100% accurate when the time comes but sorry, you cannot practice to hone your skills".

From what I have read and heard on R4 on this story, these drivers ARE cleared to "practice" as long as conditions allow.

I also feel that there is an underlying whiff of envy in the above posts -

"I cannot do it - therefore he mustn't either"

 

[Steve L]

I quite agree with John here.

As a ROSPA catagorey A drive myself, I would expect to be punished by the laws of the land as they stand if I was deemed to be driving dangerously.

All my high speed training took place on test tracks ( I can exceed 159Mph easily on the track), only safety awareness and situation perception took place on the highway.

I can reflect on driving back to Herefordshire from Fowey in Cornwall in 2 1/4 hours at 3am to 5-15am on one occassion. In doing that I did reach speeds in excess of 130Mph and also took onboard the safety risks and the legal implications of doing so. There was a genuine need to get there in a hurry, hence the odd hour of driving.

I do agree that police officers need to undertake "training" but that does not give excuse to use the public as pawns in their little games.

I can recall one occassion when I was reversing my landrover and trailer into my garden on the busy A49 (old road) when two police motor cyclists came over the slight brow of the hill at approx 90Mph and had to take evasive actions, which ended in both of them coming off their machines. They had not noticed 200 Yards of warning signs including "police slow, road works and narrowing of the road on their side".

Sure they wanted to do me for obstruction of the highway, but when I retaliated with wanting to report the accident to their super intendant, they soon chilled out and dropped the issue. Their excuse was that they were training, the reason was they were late back to the station as I heard on their radio when the cad room called to rush them up.

High speed driving even within the boundaries of the law starts with safety, Observation and planning. Non of that was demonstrated by the two officers.

Don't kid yourselves that there's not one law for them and one for us. It is widely known that the motorist is the easy nick as the paperwork is one page compared to a dozen for a burglary.

Steve L.

 

[Steve L]

I have a question about a comment ray made

"John, just one point and that is that he did not break the speed limit because he was using the exemption to exceed the limits that was his right"

Where, exactly, is it written that a police driver can use the exemption, which IS allowed to answer EMERGENCY calls with or without Blues and Twos, to play with his new toy?

He was NOT on an emergency, he was NOT answering any kind of call, so where is he "absolved" from the rules and regulations applying to every other driver on the road.

Damien, even if there was a "genuine" emergencey and the vehicle is displaying "Blues and two's" they are still not exempt from possible prosecution even for running a red light at 5mph. That snippet of info is in the basic training manual. I'm sure his Lordship can confirm that one.

All emergencey personnel have to remain calm and calculated in every risk they take in trying to assist as fast as they can.

Steve.

 

[rayc]

John, Police officers of all classes of driver, whether uniformed or not, or driving marked or unmarked cars have an exemption from speed limits. If they are driving a vehicle that has been caught exceeding the linmit they can claim the exemption on the grounds that they were on Police business - it does not have to be traffic related or speeding to an emergency.

In 2004 59 Derbyshire Police Officers were reported for speeding whilst not using blue lights. None were prosecuted after claiming their exemptions. their own CC was caught doing 97mph on the M1 whilst hurrying to a meeting.

 

[rayc]

If you are interested in the subject go to www.pistonheads.com . ( you will have to register ).

There are hundred of postings, including some from serving Police Officers on PC Milton's case.

I have no sympathy with PC Milton, BUT: He is a Police Class 1 Driver and had been issued with a vehicle capable of the speeds attained and had been told to familiarise himself with it. West Mercia Police, unbelievably, had no policy on a driver having to get permission to carry out high speed familiarisation training or indeed having to request authority to exceed any speeed limit by any amount. They were castigated for this by the original trial judge.

At his original trial he was found not guilty of speeding after claiming his exemption as a Police Officer, and this accepted by the prosecution and not appealed against.

The appeal was against the Dangerous Driving charge. The original trial judge found him not guilty on the grounds that excessive speed in its own right is not dangerous and expert witnesses claimed that his driving as demonstrated on the video did not show a level that could prove a charge of Dangerous Driving.

I have not read the retrial judges summing up so I do not know if the conclusion that his driving met the criteria for Dangerous Driving was the speeds he attained, or it was something else about the driving as shown on the video.

 

[Ogre]

Police Officres are NOT exempt from obeying speed limits, UNLESS they are actively involved on an emergency call. At all other times they are required to obey the Highway Code just like the rest of us.

Also, and no doubt your own insurance will have similar lines to mine

"The Vehicle will not be used:

(i) For the carriage of passengers or property for hire or reward.

(ii) For racing, pacemaking, reliability trials, speed testing or driving instruction.

so there clearly seems to have been an insurance violation here.

The whole case stinks.

Any normal driver would have been taken to the cleaners for driving at such a crazy speed.

 

[CliveV]

Your analysis certainly mirrors my interpretation from what I have read and heard Ray. I would only differ in that I most certainly DO have sympathy with the guy.

Based upon the lack of clear guidelines he was not breaking the law or his Constabularies Standard Operating Procedures.

I find it deeply worrying that he has now been found guilty of Dangerous Driving when he had originally been acquitted BECAUSE there were no guidelines to break and Class 1 Drivers were expected to practice and familiarise themselves with new kit so they ARE competent.

Seems more like a witch hunt to me.

If he was working within what were "normal" parameters at the time it is wrong to retrospectively apply new parameters just so he can be found guilty.

It seems the Judge had no choice but to find him guilty in such circumstances but the fact that he was not fined or banned speaks volumes about what the Judge probably felt about what seems to be a callous manipulation of the law.

 

[CliveV]

Keith - you are talking sherical objects here.

The Police Insurance is NOTHING like the policies issued for the rest of us.

They are Corporate Policies and believe me (as an IFA who deals with such) - you are are well out of order trying to stoke the fires on this.

 

[CliveV]

Police Officres are NOT exempt from obeying speed limits, UNLESS they are actively involved on an emergency call. At all other times they are required to obey the Highway Code just like the rest of us.

Also, and no doubt your own insurance will have similar lines to mine

"The Vehicle will not be used:

(i) For the carriage of passengers or property for hire or reward.

(ii) For racing, pacemaking, reliability trials, speed testing or driving instruction.

so there clearly seems to have been an insurance violation here.

The whole case stinks.

Any normal driver would have been taken to the cleaners for driving at such a crazy speed.

Kieth it has allready been established in the first case that Police Officers DO have an exemption from Speed Limits - See above postings.

Therefore this latest case was about Dangerous Driving NOT speeding

 

[CliveV]

Police Officres are NOT exempt from obeying speed limits, UNLESS they are actively involved on an emergency call. At all other times they are required to obey the Highway Code just like the rest of us.

Also, and no doubt your own insurance will have similar lines to mine

"The Vehicle will not be used:

(i) For the carriage of passengers or property for hire or reward.

(ii) For racing, pacemaking, reliability trials, speed testing or driving instruction.

so there clearly seems to have been an insurance violation here.

The whole case stinks.

Any normal driver would have been taken to the cleaners for driving at such a crazy speed.

Also, He is a Class 1 Police Driver - NOT an normal driver at all.

 

[NorfolkMike]

If the great British public wish their police officers to answer, to the responce times that are demanded of them, and for them to chase villians. How do you propose that they are trained? On nice smooth sterile race tracks with no hazzards in sight?

If while driving along the highway with all your family onboard, you are overtaken by a spotty youth in a stolen car and having just commited a robbery in a petrol station, hotly chased by the police, would you not feel better and more secure in the knowledge that the police driver knew what he was doing,or are you suggesting that he should be constrained by the same rules that relate to you and I.

Get real!!!

ttfn

 

[Val & Frank]

Keith you make the point " Any Normal Driver " This guy was not any normal driver he is a top notch police driver, who I believe was on duty at the time of the offence ??.

One Police car practicing at night is hardly liable to cause a multi car pile up or wipe out a family of five, but you or I on the M6 at any time of the day or night is liable to cause such a disaster. That's why we have limits ( which I feel are to low )Blues and two's are designed to alert the public that an Emergency Service Vehicle is coming along, and may be a danger to the public so beware !!!!.

So what are we saying if he had lights/siren, at 2 in the morning it would be safe ? No I don't think so IMHO the guy should have been warned by his boss ( recorded ) and then his boss should have looked at how they practice and then wrote a procedure.

Val & Frank

 

[rayc]

I have found the quote from the judge when pronouncing a guilty verdict at the retrial "Your {PC Milton} driving fell far beneath the standards expected of a careful & competent driver".

PC Milton is appealing, with the backing of the Police Federation, on the grounds that the judge ruled "his advance driving skills & Police Class 1 Driver qualification were irrelavent to the charge".

Clive, I think that the main culprit in this fiasco is the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police. The Police continually preach speed kills and the CC resonsible for road policing said

" drifting over the speed limit is no different than drifting a knife into somebody's ribs". The reason I have little sympathy with PC Milton is because of my belief, right or wrong, that the Police want to be treated differently than the rest of us, plus my conviction that he has in all propability issued penalties to ordinary motorists who have been been carrying out less risky activities than he was.

[The Assistant CC of Hampshire had to attend court when a Hampshire CID car had exceeded the speed limit but the driver could not be ascertained. If that were you or I we would be castigated and found guilty under S172 in not being able to name the driver of the vehicle to which you are the registered keeper. A police man was obviously guilty of the offence but chose to hide behind his right to silence - an option not open to the public when a Notice of Prosectution is issued to the rgistered keeper of the vehicle involved.].

 

[sparkes]

So let me get this right

I drive in Europe and therefor have a need to be able to drive my car fast as I will use unrestricted roads at some point

So, according to the laws now verified in court I can try this in the UK and get off with a slap on the wrist!

funny that when a biker did these speeds recently, he got 3 yrs

The guy should have gone to jail, lost his job and been banned from driving for life

 

[rayc]

Steve, one thing for sure is that he has not been left with just a slap on the wrist. With a Dangerous Driving conviction on the licence he can kiss goodby to his career as a Police Class 1 driver and possibly his continuing employment as a Policeman. Now he has been pronounced guilty he must be subject to an internal disciplinary hearing by West Mercia Police. Given that the decision to prosecute him came from a video, that could have easily been erased or ignored, somebody high up was out to get him. The lack of a driver training policy for West Mercia Police Pursuit drivers which came to light at the trial has caused red faces in the CC office.

There is no doubt PC Milton will be hung out to dry.

 

[Ogre]

Keith - you are talking sherical objects here.

The Police Insurance is NOTHING like the policies issued for the rest of us.

They are Corporate Policies and believe me (as an IFA who deals with such) - you are are well out of order trying to stoke the fires on this.

There's no need to be offensive Clive!

I'm entitled to my view, just like you, and it's not a case of stoking any fires.

I don't really care if you are an IFA or not. Was that supposed to impress me in some way? I really couldn't care less.

The FACT is, that driving at speeds that are outside the regulation speed limits, IS illegal (even for police officers). This idiotic clown was NOT on an emergency call. He was SHOWING OFF ON PUBLIC ROADS and, as such, he has quite rightly been convicted of Dangerous Driving.

Whether he is a police officer or not ( in fact, particularly as he is), he has a significant duty of care towards other road users. Do you SERIOUSLY think he could have stopped quickly at that speed?

I wonder if you would still have felt so smug about it if he had lost control, and killed other people, (perhaps people that YOU know), all in the name of "testing the car".

A bit like our neighbour, who was hit four years ago at 90mph by a DRUNK driver, and was killed. But that's OK isn't it. He was just having a bit of fun, tearing round at high speed.

NO.........it's NOT OK.

As other posters have rightly said. Do that on a racetrack, or on an airfield which allows high speed driving.

Think whatever you like, but this idiot has opened the floodgates to public retaliation whenever any of US get a speeding ticket. Whether YOU like it or not.

Bluntly. it's OK for the coppers to do it. but not for us!!

Like I said originally. IT STINKS!!

 

[CliveV]

There's no need to be offensive Clive!

Believe me I wasn't!

I'm entitled to my view, just like you, and it's not a case of stoking any fires.

All I said was that on the Insurance issue you are wrong

I don't really care if you are an IFA or not. Was that supposed to impress me in some way? I really couldn't care less.

I only mentioned it as I deal with Corporate Policies and so actually do know what I am talking about.

The FACT is, that driving at speeds that are outside the regulation speed limits, IS illegal (even for police officers). This idiotic clown was NOT on an emergency call. He was SHOWING OFF ON PUBLIC ROADS and, as such, he has quite rightly been convicted of Dangerous Driving.

The fact is that it is NOT illegal for Police Officers to exceed the Speed limits - If you bothered to read the posts on this - you would have known this. He was acquitted of speeding as he is a Class 1 Police Driver.

Whether he is a police officer or not ( in fact, particularly as he is), he has a significant duty of care towards other road users. Do you SERIOUSLY think he could have stopped quickly at that speed?

Quickly - Yes - Police Pursuit Cars have uprated brakes - Safely - Yes - it is what he is trained to do.

I wonder if you would still have felt so smug about it if he had lost control, and killed other people, (perhaps people that YOU know), all in the name of "testing the car".

I am not feeling smug at all just depressed at your less than valid "Holier than thou" attitude. I would be JUST AS UPSET if a police officer was slow to arrive at an incident and so put me and mine at risk because of silly rules that forbid him to practice his skills.

A bit like our neighbour, who was hit four years ago at 90mph by a DRUNK driver, and was killed. But that's OK isn't it. He was just having a bit of fun, tearing round at high speed.

This shows how desperate you are - trying to equate a the case to being similar to a Drunk Driving case - Nonsense!

NO.........it's NOT OK.

Neither is expecting someone on the front line to compromise their safety and ours by not allowing them to practice. If you can bring up a drunk driving case then may I remind you that not so long ago a Policewoman was shot and killed when just answering a call to a Travel Agent. When was the last time you and your sanctimonious friends put yourselves at such risk for the general good of one an all. No - it seem like all you are good at is criticising.

As other posters have rightly said. Do that on a racetrack, or on an airfield which allows high speed driving.

And other posters have agreed with my viewpoint.

Think whatever you like, but this idiot has opened the floodgates to public retaliation whenever any of US get a speeding ticket. Whether YOU like it or not.

I hardly think so!

Bluntly. it's OK for the coppers to do it. but not for us!!

Yep! - that is what the rules say for Class 1 Police Drivers.

Like I said originally. IT STINKS!!

No - it is just beyond you comprehension.

 

[CliveV]

I have found the quote from the judge when pronouncing a guilty verdict at the retrial "Your {PC Milton} driving fell far beneath the standards expected of a careful & competent driver".

PC Milton is appealing, with the backing of the Police Federation, on the grounds that the judge ruled "his advance driving skills & Police Class 1 Driver qualification were irrelavent to the charge".

Clive, I think that the main culprit in this fiasco is the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police. The Police continually preach speed kills and the CC resonsible for road policing said

" drifting over the speed limit is no different than drifting a knife into somebody's ribs". The reason I have little sympathy with PC Milton is because of my belief, right or wrong, that the Police want to be treated differently than the rest of us, plus my conviction that he has in all propability issued penalties to ordinary motorists who have been been carrying out less risky activities than he was.

[The Assistant CC of Hampshire had to attend court when a Hampshire CID car had exceeded the speed limit but the driver could not be ascertained. If that were you or I we would be castigated and found guilty under S172 in not being able to name the driver of the vehicle to which you are the registered keeper. A police man was obviously guilty of the offence but chose to hide behind his right to silence - an option not open to the public when a Notice of Prosectution is issued to the rgistered keeper of the vehicle involved.].

I agree Ray - this guy seems to have done what was allowed and then they changed the rules.

 

[Ogre]

No further comment Clive.

You are obviously one of these people who is always right!

I'm not going to waste time on you.

Just check out ALL the National Newspapers over the last few days, for the Public and Motoring organisations views on this case.

Obviously, as we all knew anyway, the police can do exactly what they like, whilst expecting the public to behave differently.

I think you are just a wind up merchant actually.