Indeed John L, I feel we are getting closer to what is necessary or acceptable, and that which is not. I made no reference to the individual case of this police officer, I know far too little about it to comment or criticise. I still maintain that these people in general, need to train at the speeds that they will be driving, on public roads. As you correctly say, not only do they familiarise themselves with their car but also the roads too. A motorway is far different at 150mph than it is at 80mph.
If all their training could be done on closed roads and tracks, why do we still allow learner drivers onto our roads? Surely all their training could be done on closed roads, without the need to hamper more experienced drivers. I have had the miss/fortune to follow several recently, and thought their capabilities both shocking and dangerous. However, they have to learn somewhere, and despite the fact that they are likely to cause an accident, the public roads are where they can learn the most.
Just scale that one up to advanced drivers and Cat 1 drivers.
Perhaps the powers that be can come up with a safer way to implement future practice sessions, which involve the public.
I was under the impression that unless a pursuit is underway, the plod cannot exceed limits under the national speed limit, i.e 50's 40's 30's, yet he was clocked doing 91 in a 30, that to me seems a lot more dangerous than the headline grabbing 159 on the dual carriageway.
Would anyone else walking/driving around at that time of day in a 30 zone really expect to come across a car travelling at 3 times the limit?
Would anyone else walking/driving around at that time of day in a 30 zone really expect to come across a car travelling at 3 times the limit?
That has never been my understanding and based upon the fact that at the first court case it was confirmed that Police Officers are exempt from speed limits and the speeding charges were dropped I think this is correct.
The whole emphasis of the second court case was that the speed alone was "dangerous".
I am appalled that people could actually be arguing that Police Officers should compromise their familiarisation with new equipment and have in the back of their mind that they could be hauled up before the courts for "dangerous driving" if they break the speed limit on their way to an incident.
Because if this case stands that is what the consequences will be.
The whole emphasis of the second court case was that the speed alone was "dangerous".
I am appalled that people could actually be arguing that Police Officers should compromise their familiarisation with new equipment and have in the back of their mind that they could be hauled up before the courts for "dangerous driving" if they break the speed limit on their way to an incident.
Because if this case stands that is what the consequences will be.
I understand your line of thinking Clive, but surely this case must revolve around whether the manner of this officer's driving was absolutely necessary. Personally I think it wasn't. Like a lot of people I think he was out for a play in a new toy. Ask yourself this; if you or a member of your family were struck by a police vehicle travelling at 90mph in your town would you be impressed? You'd maybe forgive if the officer was in a life and death situation, but probably not if he was "familiarizing himself with his vehicle". For me the whole point is that in the given situation his driving was entirely unnecessary, and as such may have endangered public safety for no reason at all.
I do not mean to be rude (tho' it often comes quite naturally to me! LOL!!!) but when did doing something that was nor strictly necessary became a criminal offence?
As for any one of my family being injured by a fast police car I am honest enough to say I would be totally devastated and want to know the exact circumstances.
Similarly if one of my family was injured and required assistance but did not get it in time I am certain to be equally devastated and would also want to know the exact circumstances.
The point is that according to the rules as published for a Class 1 Police Driver - HE DID NOTHING WRONG!
The only way he was found guilty was for the powers that be to alter the rules retrospectively.
So now we have every Police Driver aware that even in an emergency a precedent exists that can take away their exemption from having to obey speed limits.
So, we give them response times to hit and berate them if they do not hit the "Target" - whilst at the same time tell them that they could loose their job and all that goes with it if they rely on the speed limit immunity they thought they had prior to this court case.
As for any one of my family being injured by a fast police car I am honest enough to say I would be totally devastated and want to know the exact circumstances.
Similarly if one of my family was injured and required assistance but did not get it in time I am certain to be equally devastated and would also want to know the exact circumstances.
The point is that according to the rules as published for a Class 1 Police Driver - HE DID NOTHING WRONG!
The only way he was found guilty was for the powers that be to alter the rules retrospectively.
So now we have every Police Driver aware that even in an emergency a precedent exists that can take away their exemption from having to obey speed limits.
So, we give them response times to hit and berate them if they do not hit the "Target" - whilst at the same time tell them that they could loose their job and all that goes with it if they rely on the speed limit immunity they thought they had prior to this court case.
You are right on that point Clive, no argument. My understanding of the rules for police drivers, however, is that they may disregard traffic laws only when necessary, and only for as long as is necessary. If my understanding is incorrect, and this officer was immune to certain or all traffic laws at all times then you're right, he shouldn't be in the dock.
craig, PC Milton had an exemption from the speed limit but not against dangerous driving. The judge said that his driving fell below the standard that a careful and competent driver would consider reasonable. His Class 1 qualification and experience was not taken into account even though the judge in his original trial called him the 'creme de la creme' of drivers. We have not heard the last of this matter and his appeal will be interesting.
The CPS in deciding to prosecute him must have decided that it was in the public interest to do so. I wonder if that will prove to be the case because, in my opinion, it has opened a can of worms and a further erosion of confidence in the Police.
The CPS in deciding to prosecute him must have decided that it was in the public interest to do so. I wonder if that will prove to be the case because, in my opinion, it has opened a can of worms and a further erosion of confidence in the Police.
Peter, I can confirm 'personally' that the rule you talk about is incorrect but that policies relating to breaking the speed limit when travelling to incidents vary from force to force.
I know that in one north Midlands force, when travelling on an 'immediate response' incident, a limit of 20 mph over the set speed limit applies. This may not be regularly enforced or checked but when travelling through a 'live' Gatso, a *** is sent out to the driver of the police vehicle who has to justify the speed.
Most forces also fit 'black boxes' or Incident Data Recorders to police vehicles. These record things such as speed, braking and what emergency lights are displayed. Whenever an incident involving a police vehicle is reported, the data is downloaded from the box for analysis.
I know that in one north Midlands force, when travelling on an 'immediate response' incident, a limit of 20 mph over the set speed limit applies. This may not be regularly enforced or checked but when travelling through a 'live' Gatso, a *** is sent out to the driver of the police vehicle who has to justify the speed.
Most forces also fit 'black boxes' or Incident Data Recorders to police vehicles. These record things such as speed, braking and what emergency lights are displayed. Whenever an incident involving a police vehicle is reported, the data is downloaded from the box for analysis.
Which as you correctly point out Ray is already at an all time low with "Piggy Bank" speed cameras every where and Chief Constables more interested in hammering the motorist (more profit!) than hammering crime (more hassle/paperwork).
I do not think anyone on this thread who calls for this Policeman to be fined/jailed/fired/hung/drawn/quartered have any idea of the ramifications that their wishes would have on Policing in the UK if their wishes were to be granted.
Just think about it, to protect themselves the Police would all be reduced to having governed Fiesta's and the criminals would have a free run - literally!
I do not think anyone on this thread who calls for this Policeman to be fined/jailed/fired/hung/drawn/quartered have any idea of the ramifications that their wishes would have on Policing in the UK if their wishes were to be granted.
Just think about it, to protect themselves the Police would all be reduced to having governed Fiesta's and the criminals would have a free run - literally!
Dear CliveV,
I have refrained from responding since the 29th August as I considered we had discussed the matter to the point where we both understood that there can be room for alternative views, each with merits and demerits, and further discussion was of no benefit as were are unlikely to be able to arrive at a complete consensus or change the protocols and laws applicable.
However and with reference to your reply of the 29th at 04:11pm I concur with you that on any given point that generates differing opinions, some will be wrong, but that does not automatically mean that the reminder will be 100% right so there is always some room for disconsent.
Even if the trigger for my original posting (the headline) was not accurate in the description of the courts ruling, the sentiment was accurate in that the officer has been convicted of a traffic offence related to his conduct whilst travelling at beyond the public speed limits. - I suppose you could call this emotion but I have tried to look beyond this specific case and broaden the issue, to stimulate debate, which I consider has happened, but some contributors continue to try to use the forum to score personal points and I feel have been a victim of this practice.
Certain comments you have made I find demeaning, You imply I am wallowing in the emotion of the case, I maintain that I have tried broaden the issues and suggest alternatives strategies.
You suggest that my views should be treated with the same level of credence as a 'Teenager who knows everything'. It is a matter of fact that I am not either of your sons or a teenager, and my views are equally valid as your own - but different.
Please allow the other contributors the chance to make their own minds up about the issues.
Now I refer back to paragraphs 5 & 6 of my original posting. I agree that this officer is potentially being offered as cannon fodder, for failing in the clarity of guidelines given to police drivers.
However if the officer has broken the law then he/they must be prepared to answer in court, and the courts should apply the same penalties as they would for any driver who is convicted of the same offence.
Concerning the 'ramifications' There are perfectly good reasons for the police and other authorities to need to use high speeds. And as such these authorities will continue to be issued with high performance vehicles. There will need to be highly trained officers to drive these vehicles, and they will need time to familiarise them selves with the vehicles. What is open to debate is how that training and familiarisation is done.
My own belief is that unless on urgent business directly related to the prevention or control of crime or an incident police drivers should be bound by the normal speed limits.
A proper set of protocols should be applied that determine how drivers are trained and allowed to familiarise themselves with vehicles - whether that is on public or private roads and tracks needs to be defined, and if it is on Public roads then it should be authorised, controlled and logged.
I have posted my opinions regarding this matter. I see no point in repeating them further and thus I will retire from this thread unless new evidence comes to light or if my integrity is attacked.
I have refrained from responding since the 29th August as I considered we had discussed the matter to the point where we both understood that there can be room for alternative views, each with merits and demerits, and further discussion was of no benefit as were are unlikely to be able to arrive at a complete consensus or change the protocols and laws applicable.
However and with reference to your reply of the 29th at 04:11pm I concur with you that on any given point that generates differing opinions, some will be wrong, but that does not automatically mean that the reminder will be 100% right so there is always some room for disconsent.
Even if the trigger for my original posting (the headline) was not accurate in the description of the courts ruling, the sentiment was accurate in that the officer has been convicted of a traffic offence related to his conduct whilst travelling at beyond the public speed limits. - I suppose you could call this emotion but I have tried to look beyond this specific case and broaden the issue, to stimulate debate, which I consider has happened, but some contributors continue to try to use the forum to score personal points and I feel have been a victim of this practice.
Certain comments you have made I find demeaning, You imply I am wallowing in the emotion of the case, I maintain that I have tried broaden the issues and suggest alternatives strategies.
You suggest that my views should be treated with the same level of credence as a 'Teenager who knows everything'. It is a matter of fact that I am not either of your sons or a teenager, and my views are equally valid as your own - but different.
Please allow the other contributors the chance to make their own minds up about the issues.
Now I refer back to paragraphs 5 & 6 of my original posting. I agree that this officer is potentially being offered as cannon fodder, for failing in the clarity of guidelines given to police drivers.
However if the officer has broken the law then he/they must be prepared to answer in court, and the courts should apply the same penalties as they would for any driver who is convicted of the same offence.
Concerning the 'ramifications' There are perfectly good reasons for the police and other authorities to need to use high speeds. And as such these authorities will continue to be issued with high performance vehicles. There will need to be highly trained officers to drive these vehicles, and they will need time to familiarise them selves with the vehicles. What is open to debate is how that training and familiarisation is done.
My own belief is that unless on urgent business directly related to the prevention or control of crime or an incident police drivers should be bound by the normal speed limits.
A proper set of protocols should be applied that determine how drivers are trained and allowed to familiarise themselves with vehicles - whether that is on public or private roads and tracks needs to be defined, and if it is on Public roads then it should be authorised, controlled and logged.
I have posted my opinions regarding this matter. I see no point in repeating them further and thus I will retire from this thread unless new evidence comes to light or if my integrity is attacked.
I too dropped out of this thread on 27th August.
It's a shame when somebody on the forum is determined to impress HIS view on everybody else over and over and over.......SO BORING!!
But then he IS an IFA !!
Bit of self importance methinks!!
Just ignore.....he'll go away!
Don't bother replying Mr IFA......we've all gone!
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Register UK type approved caravan in France
- Started by 9994johng
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter