159mph speeding charge PC cleared

"Call me Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm

I don't think I can make any comment on this without sounding cynical
and depressingly unsurprised. So I won't.

I see:

"Pc Milton is also accused of driving at 100mph in a 60mph zone and 60mph in
30mph zones.

From an earlier BBC report.

Mike Dodds said:

"Call me Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm

I don't think I can make any comment on this without sounding cynical
and depressingly unsurprised. So I won't.

I see:

"Pc Milton is also accused of driving at 100mph in a 60mph zone and 60mph in
30mph zones.

But his greater driving skill will prevent small children from running
out into the road ahead of him.

R.

Mike Dodds said:

"Call me Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm

I don't think I can make any comment on this without sounding cynical
and depressingly unsurprised. So I won't.

I see:

"Pc Milton is also accused of driving at 100mph in a 60mph zone and 60mph in
30mph zones.

Hmph. And I was getting ready to defend the 159mph on a clear motorway
in the early hours, which I believe could be entirely reasonable for a
practising practicing police driver provided he slowed down
significantly around any other road users.

60 in a 30 zone is inexcusable though, under any circumstances. Use a
helicopter instead.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

Mark Tranchant said:

Mike Dodds said:

"Call me Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm

I don't think I can make any comment on this without sounding cynical
and depressingly unsurprised. So I won't.

I see:

"Pc Milton is also accused of driving at 100mph in a 60mph zone and 60mph in
30mph zones.

Hmph. And I was getting ready to defend the 159mph on a clear motorway
in the early hours, which I believe could be entirely reasonable for a
practising practicing police driver provided he slowed down
significantly around any other road users.

60 in a 30 zone is inexcusable though, under any circumstances. Use a
helicopter instead.

Oh come on, driving a helicopter in a 30 zone would be far more
dangermouse. Especially for tall pedestrians.

--
Trevor Barton

On 18/5/05 3:46 pm, in article
[email hidden], "Mark Tranchant"

Quoted message said:

Mike Dodds said:

"Call me Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm

I don't think I can make any comment on this without sounding cynical
and depressingly unsurprised. So I won't.

I see:

"Pc Milton is also accused of driving at 100mph in a 60mph zone and 60mph in
30mph zones.

Hmph. And I was getting ready to defend the 159mph on a clear motorway
in the early hours, which I believe could be entirely reasonable for a
practising practicing police driver provided he slowed down
significantly around any other road users.

60 in a 30 zone is inexcusable though, under any circumstances. Use a
helicopter instead.

Surely if a PC wants to do something like this there should be an
appropriate risk assessment drawn up and approved by a senior officer. Doing
this off ones own bat should be verboten.

...d

"Call me Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm

I don't think I can make any comment on this without sounding cynical
and depressingly unsurprised. So I won't.

Well, it's off topic anyhow.

On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:54:59 GMT, "elyob" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm

I don't think I can make any comment on this without sounding cynical
and depressingly unsurprised. So I won't.

Well, it's off topic anyhow.

There is plenty of discussion in here on speeding, road safety and the
enforcement, or otherwise, of the law surrounding these matters.

It seems that a significant number of regulars do have an interest in
discussing these subjects because they, at least indirectly, affect us
as road using cyclists.

"Bob"

--

Email address is spam trapped.
To reply directly remove the beverage.

"Call me Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:54:59 GMT, "elyob" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm

I don't think I can make any comment on this without sounding cynical
and depressingly unsurprised. So I won't.

Well, it's off topic anyhow.

There is plenty of discussion in here on speeding, road safety and the
enforcement, or otherwise, of the law surrounding these matters.

It seems that a significant number of regulars do have an interest in
discussing these subjects because they, at least indirectly, affect us
as road using cyclists.

I know, so I've added an OT into the subject. I don't mind reading about it,
but it's got nothing to do with cycling.

elyob said:

"Call me Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It seems that a significant number of regulars do have an interest in
discussing these subjects because they, at least indirectly, affect us
as road using cyclists.

I know, so I've added an OT into the subject. I don't mind reading about it,
but it's got nothing to do with cycling.

Motorists speeding past me _directly_ affect both my safety and my
enjoyment of cycling.
IMO it is completely on-topic to discuss such morons.

They are arguably the biggest reason why people are scared to venture
out on bikes and why so many parents will not let their children ride on
the roads.

Take that to its logical end and cycling will cease.

John B

JohnB said:

Motorists speeding past me _directly_ affect both my safety and my
enjoyment of cycling.

But not, thankfully, when they're doing 159mph on the motorway.

On Wed, 18 May 2005 18:55:09 +0100,

Zog The Undeniable said:

JohnB said:

Motorists speeding past me _directly_ affect both my safety and my
enjoyment of cycling.

But not, thankfully, when they're doing 159mph on the motorway.

But the 89 mph in a 30 would cause you some concern.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

elyob said:

"Call me Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm
I don't think I can make any comment on this without sounding cynical
and depressingly unsurprised. So I won't.

Well, it's off topic anyhow.

Would have been on-topic if there had been any cyclists on the roads
this dangerous driving happened on.

Is there no appeal against an acquittal? There is against an
inadequate sentence.

I thought police were only allowed to go at these speeds with blue
lights and sirens on.

There are plenty of race circuits; maybe the police should get one of
their own and add junctions and parked cars.

Colin McKenzie

On Wed, 18 May 2005 17:02:43 GMT, "elyob" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It seems that a significant number of regulars do have an interest in
discussing these subjects because they, at least indirectly, affect us
as road using cyclists.

I know, so I've added an OT into the subject. I don't mind reading about it,
but it's got nothing to do with cycling.

Well I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist over you renaming
threads, but it doesn't seem a very helpful thing to do.

With the subject line altered many users news clients will now split
the thread into two. I don't know what you've achieved by doing that
other than a bit of minor buggeration for a few readers.

It seems a bit off you unilaterally declaring what is and isn't
on-topic when the subject in question is clearly regarded by some as
bang on for the group.

We're cyclists; road safety, speeding and the behavior of the police
and the courts towards speeders seems a valid u.r.c topic to me.

So pprprprssssrrpppp to you! 🙂

"Bob"

--

Email address is spam trapped.
To reply directly remove the beverage.

Call me Bob said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm

I don't think I can make any comment on this without sounding cynical
and depressingly unsurprised. So I won't.

Let's look at this philosophically.

Some would argue that there are times when it is justified for the
emergency services to drive at high speed in the interests of public
safety. To be able to drive at high speed, the driver needs to be
trained to drive at high speed. This implies that driving at high
speed in non-emergency situations can be justified for training
purposes. It also follows that a driver needs to be familiar with any
new car the driver is allocated. In the absence of any written
procedures for familiarisation, a driver might reasonably feel
entitled to familiarise themself with an unfamiliar car, especially if
advised to do so by a trainer.

The law justifies driving at high speed in certain circumstances

The driver has claimed that he was familiarising himself with an
unfamiliar car.

The prosecution claim the driver was out on a jolly.

Am I convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the driver was out on
a jolly and was not familiarising himself with an unfamiliar car in
the absence of standard procedure?

"Call me Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

We're cyclists; road safety, speeding and the behavior of the police
and the courts towards speeders seems a valid u.r.c topic to me.

I know what you mean, but the article had no relation to cycling. I know
it's pedantic. I'm off to start a "I don't like tractors" thread.

Tilly wrote:

e prosecution claim the driver was out on a jolly.

Quoted message said:

Am I convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the driver was out on
a jolly and was not familiarising himself with an unfamiliar car in
the absence of standard procedure?

As someone has already pointed out in this thread, if this road journey
was undertaken for a legitimate work-related purpose, it would be
appropriate for it to be risk assessed. If there was a standard
procedure there might be a standard RA, otherwise it would probably be
specific to the particular test drive.

The assessment should be recorded. Producing it in court would go a long
way to supporting the defendant's version of events. In my own view it
seems that without a RA either the car journey was an unauthorised
illegal self-indulgence or it was a work activity undertaken in breach
of H&S legislation. However, I'm a bit vague about exactly how H&S regs
(Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations) apply to the
police, so could be wrong.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Jumping here because my Newsreader doesn't seem to have downloaded the start
of this thread.

I liked the comment on R4's P.M. this evening.
Something like
"I hope they'll warn us if he decides he needs to test his fire-arm skills
at any time"

--
Cheerful Pedalling
John Mallard

John Mallard said:

Jumping here because my Newsreader doesn't seem to have downloaded the start
of this thread.

Don't thank your Newsreader, thank Elyob.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

On Wed, 18 May 2005 20:05:44 +0100, JLB <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tilly wrote:

e prosecution claim the driver was out on a jolly.

Quoted message said:

Am I convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the driver was out on
a jolly and was not familiarising himself with an unfamiliar car in
the absence of standard procedure?

As someone has already pointed out in this thread, if this road journey
was undertaken for a legitimate work-related purpose, it would be
appropriate for it to be risk assessed. If there was a standard
procedure there might be a standard RA, otherwise it would probably be
specific to the particular test drive.

The assessment should be recorded. Producing it in court would go a long
way to supporting the defendant's version of events. In my own view it
seems that without a RA either the car journey was an unauthorised
illegal self-indulgence or it was a work activity undertaken in breach
of H&S legislation. However, I'm a bit vague about exactly how H&S regs
(Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations) apply to the
police, so could be wrong.

Suspicion is not sufficient for a legal proof.

I agree that the policeman was driving in a reckless manner - but it
may be that with an absence of proper guidelines he was driving in a
reckless manner legally.