159mph speeding charge PC cleared



Mike Dodds wrote:
> "Call me Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>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 wrote:
> "Call me Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>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/
 
On Wed, 18 May 2005 15:46:58 +0100, Mark Tranchant wrote:
> Mike Dodds wrote:
>> "Call me Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>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 protected], "Mark Tranchant"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Mike Dodds wrote:
>> "Call me Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> 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
 
On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:54:59 GMT, "elyob" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> 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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:54:59 GMT, "elyob" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> 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 wrote:
>
> "Call me Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> > 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 wrote:

> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
> JohnB wrote:
>
>> 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 protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
 
elyob wrote:
> "Call me Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>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 protected]>
wrote:

>> 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.
 
On Wed, 18 May 2005 13:49:08 GMT, Call me Bob
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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.
>
> 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 wrote:
> 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 protected]>
wrote:

>Tilly wrote:
>
>e 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?
>
>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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
159mph police driver to be done after all
Replies
16
Views
579
UK and Europe
badger
B
N
Gestures to make to speeding motorists?
Replies
27
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Ekul Namsob
E
S
OT- Any driving offence including speeding should prompt a re-test
Replies
21
Views
854
UK and Europe
Martin Dann
M
P
OT (possibly) Oz anti speeding adds.
Replies
0
Views
359
UK and Europe
Phil Cook
P
M
[OT] Reducing the amount of speeding cars on the road.
Replies
34
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Marc Brett
M
Top Bottom Back