Speeding On The M4 In Wiltshire !!!!

Posted by: Berlin Fritz on 13 April 2005

A 19 year old lad has just been jailed for two years at Swindon County Court for speeding his ford Anglia car (downhill with a strong wind behind him) at 73MPH. A local Town Elder Mr Micky Parrey was quoted as saying "These kids really must learn somehow, I know it's his first offence and that he's studying to be a postman, but the Law is the Law". Upon being led to the cell's to begin his sentence the prisoner commented "Yeah my Dad's always been a bit of a stickler for righteousness and fairplay, God bless his cotton socks"

Fritz Von Our man in the dirty mac outside the nick disguised as a Journo Big Grin
Posted on: 06 June 2005 by Berlin Fritz
Yeah ! But this guy was on a pushbike John Big Grin
Posted on: 06 June 2005 by Steve Toy
My view is that we should actually cut more slack where police officers are concerned and their driving speeds. Coppers are taught to drive safely at high speeds, and they shouldn't live in fear of prosecution for doing their job.

I'd rather follow a copper at 90 up the M6 Toll than 70.

Occasionally they have a side light or brake light out just like the rest of us. When I see it I just smile and expect to be afforded the same slack when they see me with such a light out. And generally they do. Coppers are like us taxi drivers on the night shift - we help them out as best we can and they do likewise.

It all helps to make the world go round. Smile
Posted on: 06 June 2005 by Steve Toy
quote:
quote:
A danish police officer has been fined £350 and banned from driving for 3 years for doing 107mph (171 kph) while on duty.



Steve will next say its country specific


Andy,

I guess you obviously reach the same conclusion then. It is wrong to put a copper out of work for only doing 107. 107 is fuck-all on a motorway when you actually know how to drive...

So-called "speeding" on motorways:

At 70mph as a passenger and as a driver I'm bored.

At 80 I feel relaxed.

At 90 I feel stimulated.

At 100 I feel I'm (we're) making serious progress.

At 110, keeping distance, looking well ahead as well as immediately in front allowing lots of margin for error - both for the driver and other road users is paramount. German autobahn driving experience springs to mind here.

At 120 it's positively thrilling!

At 130 I'm starting to feel a bit twitchy - what if someone in front doesn't play nicely and use their mirrors before moving out in front of us?

At 140 plus I'm starting to feel a bit concerned.

At 150 I'm beginning to shit myself.

From the 100+ mark I'm only ever a passenger btw unless I'm on the unristricted 3-lane Autobahn - in which case 110 mph is my chosen limit.

On the two-lane autobahns with trucks on the inside lane, 130 kph (80mph) is about my lot.

The safest driving speed on a motorway is the one between relaxation and excitement - stimulation.

The likes of Transport 2000 plug for the boredom option to encourage phase shift to privatised public transport - their paymasters.
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Toy:
It is wrong to put a copper out of work for only doing 107.


If 107mph on a motorway gets a member of the public a ban then there is no reason why a police officer should be let off with anything lighter.

As for "safe" motorway speeds then there are times when 40mph on a motorway has felt dangerous (and I've therefore slowed down) and there are times when I've felt 150+mph was entirely acceptable. If I were caught on a UK motorway at 150mph+ I'd be expecting a jail-term and if a police officer was caught joyriding at those speeds I'd expect him to get jail-time too.

The question here isn't whether the speed limits are appropriate, it's about hypocrisy.
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by andy c
quote:
The question here isn't whether the speed limits are appropriate, it's about hypocrisy.



And on that we agree, Steve.

I made a point earlier re all the cases where officers have been prosecuted and/or disciplined. They do happen, trust me. They don't get made public because of reasons I have previously explained.

Hyperthetically If I were doing 107mph/150mph etc on the M1 'not' going to an emergency, or in a training school car, supervised accordingly, then I would expect to be found guilty at court.

andy c!
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by Paul Ranson
The police have some exemption from traffic law, for obvious reasons. The problem in this case was that the force in question didn't have a clear policy on when exemptions should apply. I presume they now do.

Paul
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by andy c
quote:
The problem in this case was that the force in question didn't have a clear policy on when exemptions should apply.



Ah!
Well if this is the case then, steve G, this could be where your 159mph cop got off! You won't agree, but policy adherance etc are quite a good shiled/sword in cases like this I'm afraid.

andy c!
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by andy c:
Ah!
Well if this is the case then, steve G, this could be where your 159mph cop got off! You won't agree, but policy adherance etc are quite a good shiled/sword in cases like this I'm afraid.


That was the interpretation that the doddering old fool of a judge had of the case, however the police themselves and the procurators office obviously felt clearly that offences had been committed - hence the prosecution taking place.

All the police forces I'm aware of have a policy that traffic regulations can be broken while responding to emergency calls or while supervised training is taking place. None of them allow officers to totally ignore speed limits just because they happen to feel like it or want to find their limits (not something that ever should be done on public roads).

Also as far as I'm aware those exemptions apply to speed limits but not to dangerous driving, which is what that officer was charged with. If 84mph in a 30mph or 159mph in a 70mph limit is ever regarded as dangerous driving then the officer should have been convicted accordingly. In fact if those speeds are regarded as an instances of dangerous driving for the public then police officers should never under any circumstances be allowed to drive like that even if responding to emergency calls.

It'll be interesting to see what happens the next time a member of the public is booked for those sorts of speeds as, unless other factors apply, then it may be the case that the judge has now set a legal precedent that speed alone cannot constitute dangerous driving.
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by Paul Ranson
The court gets to test whether the speed per se is 'dangerous driving', it's not implicit.

FWIW I can show I'm capable of driving at 155mph on a single track road so a motorway would be trivial. All I need now is a legal exemption from the speed limit. Perhaps joining the Northamptonshire Coastguard...

Paul
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Toy:
quote:
If you are guilty, stop whingeing; if you are not, contest it in court.


Glib, simplistic and naive as ever I see, Mr Cavendish.


It is very simple, but obviously still to complicated for you.
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by Nime
Please do try to remember that your English is an example to others on the forum while you're rattling on about this and that.

We've had an "ill" for "I'll" a "hyperthetically" for "hypothetically" and now another "to" instead of "too". Puh-leeze chaps! This is NOT an HT forum! We set standards here for others to follow! Big Grin

Nime (Spelling police working overtime on a pedant's emergency call, honest Guv, innit?)
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by Berlin Fritz
Flippin right Squire yew tell em like it is, innit Winker
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by Nigel Cavendish
Nome

Goo fick yershelf
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by andy c
quote:
The court gets to test whether the speed per se is 'dangerous driving', it's not implicit.



Actually its an 'objective person' test, as is due care. Would a reasonable person present at the time, having due regard to the circumstances prevailing, regard the driving as either without due care/dangerous.

The only bit of due care that isn't this way is the w/out reasonable consideration for other road users - which needs someone to be present and pissed off by the driving, so to speak.

Speeding is differant, in that its absolute save in a few circumstances - you either exceed the limit or you don't.

Where the two trypes of offence cross is 'going too fast for the prevailing conditions'.

this was an informal law input from andy c! Big Grin
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by Berlin Fritz
I often make spelling mistakes when I's speedin too, innit Big Grin
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by andy c:
Actually its an 'objective person' test, as is due care. Would a reasonable person present at the time, having due regard to the circumstances prevailing, regard the driving as either without due care/dangerous.


In the case of the 159mph copper even his fellow plod though his actions were dangerous but the befuddled judge didn't care.

BTW I noticed that the plod in question had a moustache which is generally a worrying sign in a policeman. I've yet to meet a plod (especially a traffic plod) with a moustache who didn't seem to think he was Hitler.
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by andy c
so blame the judge not the police/prosecutor. they went to court for the case to be heard etc etc.

Re your second comment, not really a fat lot I can say to that, is there? You obviously dislike cops with beards...

andy c!
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by Berlin Fritz
What ! Yer mean he was a vegetarian ? Cool
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by andy c:
so blame the judge not the police/prosecutor. they went to court for the case to be heard etc etc.


I blame that individual policeman for thinking he'd get away with it, and that judge for proving him correct.

quote:
Re your second comment, not really a fat lot I can say to that, is there? You obviously dislike cops with beards...


I've nothing against cops with bears - it's cops with moustaches which I've found sinister.
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by Berlin Fritz
Left handed vergetarians are the worstist !!! Eek
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by andy c
quote:
I blame that individual policeman for thinking he'd get away with it, and that judge for proving him correct.



I think the cop will be suitably educated now... Winker
Cops with moustaches are sooooo 80's - the Grant Mitchell look is in now Big Grin

Fritz,
if i went to spil ring then whe R U to cerrect me !
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by Steve Toy
Steve,

quote:
As for "safe" motorway speeds then there are times when 40mph on a motorway has felt dangerous (and I've therefore slowed down)


I agree entirely with the above. Freshly fallen snow, ungritted icy surface and thick fog spring to mind.

As for the hypocrisy bit I made a comment on that quite a few pages back. We seem to want our law enforcement agents to be accountable and leading us by example. In principle I agree with this.

However, when speeding is part of your job (and for a traffic copper it certainly is - with or without blues and twos) you should enjoy some immunity from prosecution.
Posted on: 07 June 2005 by Berlin Fritz
I didn't get where I is today by correcting incorrect correctional officers of their correctness of spelling, innit Big Grin

Fritz Von I bet Cpl CarpetChewer didn't often stand corrected Eek


Pish: Ain't Gwant Satchel that dosey get married to one of our Mat's journo wallers Becky Wade-in ? Smile
Posted on: 08 June 2005 by Steve G
A chap up here got off today with an alleged 156mph in a 70mph limit, not because the judge thought it was ok to do it but because the case brought by the prosecution and the police was full of holes.

There appears to have been two main factors in him getting off:

1) The police did not correctly serve a notice of prosecution to the accused.

2) The operator of the laser based speed trap initially stated he was able to recognise the driver but under cross-examination admitted that he could not.

The original charge was dangerous driving and the sheriff denied the crown from bringing in an alternative charge of "culpable and reckless conduct".

The case would probably have got interesting had it proceeded because I happen to know that the driver has extensive car racing experience so it'd have been interesting to see comparisons with the case of the police driver in England.
Posted on: 08 June 2005 by andy c
Steve,

Under english law the failure to serve an NIP in such circumstances would be fatal to the case. This is because it pus a person on standby that the police are considering prosecuting him/her for a specified offence (speeding/due car etc are a couple that require such a notice) The notice has to be served within 14 days, or as soon as practicable after that in cases where the drivers identity has to be ascertained (e.g. the owner of the vehicle was differant to the driver).

The second bit re ID would not, of the above had been complied with and the driver cofirmed as per the road traffic act, be an issue under engilsh law. It would be an issue if the driver denied driving it at the time, tho. Most traffic cops deal with this via S170 of The RTA 1988 - notification of who was the driver at the time of an offence - where the driver was not stopped at the time. This is also used whereby camera's are used - the notice sent to the keeper of the vehicle is usually sent to the one listed within 14 days etc.

Its quite right the case was discontinued, because of reasons I have said elsewhere on this thread.

andy c!