159 mph and he gets let off Click

How can the judge call him the 'creme de la creme' of police drivers

Discuss

he was also doing 84mph in a 30 and 131mph on an A road.....

if that was any of us mere plebs we WOULD have been locked up.....

He should be locked up...... if not only because he should know better and I bet he has preached about excessive speed to hundreds of unlucky motorists falling foul of his speed traps...........

unbelievably infuriating..

Further proof, as if any were nessicary, that in this country at this time there are two sets of laws.

Which applies to you depend on who you are.

makes you wanna scream - in fact I will...

AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHH

what a git that copper is - i've never had a car that will go that fast

Surely they have a track to familiarise themselves with their vehicles?

I think it's outrageous that he got away with that excuse!

Nick

In 20 years of driving, most of the most dangerous examples of bad driving that I have seen have been by the police.

Eg - after my lights had gone green at a junction, an unmarked (except for a switched off blue light on it's roof) police car shot accross the front of me, on the wrong side of it's road at about 60 MPH through a red light on it's road. Had he hit me it would have made quite a mess.

'familiarising himself with its capabilities'

and what if we wanted to do that with our nice newly sva'd (when it happens ) kitcars....
exactly as dorsetstrider said.there's 2 set's of rules in this rediculously overtaxed country we live in..

[on soap box]

I remember doing 128 at night on the way to see my brother one evening when I got pulled. I got off with it in as much as I was given a severe b0ll0cking and ordered to pay HRH £300 and 3 points.

Ironically the policeman stated that at the speed I was doing almost a mile every 26 seconds. If it had have taken me 10 seconds to stop from that speed I would have travelled almost 1/4 mile. In daylight, that's a long way... he was travelling at 2:00am for god's sake therefore reduced visability!

What in the hell sort of example is this to set to the kids that terrorise our street corners and then "publically" he get's away with it? I dare say he's in for a right 'disciplinary' BUT it was a perfect opportunity for the constabulary to show the public that even law enforcement officers cannot get away with such wreckless and dangerous driving. They ought to, nay - still should throw the book at him!

[/off soap box]

We should all join the force!

Once was at a PCT were pasing Traffic cops decided to take an interest They asked to have a go and came to a rest halfway up a hill that about 70% of cars were either clearing or getting the nose into last gate --- what were they driving ? --- only Solihulls finest product Mk1 Range Rover on Firestone M&S Tyres.

I'm going to carry a red icebox and when I get pulled tell them I'm on a mercy dash with a liver for transplant. The onions are in there as well.

Send them off to germany for high speed training on auto barns where its legal. If its not an emergancy then treet him like any other person/civilian.

OK, 159 on the motorway in the early hours of the morning, now I'm prepared to let that go but 85 (was it?) in a 30 zone, THAT is wrong.

If I want to familiarise myself with my car I have to book a day on the track.

Now if I was to take the advanced driving test, would I be able to use the same excuse? I think not.

I really could go on for quite some time about how p!ssed off I am about this but I'll stop now

INFURIATING..
AAAAARRRRRRRHHHHHHHH

Does this open a legal precedent?

All you have to say is that you are the creme de la creme of locost drivers, I think they would have to prove you wrong?

OK you've all asked for it. I've been dying to do it all Week and this gives me the chance.

He's a cop

they are the last bastions of law and order

And


wait for it










THE FORCE WAS WITH HIM

quote:

---

Originally posted by RoadkillUKNow if I was to take the advanced driving test, would I be able to use the same excuse? I think not.

---

Seriously though does the statement

"In reaching his verdict, Mr Morgan noted that two police officers who gave evidence for the prosecution, including West Mercia Police's senior driving instructor, had declined to classify the defendant's driving as dangerous."

Does this mean that joe bloggs can now drive at any ridiculous speed as long as two suitably qualified mates are prepared to state in court they did not think his driving was dangerous.
I've got 2 health and safety people would vouch for me

Who have the rest of you got to vouch for you.

The points it raises are:
1) Speed in itself is not dangerous - but we all know that despite what the governement tell us.
2) Police speed recording equipment is not to be trusted (a Vectra, even a 3.2 is unlikely to be able to reach 159mph) but they wouldn't dare admit that in court.
3) If you have done a police driving course you are exempt from speeding convictions.

Therefore, all "safety camera partnerships" need to to be renamed "exceeding an arbitrary number so pay up partnerships". The police need to make their driving courses available to the public to avoid there being a them and us (otherwise known as a police state).

Oh yes, they need to realise that if they do this regularly any respect the public may have left evaporates very quickly.

He wasnt in court for the speeding aspect. As an operational police driver he was exempt from certain aspects of the road traffic act - one being speed limits.
He was up for dangerous driving, and found not guilty based on video and testamony of serving police driving experts.
I myself am a fireman who regularly does high speed runs in various conditions, the thing foremost in my mind is the safety of the public , my crew, my self and my vehicle, all taken into account bearing in mind the circumstances of the incident.
I am sure such considerations were taken into account by the officer. for instance I once went past a schhol at 40 mph on the way to a job , but the next time i passed on the way to a job i did about 15 mph. The first time it was 3am three on a sunday morining going to a house fire, the second time it was 9:30 am going to a flooding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brooky
As an operational police driver he was exempt from certain aspects of the road traffic act - one being speed limits.

---

Iam all for our emergency service professionals being trained to a high std and being able to drive at speeds that the rest of us would be convicted for. There would be a public outcry if such professionals had to observe the limits at all times. How else are they to be able to react in emergence situations. 159mph does seem excessive but they have to practice so that safety can be observed in real situations.
The force provided him with a vehicle that had the capability. If he had to detain someone driving a Porsche or similar driven by a gunman that had just massacred school kids etc then i for one would be happy in the knowledge that they could do this following the best training that can be provided. Iam sure we would share the same thoughts if our family needed the swift responses of the fire and ambulance crews as well, the only difference being that their vehicles cannot do the same high speeds.

In this case i believe the verdict was fair and just. Not a decision that i come to lightly.

What car was he driving?

Chappie was driving a Vectra V6 according to Radio 4. He could have picked something worthwhile to taz around in.

Still, I don't give a monkeys about this coppers actions because:

The governing laws of all this motoring (here and elsewhere) are based on the levels of the lowest common denominator. In this country that can be very, very low. It'll be this fact that the judge based his summing-up on. Really, we should be allowed to go as fast as the conditions allow. But people's stupidity beggars belief at times so it's one rule for all. It is this chaps profession not to be stupid and be able to take things into account. They do it when chasing hoodlums, so why not in this safer environment?

The road he was on can allow bursts of high speed. I know, I've done it. A mate of mine was pulled doing 120mph in his Subaru along there. He was told to be more careful, so he was.

This chap would have done a burst of 159mph. Not a contiguous block of ultra-high speed. Other than the prevailing non-reactionary motoring political climate, what's the difference between a German autobahn and an empty British motorway?

Cheers,

Neil.

FFS... I'm not saying that all emergency services should obey speed limits and I totally agree that they need to be trained to high standards. Bear in mind that this police officer was NOT responding to an emergency but merely seeing how fast his new vehicle would go. There are times and places for that sort of driving and the public highway is not one of them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellfire
There are times and places for that sort of driving and the public highway is not one of them.

---

I'm a professional too. Does that give me the right to drive at 159mph on an empty motorway? I think not.

I have a slightly different viewpoint on all this.

There was no need for the officer to be driving at that speed, HOWEVER, he was causing no harm in the conditions in which he did drive at that speed.

Rather than condemning the officer, we should look at the whole police system that has blamed speed as the root of all evil.......................because it isn't.

Speed appropriate to the conditions is what should be instilled. At rush hour on a busy motorway, 70mph is NOT appropriate, but unless there is an accident, it is difficult to prosecute somebody for using speed inappropriate to the conditions but within the speed limit.

On the same road when it is deserted at night, a driver can then be prosecuted for driving at 100mph, when the safety factor is FAR higher than the same road was in the day and busy traffic at less than 70mph.

The law regarding speeding is insane in my opinion (and no, I don't have any points for speeding on my licence!).

On the road outside my house, with cars parked on both sides and no line of sight in most directions, 30mph is far too fast, but that's the limit. On the adjoining road with houses only on one side, set back with open ground and clear line of sight in all directions, the limit is.........you guessed it, still 30mph. I consider both wrong, one is too high, the other too low. The law should reflect speed appropriate to conditions, not rigid limits.

On a less serious note, and to really stir up the hornets nest, I have travelled at around 190mph on the M69 so 159mph is nowt anyway!! (it was in somebody elses car I hasten to add)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellfire
I'm a professional too. Does that give me the right to drive at 159mph on an empty motorway? I think not.

---

There is a lesson to be learnt here;




How do you get a V6 Vectra to do 159mph!!!! We could do with learning that others with VX V6's can learn the tricks. Quite impressive if you ask me. Might be some lessons for others with VX engined se7ens to learn from.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarrenW
How do you get a V6 Vectra to do 159mph!!!!

---

There have been a few threads on the 150mph+ speeding copper but I thought i'd revive this one as it seems the longest.

A re-trial has been ordered & his acquittal overturned, all details can be found HERE

I still don't know how I really feel on this. As I said before, I think that 159mph can be safe on a motorway (there are plently of places in Germany where it is legal), but the 84 in a 30 is a definite no-no.

If he gets away with it, then it proves that the speed can be safe, but there should be no exemptions for police who appear to be "having a play" as I think is the case here. I would love to be able to max my car on the motorway, but have never been brave enough due to the loss of liberty I would expect to suffer if caught, rather than a worry about safety. It should do about 155 by the way.

I totally agree andyps!

I think that perhaps the speeds are high, but he was "probably" doing them in a situation which was "relatively" safe, and I would perhaps in his position have done the same...................

HOWEVER.................none of US would have got away with the same thing, whatever the conditions, and as somebody (of the no doubt many on here!!) who has been stopped for speeding on an empty deserted motorway late in the night by an unmarked car and fined to boost strike rate figures, I say he should face the exact same penalties that any of use would, which would presumably range from a lengthy ban to a term in prison depending on whether the offence was deemed to be speeding or reckless driving??????




(PS incidentally.............his speed was pretty slow if he was actually trying!!!, I "might" have travelled at a speed considerably in excess of that, around 190mph, of course this was on a private road you understand!!!!)

[Edited on 1/2/06 by NS Dev]

quote:

---

Originally posted by andyps
I still don't know how I really feel on this. As I said before, I think that 159mph can be safe on a motorway (there are plently of places in Germany where it is legal), but the 84 in a 30 is a definite no-no.
...

---

Surely instead of letting him do 159mph on the public highway, they should send him round the bowl at millbrook or similar, then he can travel at high speed to see how his car can handle.

Then if he is invloved in a chase out on the road he will still be prepared.

There isnt that much difference between an empty motorway and the millbrook bowl except for the camber, at 160mph you would have to turn a bit. But at 100mph you can just head straight in the top lane.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iank
I half agree - the unlimited motorways in Germany are safe also because the road surface is up to the job, and everyone is expecting people to be going very fast so they take extra care. Neither of those are true on English motorways for the most part at the moment. The car and driver are only half the story.

---

I think he should get the same punishment the rest of us would suffer.

However, I also believe the only reason we have such antiquated speed limits is so Gordon Brown and his cronies can rake of that little bit more from the rest of us.

I'd like to see the estate I live on change to a 20 ZONE because of the twats in their corsas. Likewise I'd like to some some realism applied to the rest of our roads.

ATB

Simon

ACAB is a very apt phrase