159mph copper's aquittal overturned

[TW]Fox · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:18

I disagree with the way he was treated, as well. Jail for a motoring offence? Pathetic.

[TW]Fox · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:19

Pug said:
Obviously people WERE Affected and bothered as this would never have gone to court.

Check your facts, it went to court after a colleague shopped him when they saw the video, not becuase any member of the public was affected, bothered or complained.

Hilly · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:19

Just so people don't get on my back, i've never had any points, never been pulled over and do have a car which is capable of not far from those speeds.

if i were to do those speeds on the same road, it would be totally responsable as i'm not a great driver, i'd barely call ym self a good driver. I've not had the training and am not capable of those speeds, even if my car is.

His actions hurt no one, affected no one, and Simon you are showign a clear case of, "i went over the speed limit by 14 mph and got fined" and so should he. Get over it, sour grapes are not the nicest of things by far.

kitten_caboodle · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:20

[TW]Fox said:
I think more than luck was the deciding factor - the officers judgement in when to use the speed was a result of his training, and thus, presumably why he did not create complete carnage.

So you admit that carnage was a possibility? Surely then it was irresponsible for him to do it. What if someone had been drunk and stumbled in front of him as he was doing his 60mph in a 30?As an officer he is trained to protect the public and not do anything that may result in endangering them.

Will Gill · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:20

[TW]Fox · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:21

kitten_caboodle said:
So you admit that carnage was a possibility? Surely then it was irresponsible for him to do it. What if someone had been drunk and stumbled in front of him as he was doing his 60mph in a 30?As an officer he is trained to protect the public and not do anything that may result in endangering them.

Carnage is a possibility every time one of us ventures onto the motorway at 70mph.

The fact is a drunk didn't walk into the front him at 60mph. Why? Well he's a trained driver and he'd not have been travelling at 60mph if there were people on the pavement who could step out, etc etc..

Jonnycoupe · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:25

[TW]Fox said:
Thats right, becuase he's a police officer.

Just as guys in the army get to walk around with guns and we don't.

If you want the same you are welcome to join up.

So the police officer has his tool, AND is using it to full potential.

Yet the army guys have weapons simply ready for use when required, if it was ever used there would be a full investigation. Especially if it wasnt require by Army duties to fire the weapon.

How can you even compare those two!

Archangelus · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:25

The only reason he didn't 'create utter carnage' was that it was in the early hours of the morning. As one of the previous posters has said, the stretch of the M54 he did that speed along is unlit, so he was doing 159mph or 71 meters per SECOND relying on headlights alone. Seeing as how most full beam headlights will only illuminate clearly up to about 100m, and most peoples reaction times are around the .25 second region, that leaves him with roughly half a second to either stop or take avoiding action. Clearly, his speed was excessive.

Fox, you say that 'an officers judgement in when to use the speed was a result of his training', which in the case of an officer on an emergency call I would agree with, but this guy wasn't on a call, he was 'training'. So what happens if he decides to do some similar 'training' if he's late for an appointment, or if he's late going home? Does he get away with it then?

cymatty · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:25

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_obj...e-speeding-cops-above-the-law--name_page.html

Interesting article, especially this bit

But the embarrassing revelation comes a day after PC Daniel Swain - also from the Derbyshire force - walked free after allegedly crashing his squad car at 90mph in a 30mph zone. The case collapsed when evidence mysteriously went missing.

wozzizname · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:25

The fact that nobody was hurt is irrelevant here, if someone had pulled out/stepped out in front of him then they would be dead - how would you feel if a member of your family was killed by a policeman 'practicing' driving at 159 mph ?

[TW]Fox · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:27

wozzizname said:
The fact that nobody was hurt is irrelevant here, if someone had pulled out/stepped out in front of him then they would be dead - how would you feel if a member of your family was killed by a policeman 'practicing' driving at 159 mph ?

I'd be wonder what on earth they were doing crossing a deserted motorway on foot in the dead of night.

kitten_caboodle · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:28

[TW]Fox said:
Carnage is a possibility every time one of us ventures onto the motorway at 70mph.

The fact is a drunk didn't walk into the front him at 60mph. Why? Well he's a trained driver and he'd not have been travelling at 60mph if there were people on the pavement who could step out, etc etc..

It's impossible to anticipate everything. He's a grade 1 driver, sure, so he's well trained. It doesn't change the fact that he broke the law and that it could have ended very differently. I stand by my comment that it was down to luck as well as his undoubted skill, he is still human, not superman and humans do and will make mistakes. He should not as an officer of the law, do anything that might endanger people should he make a mistake.

If there aren't procedures followed for these things, then there should be and it needs to be implemented asap. Otherwise we end up with a system where the people in power do what the hell they like and get away with it.

cymatty · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:28

[TW]Fox said:
I'd be wonder what on earth they were doing crossing a deserted motorway on foot in the dead of night.

Or crossing a road in a village whilst he was doing 80mph+ through it, how dare they cross the road.

[TW]Fox · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:29

If this was last week he did it, I'd agree. He'd have broken proceedure.

But it wasn't, and so he didn't - there were no guidelines at all for vehicle familiarisation bar 'take it out for a spin'.

Jonnycoupe · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:31

wozzizname said:
The fact that nobody was hurt is irrelevant here, if someone had pulled out/stepped out in front of him then they would be dead - how would you feel if a member of your family was killed by a policeman 'practicing' driving at 159 mph ?

Would it really matter if they stepped out infront of a car at 70mph or 150? Atleast at 150 the driver speeding would be more at risk of inury as punishment, dude in the road would still be pancake

Jonnycoupe · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:32

We all pay this guys wages, so we're all entitled to have an opinion on what he does in what is essential our car.

Archangelus · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:35

[TW]Fox said:
If this was last week he did it, I'd agree. He'd have broken proceedure.

But it wasn't, and so he didn't - there were no guidelines at all for vehicle familiarisation bar 'take it out for a spin'.

'take it out for a spin' and 'do double any posted speed limit you happen across' are two totally different things.

noob · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:45

To think guys if this was Michael Schumacher, Marcus Gronholm, etc they would have had 12 month jail sentence for dangerous driving lol.

kitten_caboodle · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:46

This is actually from the Thames Valley Police Driver Policy.

"Advanced drivers are authorised to drive high performance police vehicles in an operational capacity. Drivers of marked police vehicles have a particular responsibility to promote Road Safety by setting an example at all times whether patrolling or responding to incidents. It should also be emphasised that drivers of all police vehicles must comply with all road traffic legislation unless there is a police purpose for claiming one of the exemptions under relevant legislation."

Seems quite clear to me.

Firestar_3x · 1 Feb 2006 at 17:47

kitten_caboodle said:
This is actually from the Thames Valley Police Driver Policy.

"Advanced drivers are authorised to drive high performance police vehicles in an operational capacity. Drivers of marked police vehicles have a particular responsibility to promote Road Safety by setting an example at all times whether patrolling or responding to incidents. It should also be emphasised that drivers of all police vehicles must comply with all road traffic legislation unless there is a police purpose for claiming one of the exemptions under relevant legislation."

Seems quite clear to me.

Indeed it would seem so!