159mph copper's aquittal overturned

merlin · 1 Feb 2006 at 19:51

[TW]Fox said:
And so perhaps, due to their experience, more frustrated at the fact they too want to do high speed but cannot

Whereas I'm not fussed about being able to do 150mph so can view it impartially

Can't speak for the others but I dont really want to be able to do 150 legally. Half the buzz is knowing it's over twice the limit.

Hilly · 1 Feb 2006 at 20:09

The_Dark_Side said:
open question to those that think this PC should be let off.

if a private citizen who has completed the police advanced driving course,or a higher level of training,were to be snapped at a similar speed...should he avoid conviction too? maybe a retired traffic officer doing 140MPH on the motorway...should this be allowed? after all,none of the people i've described were on police business and hypothetically speaking they're both trained to the same standard.

your opinions please.

yes they should be done for the speed but not for the dangerous driving. Even though they do have the skills needed, they don't have the purpose or need to be going at such speeds

Jonnycoupe · 1 Feb 2006 at 21:11

Heres an engineering approach to the relevant 'danger'.

a) What speed do you reckon the cars tyres were rated too.

b) How far do headlights allow you to see at 160mph? In terms of seconds to the road lit?

With reference to point b it wouldn't really matter how experienced you are, there would be no road to read. Just grip and steer and base your judgements on previous experience of the road (which i may add can be gained with breaking the law)

The big point for me on this case is the 83 in the 30, not the 159 on the motorway.

I really have no idea why fox is pulling a jealously line for the apparent vidication of the performance enthusiast? Maybe cos people who have drove close to that speed can see past the 'police drivers are gods' tinted glasses? and understand the implications of simply being a human and not a Eurofighter Typhoon computer.

The_Dark_Side · 1 Feb 2006 at 21:15

hilly said:
yes they should be done for the speed but not for the dangerous driving. Even though they do have the skills needed, they don't have the purpose or need to be going at such speeds

neither did the PC in this case though.

Hilly · 1 Feb 2006 at 21:19

He had the purpose as in he needed to test out the car, to get a feelling of the car handling on the road, so yes he did have a purpose

The_Dark_Side · 1 Feb 2006 at 21:21

hilly said:
He had the purpose as in he needed to test out the car, to get a feelling of the car handling on the road, so yes he did have a purpose

it would've been a valid purpose if he'd been instructed or advised to do this....he just decided to take the thing for a thrash off his own bat.
that's the difference here.

Arc · 1 Feb 2006 at 21:37

[TW]Fox said:
And so perhaps, due to their experience, more frustrated at the fact they too want to do high speed but cannot

Frustrated? Surely an experienced driver would exercise some self control whilst on the road and not want to do 150mph. I'm sure if they wanted to do a high speed like that then they'd visit a track where its safe and also socially responsible to do so

. Or go to some of the few remaining unrestricted stretches of Autobahn......

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

It happens. Just because its unlikely doesnt stop it from happening, e.g. car breaks down, people trying to cross motorway to get to a house on the other side. What about farm animals or wild animals? Wouldnt be the first time a dear has crossed a major road and been struck by a car.

Ultra_Extreme · 1 Feb 2006 at 21:45

Police should have trained high speed drivers, trained marksmen, trained anti terrorist tacticians, trained unarmend combatants and trained negotiators.

Policemen, as long as properly policed themselves, should indeed be outside the mainstream law, and also face harsher penalties should they overstep the mark.

The atrocious case against those guys who shot that bloke in the underground speaks volumes! When you start showing joe public that the police are subject to the same laws the rest of us are then you make a mockery of the judicial system! (as if you could invalidate it more!) Every arrest is assault, every thwarted terrorist attack is murder and every unresolved highway chase is speeding. I mean my god! has common sense abandoned even these forums too!?

Fr0dders · 1 Feb 2006 at 22:29

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 ?

this was a motorway

if some1 had stepped out in front of him when he was obeying the speed limit of 70mph they would still be very dead.

doesnt matter if hes going 70 or 160, either way hes dead.

pdw8 · 1 Feb 2006 at 22:40

MrLOL said:
this was a motorway

if some1 had stepped out in front of him when he was obeying the speed limit of 70mph they would still be very dead.

doesnt matter if hes going 70 or 160, either way hes dead.

This was one of my main points. People have been banging on and quoting guidelines that Police drivers should not exceed 120mph. Do you think if someone stepped out in front of any car that is driving at 120mph or 159mph there would be any difference in the outcome? Many people will suffer fatal injuries at an impact of 40mph. I once saw the results of a car that hit a concrete pillar on the M25, the car literally exploded and all 5 people inside died on impact, that was estimated to be driving at 90mph.
My point is would it have been acceptable for the driver to have been clocked at 119mph because it's in the guidelines or is it really as I think that people are making such a fuss because a) Its a Police officer and b) they envy the fact he could do it and almost got away with it?

Fr0dders · 1 Feb 2006 at 22:40

Pug said:
none of this changes the fact that 70 or whatever it was in a 30 is in anyway neccessary and safe!!

Common sense dictates that in a built up area (I.E: 30mph zone) people may be around on foot. Thats why its 30.

unfortunately police quite regularly do 70 + in a 30 when involved in high speed pursuits

Armed robbers decide to do 80 in a 30, what you gonna do ? follow on at nice gentle 30 ?

no you drive as fast as the conditions will allow. Obviously when its daytime, and there are pedestrians around, they wont be able to do 70 in a 30. But when its 2am, and there arent any pedestrians or other traffic around they will give chase at equally silly speeds.

part of the high speed training course teaches you how to drive at speeds well in excess of the posted limits dodging other traffic and pedestrians.

I agree that him doing it off his own back is wrong. But i would argue it was more a disciplinary matter than a criminal one.

All of you whining that you get a ticket for going 57 in a 50 have missed the point that police traffic officers regularly speed when giving pursuit. As i mention above, when conditions allow 70 + round 30 limit roads is quite common in the early hours for the simple reason that theres hardly anybody else around

and let us not forgot, these speeds have been relayed by the media. a media that has a penchant for sensationalism. You can bet the 80 in a 30 was only on a very long open straight bit, and the rest of the time he was doing 50 or whatever, but that one moment is used to sensationalise things.

Jonnycoupe · 1 Feb 2006 at 22:57

This guy was in no pursuit when doing 83 in a 30.

Interestingly the lights and tyre point i made has been overlooked :confused:

kitten_caboodle · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:14

hilly said:
Your not being childish how ? By changing my name on the quote ? By insulting my and my (lack of) grammar ? How's that not a personal attack ? So it is infact you which needs to grow up.

If you check my posts previously on this thread, you will see that i have indeed been having a sensible debate on this,

Guidleines are what they say they are: Guidelines, they are NOT laws, and no where on what you posted was an indication of speed. If the guidelines are not clear we then have to use our own judgement and interpretation on how to use them.

You called me childish and immature for making sensible points on an open argument. Therefore, I may as well act in such a way.

I did check your posts before I said anything, and had your response to my post been constructive rather than belittling and rather rude, I would also have taken your comments into consideration and would not have felt the need to defend myself taking a shot at you.

Ironically, when you said <insert pointless analogy about 2 different jobs blah blah blah> behave. it was actually fox that brought up the two different jobs - I added to his point to find his point of view on that situation as I am actually interested in how people think, rather than trying to prove a point.

In reponse to your other point - You are correct when you say that guidelines are guidelines. However, I think you'll find that I did not mention guidelines, what I posted was POLICY which is a different thing altogether. The policy says that police must stay within the law if they are NOT on police business.

To be called childish and immature for bringing what I consider to be important points to light, basically shows that you cannot accept the opinions of others, and their right to have them. However, I expect you will just retort with something else, as clearly, to have an opinion that is not childish or immature, I assume I have to agree with you?

Seems to me matey, you took a pop at me, and didn't like it when I did it back. If you can't stand the heat, don't jump into the fireplace.......

....and back OT

Fr0dders · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:21

Jonnycoupe said:
This guy was in no pursuit when doing 83 in a 30.

but the point im making is that you know the fast response police drivers will be trained to do this, and do so on a regular basis

they didnt get that sort of skill by practising in a simulator

my actual driving instructor was a retired police one. This sort of thing goes on all the time. Its just cos this guy got a bit silly he got shopped by a jobsworth

Hilly · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:49

kitten_caboodle said:
You called me childish and immature for making sensible points on an open argument. Therefore, I may as well act in such a way.

I did check your posts before I said anything, and had your response to my post been constructive rather than belittling and rather rude, I would also have taken your comments into consideration and would not have felt the need to defend myself taking a shot at you.

Ironically, when you said <insert pointless analogy about 2 different jobs blah blah blah> behave. it was actually fox that brought up the two different jobs - I added to his point to find his point of view on that situation as I am actually interested in how people think, rather than trying to prove a point.

In reponse to your other point - You are correct when you say that guidelines are guidelines. However, I think you'll find that I did not mention guidelines, what I posted was POLICY which is a different thing altogether. The policy says that police must stay within the law if they are NOT on police business.

To be called childish and immature for bringing what I consider to be important points to light, basically shows that you cannot accept the opinions of others, and their right to have them. However, I expect you will just retort with something else, as clearly, to have an opinion that is not childish or immature, I assume I have to agree with you?

Seems to me matey, you took a pop at me, and didn't like it when I did it back. If you can't stand the heat, don't jump into the fireplace.......

....and back OT

Back on OT ? You de-railed it. I did not call you immature, i said your arguement in nit picking towards Fox was immature, not aimed at your persona, sorry if i fractured your fragile ego.

<blah blah blah 2 jobs> wasn't aimed at your self either it was spoken generally.

You seem to have blown every thing out of proportions, i never took a pop at you, the part of you that says "look at me, look at me, look at me" took it that way.

Now leave it and put the thread back on topic.

[TW]Fox · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:52

Jonnycoupe said:
Interestingly the lights and tyre point i made has been overlooked

Because it's daft, of course the tyres will be rated for 160mph the car was a Vectra GSI 3.2 V6, it's hardly going to be on V rated tyres, is it? Even my 2.0 Mondeo has tyres rated to 168mph.

Hilly · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:55

the main point of Jonnycoupe was the fact the headlights wouldn't stretch.

The m54 isn't in complete darkness, it IS partially dark with no streelamps, but without seeing picture's or video, we will never know what part of the m54 he was clocked at. There are no major turns on the M54, visability is very good, you can see a fair stretch at all times,

kitten_caboodle · 1 Feb 2006 at 23:59

hilly said:
Back on OT ? You de-railed it. I did not call you immature, i said your arguement in nit picking towards Fox was immature, not aimed at your persona, sorry if i fractured your fragile ego.

<blah blah blah 2 jobs> wasn't aimed at your self either it was spoken generally.

You seem to have blown every thing out of proportions, i never took a pop at you, the part of you that says "look at me, look at me, look at me" took it that way.

Now leave it and put the thread back on topic.

I am quoting you here : you are trying to show Fox that you are right. Childish and totally immature Not directed at my argument imo. And the blah blah thing, you said 'behave'. To me.

Now you carry on the part of you that says "look at me, look at me, look at me" took it that way. what?? you're the one jumping in and sticking up for Fox when I'm sure he's capable of having an adult discussion without you popping in and holding his hand.

Don't back down when cornered, and pretend you didn't mean it the way it was said. It doesn't make you look big or clever and anyone else reading this can see who's right and who's wrong here.
I couldn't care less what you think but if you argue with me i'm gonna argue back.

And my ego aint fragile, I'm happy enough to have discussions with people that don't agree with me, people are allowed opinions, it's you that has a problem with that.

Like i said...can't take heat...stay...away...from...fireplace.
Now, can't we all just be friends??

It's a discussion forum, dude, chill.

Hilly · 2 Feb 2006 at 00:02

i'm chilled, it's you who can't leave it. I don't mind if i'm wrong or right, my ego is on a level plain.

Now back on topic....

kitten_caboodle · 2 Feb 2006 at 00:02

hilly said:
i'm chilled, it's you who can't leave it. I don't mind if i'm wrong or right, my ego is on a level plain.

Now back on topic....

so... the guy should go to prison, right??