159mph copper's aquittal overturned
- Thread starter Hate
- Start date
hilly said:
agreed
as i posted earlier, the guy was on duty at the time driving one of their unmarked vehicles. This sort of thing goes on all the time
its just the press have got hold of this one and sensationalized it to hell and back. Only difference is this guy pushed his luck by doing 160 with the camera rolling.
any1 who thinks this is some isolated incident is being naive. First thing a probo does when he does his stint in traffic is have a bit of fun in the police T5s. I know for a fact having spoken to one who went zooming across a grass field at 50. This field was to the side of a 30 lmit road leading up to HMP Glen Parva. And this guy wasnt even a trained police driver, he was just a probabtionary.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,602
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
[TW]Fox said:
O
This is apoint someone mentioned to me the other day, never make two points in one post on any internet forum, cos people will just ignore the valid one to make them seem superior. Ie the total lack of road illumination in this case.Are they the std tyres on the Mondeo, the tyre rating on OEM tyres is the reason a lot of cars have the 155mph limiters.
I really cant believe how many opinions you have on everything Fox. Are you really an uber geek in person?
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,602
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
hilly said:
Why, hes doing this on the roads i pay for that are policed by my staff and control by laws i pay for people to enforce?
Me = Taxpayer.
I'm not really fussed on the outcome of this TBH, its only when things go wrong I'll show proper concern, but then again this isnt the first ot last policeman to speed. Theres far more pressing issues in the world, ironically its only the press issues anyone takes any notice of though. On that note Im gonna sit and watch some Gumball3000 for some speed entertainment in totaly jealously and consequently approach my daily grind with the total bitterness and contempt i should as a 'performance car enthusiast'.
i disagree with fox on many ocassion
but hes probably right
all the police traffic cars are tuned from stock. Usually a bit of extra power for chasing the joy riders, stiffer suspension to give better cornering, better tyres etc.. The police arent going to tune their pursuit cars, destrict them etc.. and leave standard tyres on ?
i know for a fact that north yorkshire get their scoobys breathed upon by prodrive before they take delivery of them.
but hes probably right
all the police traffic cars are tuned from stock. Usually a bit of extra power for chasing the joy riders, stiffer suspension to give better cornering, better tyres etc.. The police arent going to tune their pursuit cars, destrict them etc.. and leave standard tyres on ?
i know for a fact that north yorkshire get their scoobys breathed upon by prodrive before they take delivery of them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,602
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Who knows, i thought it would be an interesting point to raise to the discussion, was certainly not expecting the 'daft' comeback from what is based on assumptions. But yes they are probably fettled, assuming the unmarked cars are actually used for and hence full equipped for pursuit purposes? Maybe im foolishly considering police budgets here 
Jonnycoupe said:
It shouldn't be dragged through the papers. No one deserve's that.
This isn't a matter for *** courts, as he was only trying to improve the way he does his job, if he can get to the scene of a crime quicker, and safely then he should do it.
No, this police officer should not be let off. He may or may not have been driving dangerously; that point is irrelevent to me however. Thousands of people each day driving perfectly safely get fines ,and more, for doing speeds far less than that.
Why should this policeman be treated any different? Because he claims he needed to familiarise himelf with the vehicle? Rubbish, if this is the case then why don't all traffic police frequently do these speeds, and why isn't it part of their training programme?
Why should this policeman be treated any different? Because he claims he needed to familiarise himelf with the vehicle? Rubbish, if this is the case then why don't all traffic police frequently do these speeds, and why isn't it part of their training programme?
hilly said:
Of course it should be dragged through the papers. Im glad the papers pick up on things like this. I wish people would give up on the nonsense that this was training to familiarise himself with the car, its absolute bull.
If it was a training excercise then why did his superiors turn him in and pass evidence to the courts ?? It was an unauthorised speeding session because he wanted to rag his car, but due to his position in his job he had a lame excuse which got him off the charge.
I haven't commented on this before. But I think PC Milton was in the wrong in the first place.
Firsly this wasn't part of a formal exercise or a pursuit. Familiarising himself with the car is a pretty lame excuse. And no that isn't bitterness that I'd get royally bumfudged doing those speeds...its that I wouldn't want to go that fast anyway on a road. An indicated 140 felt very scary if I'm honest.
One of the most basic things advanced police drivers are taught is that safety is paramount. And to me 160mph on a public road (especially in a Vectra, police one or not) doesn't seem safe. It places ordinary members of the public going about their daily business in a lot of danger.
I just think its irresponsible. I think excess speed is sometimes necessary (but reviewing speed limits is a new debate) for police officers but I would have thought that with a lot of IPCC complaints prior to this about pursuit related crashes the guy would have been a bit more sensible. Especially as an advanced driver.
I think its right he was punished. Being a Cat 1 driver doesn't give him the right to drive that way. I've no doubt he is skilled. But at that speed there is just an unnecessary amount of risk.
Firsly this wasn't part of a formal exercise or a pursuit. Familiarising himself with the car is a pretty lame excuse. And no that isn't bitterness that I'd get royally bumfudged doing those speeds...its that I wouldn't want to go that fast anyway on a road. An indicated 140 felt very scary if I'm honest.
One of the most basic things advanced police drivers are taught is that safety is paramount. And to me 160mph on a public road (especially in a Vectra, police one or not) doesn't seem safe. It places ordinary members of the public going about their daily business in a lot of danger.
I just think its irresponsible. I think excess speed is sometimes necessary (but reviewing speed limits is a new debate) for police officers but I would have thought that with a lot of IPCC complaints prior to this about pursuit related crashes the guy would have been a bit more sensible. Especially as an advanced driver.
I think its right he was punished. Being a Cat 1 driver doesn't give him the right to drive that way. I've no doubt he is skilled. But at that speed there is just an unnecessary amount of risk.
pdw8 said:Pick on the celebrity I suppose
celebrity?
More the fact he's been vociferously protesting whereas your post was relatively solitary. Add to the fact he only chooses to discuss points he chooses to, as opposed to the numerous questions thrown up which dont quite fit the plan...
hey ho, my opinion is my opion and everyone elses is theirs i guess, i'm just surprised people in favour of the copper can condone 80 in a 30 tbh, and say its required and is safe...
I agree with Fox, these guys need to train on public roads.
We were not in the car, so we cannot comment. If he was passing cars @ 160mph then I would class that as reckless.
However, this *was* late at night and it was *quiet*... therefore if he was passing cars @ 120mph and then only speeding up to speeds of 160mph when it was clear, I have no problem with what he done.
So to sum it up, as long as this guy wasn't risking someone pulling out on him @ 160mph then I have no issues at all with this guy learning how to do his job better. These guys are trained to get to the scene of your accidents as soon as possible.
Cheers.
We were not in the car, so we cannot comment. If he was passing cars @ 160mph then I would class that as reckless.
However, this *was* late at night and it was *quiet*... therefore if he was passing cars @ 120mph and then only speeding up to speeds of 160mph when it was clear, I have no problem with what he done.
So to sum it up, as long as this guy wasn't risking someone pulling out on him @ 160mph then I have no issues at all with this guy learning how to do his job better. These guys are trained to get to the scene of your accidents as soon as possible.
Cheers.
I do it regularly, hell, iv done 100 in a 30, if this guy needs to then im all for him practicing. He could do 200 in the 30 and with his skill im sure hed be fine, at 110 it gets a little shakey in my fiesta but its all good.Simon said:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,602
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
willd58 said:
Okay, now were clearly ignoring physics. Why do people think the policemen are beyond human?
Lets be honest, so what if he can get to an accident at lightspeed, hes only good at driving fast, not treating life threatening injuries or freeing injured people.
my view on this is that he should recieve the same punishment as a member of the public, he was not on call and he did not have prior approval to take the car out on high speed testing runs he therefore was being reckless. when it comes to driving practice does not make perfect it makes you better aware of potential hazards and gives you a better chance of being able to deal with the situation but mistake can and will still occur. i agree that the police need to have experience of driving on the roads in the areas they will operate in but this should never be a case of "oh the roads are quiet i think ill go out for a quick blast to test the car" training and testing must be done in a more controlled and responsible way.
the ability of the driver should also be irrelivant as the book all the rally drivers a few years back for doing 50 in a 30 zone and they were far more capable of doing so safely than a lone officer at night in a standard road car. therefore it should only come down to whether there was the need to go that fast and at that time.
also 130-160mph is completely different to 120 in terms of braking distances if he had to slow down for any reason then the extra speed would have severely affectled the time/distance to do so. vectras were not designed as race cars therefore whilst the car is quite capable braking from 160mph it cannot do it that quickly.
the ability of the driver should also be irrelivant as the book all the rally drivers a few years back for doing 50 in a 30 zone and they were far more capable of doing so safely than a lone officer at night in a standard road car. therefore it should only come down to whether there was the need to go that fast and at that time.
also 130-160mph is completely different to 120 in terms of braking distances if he had to slow down for any reason then the extra speed would have severely affectled the time/distance to do so. vectras were not designed as race cars therefore whilst the car is quite capable braking from 160mph it cannot do it that quickly.