gazzer_21

just seen this

http://www.shropshirestar.com/show_a....php?aID=33899

MattW

Political pressure me thinks

bigsinky

excellent. i actually wrote to the police complaints commission about this one. if it was a mere mortal we would have been locked up and the key thrown away. hope he gets more than a wrap on the knuckles at appeal.

cheers

big sinky

harvey

iTrader: (48)

This country has gone totally to the dogs.

the moose

In what sense? That he was doing 159mph and got away with it, or that the police force concerned are appealing?

brihoppy

hes just being persecuted now...if hed have had an accident then he would have to deal with the consequences, but he didnt...and im sure there are very few people on this forum, who given the chance to drive like that on the roads, wouldnt do so...what would have been a safe speed to test that car at...120, 130...? still dangerous speeds but how many traffic cars have you seen overtake you on the motorway during the day going that fast...he will end up being made a scapegoat which is tragic in my opinion...

jasey

Any other ****** would have lost their licence as a minimum and probably end up in Jail. Lost their Job probably etc etc etc.

Creme-de-la-creme boy can do what the **** he wants and get away with - well maybe not now !

How can he be a scapegoat - are you saying all coppers regularly drive at 159 and this guy is only the one that got caught ???

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

Ra Ra There a god.

SPEN555

That article states that he denies speeding! How can he do that? lol!

brihoppy

yeah youre right, any other ******** would have been in the sh*t but theres alot of things coppers and such like can do that we dont have the authority to do...sounds to me like alot of sour grapes...and he is being made a scapegoat and probably will be made an example of because of the backlash its caused...i ask again, what would have been a safe speed to test that car at...?

jasey

According to the scam partnerships anything over 70 mph and 33% of us die.

So I guess he should test his car at 70mph on the public roads. If he wants to test it any further then get onto a track and test it there.

What exactly was he testing at 159 - his abilty to react to things he couldn't see in time ?

He's not being made a scapegoat - he might just have to face up to what he's done - driven like a knobend (the 86 in a 30 is worse than the 159 imho)

SPEN555

It's the 86 in a 30 I find annoying, it's outrageous to go without punishment.

OllyK

Does anybody know what the Police procedure is familiarisation? I know the the army you are not allowed to drive a vehicle unless you have been familiarised on it. That involves somebody who is qualified in the use of that vehicle to give you a run down of the controls, where the oil filler is etc and then to accompany you on a road test, at the end they sign your familiarisation card (FMT600) to say you can now drive this vehicle.

If the Police have something similar (although obviously not accompanied in this case) so the Police Officer was signed out on familiarisation and he stuck to the rules laid down for the task then I don't think he should have been prosecuted. Assuming (as it seems it was) the Police familiarisation is just jump in any car and take it for a blast with no special sign out, notification, rules or record of the event, then he needs to be treated like anybody else caught doing those speeds.

jasey

It would appear the police procedure is "Make sure you turn off the video recorder before driving like a knobend" - Unfortunately for our poor old scapegoat he couldn't even follow that !

He deserves to be prosecuted for being so thick .

Mungo

I was actually pleased that he got off for one point only - the court decision basically proved that speed by itself is not dangerous. They considered other aspects such as road conditions and driver training. This had always been the contention of the police and road safety groups, and this ruling dis-proved that.

MJW

'Familiarising' with your car on a public road is a load of tosh excuse anyway. The police should book track days like the rest of us have to. It's hardly experience building if the policeman in question is thrashing the car in the middle of the night anyway - under real conditions he'd have to contend with other road users, and I for one would not like to be pulling out of a junction in a 30 zone with some idiotic joy riding policeman giving it WOT.

jasey

Yeah - just wait for the next GB Rally and we get real professional drivers being done for 40 in a 30 .

159mph wont kill you - getting hit by a stray stone from the other carriageway just might.

The Issue I have is Coppers taking the **** out of the law - not a good Idea !

Mungo

But that's my point entirely. They'll be able to refer to this ruling, show their International-A competion license, that the conditions were clear, visibility good, thus there was no danger. 40mph in itself would not constitute an offence.

dtriggs

I dont know how I feel about all this - to drive at that speed on the roads is dangerous and any normal person would get banned. But the Police are one of very few who ARE allowed to speed on our roads. If he had been on a pursuit then it would be allowed. Just testing the Car it isnt. As has been said if he did 100 mph nobody would worry - at 120 it probably wouldnt hit the headlines. So at what speed does it suddenly become out of order.
Against all that, how must those bikers feel who were jailed for that type of speed ?

OllyK

The key point - "under certain conditions" they are allowed to do those speeds. The armed police and the army are allowed to shoot people under certain conditions, the rest of the time they are not. If a police officer is breaking the law and the certain conditions do not apply to that situation then he needs to be treated like everybody else.

Now if this is now setting a precedent that anybody with say an IAM pass, and a bit of track time can exceed the speed limit if they consider it safe to do so, then that's a different issue - but I don't see that being the case.

jasey

Which is why the guy will get banged up on appeal.

We all know that speed doesn't kill - but it is a nice little earner !

However 159 and/or 86 in a 30 is simply unsafe - as a minimum the guy should lose his "police Driver" status. He clearly thinks that this is OK - I can accept 159 as being "relatively" safe on a deserted motorway - but I've never seen a 30mph limit where 86 is anything other than lunacy !!

As the Ads on the telly/Radio say at the moment - It's 30 for a reason and if you hit a child at 40 they're dead and 30 they've a chance of survival - So what happens at 86 !

Dr Hu

The Shropshire Star is my local paper - every night since this incident there have been dozens of letters in the paper about this.

It has probably caused the most uproar for years in the paper & community.

Especially since about a year ago the first speed camera in shrophire went up in Telford a few miles from where PC Milton was caught, which has trapped thousands of motorists only a few mph over and I mean like 34-35mph - it even caught the mayor at 2 AM one morning who was returning from visiting a dying colleague!! (he did'nt get off) his was the only car on the road.

Understandably many Telford residents are extremely pissed off.......

OllyK

Oh I know a few, most former NSL's that have been artificially dropped to 30mph over the last few years.

brihoppy

look, okay, im going to concede to a few points here, but my main issue was raised in someones earlier post...what wouldve been a safe speed...? there are alot of 'what ifs?' flying around, and for every 'what if?' for there is usually a 'what if?' against...!

80 odd in a 30 is perhaps out of order, but there arent many kids knocking around in the wee hours...playing devils advocate for a moment, is it really not a case of sour grapes because he got away with doing something wed all like to be able to do...?

OllyK

I think you have hit the whole scamera partnership nail on the head. You can't measure a safe speed in mph. If the policeman was safe at that speed and in those conditions, then others can be as well (but certainly not all). The trouble is, to admit that ***** the whole system up as everybody caught would want to plead their case that they are a good driver and should be allowed to speed to too.

brihoppy

yes but to use an analagy from an earlier post also, you have to justify the reason youre speeding...same as you have to justify your reason for using lethal force against someone if you shoot them...his excuse of testing the car, with his training, in that environment is far more acceptable than some idiot whos late for work, or youre average boy racer cutting around the place at mach 2...

brihoppy

in fact, i might be wrong, but im sure i have heard of circumstances where drivers have been let off speeding charges because of their driving experience, the car they were driving, road conditions and time of day...?

OllyK

Sure and how do you justify it? In court in front of a magistrate. If everybody thinks they may be able to justify it, what will happen to the courts? Do you think they are going to do something that will encourage everybody to have a day in couurt rather than sign the NIP and take it on the chin?

I think, if "testing the car" was so important at high speeds which they claim is so dangerous, they would have a procedure in place for how it should be done, don't you?

OllyK

Yes the guy in the NSX recently

brihoppy

okay, so is it not about then judging these things a case at a time...? i dont think its going to be a case of 'well, if he did it, everyones going to do it' is it...?