spider

iTrader: (1)

This should generate some comments in the press!

BBC News

bootsy

one rule for us and one for them

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

What a surprise...................NOT

Alcazar

swampster

iTrader: (1)

So if I have some excellent driving skills, being a typical pleb on the street I can happily go cruising down the nearest motorway at 156MPH, without fear of getting shafted for it!?

The whole thing smacks of hypocracy!

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Especially as lots of rally drivers got done for going over the 30mph a couple of years ago at the Rally of a small part of south Wales, Formerly known as the proper RAC Rally.

I am sure their driving skills are also extraordinary!!

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Lord, is there actually anyone on this board who understands this case?


1) Those rally drivers were done for speeding, not DD. The case was proved. Their skills behind the wheel was not an issue, is it was speeding they were being done for, not DD.


2) Yes, there's a different law for the police. It's called the Road Traffic Act, and it also applies to ambulance and fire engine drivers, and exempts them from speeding charges as long as they are on official business.


3) The courts were unable to prove that the officer in question was NOT on official business, therefore he was, therefore he wasn't speeding.


4) As a sop to the various whingers who don't understand the law, the CPS then decided to bring Dangerous Driving charges. Despite the fact that a) plenty of case law has established that speeding in itself is not DD) and b) most of the people here agree with that sentiment, people here are still bitching because he was found (on appeal) not guilty of DD for doing nothing more than speeding. If the courts had agreed that speeding=DD, then every one of you caught on a Tuvelu would now be looking at CD or DD charges from the same logic.


M

daddyscoob

Can't agree - the guy for no other reason then to try a new traffic car out drove at 159 MPH on the motorway and more worryingly at 90 MPH in a thirty MPH limit.
He could have taken the car to a track if he felt his driving skills were not up to driving different cars at speed and carried out whatever highspeed driving and any other type of driving he felt was needed to familiarise himself with the car.

Don't think this was a one off he it was only brought to light as he forgot to switch off the in car video.
My sister was married to a copper and he thought it great to brag about the fun and games they had in cop cars.

Another case of do as I say not as I do........

swampster

iTrader: (1)

Exactly i'm sure if anyone here was caught doing 90 in a 30 zone, they'd probably be brought up on DD charges no matter what their skill. As the police would be quick to point out.. driving at 90mph in the 30mph zone is simply dangerous. Like I said, hypocrisy!

Simple fact is Police shouldn't be using excessive speed unless it's in response to an "emergency", i.e where it's needed to get to the scene of an active incident quickly or in pursuit of a criminal. The general comment of "speeding for police business" is utter crap, it could be deemed nipping out for a kebab for the lads on duty is police business!

The excuse of driving at those speeds to familiarise himself with the performance of the car suggests that he isn't as capable a driver as has been suggested, or was in unfamiliar territory with regards to the car in question therefore negating much of that expertise at that given moment in time. Not to mention the fact that this familiarisation could easily be carried out on a track or an airfield, and not on the public highway.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

The RTA does not define "police business" - that is left to individual forces to do. Most forces have a list of duties which allow an officer to speed. If they speed while doing any other police work (say, driving to the scene of a crime where the villain is long gone) then they lose the exemption. But at the time the video was taken West Mercia had no such rules. As far as the law was concerned, that means anything the officer did while in a police vehicle while he was on duty was police business, and therefore exempt. It doesn't matter if various SNers don't like it, it's the law.


M

Leslie

Why then did his local police force decide to refer him to the CPS if they thought he was on specific police duty with regard to his driving at the time.
Do you think that a speed of 80-90 MPH in a 30 MPH limit zone does not constitute dangerous driving?

Les

Trout

iTrader: (1)

My understanding of the police who was let off doing 90mph in a 30mph zone was on his way to pick up a Chinese takeaway (which he did not deny).

There again, I suppose keeping your Chinese food warm is crucial police business.

Whilst your point is pedantically correct it is not correct in practice. Typically if a civilian is prosecuted for speeding at over 100mph then they are charged with Dangerous Driving. There are some examples where the DD charge has been dropped but this is not typically the case.

Your reference to the rally drivers - yes they were prosecuted for speeding - fair cop.

Rannoch

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

I'm going with management stupidity. Hopefully by now they've worked out why there's a common English expression: "don't wash your dirty linen in public".

And the answer to the second question is (IMNSHO): not necessarily. It might be, indeed probably would be - not not automatically. As many SNers point out ad nausiem there are place in the UK where there are straight dual-carriageways which are 30mph zones, and where it might be perfectly safe to hit (there's no evidence as I understand it of steady cruising at that speed) 80mph. All case should treated individually.

And AFAIK charging speeding drivers with Dangerous Driving is the exception, not the rule. And it is almost always because they were driving dangerously, as well as driving fast. As I said earlier, at least two cases have shown that the law now accepts that speeding is not in itself dangerous driving.


M

Felix.

As a serving police officer – I think this case should have been up held. He cannot justify those sort of speeds unless he was officially testing the vehicle. That is to say that he notified his force what he was doing and it was ‘booked in advance’ for want of a better phrase. He can’t just simply decide to do it.

Our force has strict rules and a number of officers have been caught by speed cameras in panda cars. If they cannot justify there speed then they have to accept the points and the fine.

And it’s not an easy one to prove your justification. I was flashed at 36 in a 30. I was transporting a violent prisoner at the time that was starting to kick off in a vehicle not designed for that purpose. But due to a busy night, there were no other cars; the road was empty at the time (03:30). It took quite a while for the decision to be found in my favour.

Our cars are now fitted with black box data recorders – so they can tell who was driving the car at any time and exactly what your speed was and what electrics were switched on at the time.

Therefore the best way to stay point free is to stick to the rules or be able to fully justify why you didn’t. And I don’t think ‘giving it a test drive’ is justifiable in this case.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

AFAIK IMNSHO if you are speeding in excess of 30mph over the speed limit then you will be charged with dangerous driving and disqualification will almost certainly follow. You are right that this has been tested in two cases, at least one of them in Scotland so it will not set precedent in English law.

The point remains that whether the law supports it there is one moral code for the police and one for the public. Whether this is right or not it can only lead to a greater gulf between the Police and public and IMHO undermines the moral authority of the police.

bob r

iTrader: (46)

[quote=Felix.;6756855]

Our cars are now fitted with black box data recorders – so they can tell who was driving the car at any time and exactly what your speed was and what electrics were switched on at the time.

[/quote

Scary

Felix.

To be honest - in most cases they can protect you when people try to make things up about you.

Such as we were speeding, we didn't have the blues and twos on etc etc

Felix.

Rannoch

Speeding isn't dangerous driving. Just because you are speeding, it doesn't follow that its dangerous. These are two seperate offences.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I know that speeding and dangerous driving are separate offences AND if you are going over 100mph it is quite likely that you will be charged with BOTH speeding AND dangerous driving.

I am not saying it is right or wrong and as Meridian states this has been successfully challenged in court at least in Scotland.

monkeyboy840

have to agree with you felix, you would have been out of a job in our force. theres no way he can justify what he did in my mind.

I am an advanced police driver and even on an emergency run i would struggled to justify 90mph in a 30 zone.

we also have the black box recorders which would have put him right in the poo.

For me it sends out a bad vibe to the public when cops get away with it on a technicality. But, other civillian drivers do it every day its just not publicised.

thats my two penneth anyways.

Leslie

Thanks for that Felix, and I agree with your other posts too. Of course speeding does not necessarily constute dangerous driving in every case. As it should be, it is a matter of degree. 90 MPH in a designated 30mph zone has got to be well up there as far as "degree" is concerned however.

Les