159mph

[stewart38]

Should the police be allowed to drive at 159mph on public roads ?

I went to court over a 37mph 'offence'
-------------------------------------------------


ROAD safety campaigners condemned a judge last night after he cleared a police constable who had driven at 159mph as he familiarised himself with a new patrol car.
Police Constable Mark Milton drove at “eye-watering” speeds while on duty when he assessed a new unmarked 3.2litre vehicle on the M54 in the early hours last December.

District Judge Bruce Morgan cleared the officer of speeding and dangerous driving and then criticised West Mercia police for the way they investigated the incident.

Constable Milton, 38, from Telford, Shropshire, was recorded by a patrol car’s video camera on the motorway travelling at 159mph, Ludlow Magistrates’ Court was told


RoSPA said it was shocked that such a speed was not regarded as dangerous by the court. Kevin Clinton, head of road safety, said: “Police are governed by health and safety laws just the same as any other employer. We don’t believe that 159mph can ever be justified on public roads. Even in emergencies we consider that 100mph or more is too dangerous.”

------------------------------------------------------------

[El Salsero Gringo]

Should the police be allowed to drive at 159mph on public roads ?

I went to court over a 37mph 'offence'
-------------------------------------------------


ROAD safety campaigners condemned a judge last night after he cleared a police constable who had driven at 159mph as he familiarised himself with a new patrol car.
Police Constable Mark Milton drove at “eye-watering” speeds while on duty when he assessed a new unmarked 3.2litre vehicle on the M54 in the early hours last December.

District Judge Bruce Morgan cleared the officer of speeding and dangerous driving and then criticised West Mercia police for the way they investigated the incident.

Constable Milton, 38, from Telford, Shropshire, was recorded by a patrol car’s video camera on the motorway travelling at 159mph, Ludlow Magistrates’ Court was told


RoSPA said it was shocked that such a speed was not regarded as dangerous by the court. Kevin Clinton, head of road safety, said: “Police are governed by health and safety laws just the same as any other employer. We don’t believe that 159mph can ever be justified on public roads. Even in emergencies we consider that 100mph or more is too dangerous.”

------------------------------------------------------------

Sure - why not?

According to The Times, he was recorded on the video system of the car he was driving - that he himself had just switched on. The policeman in question was the force's most highly trained emergency driver who had just taken delivery of the new vehicle and was familiarising himself with its handling characteristics. West Mercia Constabulary does not have access to a high-speed test track that he could have used in place of the deserted motorway.

The magistrate criticised West Mercia Constabulary for having no written guidelines regarding when how, where, or at what speed emergency driving skills training or familiarisation should or could take place. In the light of that fact it was inappropriate for one part of the Constabulary to pursue a prosecution against its own employee.

Kevin Clinton is a prize dillop and RoSPA "would say that, wouldn't they?"

If you drive at 37 miles an hour in a 30 mph limit and you're dumb enough to get caught - then yes, you deserve it.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Oh yes, and the 'offence' was only considered as such when the video was reviewed days later. It was not, as Stewart's source implies (but is careful not to state explicitly) that the unmarked car was stopped by a uniformed patrol while speeding. Not that that makes any difference to the principle, of course.

[JoC]

Sure - why not?

The policeman in question was the force's most highly trained emergency driver who had just taken delivery of the new vehicle and was familiarising himself with its handling characteristics.


I don't think that's justification for anyone driving at 159mph on a public road.

Speed kills, whoever's driving.

[El Salsero Gringo]

I don't think that's justification for anyone driving at 159mph on a public road.

Speed kills, whoever's driving.No, it's not. It is however, justification for the magistrate refusing to convict him of an offence that would probably have cost him his job.

The justification for driving at that speed is that there may be circumstances where the increased risk from those kinds of speeds is offset against the benefit of pursuing dangerous criminals or reaching a crime-scene a few vital seconds earlier. No one here is qualified to say that no such circumstances could ever exist. And in those circumstances, it would be preferable to have a driver at the controls who has had some experience of handling his vehicle at those speeds and therefore better able to judge his own ability.

The comment about "speed kills" is as meaningless as it is trite. Speed does not kill. Blunt trauma caused by high speed impact kills. Speed merely increases the risk of and the damage caused by impact. In this case there was no impact, and the policeman driving the car was the only person able to assess the risk at the time. Which he presumably did to the best of his professional ability, since there was no accident caused.

[JoC]

The justification for driving at that speed is that there may be circumstances where the increased risk from those kinds of speeds is offset against the benefit of pursuing dangerous criminals or reaching a crime-scene a few vital seconds earlier.
I may be wrong but I understand the severity of potential consequences increases somewhat (not virtually, to caveat) exponentially as speed increases in terms of road accidents, whereas I doubt the same could be said about the risk of deferring the capture of a dangerous criminal. You're right though, not qualified to assess.



The comment about "speed kills" is as meaningless as it is trite. Speed does not kill. Blunt trauma caused by high speed impact kills. Speed merely increases the risk of and the damage caused by impact.
You have heard of a thing called a 'turn of phrase'...? And I'm sure a statistician could prove that it does.

Such an emotive subject for some of us n'est-ce pas? May we agree to differ? :hug:

[Dance Demon]

Did his employers know that he was going to "test drive" this car, or did he do it of his own accord?..........If the later is correct, then he should have been convicted of speeding & dangerous driving. if it was done with his employers consent, at a time of day when there was little on the road, he should get off .......

[El Salsero Gringo]

I may be wrong but I understand the severity of potential consequences increases somewhat (not virtually, to caveat) exponentially as speed increases in terms of road accidents, whereas I doubt the same could be said about the risk of deferring the capture of a dangerous criminal. Sounds sensible to me.
You have heard of a thing called a 'turn of phrase'...? And I'm sure a statistician could prove that it does.Most likely, but I'm sure we'd also agree on the use of statistics in proofs...
Such an emotive subject for some of us n'est-ce pas? May we agree to differ? :hug:Of course. Unlike some people, I've never been able to argue a position half-heartedly - I only really do "all guns blazing". And :hug: right back atcha.

(Lordy, how I detest smileys. Can we just take them as read from now on please?)

[David Bailey]

West Mercia Constabulary does not have access to a high-speed test track that he could have used in place of the deserted motorway.
So is it official policy to let people speed if there's a good reason? Or was this something he just wanted to do...



The magistrate criticised West Mercia Constabulary for having no written guidelines regarding when how, where, or at what speed emergency driving skills training or familiarisation should or could take place.
Yes, that lack is pretty poor. But no policy doesn't mean "take the law into your own hands and speed if you think it's safe". I believe he was also driving through a town centre at a mere 80+ MPH. OK, late at night, but it's still a town centre.


If you drive at 37 miles an hour in a 30 mph limit and you're dumb enough to get caught - then yes, you deserve it.
Well, I also join the "dumb" club, happened to me. And one or two others I suspect... What narks me is the "minimum 3 points" rule - someone can commit a massive offence (e.g. 100+ MPH) speeding and only get 6 points, but 4 minor infractions like that and you're disqualified. But of an imbalance there methinks...


Kevin Clinton is a prize dillop and RoSPA "would say that, wouldn't they?"
OK, I just got used to "dillup", now you're throwing "dillop" at us? :eek: :innocent:

[JoC]

Unlike some people, I've never been able to argue a position half-heartedly - I only really do "all guns blazing".
I prefer to use the stealth attack.


(Lordy, how I detest smileys. Can we just take them as read from now on please?)
OK, specially for this reply, but for all the rest, no.

[David Bailey]

OK, specially for this reply, but for all the rest, no.
Yes, smilies are essential. Without them, we'd be stuck in a world of ambiguity, misinterpretation, hurt feelings, abuse, and feeble attempts at sarcasm.

Phew, good thing we've got smilies, huh :innocent:

[Barry Shnikov]

What narks me is the "minimum 3 points" rule - someone can commit a massive offence (e.g. 100+ MPH) speeding and only get 6 points, :

Nope that's wrong, DJ. Drive 30 mph in excess of the posted speed limit and there's a rebuttable presumption that you will lose your licence. You can challenge that (trying to get an accident victim to Emergency, e.g.) but unless you have an outstanding explanation, 100 is an automatic ban even on a motorway. If you do 70 in a 40 limit, that would also be an automatic ban.

[Barry Shnikov]

The point that the magistrate was making is that he may or may not have been in breach of West Mercia's rules on testing cars at speed. Since WM didn't have a written policy, who would know? If the policy said, e.g., you must get the permission of an officer of a particular rank (as you do, e.g., if you want to prevent a detainee from seeing a solicitor and making a phone call) stating when and where the high speed test is to be conducted, then if this PC didn't have such written permission, he's bang to rights.

As it is, there must be 'reasonable doubt' that he had committed a crime. Note that plenty of things would be crimes if not perpetrated by a policeman - just placing someone under arrest could be assault, battery, false imprisonment, etc. - but is lawful if carried out by a policeman with authority.

It is, in fact, absolutely astonishing that West Mercia doesn't have a written policy. I used to live in a village called Harston, in Cambridgeshire. A little while after I moved away from the village a woman was killed there when her car was rammed from behind by a police car which the driver was using for high speed pursuit training. He was from another police force, not Cambs Constab, and the latter were furious that drivers from another force were carrying out their training in their manor! Guess what? No written policy on high speed driver training. You'd think after several years they'd have all managed to get one by now....wouldn't you?

[David Bailey]

Nope that's wrong, DJ.
OK, now I've decided what really narks me off is people who callously rebut my reasoned argument with trivial details such as the truth.


The point that the magistrate was making is that he may or may not have been in breach of West Mercia's rules on testing cars at speed. Since WM didn't have a written policy, who would know?
Hmmm, surely the presumption is that if there is no "you can speed" policy, you can't, err, speed? I dunno, does West Mercia have a (West-Mercia-specific) written policy on policemen not killing people?

Oh, and where's West Mercia anyway?


It is, in fact, absolutely astonishing that West Mercia doesn't have a written policy. I used to live in a village called Harston, in Cambridgeshire. A little while after I moved away from the village a woman was killed there when her car was rammed from behind by a police car which the driver was using for high speed pursuit training. He was from another police force, not Cambs Constab, and the latter were furious that drivers from another force were carrying out their training in their manor! Guess what? No written policy on high speed driver training. You'd think after several years they'd have all managed to get one by now....wouldn't you?
Well, their Chief Constables are probably too busy making inappropriate sexual comments to women (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/4600487.stm). You know how it is, Rome wasn't burnt in a day...

[Barry Shnikov]

Oh, and where's West Mercia anyway?


Ahem.

It's just west of East Mercia, obviously.

[Barry Shnikov]

Hmmm, surely the presumption is that if there is no "you can speed" policy, you can't, err, speed? I dunno, does West Mercia have a (West-Mercia-specific) written policy on policemen not killing people?


Well, clearly no police force can have a blanket 'you cannot speed' policy for its drivers otherwise how are they to catch speeding drivers or fleeing criminals? (Well, hypothetically that might be a valid policy, i.e. no high speed chases at all on the grounds that they are sometimes deadly dangerous, but no police force in the UK does have that policy.)

Once it is accepted that a police driver may, at times, exceed the speed limit, then how can a magistrate determine whether he has done so lawfully if no one can say what the policy is? Surely the police driver must have the benefit of the doubt.

[David Bailey]

Well, clearly no police force can have a blanket 'you cannot speed' policy for its drivers otherwise how are they to catch speeding drivers or fleeing criminals? (Well, hypothetically that might be a valid policy, i.e. no high speed chases at all on the grounds that they are sometimes deadly dangerous, but no police force in the UK does have that policy.)
I dunno, maybe I'm just naive, but if a police force does not explicitly have a policy on something, then the law of the land should be presumed to take precedence in the absence of any other evidence / precedents? OK, it's silly, but it could be argued that way.

In fact, and I'm guessing here, that could have been a rationale for bringing the case to court in the first place - to clarify the legal situation / establish a precedent? Or maybe they're all just stupid...


Once it is accepted that a police driver may, at times, exceed the speed limit, then how can a magistrate determine whether he has done so lawfully if no one can say what the policy is? Surely the police driver must have the benefit of the doubt.
Except that now every speeding officer has a nice precedent to use, and the presumption of benefit of doubt in some cases. And would you use that argument for, say, application of lethal force? "Oh, it's OK, he was killed by a fully-trained copper, that means the copper must have been doing the right thing."

Honestly, I'm still more worried about the driving in town thing (84mph in a 30mph zone) than the motorway driving.

However, it looks like it's all resolved now (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4563953.stm) - they've issued guidelines. "the Chief Constable has today issued an instruction that no officer should exceed speed limits when familiarising themselves with police vehicles or refreshing their driving skills at their own initiative".

Better late than never...

[Barry Shnikov]

Except that now every speeding officer has a nice precedent to use, and the presumption of benefit of doubt in some cases. And would you use that argument for, say, application of lethal force? "Oh, it's OK, he was killed by a fully-trained copper, that means the copper must have been doing the right thing."

Well, yes, it does work for lethal force. An authorised police officer could kill a person and, provided the arming etc. was lawful and the permission to fire was given, then he would in fact have a defence to a charge of murder. On the other hand, if he acted outside his authority - e.g. the arming was lawful but no permission to fire was given - then that would be an offence.

You do accept that driving beyond the speed limit will, under particular circumstances, be lawful for a police officer?

If so, then the question in this trial becomes, 'was this officer acting lawfully in exceeding the speed limit on this occasion?' Without a written policy, it may be difficult or impossible for the magistrate to judge.

Was he acting in a way which might lead to disciplinary proceedings? Absolutely. But criminal sanctions - fine, community service, whatever - that would probably not be fair.



Honestly, I'm still more worried about the driving in town thing (84mph in a 30mph zone) than the motorway driving.


Absolutely. But he obviously thought he was acting lawfully, otherwise he'd hardly have had the car's own speed logging system switched on.

[David Bailey]

But he obviously thought he was acting lawfully, otherwise he'd hardly have had the car's own speed logging system switched on.
Heh, and so? A phrase about "ignorance being no excuse" comes to mind. Also, does that argument apply to kids videoing violence on their mobile phones - "they obviously thought it was legal or they wouldn't have recorded it".

Who knows - a jury might decide that the guy wanted to video himself driving at such speed just to show off to his mates...

Although I'm probably just picking nits now...

[El Salsero Gringo]

Who knows - a jury might decide that the guy wanted to video himself driving at such speed just to show off to his mates...No doubt he did. But, unlike a gynaecologist, it's not unlawful for a traffic policeman to get thrills from making video recordings of what he gets up to in a day's work, or show those videos to his mates afterwards. (Always supposing those mates are traffic police, too.)

In this case, the Magistrate stated explicitly that he was satisfied that the driver wasn't out to impress a bird in the passenger seat or to show off but that the purpose of the trip was genuine and carried out as part of his duties as a police driver.

I got the impression from the report that I read that the reason for the acquital was mainly because the beak was thoroughly unimpressed with the entirely unfair concept of one part of the police prosecuting another because of their own lack of internal guidelines. Not because he thought it was a great idea to zoom up and down the motorway at 160 mph.

[stewart38]

Sure - why not?


If you drive at 37 miles an hour in a 30 mph limit and you're dumb enough to get caught - then yes, you deserve it.

In fact I took it to magistrates court then it went to trial and said someone else was driving.

My costs were awarded and i guess it cost the tax man £1000s. Whats 'dumb' got to do with it

Why would anyone say its 'ok' to drive at 159mph , someone who drives at 159mph i guess and cut and pastes all his 'arguments'. try INDEPENDENT thought

[Lou]

In fact I took it to magistrates court then it went to trial and said someone else was driving.
OK. I know I'm going to regret asking this, but I'll bite...

So, were you driving?

[El Salsero Gringo]

Why would anyone say its 'ok' to drive at 159mph...for all the reasons given above!
someone who drives at 159mph i guess and cut and pastes all his 'arguments'. try INDEPENDENT thoughtStewart, the only person who's cut and pasted an argument in this thread is in fact you. What I wrote in my first post was from memory, and a precis of the facts that your report conveniently and deliberately omitted in order to "have a pop" at the magistrate. I also stated the source of my information, which you failed to do. Going on, Both David James and Barry Shnikov I know personally away from the forum, and they are both intellectual giants of the first order (well, David is :wink: ) Neither would stoop so low as to 'cut and paste' anything without attribution.

For the record, I've never been in a vehicle capable of doing 159 mph. I did manage 121 mph on a motorcycle once, but that was a scientific experiment to see if my head would explode because of the reduced air pressure inside my helmet. It did.

ps: if you drive at 37 in a 30 mph zone, you're a silly silly boy.

[JoC]

But he obviously thought he was acting lawfully
Or he thought he was above the law... I'm great me and I can do what I want because I am a highly trained blah blah blaaahhhhh....

[stewart38]

...

ps: if you drive at 37 in a 30 mph zone, you're a silly silly boy.

That much better , being called a silly boy is better then dumb not sure why :grin:

A 'mate' of mine had 2 speeding offences and went through a red light but still has no points, that could have been 9 :whistle:

'He' did go at 131mph in Montana but got pulled over when going at 107mph and told the officer he was speeding because he was trying to get to a petrol station :sick: ok dumb is fine for 'him'

[David Bailey]

Neither would stoop so low as to 'cut and paste' anything without attribution.
Well, not obviously, anyway - I prefer my plagiarism to be more subtle... But err, thanks.


ps: if you drive at 37 in a 30 mph zone, you're a silly silly boy.
Can't deny it, I was silly. In my defence (!), this was back in the days of evil hidden speed cameras - it's much more easy to be law-abiding with these nice bright orange ones :whistle:

[tsh]

And what's so dangerous with driving at over 100 mph on a motorway in apropriate conditions? I don't know about 159 mph, but I've driven legally at 154 mph on public roads without feeling particularly at any great danger... 120-130 is a more comfortable speed though.

Sean

[JoC]

I've driven legally at 154 mph on public roads without feeling particularly at any great danger...


Oh yeah? Well I've driven at 1 million mph along my street and it was eeeaaasy, and the speed actually made it safer because I vapourised.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Oh yeah? Well I've driven at 1 million mph along my street and it was eeeaaasy, and the speed actually made it safer because I vapourised.
ooh we do love ridiculous sarcasm :)


I have driven at 135mph on a sunny day on a near empty motorway - purely because I wanted to see what it was like and whilst i was in control the whole time for the short time i did this - one mechanical fault, tyre blow out or low flying bird would be quite likely to kill me and anyone in the way of the burning, spinning wreckage. Does a trained police officer have more luck with random events that make him able to travel at 160mph on a public road? Does tsh always win in Vegas ? we should be told :)

[stewart38]

And what's so dangerous with driving at over 100 mph on a motorway in apropriate conditions? I don't know about 159 mph, but I've driven legally at 154 mph on public roads without feeling particularly at any great danger... 120-130 is a more comfortable speed though.

Sean

How can you drive legally at 154mph on public roads ?, or was this in reponse to a guy who was seen going down Slough High street at 37mph 9.17pm

Most people want to drive through that place faster then that

[Rhythm King]

How can you drive legally at 154mph on public roads ?, or was this in reponse to a guy who was seen going down Slough High street at 37mph 9.17pm

Most people want to drive through that place faster then that

Quite easily, I have. Not in UK though (at least not in a private vehicle :whistle: ) I used to live in West Germany (that alone shows you how long ago) where there are no speed limits on the autobahns.

[tsh]

Does tsh always win in Vegas ? we should be told :)

No, I lost on the first day, then won enough on the 2nd day to cover the first day.

Not that I'd want to rely on it, but i have suffered a flat on the motorway, and only noticed because the cats eyes got more noisy! A fringe benefit of low profile tires!

Sean

[Bangers & Mash]

Wow. Testosterone City!

Blunt arguments
Blunt rebuttals
and then a willy competition

:rofl:

Law applies to all
Police uphold law
Judges should be objective

If the law is wrong there are ways to change it.

If the police haven't got a test track, then they should arrange training days at other tracks.

"He wasn't aware that he was breaking the law" (?)
Hmm, what about the mentally ill people who don't either?

Now, I shall leave you guys to your testosterone!

[Swinging bee]

Wow. Testosterone City!

Blunt arguments
Blunt rebuttals
and then a willy competition

:rofl:

Law applies to all
Police uphold law
Judges should be objective

If the law is wrong there are ways to change it.

If the police haven't got a test track, then they should arrange training days at other tracks.

"He wasn't aware that he was breaking the law" (?)
Hmm, what about the mentally ill people who don't either?

Now, I shall leave you guys to your testosterone!



Spent many years on "traffic"...did all the courses 'advanced driver ' and all that. as I recall, there is an exemption in the Road Traffic act for emergency vehicles re speeding and other driving offences provided that it is in the 'course of duty' which has been debated since the cows came home.....

As far as testing on a track goes, Not On!...Pursuit driving, advanced driver training Has to be on public roads there is no way road conditions can be simulated on a track....it was tried on a dis-used aifield once, but found not to be of much use.
It all boils down to good sense really...I suspect that there was a degree of bravado in the case of the driver 'testing the car'...maybe to gain a few brownie points in the canteen...but this will never be proved....So there you have it cynical to the last...... ( no, too many years in the real world)

[JoC]

and then a willy competition

I didn't take part in that bit. Or did I...?

[stewart38]

Spent many years on "traffic"...did all the courses 'advanced driver ' and all that. as I recall, there is an exemption in the Road Traffic act for emergency vehicles re speeding and other driving offences provided that it is in the 'course of duty' which has been debated since the cows came home.....

As far as testing on a track goes, Not On!...Pursuit driving, advanced driver training Has to be on public roads there is no way road conditions can be simulated on a track....it was tried on a dis-used aifield once, but found not to be of much use.
It all boils down to good sense really...I suspect that there was a degree of bravado in the case of the driver 'testing the car'...maybe to gain a few brownie points in the canteen...but this will never be proved....So there you have it cynical to the last...... ( no, too many years in the real world)

Agree by all means practice on real roads, but i cant think of any situation that would warrant any driver going at 159mph but then again if i was being murdered maybe id think differently :sick:

[Lory]

I'd call being able to go 159mph on a public road, a perk of the job! (hides from the forum 'sensible police' :innocent: )

Oh how I'd love to be let loose to give my car a REAL go! :waycool:

[Robin]

I'd call being able to go 159mph on a public road, a perk of the job! (hides from the forum 'sensible police' :innocent: )

Oh how I'd love to be let loose to give my car a REAL go! :waycool:

Book yourself one of those days at Brands Hatch and let loose !!!

[stewart38]

I'd call being able to go 159mph on a public road, a perk of the job! (hides from the forum 'sensible police' :innocent: )

Oh how I'd love to be let loose to give my car a REAL go! :waycool:

Given last yr my average speed to camber and southport was 15.9mph , I think its a good perk

Coming home from camber this yr it was prob 15.9mph (with M25 accident)

At 159mph camber in under an hour southport in well under 2 instead of 5 and 10hrs

If someone is going to hit 159mph going to southport im happy to share petrol all we need is a blue light ?