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?

[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?

Of course. Unlike some people, I've never been able to argue a position half-heartedly - I only really do "all guns blazing". And 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?

[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

[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. 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 - 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.