Police in the South - Idiots!!

jeremy · Post by **jeremy** » 19 May 2005, 12:32

I think the correct action here would have been for the court to reflect the driver's skill, circumstances etc in the penalty, in other words consider an absolute discharge for either or both offences. This could produce no endorsement or fine or record if absolute or a minor penalty.
As far as I know speed limits are absolute and if you go over - yes you are guilty of the offence - no if or buts - you are guilty. so I am at a total loss how he got away with this offence a the quality of the evidence doesn't seem to be in question.
As for the reckless - well there may have been little danger but what would they say if they caught an equally skilled civilian (eg F1 driver) driving at that speed? - I doubt if they would take that view.
There are in fact a considerable number of accidents involving police vehicles on real or imaginary 'emergencies' and apparently some forces are thinking of imposing restrictions to reduce accidents. After all if you need the Police in an emergency they are no good if they crash the car on the way.
High speed training - yes - officially organised on proper facilities - but unnoficial training - no. Permission to break speed limits when they feel like it - NO. Revision of national speed limits YES.
Should be a flood of cases now from the wealthy saying that they are skilled drivers - could be very amusing!
jeremy

uhn113x · Post by **uhn113x** » 19 May 2005, 12:57

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> after all, an eleven year old car might well yield some bald tyres, and maybe some other defects. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Far less likely than a 2.5 year old MOT-free car, I would have thought.

fastandfurryous · Post by **fastandfurryous** » 19 May 2005, 15:07

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by uhn113x

Far less likely than a 2.5 year old MOT-free car, I would have thought.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, absolutely... I was being sarcastic about the mindset of some police! Most of them seem to think old car = better likelyhood of some offences to be found. Unfortunately I can see why they think like this, as most of the time it's true.
It's amazing how general perception of a car changes. 0-5 years old, it's a nice newish car. 5-10 years old it's getting old. 10-20 years old and it's a heap of crap. 20-25 years old and it's an eyesore as well as being a heap of crap. Over 25 years old and it's a beautiful old classic.... and yet the car hasn't changed a bit in that time!
The police seem to use this as a guide as to what to pull over too. I know it's wrong. BUT... try this: Next time you're waiting for something near a busyish road, watch the traffic. Imagine you are a copper, and can only pull over a limited number of cars. Now pick out which ones you would check. Most of them will be older cars that look badly maintained, or being driven by young males. I tried it and surprised myself.

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 19 May 2005, 15:11

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by fastandfurryous
Actually, I agree with the judge on this one. The Police driver needs to be aware of what the car's limits are before being in a dangerous situation. I would rather he learns this at 2am on a deserted motorway than 4 in the afternoon on a dual carriageway, while persuing a fleeing criminal.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There are a few unanswered questions. Was this a normal documented and legally legislated procedure? Why did it even get to court? Was it in reality a police officer going for a joy ride in a new car, getting caught and then making up an excuse? Did he turn the camera on so he had a video "to show his mates"? How often will the said police officer be required to drive at such speeds and how often has it been required by other officers in the past?
The fact that he did it at night means it was dark, personally I can't see in the dark and unless he has magical eyes I doubt he could see beyond what his headlight beams illuminted.

fastandfurryous · Post by **fastandfurryous** » 19 May 2005, 15:43

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Kowalski

Was it in reality a police officer going for a joy ride in a new car, getting caught and then making up an excuse? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I doubt if that will ever be known. You want to ask him?
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Did he turn the camera on so he had a video "to show his mates"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">They run permanently whenever the car is being driven.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How often will the said police officer be required to drive at such speeds and how often has it been required by other officers in the past?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">More often than you might think.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The fact that he did it at night means it was dark,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Unless that section of motorway is lit.
There are just too many things that we as the general public don't know about this case, so any opinion we come up with is always going to be fundamentally flawed by not having all the information available.

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 19 May 2005, 16:03

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
"Even on advanced courses while still a student, I was encouraged to drive at greater than 145mph on motorways."
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, whilst being trained not when out on a joyride.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
(The judge) condemned West Mercia Police's lack of control over the high-speed practice runs.
He said: "Not only can advanced drivers practise anywhere, but they are under no duty to tell senior officers
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Around 30 people a year are killed in high-speed police pursuits, triple the number six years ago.
Last year, nearly 1,200 people were injured in such chases - more than six times the number a decade earlier.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If you want to know why police officers shouldn't be allowed to speed without a very good reason have a look at this article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/westmidl ... shes.shtml

rbruce1314 · Post by **rbruce1314** » 19 May 2005, 16:47

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
There are just too many things that we as the general public don't know about this case, so any opinion we come up with is always going to be fundamentally flawed by not having all the information available.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'm completely with you here. I know an RAF pilot who is sent out on dogfight 'exercises'. They always end up in a real dogfight with their mates: most of the 'unexplained' crashes (to the public) are exactly this cause. Same with low level flying- supposedly banned but it happens.
But what else CAN they do? Go to the gulf and try to bring down the enemy without ever having been in a real dogfight?
Same with the police- how do you keep in practice driving real fast? In a simulator- I think not!
This guy was obviously no danger to anyone or he would have been charged.
We just do not know all the facts and never will.

fastandfurryous · Post by **fastandfurryous** » 19 May 2005, 17:23

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Kowalski

[quote]
If you want to know why police officers shouldn't be allowed to speed without a very good reason have a look at this article.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That article is typical tabloid scaremongering. What would happen if police were not allowed to have rapid response times, and drive at high speeds? Criminals would get away. Dangerous ones at that. Armed robbers, rapists, etc. People who already drive dangerously would drive even worse as they would know that the police would not be allowed to follow them at speed.
There are something like 3500 people killed on the roads in the UK every year. That's about 10 a DAY! Where are their stories? What is the defence against their families misery? Don't get me wrong, every single life lost on the road is tragic, and we need to do everything we can to avoid them, but highlighting the tiny few that happen during high-speed police chases or responses is just plain WRONG.
I don't know the answer, and I doubt anyone else does too.

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 19 May 2005, 17:25

Question: What is the difference between an officer going out for a 159mph joyride and an officer going out to practice high speed driving?
Answer: There is no difference, it all depends on whether he got caught or not.
The difference should be that the high speed driving is pre-arranged, suppervised and within approved guidelines. Police officers do NOT have the right to choose themselves which laws they should break and which they do not. Their job is to enforce the law.
How about this for a scenario. Lets say for argument's sake that I am going to take part in a motor sport event, can I practice on public roads for it? If not why not? If I'm a skilled racing driving it isn't dangerous is it?
If you can answer that question without saying that I can't because I'm not a police officer, Pc Mark Milton deserves to get off.

fastandfurryous · Post by **fastandfurryous** » 19 May 2005, 17:38

And while I remember.... I can PROVE that speed isn't the problem. Look at Germany. They have no speed limit on a lot of the Autobahn, and yet their death/injury statistics (per capita) are roughly in line with our own. People regularly drive at speeds of well over 100MPH over there.
Speed isn't the problem. Dangerous / Agressive / Idiotic / Badly trained / Tired drivers are.

fastandfurryous · Post by **fastandfurryous** » 19 May 2005, 17:46

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Kowalski

Question: What is the difference between an officer going out for a 159mph joyride and an officer going out to practice high speed driving?
Answer: There is no difference, it all depends on whether he got caught or not.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You don't know that. You will never know that. DON'T make assumptions.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
How about this for a scenario. Lets say for argument's sake that I am going to take part in a motor sport event, can I practice on public roads for it? If not why not? If I'm a skilled racing driving it isn't dangerous is it?
If you can answer that question without saying that I can't because I'm not a police officer, Pc Mark Milton deserves to get off.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You really have no idea do you? Motorsport should be practiced on the racetrack, as that's where it takes place. The public roads are where traffic police work. It is their office, and hence that's where they train too. If they were to practice on a race track it would be uttely pointless. You woudn't practice dirt-bike riding at silverstone would you? or use an F1 car on a rally track? Same difference.
Does that fit your criteria for PC Mark Milton being let off?

bxbodger · Post by **bxbodger** » 19 May 2005, 17:58

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As far as I know speed limits are absolute and if you go over - yes you are guilty of the offence - no if or buts - you are guilty. so I am at a total loss how he got away with this offence a the quality of the evidence doesn't seem to be in question.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I heard a bit more about this case on the radio this morning. The reason he got off was because West Mercia Police have no guidance for officers who need to explore the upper limits of a new cars performance, so the judge took a sensible view that it would have been a waste of resources to ban or suspend an officer who is obviously trained to a very high standard because his force doesn't have any proper training policy. He's a lot more use on patrol than suspended from driving duty behind a desk.
It was a radio phone in and traffic cops were phoning in and saying that high speed road pursuit conditions just cannot be simulated on a track. What they said was basically they all do this,especially with a new to them car, but its normally done within a clearly defined training policy, which this force was lacking and thats what the judge picked up on.
You can't help but suspect, though, that there was an element of a joyride in it, and who with the requisit skills wouldn't????[}:)]

macaroni · Post by **macaroni** » 19 May 2005, 17:59

One question I still feel is unanswered...
WHAT WAS IN THE BOOT ALEX??

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 19 May 2005, 18:18

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by fastandfurryous
Does that fit your criteria for PC Mark Milton being let off?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I asked "can I", you answered that I shouldn't, the same goes for PC Mark Milton.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bxbodger

It was a radio phone in and traffic cops were phoning in and saying that high speed road pursuit conditions just cannot be simulated on a track.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Driving on roads with no other traffic doesn't simulate the conditions that police officers have to pursue suspects in either, driving a car on a straight bit of road isn't what the advanced driving training is about, it's about coping with imperfect roads, pedestrians and other drivers.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
You can't help but suspect, though, that there was an element of a joyride in it, and who with the requisit skills wouldn't????[}:)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
My point exactly.

fastandfurryous · Post by **fastandfurryous** » 19 May 2005, 18:31

PC. Mark Milton is employed to do a job that REQUIRES him to drive at very high speeds, and in what are potentially very dangerous situations. He needs to train for this job, in the same way that ANYONE needs to train for a job that is dangerous. His training has to be relevant, and realistic. As BXBodger listed above, and I said earlier, anything other than training on the roads is fairly useless.
Please do yourself a favour and give up on this one. You seem to be suggesting that you know better than the Judge.... and you DON'T