159 mph!!!

rbruce1314 · Post by **rbruce1314** » 20 May 2005, 17:55

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by born2die
So if an officer can say he was practising can we also say that my wife is pregnant and I was doing the ton on an a road to test the time it takes to get to the hospital and how my car and skills cope with this recklessness. the same could apply and it could be any emergency.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
And with a reasonable cop and a proper emergency it IS. When my father was dying I received a call from my sister to say time was short- and I was 100 miles away. Any way I was stopped by plod on the outskirts of North London doing just over 100mph(in a BX) on a dual carriageway, 15 miles from destination.
After the usual prelims he asked where I was going and I told him the address of the hospice. at that point he got another call- as he pulled away he said that without this other call he would have escorted me at speed for the last few miles!
Most police know a real emergency when they come across one and are reasonable---they just dont like being wound up by pathetic excuses.

born2die · Post by **born2die** » 20 May 2005, 18:19

I think I was practising in a 30 at 80 is a pathetic excuse in an emergency fine no problems they are moitored and told when to back of due to the danger the same goes that I have been stopped at speed in an emergency and the police were fine about it but if this sets the standard then I am sure that it is acceptable to say that I was practising the time distance capabilities and my skills in case I am late for tea one day. for most of us our skills are not up to that of the police we dont have the training etc but to be let of due to this excuse is pathetic if it was just on the motorway then that is fine but on a roads and in 30 limits that is just stupid and reckless.#
In the police cars life this is about the only time it will hit the limit of 160 most of the time acceleration handling and stopping are going to be the main issues that the driver needs to get a grasp of as most of the time it will be at relitavly slow speeds in a chase round council estates etc where other issues other than top speed are the order of the day its not everyday you are going to case a porshe ferrari v6 activa lol down the motorway and most of the time the people driving these cars wont exceed 120 ish due to there inexperience. If the police need to speed test there cars then there are tracks around the country where they can get to 160 saftly and then test the stopping power of the brakes without the risk of hitting somebody for if you sneeze at 160 mph your eyes are closed for 1/2 second approx in which case you have traveled approx 1/4 mile down the road blind and are covering 1 mile every 30 seconds which gives you no time to react to a situation 1 or 2 miles down the road. which on a deserted motorway morning is no doubt a drunk stoned chav in his barried up car spinning all over the caridgeway.

born2die · Post by **born2die** » 20 May 2005, 18:24

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 20 May 2005, 19:11

That car used to be a 306, so I doubt it had a police advanced driver driving it. In Kent they're talking about removing the sirens from their panda cars so that this sort of thing doesn't happen.
Police advanced drivers do have accidents though, sometimes whilst "training".

born2die · Post by **born2die** » 20 May 2005, 19:53

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/ ... ungle.html ho hum there at it all over the place

Picture not related to story and I know its a panda again maybe the police dont like pictures of there high speed wipeouts appearing on the net. Story funny though in light of the recent incident.

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 20 May 2005, 20:24

The police do try to keep the public well away from any accident, but I suspect that where there is an accident involving police vehicles the press and public will be kept as far away as possible, it's not good PR now is it?

rossd · Post by **rossd** » 20 May 2005, 22:15

This might put it a bit more into perspective:
Taken from the PSOOC forum from somebody that knows the area:
"Right well all of this happened within a mile or two of where i grew up and i know the route he took and where he was doing the relevant speeds.
The 30mph zone where he did 80 was until a couple of years ago a 60mph zone and is part of the old A5. The two A roads where he did over a ton were major trunk roads that are well maintained and have good lines of sight. The M54 is quiet by motorway standards and at night you can travel 20 miles on it without seeing another car. Whilst his speedo was reading 159mph the calibrated speed was actually 'only' 135."
Just to clarify, these are not my views, but of somebody's on the PSOOC forum. I do not asscoiate myself with any of the content or its accuracy!!!![:)]

howiedean · Post by **howiedean** » 20 May 2005, 23:55

What I and probably a lot of other people don't like is the "DON'T DO AS I DO, DO AS I SAY" attitude. Lets be honest if testing needs to be carried out is it not safer for everyone if done off the highway and on a track or airfield?
I'll get off me soap box now[:D]
Cheers

adamskibx · Post by **adamskibx** » 21 May 2005, 00:29

Its interesting that the Police do their cars up nowerdays-I remember that Vauxhal used to build a special type of Omega for the Police that had the top V6 170BHP engine and the base spec interior for cost effectivenes.

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 21 May 2005, 01:41

I have been involved in numerous speed limit debates and the line that always get's thrown in when all the other arguments have been lost is it's the law!
Well now the boot is on the other foot the copper was in the right because it's the law! *thumbs nose in a childish and totally uncalledfor manner*

paranoid · Post by **paranoid** » 21 May 2005, 02:15

Testing high speed dynamics no doubt.....Ho Hum
http://www.wreckedexotics.com/newphotos/police/
Not gory but they do make you think[B)]

bikeboyz · Post by **bikeboyz** » 21 May 2005, 04:18

Putting a little less serious note to this, I wonder if that copper owns any Burrbery?

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 21 May 2005, 04:22

There has been quite a bit more coverage of this and some more facts have emerged.
"A Telford police officer accused of dangerous driving after travelling at speeds of almost 160mph said he accidentally triggered the system that recorded the vital evidence after going over a speed bump, a court heard today."
So, he wasn't knowingly recording what he was doing, the fact that it was recorded was accidental. He didn't try to conceal what he did, this could mean he didn't think anybody would do anything about it, or he thought what he was doing was OK, or he didn't realise how much of his drive had been recorded.
"On Wednesday, the judge said he had heard evidence from one officer who would never advocate testing cars in built-up areas and would stick to 30mph and 40mph speed restrictions"
Not everybody agreed that what he did was safe.
"to provide further reassurance to members of the public, 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."
It seems that the force in question didn't agree with what he got up to entirely.
"THE judge who cleared 159mph traffic cop Mark Milton is the man who found Metric Martyr Steve Thoburn guilty of selling bananas by the pound."
Trust the Sun to find the most relevant facts [;)]

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 21 May 2005, 06:19

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

Not everybody agreed that what he did was safe.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Nothing we do in life is "safe".
The officer has been found not guilty in a court of law.[^]
This says one thing very clearly. Driving in excess of the posted speed limit is not automatically dangerous (as many would have us believe) it is merely illegal (for most of us).

rbruce1314 · Post by **rbruce1314** » 21 May 2005, 15:14

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Driving in excess of the posted speed limit is not automatically dangerous (as many would have us believe) it is merely illegal (for most of us).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Around where I live there have been several inter-town roads whose speed limits have been dropped to 50 or even 40 (from 60mph) after fatal accidents. In EVERY case the car was being driven by a youngster doing well OVER the 60 limit. So now we have roads with a 40 limit that were perfectly safe for the ordinary driver at 60 because some p@*#?%k decided to try and break the laws of physics.
In other words a speed limit is often far below the safe speed for the road.