Safe Speed Forums

A SOUTH Yorkshire Police driving instructor responsible for teaching fellow officers to drive safely is to appear in court charged with speeding at 112mph on the motorway.
PC Colin Yates, who worked for the driver training department based at Ecclesfield Police Station before the incident, is charged with driving at 110-112mph in a 70mph zone on the M1 northbound.
He was off duty at the time he was said to have been clocked breaking the speed limit.
PC Yates, who is currently on sick leave, has been given a new role involved in the training of probationary police officers since he was charged.
His previous position will be reviewed at the end of the case, which is due to be heard at Loughborough Magistrates' Court on Monday.
The offence has been reported to the Professional Standards Department which monitors and investigates officers' conduct.
A South Yorkshire Police spokesman said: "An officer is to appear in court in Leicestershire to answer an offence of speeding alleged to have been committed while he was off duty.
"This was correctly reported through internal procedures.
"The situation will be assessed following the completion of court procedures."
News of the case comes just a week after Derbyshire police officer Pc Daniel Swain appeared in court for allegedly driving at 90mph in a 30mph zone.
Pc Swain, aged 30, was alleged to have been caught speeding in Shuttleworth, near Bolsover, when his Vauxhall Astra police patrol car smashed into another vehicle and ploughed into a house as he responded to an emergency call.
When the case was heard at Derby Crown Court it emerged that his colleagues discovered his speed when they looked at his car's data recorder - similar to the black boxes found in aeroplanes. But the case collapsed when the judge said the Crown Prosecution Service had submitted vital evidence at too late a stage for the defence team to contest.
Last month another police officer - Mark Milton, from Telford, Shropshire - was cleared of dangerous driving after a court accepted his explanation that he had been driving at speeds of up to 159mph because he was testing out a police car.
Under information supplied under the Freedom of Information Act it has emerged that Derbyshire Police allowed 59 of its police officers to escape prosecution for speeding.
The force admits that despite issuing 59 officers with court summons after being caught by speed cameras they never had to appear in court after each one of them successfully appealed against the summons to force chiefs.

http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArtic ... ID=1045639

Apologies if this has already been posted, been 'absent' for a while.

_________________
"CAMERAS "DO NOT" SAVE LIVES" !!
(Richard Brunstrom Says so !!)

Surely a vexatious/vindictive prosecution. What good can it possibly achieve? Alredy the poor sod has lost his position. and for what? Doing something in his own time that he does for a living anyway - practicing driving fast very safely.

Perhaps they want the ordinary PCs to hate the Chief Constable as much as the regular punters, eh?

What a waste of someone presumably doing a good job. The Police would have a substantial amount invested in him which is now at risk. The personal side could be a geniune illness brought on by the stress of it all. It is just utterly baffling how the CofP's have been suckered into the "all speeding kills" lie. These are well educated smart folk, why dont they understand the real statistics? Were they seduced by replacing trafpols with cameras ?

If they are, there's more than a few of them do a damned-good job of hiding it!

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

I hope the copper that clocked him and chose to do things so perfeclty by the book is proud of himself. He will no doubt go on to make a fine specimen to work with Harry Naylor and Tony Clarke. Oh no - I remember that if one enjoys being a b*st*rd that one is no good in that role.

Off topic - sorry. Is it my imagination or did this thread vanish for circa 24 hours?

Let's not forget that "he was off duty" at the time.

This is the reason why I posted the report on here.

He may have been "Doing something in his own time that he does for a living anyway - practicing driving fast very safely" but does that make it acceptable ?

Certainly it proves that it IS quite safe to drive at high speeds, but again, should he do it "in his own time", if so 'why' ?

More to the point, how often does he do it "in his own time" and what IF, he is involved in or causes an accident by doing it ?

IMHO he was doing it believing he was 'immune' from prosecution due to his professional position.

_________________
"CAMERAS "DO NOT" SAVE LIVES" !!
(Richard Brunstrom Says so !!)

Given his job, and the responsibility that goes with it, and the need to keep one's eye in as often as reasonably practicable, IMHO he *should* be immune from a speeding charge per se. If not the written law, the unwritten one, ie, appropriate discretion.

Nope, sorry, don't agree.

If he is on duty and engaged in training or vehicle evaluation, fine (and, as you know, I have strongly defended PC Mark Milton on this forum).

But if he's off duty he is subject to the same laws as the rest of us and needs to face the consequences - and understand what these mean to civilian motorists caught doing similar speeds.

Giving trafpols carte blanche immunity from speeding charges when off duty is a very dangerous road to go down.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Thank you Peter, this is my point too.

The law applies to us all, regardless of specific 'training/qualifications' etc, otherwise top racing drivers would expect immunity from speed limits purely because of their 'ability' to 'SAFELY' handle/control vehicles at HIGH speeds.

_________________
"CAMERAS "DO NOT" SAVE LIVES" !!
(Richard Brunstrom Says so !!)

I ... this is a grey area! I'm not suggesting that anyone, regardless of profession or qualification, should be immune from prosecution under any law. I am saying that, regardless of occupation, speeding as an entity in itself should not form a primary reason to prosecute anybody who is trained and capable of doing so safely. However, add to that any semblence of foolhardiness, risk-taking etc and I'm right with you both.

I'll reiterate a similar argument to the 30/31 argument we often use. Was he speeding less safely as he was not on duty? Would the uniform and had he been "clocked in" have made this aspect of his motoring less likely to have an accident or made an accident less severe?

No, either speeding is a strict liability offence or it isn't. If it isn't, then if I, as a qualified advanced driver who is not on the breadline, am charged with speeding, I will get an expensive barrister to argue that my driving was safe under the circumstances, and probably be acquitted. The end result is that there are very few speeding prosecutions, and even fewer of people with the means to mount a serious defence.

The discretion that should be shown by trafpols depends on their observation of the accused's driving at the time.

The accused's driving experience and qualifications shouldn't enter into it.

Otherwise I will do my damnedest to get a RoSPA Gold and let rip twisted:

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Top notch racing drivers may have great skill when handling cars at high speed on a closed circuit, but this does not necessarily mean they are well equipped to drive safely at high speed on public roads with a variety of other road users around them. In the latter environment they might actually be less safe than I am, and I have no closed circuit race driving experience. Horses for courses?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Point taken Dave:

Todays news is that his excuse for the offence was he "wanted to get his girlfriend 'home to bed' so she wouldn't be late for work next morning" (she 'was' a PC too)

He's been 'banned from driving for two months and fined £265'

Here:

_________________
"CAMERAS "DO NOT" SAVE LIVES" !!
(Richard Brunstrom Says so !!)