Safe Speed Forums

http://www.lep.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx? ... ID=1507535

PC admits crash at 90mph
17 May 2006

A POLICE officer is facing a driving ban after he crashed his patrol car while braking at 90mph to avoid a speed camera.

PC Scott Warburton was not responding to an emergency and did not have his vehicle’s blue lights on before he hit two sign- posts on a central reservation, a court was told.

Warburton, a member of the Lancashire police force, did not attend court but pleaded guilty by letter.

He serves in the Northern Division and is an armed response officer.

He admitted driving a force Ford Galaxy without due care and attention on the A6 Scotforth Road at Lancaster.

Camera

Blackpool magistrates said they were considering banning Warburton from driving and adjourned his case for two weeks for the officer to appear before them.

Prosecutor Malcolm Isherwood told magistrates: “On October 26, the defendant, who is a serving police officer with Lancashire Police, was driving his liveried police vehicle.

“He overtook a motor vehicle and accelerated his speed.”

“Upon seeing a speed camera he braked sharply, lost control and hit two signs on the central reservation.

“He came to a halt on the northbound carriageway.

“He was not responding to a code one incident and the blue lights were not in use.

“The accident investigation report indicated the incident data recorder had recorded a peak speed of 91 miles per hour approximately 10 seconds before the accident.”

Oh the irony of him being in Lancashire! Does the report say what the limit actually was on the road in question?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Although we don't know for certain 90 mph could have been safe for the prevailing conditions, and if it wasn't for the speed camera he wouldn't have braked and therefore wouldn't have crashed.

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

http://www.safe2travel.co.uk/cameras/ca ... mber=A4005
Camera Site Name: Scotforth Rd, nr Abbeyfield Cl, Lancaster

Camera Site Details
Camera Site No: A4005
Highway Authority: Lancashire County Council
Camera Type:
Fixed
Date Established: 09/02/2001
Speed Limit: 30


90 in a 30!!!!!


no one else goes over 45 mph according to thier own stats...

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

OK, maybe not

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

The reason I asked is that managing to lose it braking from 90 to 60 or 70 is pretty incredible. Braking from 90 to 30? Not really surprising.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

What is also scary is the fact that nearly all of the accidents on that road also involve pedestrians. Lets me see: at 30 mph 40% are killed, at 40 mph 90% are killed, at 90 mph we don't know, as there are only little bits to pick up.

Would you trust this man with firearms?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I wouldn't trust the bloke with a school crossing patrol.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I'm thinking that this incident is 'road safety in a microcosm'. It's all there:

* A crash caused, as usual, by skill or attitude shortfall
* The false safety message of the speed limit and the camera ignored by an experienced driver because it was simply not true.
* The distraction effect of the camera
* A crash that simply would not have happened 15 years ago.
* A Police driver hoist by the rules that he's supposed to be able to enforce.
* The inevitable damage to the Police / public relationship.
* The inevitable baying for blood after the 'rules were broken'. Right sentiment. Totally the wrong reason.
* Further restrictions on training and skills development making such crashes more likely.

* And, as usual, no support for the only organisation that understands the issues and has sustainable solutions. Folks, I REALLY need your support. See: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/join.html

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I appreciate that road safety is not about numeric digits and it is about driving at a safe speed for the conditions, and that speed cameras are poor psychology in that respect.

But are you trying to say that this bloke was doing 90mph in a 30mph zone safely and the accident was the fault of the speed camera?!?!?!?!?!?

No. Although that is possibly the case. I haven't even been able to get absolute confirmation that the location in question is a 30mph speed limit.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 15:49:

PR313: PC Warburton: The dangers of the wrong issue

news: for immediate release

News that PC Scott Warburton faces a driving ban after crashing while braking
for a speed camera will damage road safety and the Police / public relationship
warns Safe Speed.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "It is so important that we focus on the real
causes of road danger. Obvious answers and knee jerk policies will not save
lives."

"For the causes of this and every crash we must look inside the mind of the
driver. Safety is about skills and attitudes rather than rules and regulations
- so much so that it is quite impossible to prevent such crashes with
regulation."

"Cases like this distort road safety objectives and damage the Police / public
relationship. They strongly tend to raise the wrong issues."

"The right road safety issue arising from this case is that people must drive
with an appropriate sense of responsibility, but I fear that there will be loud
and ignorant baying for further regulation."


Claims and the truth:

* He shouldn't be allowed to drive so fast:

True. But the measure of 'too fast' is not that his numerical speed was high,
but that he lost control and crashed.


* Police officers should be restricted to driving at the speed limit.

False. We need Police officers to attend incidents as quickly as safely
possible. It is frequently safe for properly trained drivers to exceed the
speed limits by wild margins.


* Speed cameras prevent bad driving and high speed crashes

False. The evidence of this case is entirely the opposite.


* We need more regulation:

False. We need better attitudes and better skills.

<ends>

Notes for editors
=================

Local press article:
http://www.lep.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx? ... ID=1507535

Excellent piece from 'The Newspaper'
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/11/1134.asp

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I seam to be missing the focus of your press relief Paul.

A trained armed response driver drives a people carrier at three times the limit. He is not on an emergency call. No blues or twos.

The public should be alarmed at his mis-judgement.
"driver may face a ban" I recon he should face dismissal and dangerous driving charge which is an prisonable offence. He should be fighting for his freedom not his licence.

A ford Galaxy is a people carrier. It is not as stable at high speeds.
Any one who makes such a bad judgement should not have a firearms licence either.

He does bring the police into disrepute because I bet he has had a few drivers banned for 60 in a 30.

Your earlier post was clearer than the press release.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I'm working ahead of the game. I expect others to call for 'restrictions' and 'regulations' after this case. But restrictions and regulations cannot make up for attitude or skills shortfalls. This PR isn't a 'story' it's a series of fragments that can be used by journalists working on a story. Each fragment should stand alone. As a whole, I'm hoping that it will encourage wider debate of the issues.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

This report is rather worrying.

A police officer, presumably trained in high speed and pusuit driving, loses control of his vehicle braking from 90 to 30mph.

Presumably this is a modern, well maintained vehicle with the usual safety features (ABS at least).

I certainly don't lose control of my people carrier braking from (not on a public road of course) 90 to 30, no matter how hard I have to brake.

If it was a Galaxy loaded with equipment then it might handle differently when braking.

I am wondering where theNewspaper's article got 30mph from though? Looking at the safe2travel site, there are three cameras on Scotforth Road and one is in a 50mph limit.

Gareth

Even 90 in a 50 would be a near-automatic ban for speeding alone under the current guideline system. Let alone following a crash.

What do the police usually carry round in Galaxys?