Safe Speed Forums

Heres a few paragraphs i found while hunting for something different.

3.6. Speed Limits - Section 87, Road Traffic Regulation Act
1984

3.6.2. Whilst exempt from adhering to speed limits when engaged
on operational duties, there still remains a statutory
requirement to maintain safety margins. Legal exemptions
for police do not include driving at a speed or in a manner
which is dangerous, nor driving in a manner which could
amount to driving without due care & attention.

So it seems that exceeding the speed limits is fine as long as "safety margins" are maintained. Good.
It gets better, they acknowledge that conditions/circumstances should all be assessed while exceeding the limit-obviously.

3.6.3. It may be appropriate for trained staff to utilise statutory
exemptions in respect of posted speed limits in accordance
with these procedures. It should be stressed however that
such decisions require staff to consider both whether to
exceed a speed limit and the extent to which they do so
based upon individual circumstances and to continually
dynamically risk assess and re-evaluate these decisions.
3.6.4. Surveillance vehicles are capable of very high speeds and
staff need to consider the public’s perception of both the
safety and appropriateness of their actions, together with
other factors such as traffic conditions, the time of day and
the type and urgency of the manoeuvre necessitating the
emergency response.

The implication above is that better trained drivers ( experienced drivers presumably would qualify?) are perfectly capable of exceeding the speed limits safely, dynamically assessing the degree to which they do so, which is pretty much what we've been saying all along.

So much for " speed kills" huh?

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Do you remember the Telford cop who was 'caught' by this own car on the M54 at 150. his excuse was he was testing the car to it limits so he knew what they were. maybe he should of read those statements!! (and he got away with it). One rule for them and one for us!!

The implications are (IMHO) that it is a get out of jail free card for BiB and other emergency services to cover those times when as part of their duty they may at some point exceed the speed limits as posted.
It also spells out what factors those exceeding the limit must continually evaluate in order not to be prosecuted.

I would very much doubt that 'experienced' could reliably be associated with 'Better trained' in this context.
Experienced does not imply the one with the experience is doing what he is experienced at properly or safely does it?
'Better trained' however does (again IMHO) imply the person who is 'better trained' is more proficient than someone merely 'experienced'...if you get my drift?

The exemption described above does, indeed mean there is "one rule for them ..."

Society generally accepts this, however, the public expect the police to use reasonable sense and discretion in utilising this exemption. The problem is that by not reciprocating and allowing the public reasonable leeway when enforcing road traffic law the police engender the "them and us" mentality.

I think that one of the most insidious effects of the camera enforcement regime (with no human based "reasonableness" input) is the alienation of the police from the public.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I sense a little indignation in your post ollie if im not mistaken?
Although i can see why that might be, i dont hold with the assertion that the Mark Milton ( telford cop) should have been prosecuted.

I see instances such as that as a demonstration, a vindication in fact of the message that safepeed has been promoting.
It proves beyond doubt, beyond the hysterical ravings of Brake and all those "concerned residents" that speed isnt the automatic big killer they say it is.
It proves them to be liars, absolutely.
Everytime a case like Mark Miltons comes to court (or even some other high speed "offender") it backs up the message, it qualifies it and it makes a mockery of the "speed kills" campaign.
Its therefore a positive event for us, because its showing that the judiciary (even if they convict on the excess speed charge) dont actually believe what he did was "dangerous" which is what the oppositions barking madness is based on.

Overall, anytime a speeding driver, even a cop, who gets off the "dangerous driving" aspect of the charge has to be a good thing for us, and especially so if he didnt crash while "speeding".
For that reason i dont resent cops getting away with it as its actually helping us to prove what we all say; Speed ISNT a killer.

Thats the bigger picture for me at least, and petty gripes about "them and us" need to get put on one side while we fight the common enemy, after all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

I struggle with the milton case.

Personally I don't think that driving at 150mph should warrant a prosecution unless it was actually dangerous. If you can drive safely at that speed then carry on.

However, Given the climate, given the aggressive speed enforcement then he should have been prosecuted and sacked.

I'll try to rationalise my paradoxical stance.

In my mind there has always been an informal 'deal' between the police and the public....'you play fair with me, i'll play fair with you'. The current target driven policing has broken that deal and is driving a wedge between the police and public.

We can campaign for sense and reason all we want but I honestly believe that police hypocrisy has to be treated with the same zero tolerance that we have to endure.

The more we see the police prosecuted like the rest of us, the more we see them lose their livelihoods there more of them will challenge and question the system that they are forced to operate.

The speed kills brigade don't give a flying t0ss about me, my family or my livelihood. If I get banned through 4 minor indiscretions then they would regard it as just desserts and consider me to be a mere casualty in the war on speed. A price worth paying!

Well I'm sorry but Milton should have been Jailed. I would have been and so would everyone else on here.

I fully understand the point that a NG verdict demonstrates that speed can be safe if appropriate but I don't think that Milton being 'banged to rifghts' would have prevented that. I really believe that it is only when we get police sacked, jailed etc that the absurdity of the current situation will truely be brought home to the public at large.

There is this nannyista mantra '.....if it only saves one life it's worth it' well I'm sorry Mark Milton but if you chose to work for an organisation who's leaders consider my and my families livelihood as a pawn to be sacrificed in your misguided quest then you should live and fall by their self righteous sword.

i agree speed can be safe, my point is that one rule for one and one rule for the other. Why can they do it and get away with it, yet we cant. i speed (see my other topic) but a get tickets for it yet he didnt? at least they could of given him 3 points and 60 sheets!

If its not an emergency then they should get exactly what everyone else gets.

To what end? All it does is helps to reinforce to view that "speed kills" otherwise why prosecute?
The more people that arent prosecuted ( cops included) for exceeding the speed limit helps promote our arguments surely?
I can understand the resentment shown that Miltons a cop and cops should get what we all get, but again, thats a personal gripe and needs to be laid on one side for a later time, until the war is won.
The milton arguments another thing altogether from whats really important: Is speeding dangerous? No! Like hell it is! Milton getting off with it proves its not, he was doing close on 170 at one point remember and the "dangerous driving" part got laughed out of court because guess what folks? He wasnt driving dangerously. Ergo he was driving safely at 170! Who'd have thought it?! Kind of makes speed kills look a bit silly.
Thats the issue, not the separate one of him getting treated differently, and the two shouldnt be mixed up, for the sake of the argument lay that one to one side.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Nice find, Deltaf!

It got me thinking..............about all the people who were absent in court that day at the Mark Milton case but are very prevelent at the House of Commons Committee's on road safety..................................................Oh, like: T2000, Roadpeace, et al......(the 3 witches).

What if one of their "kiddywinkles was crossing the road when PC Milton came by"...................."Just Testing" (as he put it!)...............at 84mph in a 30!................

Has he got "special brakes" then?............................

I agree, there is NO brick wall on a; "safe speed" . It's a matter of conditions............best left to a well trained driver!

I'm not too sure about that.

First of all we need to prosecute and 'throw the book' at the likes of Milton because of the appaling hypocrisy. We need to highlight and tackle the hypocrisy at every opportunity....speeding SCP vans, police getting pizzas etc etc.

Then, once the police are being hamstrung by this they will start and run with the 'speed doesn't kill' debate. We need to go mad at the slightest sign of double standards. And when they argue for exemption we can then say....SEE SPEED DOESN'T KILL.

If that happened they would never be able to train for when there is an emergency. It's no use using a track because the conditions are totally different to roads.

The officer/s should at least notify their superior of the intention to have a training or, in the case of an officer alone in a vehicle, practice session. At least that way there is a record should an issue arise.

A secondary useful outcome of recording training/practice sessions could be gained by correlating them against any detection of the high speeds attained.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

We all know it was a joyride

Thats not the issue though.

So he was "joyriding". What of it? We all do that.
The court disagreed with the "dangerous driving" aspect, THATS the issue, thats the key.
If its not dangerous to do 170 at 4am on a deserted motorway then whats the problem with an ordinary driver popping over the "limit" under similar conditions? Thats where we need to focus on. If its "safe" then whats the point of the "limits"? Show them to be stupid and pointless and we can win it that way.

The hypocrisy aspect isnt part of the main issue, its a separate one so it should be dealt with separately.
As it happens i dont think that cops should be getting off with stuff like this under normal circumstances, but we're not dealing with any kind of "normality" when it comes to speeding and speed laws, are we?
Until we can kill off this ridiculous attitude towards exceeding a speed limit, i for one will hang fire on the "them and us" part.

Lets nail the speed kills issues first because the hypocrisy part wont BE an issue afterwards, see what i mean?

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

This should be in brainstorming.

I see your point.

I think though that it should be two pronged.

we need to debate and argue that speed per se doesn't kill.

We also need to really turn the heat up on 'speed' hypocrisy.

I can see your concern that if the police are getting prosecuted that strengthens the speed kills arguement.

I disagree, whilst it may do in the short term with some of those predisposded to believe the rubbish, to my mind the best way highlight the nonsense of their arguement is to push it to it's extreme.
When the Police, Fire etc etc start squealing and going on record to debate the reasons why their speed doesn't kill then the two prongs will have converged.

I make no apologies for highlighting what for me is so very important and you both make an important valid point which I have often seen raised here at SS, probably more than any other single statement. I said the same thing in my very first post.

It is a terrible situation to have no faith or trust in police and I really do worry about what it is leading to.

For the vast majority of the law abiding public, the only run-in we are ever likely to have with the law is on the subject of speeding, quite simply because they are targeting something which we all do. I myself have a totally different attitude towards the police now compared to say 20 years ago. I see them simply as 'out to get me'.

How on earth are we supposed to respect the law when it is so clearly and obviously corrupt/unfair/unjust/biased/undemocratic/murderous/hypocritical...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

These last three posts are VERY GOOD and VERY IMPORTANT for the various reasons that are laid out in the posts themselves.

I think we should really work on these issues, get them out into the public domain, and hammer on them consistently and frequently.

Very impressed, well done DeltaF, civil engineer & Big Tone.

_________________
p.s. I am still absolutely floored by Paul's death. May 2008 be the greatest ever for SafeSpeed. His spirit lives on.

Big tone makes a very good point above.

in regards to DeltaF's comments, Speeding is only safe in certain condtions, 100 on a motorway yes, 80 in a 30 no. DeltaF seams to go on like speed is safe whenever, we all speed, but most of us know when best to do it.

You need to define the term "speeding" first and put it in some form of context.
Just using the word "speeding" dosent tell us anything.
The only implication of that word is "faster than the sign says" but its never that simple, is it?
If "speeding" always means in excess of the posted limits then the assumption you make regarding conditions isnt valid because the limits arent signed with the conditions in mind any longer ( they USED to be many years ago) instead theyre signed in accordance with prescribed political ideals and dogma.



Generalisation. 100 on which motorway? 80 in a 30 is certainly possible and to be safe too, ( remember the message- you cant judge safe driving in MPH) dependant on conditions at that locality, not to mention driver quality, car type and capabilities.




The confusion this subject creates is pretty plain to see when you start thinking out of the box, no wonder the scps rub their hands with glee as they misdirect the public sheep.
Ollies quote above shows what im talking about.
What speed are we talking about Ollie? Why are you still using the NUMBERS as the measure to gauge safety above and beyond the important factors?
Once you realise that the numbers arent important to setting a safe speed, then you will grasp the argument.
Im not trying to be patronising or any of that stuff cos i dont know you at all, for all i know you might be a stephen hawking....and how daft would i look arguing with the likes of him?



My point precisely! "We all know when best to do it"......not always mate, but in that sentence you prove what im saying; we already KNOW whats safe and we dont need a sign or a speedo to lecture us.
We gauge a safe speed by being aware of our proximity to others, the rate of gain on a vehicle, the time of day, the weather, the traffic and pedestrian density. Why would we ever need a sign to sternly tell us: "30"? As if that could ever be any use!

Can you see what im saying? Im not saying "foot down-brain out".

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.