Safe Speed Forums

I can't help thinking that, ignoring the ballyhoo, this is a most unfortunate case to reach the media.
From my advanced driver training and contact with officers via this forum I can see that 159 mph can be attained on the public highway without significant risk to other road users. I assume PC Milton wasn't using his blues and twos in response to a call, in which case there would have been no prosecution.
I think that the CPS hasn't done any one any favours by bringing this prosecution to court in the first place. What did they want to achieve? A public stringing up of a highly-trained police traffic driver to assuage the "speed kills" lobby? It would have been different if the dangerous driving charge had followed a fatal collision for which the officer bore significant responsibility.
The net result of the case is to promote a highly damaging (to the police) public perception of one law for them and another for civilians. Although other high-profile cases have suggested this might the case it isn't necessarily true as officers nicked for speeding (off-duty) on their motorbikes in North Wales will tell you.
I can only hope that future cases like this don't get to court and that if any action needs to be taken it is done within the confines of the constabulary.

You can argue until the cows come home about the safety or not of 159mph on a Motorway. You can also debate whether Police officers need to learn about the characteristics of their cars on the public highway.

However what I cannot see is what you can learn in a 30mph that you can't learn in a 60mph zone.

i.e. if he needed to learn about the 60mph behavour of his car do it in a derestrictied area (i.e. 60mph zone).

Simply no execuse is possible for 60 (or 80) in a 30 zone, none, zilch, absolutely zero.

And don't forget 15th July 2003 two bikers where jailed for less, and there was no mention of dangerous driving - they admitted to dangerous driving but the danger was 'driving at 157mph'!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west ... 068731.stm

I think the video of his driving should be shown on National TV, in order that we might all judge for ourselves. NOT his driving, but whether the judge in this case has done HIS job satisfactorily.

It is clear from the reaction of the public, in whose name this case was brought, that they think there is one rule for "them" and one for us.
This will clearly bring the law into disrepute, and so needs to be cleared up thoroughly once and for all, before people lose what little respect they have in the courts ability to judge fairly.

If this is not done, we risk having vigilantes carrying out punishments they feel the courts lack!

As an aside, I can accept the need to learn the handling characteristics of the vehicle BEFORE it is employed in "anger" but 80 in a 30 limit??
Why not do 80 on a track, or more appropriate road?
To dispell any doubts, WE must be shown the evidence.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I think that this case is a landmark victory for British motorists. The government justify speed limits on the grounds of safety. However, this case has established as a matter of legal history that it is not unsafe for a highly skilled driver to drive at 159mph on a motorway or at 84mph in a 30 zone in appropriate conditions.

It is still illegal to drive at these speeds, unless you are a police officer, but it is not necessarily unsafe.

The problem that I have is in reconciling this with the case of the 17 world rally drivers who were prosecuted for speeding during the Rally GB of 2002. If it is safe for PC Milton to drive his police car at 84mph in a 30 zone, then surely it must be been safe for Colin McRae, Richard Burns, Carlos Saintz and Tommi Makinen to drive their world rally cars at speeds in the region of 55mph.

The problem here is that the skills required to pilot rally cars around closed one-way road and forest stages at the highest possible speed are not commensurate with those required to drive safely on public roads. The rally drivers had nothing to gain from speeding on the said public roads except speeding tickets.

It's my belief that Colin McRae is better able to drive safely at 51mph in a WRC car at than PC Milton at 84mph in a Vauxhall Vectra. Even if that were not the case, I'd be prepared to bet that the braking distance of a WRC car at 51mph is considerably less than that of a Vectra at 84mph.

What I think we as members of the wallet holding public are expected to do is this:

1 Don't ask any questions
2 Accept all their claims without query
3 PAY

We are her to PAY. They just want our money.

The thought that the rest of us could actually debate issues such as speed and safety, especially as someone appears to have driven, well, a Vectra right through it, is something the authorities don't want.

Much sooner it's all forgotten then they can go back to their psssst, Sixty Quid and no questions asked modus operandum

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

The problem here is that the skills required to pilot rally cars around closed one-way road and forest stages at the highest possible speed are not commensurate with those required to drive safely on public roads. The rally drivers had nothing to gain from speeding on the said public roads except speeding tickets. [/quote]

I think they have their fair share of spectators to avoid on special stages - and much less grip than on tarmac!

I agree that the scams are just there to get money, but what is the underlying motivation behind the scams? Consider the following:

Money is available for continuous reduction in road capacity, speed limits and blocking off routes using traffic calming measures, but isn't available to trim hedges to allow drivers to see each other or to repair/resurface pot-hole filled roads that would shame a banana republic.

The justification for UK fuel tax is CO2 and global warming, but more CO2 is generated from heating houses and work places and we see neither the same pressure for efficiency or high tax levels to be imposed. Aircraft emmissions are also a serious factor, but perversely the same people that want to keep increasing fuel duty also want to expand the number of airports in the UK, and just shrug their shoulders when it is pointed out that duty on aviation fuel is minimal.

Parking is being deliberately made more expensive and harder to find. In fact the current guidelines for planning prevent the approval of plans should they provide the necessary levels of parking - this applies to homes as well as offices. Where I work their are 750 desks and 100 parking places and the local council won't allow more, but additional parking is available a mile away in a council run pay and display!

In fact the pattern that is developing is that quietly a war of attrition is being waged against british motorists, and any attempt to get inside it just meets a wall of spin and lies. Speed cameras and the associated points system is just one part of this.

The paranoid amonst us, might believe in deliberate conspirancy theories that might be as simple as Labour deliberately getting at the Tory voting motoring majority (most Labour supporting area are urban with relatively good public transport), but personally I wouldn't put it past plain and simple stupidity on the part of those in power along with excessive political correctness and streightforward collusion between certain businesses and government.

Take Transport 2000 (please take T2000!), they are on the face of it a campaign group pushing for sustainable transport policies, but are actually funded by public transport companies. So by sustainable what they actually want is to force everybody into using public transport. It doesn't matter that public transport is very inefficient and costly or that it is greener to take a car than it is a train, or that busses push out more carciagens that 120 cars, or that none of them actually go where anybody wants to go. What we have is a set of fat-cats behind an organisation that is doing everything possible to make motoring hell. Why? quite simply if you decrease the number of motoring journeys by a few percentage points and move them onto public transport, then their turnover increases substantially and they can happily award themselves 7 digit bonuses for a job well done, and perhaps find a few executive director positions for pet polititians while they are at it. Cynical - me?