Safe Speed Forums

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shro ... 664592.stm

PC Mark Milton - the '159mph cop' was in the Appeal Court today. BBC1 evening news said that the verdict will be tomorrow.

I'm thinking he'll be convicted on the basis that he was driving beyond the effective range of his headlights, although I'm not sure the court will consider such details.

Safe Speed will issue some sort of PR on the subject this evening. Any thoughts?

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

Looks like the revenge of the numberbound zombies.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

damned if hes prosecuted, damned if he is cleared

_________________
now retired

And the losers will be those that would have in the past have gotten a severe acid lecture and a revere rap on the knuckles from an old trafpol and possibly a chance for Brake et al to make out that the otherones like the porsche at 150 should also be challenged.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Telegraph letter from may last year:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... dt2901.xml

Police do have different laws

Sir - As an inspector in the Metropolitan Police Traffic Division, I am immensely relieved by the decision to acquit Pc Mark Milton of speeding after he drove at 159mph (News, May 22). "It's one rule for us and one for the police!" shout the ignoramuses, who do not appreciate that Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides police and rescue services with precisely that, saying that a policeman who is using his vehicle for a police purpose (a concept for which there is no definitive guidance) cannot commit the offence of exceeding a speed limit.

It also means that, having been called out while off duty, I may avail myself of the exemption in my own car. It would provide a strong defence, say, to a member of the public who, unable to secure the attendance of an ambulance used his private vehicle as an ambulance to rush a person whose life were threatened to hospital.

There are strict and sufficient internal safeguards to prevent our getting carried away. In the Met an officer can fall foul of discipline procedures if "There is evidence of danger or needless risk to police or others in driving situations".

The decision to clear Pc Milton throws the earlier conviction of the police driver who broke a speed limit while acting as a chauffeur - and the subsequent discipline proceedings against his chief superintendent - into jeopardy. What is the difference in "police purpose" between availing oneself of Section 87 "to hone one's skills" and "to get to an urgent meeting"?

Much to my disappointment, you have sounded like the tabloids with your glib reporting of the case. Police officers, who act in good faith in the course of their duty, need the support of the public not constant criticism about imaginary hypocrisy. I believe that the reason for resentment is that, in today's civilisation, which social engineers have worked so hard to equalise, it exasperates those who see that there is a class of people who are ostensibly above the law. But we are not responsible for passing the statutes, which in the absence of specific rulings, we translate to the best of our ability.

Steven Bradbury, London SE6

_________________
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 and press briefing at 04:52 this morning:

PR283: PC Mark Milton - the 159mph cop - press briefing

news: for immediate release and detailed press briefing

The verdict in the appeal against acquittal is expected on Wednesday. PC Mark
Milton was acquitted of speeding and dangerous driving last year.

Safe Speed believes that either verdict will be damaging.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "It is a tragedy that the DPP brought this
appeal. Whatever the verdict, the world will change slightly for the worse. If
Mark Milton is found guilty, Police driving and response will be compromised.
If Mark Milton is found not guilty, public confidence in the Police will be
damaged."

<ends>

Press briefing on the key issues:
=================================

Issue 1: Is 159mph automatically dangerous?

Unlike the other issues, this one has a clear and certain answer. 159mph is
NOT automatically dangerous. If we accept a) 'dangerous' is a relative term
and b) 159mph would not be particularly dangerous on a closed test track in a
suitable vehicle, then the question really becomes: is the environment safe
enough to support a speed of 159mph? This is the real issue.

It's easy to make the mistake of comparing the safety of say 70mph to 159mph
in some unusual circumstance and conclude that 159mph must be relatively more
dangerous. For example the argument might go: 'But what if you had a tyre
failure? Wouldn't 159mph be "more dangerous" than 70mph? But a tyre failure at
70mph is potentially extremely dangerous - yet we choose to accept that danger
as part of our normal lives. The increase in danger at 159mph isn't that
great. It's real but it's rare and unusual. The real danger of speed arises
when the speed is unsuitable for the environment. So actually we'd be asking
entirely the wrong question.

Safe driving at any speed involves ensuring that the speed is suitable for the
environment. A failure to do this increases danger very markedly, and we would
correctly term the speed: "dangerous". One vital test of the safety of a speed
is to ask if it is possible to stop within the space that the driver knows to
be clear.

It's entirely possible for 15mph to be murderously fast, for example in a
crowded market street, and equally it's possible for 159mph to carry no
special risk and to be properly termed 'safe'.

A driver's primary responsibility to safety is to ensure that his speed is
appropriate to the environment.

Imagine, for example, driving faster and faster round a bend. At some speed -
a speed which is too fast for the bend - a crash becomes inevitable. We're no
longer talking about a once-in-a-lifetime tyre failure - we're talking about a
certain crash. The risk due to speed suddenly went off the scale. That's an
example of what it really means to drive 'too fast'.



Issue 2: Was 159mph on the M54 dangerous?

There might be information on the video to prove that actual danger was
present, but it doesn't seem very likely since PC Milton has already been
acquitted in another court. Any clear case of danger should have been picked
up by the previous court.

The motorway was probably deserted at the time when the highest speeds were
achieved and PC Milton would have slowed down if other road users had been
present. Or at least we hope so and expect so.

But to drive safely, you must be able to stop within the distance that you can
see to be clear. Since it was apparently dark at the time, we have to ask if
the headlights were sufficient to see a clear space ahead. It's unusual for
factory-fit main beam headlights to support speeds above about 120mph.



Issue 3: Was 80mph in a 30mph speed limit dangerous?

We don't know. It's easy to picture racing through crowded town streets, but
the reality may have been very different. Imagine leave a town area and
accelerating to 80mph just before the national speed limit signs in an
entirely rural and deserted setting. For a skilled Police driver, such a speed
could be safe, routine and entirely unremarkable.

So once again, the safety of the behaviour is entirely governed by the
circumstances.



Issue 4: Do we need the Police to be free to travel at high speeds?

Absolutely. We need officers to attend incidents as soon as safely possible.
They are trained to drive quickly and safely. Sometimes rapid response will be
a matter of life and death.



Issue 5: Is it one rule for them and another for us?

Yes. As a simple matter of fact it is. Section 87 of the Road traffic
Regulation Act 1984 grants emergency services an exemption from speed limits
under certain broadly defined circumstances.

But importantly we expect equal treatment despite the fact that the rules are
different. We expect similar degrees of discretion to be afforded to the
public and to Police officers. It's an inequality of discretion that threatens
the Police / public relationship. Read on.



Issue 6: What about the Police / public relationship?

These issues seriously threaten the good Police / public relationship because
of the different way in which discretion is applied to prosecutions. The
Public perception is that the Police receive far too much discretion, while
the public don't receive anywhere near enough.

The serious ongoing damage to the Police / public relationship is founded in
millions of unnecessary speeding prosecutions - motorists prosecuted for minor
speeding offences on occasions when they know with confidence that they were
driving safely. Stories of apparently 'extreme' Police behaviour is like a
twist of the knife.



Issue 7: What are the consequences of finding Mark Milton Guilty?

If Mark Milton is found guilty the major consequences will be as follows:

- There will be further restrictions and rules applying to Police driving.
This will cost lives because Police will take longer to arrive and will be
worrying about compliance when they should be worrying about safety.

- These restrictions will probably extend to high speed training. Effectively
the Police will in time become less skilled.

- The case will be used to further present and confirm the false 'speed is
dangerous' case that is frequently made. The truth is that speed is only
dangerous when it is also inappropriate. We MUST focus road safety efforts on
achieving appropriate speeds not legal speeds. It would be simple if the two
were the same, but they are not.



Issue 8: What are the consequences of finding Mark Milton innocent?

If Mark Milton is found innocent further damage will be done to the Police /
public relationship, with the following major effects:

- the 'them and us' culture will be extended.
- less reporting of crime
- Police road safety messages won't be trusted as much
- Police won't be trusted as much

<ends>

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

This poor guy is just the victim of a witch hunt now. They may as well put him on a ducking stool and if he drowns then he is proved innocent and if he floats he gets burned at the stake. I beleive he will be found guilty, but only to prove a misguided point.

The government and the police can only blame themselves for this. If we went back to the days when we had proper policing, when you could rely on police to use their discretion and deal with motorists appropriately, then the public would take a different perspective towards this case. It is US and THEM and unless this government changes its policies the situation is not going to change and things will only get worse.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

PA news snap:

Received: Feb 01, 2006 @ 10:53:58

HSA7870 2 HHH 29 PA SNAP

1 COURTS Speeding

A decision to acquit a police officer of speeding and dangerous driving after he

drove at an ``eye watering'' 159 mph was overturned by the High Court today.



end

011055 FEB 06

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

DAMN!



Hope this goes to HoL.

No, it goes back to the magistrates!

From what I've just gleaned elsewhere it seems that the speeding acquittal is unaffected, but the Magistrates are being asked to re-examine the DD charge. The High Court ruling is that they were wrong to admit as evidence the testimony of the other officers who gave what was in effect character evidence, and which they based their decision to acquit. Instead they should only consider actual evidence of the facts at the time.

In the circumstances I think this is actually a fair decision.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

This is getting very intersting. What ever happens there will be a great deal of fall-out

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

My feeling is that this leaves the way open for the newly convened court to discover that there isn't actually any admissible evidence one way or the other, and therefore they have no option but to (reluctantly) dismiss the case.

That would be a pretty good result for all concerned.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I've just received Paul's PR on the matter which suggests the guy has been found guilty, which as JT has explained, isn't the case. Maybe one of the downsides of having to fire off PRs so quickly after events unfold sometimes?

_________________
Carl Prescott

In the circumstances, I'm beginning to think that the least said the better.

Let the new court quietly come to the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to support the serious allegation of DD (remember what a severe burden of proof this charge has) and to dismiss the charge, giving us the nice indeterminate outcome we would have wanted in the first place.

BBC Report here

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

In the circumstances, the "150mph not Dangerous Driving" Isle-of-Wight case (established by a District Judge, not by Magistrates) could well have come at just the right time!

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

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 11:36 this morning:

PR284a: 159mph cop - To be heard again

news: for immediate release

According to a PA News Snap, PC Mark Milton's acquittal was overturned today
at the High Court. According to the BBC the case will be sent back to the
Magistrates for a new hearing.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The case lumbers on. Every time it recieves
publicity, further damage is done to Police response driving and the Police
public relationship."

"If only they had found a way to drop it quietly. Whatever happens the public
loses."

<ends>

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

It certainly looks like a lose/lose situation.
I can't help thinking that it may have been different if PC Milton had approached a senior officer beforehand, outlined his intention, and been given an official approval.

Just been on the BBC news - one of the things the judge commented on was the speed in the 30 limits

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I guess they are going after dangerous driving because the video alone would be insufficient to convict for speeding given that no officer actually formed the PRIOR opinion of speed?

I've no idea how an office can form the prior opinion of speed given a video of a historic offence.

Could the video even be submitted in a speeding case given that it was not opporated accoding to type approval?

I'm with the defence - speed alone should not equal dangerous driving.