Safe Speed Forums

Thinking it through - I'm not sure the video can be submitted as evidence of speed. Therefore if speed is the factor that says his driving was dangerous. The defence is entitled to have it ruled inadmissable?

Heaven help us if speed alone = dangerous driving. The gospel according to the pratnerships will know no bounds, and brainstorm will get sainted

_________________
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

hi there. i am a pc in a smallish force in the uk. i am also an advanced pursuit driver. this means i have a)learnt to drive a car b) learnt to drive under response conditions and then c) been selected, tested, and trained then assessed again to drive high performance police vehicles in pursuits. in all, i have had over 300hrs of police driver tuition, after getting about 30hrs to learn to drive a car in civvy street.

i am encouraged by the force driving school to keep my skills up. i routinely, and many other officers, go on 'training runs' after a period of inactivity. after a weeks holiday, i notice my skills deteriorate. Practice is essential. We do drive "flat out" and on several ocassions reached 150 and 160mph on motorways. We are, as part of the course, taught to find the maximum road speed in every gear i nthe car we are driving. PC Milton was doing as he was trained. The only difference is that some busybody in his department decided that 'knocking him off' would look good for him as a supervisor or the force. Quite often, you may see traffic cars drivign at high speed on a road with no lights or sirens (warning equipment) displayed. We are trained in plain vehicles, as there is less chance of a driver panicking at seeing flashing lights and doing something stupid. You all see it, we all watch the video cop shows on tv with people pulling in front of police cars.

If PC milton is convicted, it is a perverse form of justice indeed. In Hertfordshire, and many other force areas, officers are now refusing to drive above the speed limit even to a robbery or a rape in progress, because the fear of prosecution or being hung out by the force is so real and so high.

There have even been official suggestions that all police cars have lights and sirens removed and the speed exemptions lifted. Try telling the burglary-in-progress victim that the police are 5 miles away and stuck in traffic so cant attend your house. The police management are more concerned about public perception than actully doing anything worthwhile. They would rather kill off police response drivign and hang one of their own to please the papers and avoid criticism than have the balls to say "its was needed, and will alsways be needed" and yes, its tough, but there is one rule for you and one for us. deal with it.

GP

Two possible positions to take on this one:
a) Hope he's acquitted - clearly establish the fact that fast does not necessarily = unsafe
b) Hope he's convicted - force the police to confront the reality of the laws they are happy to apply to the rest of us
I see the merits of both positions. But as most posters seem infavour of the first here's a word for the second.
Clearly, there are situations where the police need to exceed speed limits in the public interest. Some of these cannot be forseen eg 'hot-pursuit'. But it's just too easy to say 'just testing the capabilities of the car' when caught out. Him and me both, Your Honour!
Perhaps it is necessary to apply the same rules to all in order to show just how inappropriate these rules are?

if he did make up the excuse - hes a muppet for videoing it atthe tim. hetherefore deservesthe sack for stupidity. my force cant actually afford video kit for moe than 3 cars out of a couple of hundred. too busy sending peopel on diversity and disability awareness biscuit eating days.

A big worry about all this is that we will end up with ACPO guidelines on thresholds above which speed alone is automatically presumed to be dangerous driving.

Something like limit+50%+10 mph, maybe, equating to:

30 - 55
40 - 70
50 - 85
60 - 100
70 - 115

_________________
"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

longpod,
I'm sure PC Milton was doing exactly what he says he was doing.
I just wonder what is the best way to get stupid rules changed.
I'm not sure it helps to have an enforcement group exempt from the rules they enforce.
There are good reasons why the emergency services have to exceed speed limits. Maintaining skills is probably just such a good reason. But is there any reason why a plan to do so should not be documented in advance? ('Too much paperwork' is not a reason. A well-designed form could be completed in seconds). The thought required to produce such a plan would add a great deal of value to the exercise.

I hope you'll find that you are among like minded responsible people here.

Have a look at the 'press briefing' I issued early this morning: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 5374#65374

Any comments you might have would be welcome.

Have you got access to any vehicles with headlights good enough for 160mph at night?

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

And after a training exercise - surely a review to see what could be done a little better, does this or that make the car handle better/safer etc.

I agree with his maintaining skills / trying out new car, but lack of documentation makes me wonder and leaves him open to back stabbing.
As said elswhere - the best course for this now would have been for someone up high to have had this lost - in the public and police interest.
Something like the CPS saying it would not be in the public interest to reopen the case/ he would not now get a fair hearing and IMHO with all the adverse publicity will he?

_________________
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

Actually that's a fair point - whichever way the verdict goes, it will help clarify the situation. If it goes against PC Milton (which looks highly likely) the police will be forced to define what is and isn't acceptable.

PC Milton may end up losing his job over it, though

_________________
"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

Assuming he's burned as a witch, I don't accept that we can replace responsibilities with rules. And surely that's the inevitable result?

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

Nobody/no organisation 'has' to fire off PRs so quickly. It isn't like it is SafeSpeed that is in the court. Personally I'd wait until I was sure I had the right mix of words to get my point across, even if that meant missing a deadline. I'd rather not be quoted at all than give the wrong impression.

Nah, you're mistaken. Part of the excellent relationship I have with key journalists is BECAUSE we're right there as news is breaking.

It's not about 'need'. It's about 'best'.

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

Yes, but it will force the police to confront the issue rather than simply hanging their officers out to dry.

I entirely accept that would be the less favourable outcome, but the picture would not be entirely black.

And plenty on here were bleating about "one law for us, one law for them"

_________________
"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

It seems to me that the lack of discretion that we're constantly worried about will be extended to Police officers. Our position won't improve, and the Police's will get worse.

That's a lose/lose in my book and I'm having trouble seeing where you find any benefit at all.

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

Maybe it is better described as a consolation than a benefit, but I would see it as:

(a) it would help bring home to the police the crap that the rest of us have to suffer, and

(b) if the police top brass actually see any need for high speed pursuit driving, they will be compelled to justify it and to set out parameters within which necessary training can be supported. If the police can't practice above say 100 mph, they can't be expected to pursue above 100 mph either.

_________________
"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

Ernest raised a valid point in his post on this on another forum - with the verdict being overturned and sent back for another judge to try the origonal judge is also on trial - now is this being done for legal reasons or political ones -or another case of a minority getting its own way.

_________________
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

This whole case raises several issues.

1. It was a fellow officer who provoked the case. Perhaps it was more serious than an internal disciplinary hearing? Now it is out, then the PUBLIC need to be re-assured that there was no danger. Therefore, release the video.
2. Speed is not so much an issue as whether or not it was DANGEROUS. Therefore, release the video.

3. Why has the appeal court overturned the verdict of an earlier hearing?


Clearly the quality of District Judges (and others) might be seen to be suspect.
Indeed, in a recent case in Kendal, the CPS brought up an expert from Liverpool, and railroaded a member of the public with a set of pictures, which showed an unidentifiable vehicle speeding - which they claimed was the defendants, then the defendants vehicle NOT SPEEDING. The District Judge then awarded extravagent costs against the defendant to cover the expert witness. Clearly the case was not even close to being beyond reasonable doubt, and the defendant was being penalised for daring to plead not guilty to a speeding charge, which if it was dangerous, should have been STOPPED at the time, not allowed to continue and argued in court several weeks later!

As to damaging the police ability to train as necessary, and Longpod's (Longplod? - sorry! ) concerns as to the same, the simple expedient of enacting a set of rules which require a police driver to record the reason for driving at speed either during or immediately after the event, would wave off the risk of future misunderstandings as to the relevance of a particular manouvre or journey.
It could even reinforce the simple safety aspect of allowing other officers to monitor the particular stretch of road, and warn of any potential hazard, in a similar fashion to the RAF who have daily briefings on local events etc. before being allowed to low fly up and down the countryside.
The disastrous crash on the M61 which damaged THREE cars was a public relations accident too - but as I understand it, the particular manouvre being practiced requires a patrol in front and behind the participating vehicles. Again, a public viewing of a video (edited for operational reasons) would be beneficial.

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

Appeals can only be on a point of law by definition. Re-examination of evidence or introduction of new evidence can only be permitted by retrial. Today's 'point of law' setting aside the evidence sounds like a fudge to me, but the only possible outcome of the present proceedings now is a dismissal of the case rather than an acquital.

Probably the result they were looking for all along, and the politically correct twit who brought the case into the public eye in the first place set in motion a very complex and unnecessary face saving act.

Glad my post stimuated some debate. The whole case makes me mad as hell, mainly because my job is to drive fast but if it allgoes wrong its on my neck, not the chiefs. a couple of points i will answer as best i can. just a point of note. i tested the newest BMW 5series police vehicle many months ago. i didnt achieve the same speed, and found the vehicle horrible to drive around 120mph.

Headlights and safety. Driving at 60mph on an unlit road, you wil hit a man size object before you see it. driving at 160mph the same is true. I have driven at 150+ on several occasions. At that speed, the fuel guage moves very quickly. noise is horrendous. cats eyes feel like bricks. A volvo V70T5 driven at that speed for a prolonged period of time will not change into 3rd gear afterwards due the gearbox heating up so much. (take that Clarkson). It might be fun for a few minutes but not for a long time. The case argues that PC MIlton achieved 159mph, only for a moment.

We all have pocket note books which mst be retained. We add notes in them to say what we are doing, the route, time, road conditions. we check whether or not we will encounter roadworks. we avoid schools, hospitals adn the like. We are behind the wheel, and accept the consequences of our actions. In Law, evidence of speed alone is not evidence of danger. Iwould like to see the video of PC miltons driving for myself. Indeed, i strongly suspect that it will be used in future for police training in some way.

There is a constant need fordriver s at this level tomaintain their skills. It is the only way we can drive at those speeds (or less) confidently, without fear in the vehicle, knowing its limits and capabilites, and being good enough to safely keep up with the nugget in a stolen golf doing 70 past your kids school.

The way we would tackle a situation (ignore the videos you see on tv. they only look good and are not realistic at all) is for the helicopter to maintain a watch, allowing us to drop back. After we have passed the school doing 30, we then have to "catch and match" where SAFE AND APPROPRIATE. The rules we follow are the law, not a policy. As a police officer, i disagree wit hspeed camers, but you pay my wages, and i uphold your laws. i have vast power in my hands anad it is up to me to use it, and if needed, justify it in court.

like many things in the police, everything is great until it all goes wrong. Police drivers have been doing what PC Milton did for years, only now someone complained has it reached court.

The court must decide this......

Would a reasonably prudent driver, regardless of experience, come to the conclusion that a highly trained police advanced pursuit driver, ACHIEVING 159mph is inherently dangerous? If this is so, every police driving instructor, and vicariously, each chief constable is also liable for causing and permitting the same offence by running the very training that teaches usto drive at that speed, in exactly similar conditions, but during the day on busy roads.

Is, a police officer, doing as has been done for years, and what he is taught do do, in keeping skills up and testing a new vehicle, within his power to exempt himself from the road traffic act? is this a part of his police duty, and therefore lawful?

Its point of note too that we are supposed to get formal refresher training when needed/wanted. We dont. Its too expensive and got cancelled, so we do it our selves, using each other as a benchmark.

lastly, (sorry for the length of this) ifyou take away the power to speed, or as in humberside a while ago, the power to pursue fleeing vehicles in an effort to reduce the risk of litigation against the police when the pursuit ends in a death or serious injury, the criminal will not follow the same rationale. If police drivers are limited in any way, the criminal will up the speed knowing that he cannot be caught, leading to more lawlessness and eventualy death on the roads.

In my opinion we should be able to ram (as in the usa) cars offthe road at the first instance, preventing high speedpursuits developing in the first place. I know that is a bit of a tangent, but it is directly linked to the outcome ofthe new trial, i think.

GP