Safe Speed Forums

159mph fury

By Andy Dolan, Daily Mail, Saturday, August 26, 2006

Road safety outcry as police driver who did `eyewatering' speeds on public roads walks free from court

A POLICE driver filmed at an `eyewatering' 159mph in an unmarked squad car escaped punishment yesterday after a district judge ruled he had `suffered quite enough'.

PC Mark Milton, 40, faced a possible six-month jail term and lengthy ban but was handed an absolute discharge. It will infuriate members of the public fined or banned for exceeding the limit to a much lesser degree.

The Crown Prosecution Service last night said it was considering whether to appeal against the leniency of the sentence. But PC Milton was said to be `disappointed' and himself ready to appeal against being convicted at all.

`Obviously dangerous'

It is almost three years since the married officer from Telford, Shropshire, was filmed by a dashboard-mounted camera shattering every speed limit during a night drive he claimed was to `familiarise himself' with a new Vauxhall Vectra GSi. He was shown reaching 83mph in a 30mph zone, 84mph and 131mph in two 60inph zones and 159mph on the M54.

Milton, an advanced driver since 1995, was cleared of dangerous driving and speeding at an earlier trial, and continued in his duties.

But he was found guilty of dangerous driving yesterday in a retrial at Ludlow Magistrates' Court after the Director of Public Prosecutions 'appealed to have the original decision overturned.

A conviction for dangerous driving ordinarily carries an automatic ban for at least 12 months and a minimum three-point endorsement.

Offenders are also usually required to sit an extended driving test before regaining their licence.

But district judge Peter Wallis said that although he found Milton's driving to be dangerous, he accepted it was in line with his advanced driver training at West Mercia Police. This, and the fact that the officer was testing the vehicle in readiness for any emergencies where he might need to drive it at speed amounted to `special reasons' which allowed him to waive the disqualification.

Mr Wallis said it would be `absurd' to request such a `skilled' police driver to resit an extended driving test.

But he added: `The video recording shows that during the course of the journey, he overtakes other drivers with no advance warning given. Such eyewatering speeds are obviously inherently dangerous.

`The driving falls far beneath the standards expected of a careful and competent driver. `In all circumstances I am satisfied to the criminal standard of proof that Mr Milton is guilty of dangerous driving. `There is no need for further punishment.'

Although Milton was recorded driving at 159mph, the Crown Prosecution Service has accepted that the camera may have been faulty. It was calculated that he must have been driving at an average speed of 148mph on the motorway, and he was prosecuted accordingly at the retrial.

The office refused to comment as he left court with wife, Nicola. Andy White, chairman of the West Mercia Police Federation, said that Milton now faced a disciplinary hearing which was unlikely to be heard until after any appeals. He would not face automatic dismissal from his post as a traffic officer. At the time of Milton's offence, West Mercia Police advanced drivers were told to practice speed work whenever it was safe to do so.

`One rule for the police'

A spokesman for the force said advanced drivers had now been issued with guidelines stating that practice driving above the speed limit should take place only `on courses or refresher days under the supervision of a driving school instructor'. The new rules bring the force into line with national police guidelines.

Dangerous driving is an ,either-way' offence, meaning it can be prosecuted in the magistrates' court or the higher crown court. If Milton had originally opted to be tried before a jury at the crown court, he would have faced a maximum two-year jail term.

Mary Wallace, chief executive of road safety charity Brake, said the absolute discharge was `ridiculous'.

She said: `There is no excuse for driving at such speeds on the public highway'

Paul Smith, of the Safe Speed campaign, said: `The average motorist would have been automatically banned if they had-been convicted of doing anything like what this police officer has done. It seems there is one rule for the police and one for the rest of us.

`This sentence will only cause damage to the police-public relationship because it will cause the public to lose confidence in the system.'

Law does suck..

Ist a difficult one because I want police to respond to my "emergency" quickly but I do not want anyone placed in danger either.

I do know that speed limits were broken to get me to hospital following the "nasty" that time.. longest story .. but man drove into me at speed. He was terminally ill at the time..

I also know that Mad Doc drove at rapid pace when last two kittens decided to make their dramatic entry to world.. have problems with my breathing in such circumstances .. after the aforementioned incident which punctured my lung at the time.. as it broke my rib cage. It taketime to recover und I lead normal life.. do all the things I did before , but I guess a bit more sedately

Part of me think "sour grapes" as I cannot drive my he-man of Jag as he like.. (we make up in Germany und on track )

Part of me think .. but how else can he respond.. he ist a policeman und criminals do not commit crimes on race tracks.

IG say a procedure must be followed und that his patch check everything before they train. But.. fine.. see his point..you train but without causing worry or fear to your public.

But part of me cannot condone the officer .. und a part of me think .. that .. the officer .. all police officers are faced with immediate decision as criminals do not give notice of where they strike.. und somehow I find myself really asking myself some very hard.. soul searching questions ... und I cannot find an answer yet which satisfy my sense of fair justice und my recognition that I want a policeman to respond und protect me from those bad people out there.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

There's no doubt at all that we would all want any emergency service to deal with situations in as fast and safe a manner as possible.

I can remember tearing through the streets of Darlington one night ignoring all limits and even one-way streets. My baby son was in the ambulance in front of me & would possibly not have been here today if they hadn't. It was very early morning & there was no danger to anyone - but luckily a long time ago before there were humps bumps & all the other crap to negotiate.

This story seems to be accepting the principle that driving at a safe speed is perfectly acceptable (if you're a copper). We should rightly welcome this as it's the main aim of SS. And we need to make sure that this is used to the fullest extent possible to get the SS message out there.

However I would still qualify this by saying that I don't agree that 159mph can be safe and that whilst we need to use the principle of the case, we need to ensure that in no way do we give the impression that we are campaining to drive at 159mph!!

I've set up a poll on this here:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9019

_________________
"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

(with respect) us all having that attitude will only reinforce everyone’s belief that total blanket enforcement of speed is right, regardless of situation.

Thanks Geoff, you saved me some work.


Absolute b*llsh*t, it could have been safe except:


I take this to mean he didn’t have his nee naaws on - that’s a big and absolutely inexcusable for that situation.

It is reasonable to expect other road users to act based upon their unawareness of Milton’s unreasonable behaviour, I for one would certainly not expect someone to be driving at me at 80 in a 30 with no warning (the article shows a residential area).
It wasn’t his high speed; it’s the fact that he didn’t warn others potentially crossing his path, of his high speed.

He exposed others to unnecessary danger; therefore I agree with the verdict - but not the sentence.

Excuse me, but I overtake people all the time 'with no advance warning given'. It seems to me that you must be assuming something above and beyond the information actually given.

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

Your actions will be reasonably expected. A reasonable driver will check their mirrors before changing lanes/pulling out to overtake. It is not reasonable to check the mirrors, only to be whacked up the backside by someone you had no chance to see/hear/judge coming. Hearing that siren (or seeing the strobes) would make you think twice before acting.

You're DEFINTELY assuming something. Are you assuming that Mark Milton was overtaking with a massive speed differential? +80mph?

If he was, I rate that as risky. But we don't know he was do we?

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

Oh come on.

Quite a safe assumption I would have thought - he's doing 90, normal law abiding Joe Public is tootling along at 30

Must have been the case - otherwise our Mark would have stopped to give him a ticket

I would have written:
Not quite. It is legal on some stretches, and some of those are a little better suited to the speed than the, effectively, dual carriageway M54!

I have frequently driven on deristricted stretches of German autobahns which are:
- 2 lanes (i.e. also effectively dual carriageway)
- poorer road surface (more uneven) than most UK motorways
- narrower lanes than most UK motorways (ok, I didn't measure, but IMO)
In other words, POORER QUALITY than your average UK motorway.

Some other remarks:
1. I have not seen the video of PC Milton's driving, so cannot judge how risky it was
2. I do not personally know the M54, so don't know what it's like.

I interpret the quote as him doing just that (perhaps I am alone in that). I read the ‘no advance warning’ as unreasonable expectation of recognition of the officer’s presence, impending or actual, which I believe can only mean high speed differentials with no siren/strobes.
Conversely, your presence behind the soon to be overtakee is warning enough for him when he checks his mirrors to such that he should assess your actions before acting himself.

If you are driving down a road, you will reasonably expect people to overtake you at a speed differential of between 10 and 20mph with the odd nutter going faster.

It is not reasonable to for someone to flash past you at those speeds, full stop, without sirens and lights on especially if it's not an emergency. It's outside pretty much any road user's expectations,.

Although one could question whether PC Milton thought that blues and twos would have alarmed motorists in front and caused more danger.

It would seem to me that is what we have anyway, irrespective of my attitude on the matter.

At those speeds I doubt that any one would have heard two tones horns
and I may have seen blue lights but still would not expect those speeds.

I also find at night that I struggle to judge speeds so I look for a larger gap before pulling out onto duel carriagways. I assume that a car may be speeding. however it is very hard to judge or anticipate that a car in the far distance might be doing 150 rather than 90. With 4 cars with a best top end of 110 I don't think that I could accelerate out of his way!

_________________
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 am somewhat concerned at the ease with which someone can be retried for the same offence, if the 'correct' verdict is not reached the first time. This is supposed to only happen where the court has erred on a point of law: I have yet to see any reasonable justification for it in this case. The High Court's sending the case back comes across to me as nothing more than saying "Look, this verdict was wrong. He was guilty."

From the other point of view, I am also angry at this reasoning that he has 'sufferend enough' and can't be punished. He was found guilty of speeding and dangerous driving for goodness' sake. That offence ALWAYS carries a ban, and often a prison sentence, for the ordinary motorist. For a defendant who has pleaded not guilty, but is found guilty after a long trial, the sentence is usually increased (often very severely, even for minor speeding without any suggestion of dangerous driving). The justification for this is usually that the defendant has wasted the court's time and money, or that he has not shown remorse, or just that his attitude is bad for arguing. All faulty reasons IMO, but they should at least be consistent! I doubt there has ever been another case where a not guilty plea followed by a long trial have resulted in a reduced sentence.

The odd time I've been on an emergency, irrespective of absolute speed when nothing else is about, I still back off during overtakes to ensure a manageable differential speed. I would expect a class 1 police driver to do the same.

By "during overtakes" I mean on the approach to and while alongside other vehicles who may otherwise not expect a fly-past. This applies to single and dual carriageways, but less so where I can put an empty lane between us (ie on a 3-laner where the vehicle to be passed is in lane 1 and I can do it in L3

I have a problem in commenting on this, in that bits of information surface in dribs and drabs, so what ever we say might be proved incorrect in a weeks time.
However,
1. SOMEBODY saw fit to bring the case in the first place, having seen the video.
2. He was firstly found not guilty - so why was this verdict set aside? Were the original magistrates incompetant?
3. It appears that his actions met the then force policies regarding training runs - which have now been CHANGED to bring them into line with other forces - so should'nt his bosses be culpable?
4. Nothing wrong in my mind with finding him guilty of SPEEDING, without a punishment, but DANGEROUS? They seem to have this wrong way about.

Of course there is one law for them, and one law for us - that is clearly enshrined in law, as they are officers of the crown, cannot go on strike, and in the course of their duties are required to do things us mere mortals are not - bear arms, arrest, stop and search etc.
All of these are governed by rules and laws, (which in THIS case were vague, and have since been changed) which are different to those which the rest of us live... or am I wrong?

In order to clear this up, and for us to make an opinion based on fact, as seen, and not reported third hand by the Daily Mail, with THEIR views attached, we MUST see the video, as this is the only evidence to ANY possible transgression of the law. Without it, we are relying on others, with their own agendas (and I include the court system in this) for information as to whether Mark Milton is fit to continue as an advanced police driver.
I suspect he is, as long as he has learned from this experience - possibly more so than any other.

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

Kinda sorta. however:

He has admited exceeding the speed limit.

If you're referring to a video taken from within his own car, we have discussed elsewhere how deceptive such evidence can be. If it is a 3rd party video, how was he keeping up?