Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Nov 14, 2025 20:47

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 263 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:54 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
From BBC News:

Quote:
90mph police chief's driving ban

The former chair of roads policing at the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) has been been banned from driving for speeding at 90mph.

Meredydd Hughes, the chief constable of South Yorkshire, was caught on a speed camera exceeding the 60mph limit on the A5 at Chirk near Wrexham in May.

He stood down from his role at Acpo after he was summonsed over the driving offence, when he was off-duty.

He was disqualified for 42 days and fined £350 by Wrexham magistrates.

Hughes did not appear in person before magistrates but entered his guilty plea via his solicitor.

South Yorkshire Police confirmed in October that Hughes, who is married with one son, was on a family trip when the offence happened.

Variety of roles

As Acpo's roads chief, he had argued in favour of "less conspicuous" speed cameras as a way of slowing down traffic.

Hughes, who is originally from Cardiff, joined the South Wales Constabulary in 1979 after leaving university.

He has worked in a variety of roles including as a firearms officer. In 1999 he was promoted to assistant chief constable of Greater Manchester Police but returned to South Yorkshire in 2002 as deputy chief constable.

He has been in his current chief constable's role since September 2004.

I've never been so pleased to read about a speeding conviction. So richly deserved. I just wish he'd been disqualified for longer.

He'd better not get driven around on police resources either. I hope he has a miserable 6 weeks of frustrating delays as he tries to get the bus to work.

Serves him right. Hoisted on his own petard or what? Let's hope Tricky Dicky's next.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:02 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
I thought if you were likely to be banned you had to be there in person!

Now normaly the consequences of somebody getting a ban is that you lose your job (if it involved driving) I wonder if this will happen of the tax payer will pick up the tab for a driver to get him around.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Safe Speed issued the following PR at 10:57:

PR572: Med Hughes: disqualified: 42 days

news: for immediate release

Reports are coming in that Med Hughes, former top traffic cop has been
disqualified for 42 days at Wrexham magistrates court for driving at 90mph in a
60mph zone.

Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "Were you driving safely Mr
Hughes? If you were, then you have been lying to us about the importance of
sticking to the speed limit."

"We don't believe for a single second that Mr Hughes was driving dangerously
and he must now tell us the truth about the role of speed limits in road
safety."

"Speed enforcement has become a ridiculous obsession to the severe detriment of
far more important aspects of road safety."

"The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Mr Hughes should clearly have been preaching
what he practices - because clearly he knows that exceeding the speed limit
isn't necessarily dangerous."

<ends>

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 14:23 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Also From BBC News:

Quote:
Jools Townsend, of road safety campaigners Brake said Hughes' offence was "shocking" and called the sentence lenient.

"By committing this deadly crime, Hughes undermines the work of traffic police to protect the safety of road users, both within his force and across the country.

Deadly? Even though no-one died or was at risk of dying?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 14:43 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
smeggy wrote:
Also From BBC News:

Quote:
Jools Townsend, of road safety campaigners Brake said Hughes' offence was "shocking" and called the sentence lenient.

"By committing this deadly crime,

Deadly? Even though no-one died or was at risk of dying?

lolo! :rotflmao:

In truth, I'm very surprised he got done at all! I was under the impression if you were JP, MP or PC, you were let off?

Maybe there was too much publicity in this case. But 42 days ban for "committing this deadly crime!"?? Oh puhleeeze....

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 00:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
bombus wrote:
I've never been so pleased to read about a speeding conviction. So richly deserved. I just wish he'd been disqualified for longer.


And its the same for everybody that gets caught speeding?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 00:14 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
smeggy wrote:
or was at risk of dying?


90 in a 60?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 00:24 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
weepej wrote:
bombus wrote:
I've never been so pleased to read about a speeding conviction. So richly deserved. I just wish he'd been disqualified for longer.


And its the same for everybody that gets caught speeding?

Can't you see the difference between one who unfairly suffers from a poor policy and one who forces it upon others?

weepej wrote:
smeggy wrote:
or was at risk of dying?

90 in a 60?

And?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 00:31 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
smeggy wrote:
And?


Suicidal probably, and if anybody else was around possibly homicidal.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 00:32 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
smeggy wrote:
Can't you see the difference between one who unfairly suffers from a poor policy and one who forces it upon others?


bombus wrote:
I just wish he'd been disqualified for longer.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 00:33 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
weepej wrote:
smeggy wrote:
or was at risk of dying?


90 in a 60?

60mph is a limit imposed nationally for a given class of road with no regard to the road layout or conditions. It has no bearing on the possible circumstances on individual lengths of road, where 90 might be safe, and 60 might be deadly. Med Hughes (who was holidaying with his family in the vehicle) clearly judged the circumstances to be safe - maybe for just a short distance - but got caught exceeding the nationally set speed for any road not designated a dual carriageway.

Come back in winter on snow, and 40 might be suicidal, but NOT in excess of the limit. :oops:

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 00:34 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
BTW, so do I (wish he was disqualified for longer).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 00:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Ernest Marsh wrote:
clearly judged the circumstances to be safe


Safe? 90mph?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 00:42 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
weepej wrote:
Ernest Marsh wrote:
clearly judged the circumstances to be safe


Safe? 90mph?


You can't be for real!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 00:42 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
weepej wrote:

Safe? 90mph?


Can someone give the gramophone a nudge -it seems to be stuck. :shock:

_________________
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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 01:06 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
weepej wrote:
smeggy wrote:
Can't you see the difference between one who unfairly suffers from a poor policy and one who forces it upon others?


bombus wrote:
I just wish he'd been disqualified for longer.

And how does that answer my question?

weepej wrote:
Suicidal probably, and if anybody else was around possibly homicidal.

That would probably be a reasonable statement for a residential or other sensitive area, but it's not so it's not.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 01:36 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
weepej wrote:
Ernest Marsh wrote:
clearly judged the circumstances to be safe


Safe? 90mph?

Clearly you feel your own standard of driving means you are not up to handling a vehicle at such a speed safely. That might be due to your car, your level of competence or the roads you use - but you cannot simply judge Med Hughes driving on the speed he was detected at based on a number.

It might have been a short burst of speed while he passed a slower vehicle, over 100 yards. I doubt it was a sustained speed over a treacherous stretch of road! :roll:
It might help his case if we could see the video... is this possible with an FoI? :roll:

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 03:09 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
It might well be!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7130028.stm
Quote:
'Speeding police 'not prosecuted'
By Martin Shankleman
BBC News

A South Yorkshire police officer caught speeding
Image
Officers were caught speeding while on duty

Roadside camera photographs of South Yorkshire Police officers caught speeding, but who later had their cases dropped, have been obtained by the BBC.

The pictures were released after South Yorkshire's chief constable, Meredydd Hughes, was banned from driving for speeding at 90mph in a 60mph zone.

Those in cars caught on camera were all on duty but none was prosecuted after refusing to say who was at the wheel.

The force said cases were not pursued due to drivers not being identified.

Public interest

The pictures, obtained by BBC Newsnight under the Freedom of Information Act, all showed officers speeding - mostly in the Rotherham and Doncaster areas.

They were released following the intervention of the Information Commissioner, who rejected the force's reason for non-release.

The force had claimed that releasing the images was not in the public interest.

A South Yorkshire police officer caught speeding
Most of the officers caught were in the Doncaster and Rotherham areas

In one case it claimed that if the occupants of a speeding police van were identified because of publication, there was a "risk that those individuals will be vilified and as a consequence their mental or physical health will suffer".

But the commissioner rejected that argument, saying the information had been "inappropriately withheld" and that it was in the public interest for the material to be disclosed.

Overall, the BBC investigation uncovered 26 cases between 2003 and 2006, where South Yorkshire police officers caught speeding on duty failed to admit they were driving and cases were dropped.

'Due diligence'

A spokesman for South Yorkshire police said the cases could no go ahead because they had used "due diligence" in trying to identify the drivers and, because they could not be identified, a prosecution would fail.

A South Yorkshire police officer caught speeding
The force said releasing the pictures was not in the public interest

He added that procedures had now been reformed and earlier this year the chief constable had taken himself to court for failing to identify the driver of a speeding police car.

Mr Hughes, 49, a former chair of roads policing at the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), apologised after being caught on camera doing 90mph in a 60mph zone on the A5 at Chirk near Wrexham in May.

He stood down from his role at Acpo after he was summonsed for the offence, which happened when he was on holiday.

He was disqualified for 42 days and fined £350 by Wrexham magistrates.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 08:22 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Ernest Marsh wrote:
Clearly you feel your own standard of driving means you are not up to handling a vehicle at such a speed safely.


Sorry, there's no way you could ever describe travelling at 90mph as safe, if something went wrong there'd be little or no chance of recovering.

Sure nothing happened, but that doesn't mean it was safe to do it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 08:34 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 18:38
Posts: 396
Location: Glasgow
weepej wrote:
Ernest Marsh wrote:
Clearly you feel your own standard of driving means you are not up to handling a vehicle at such a speed safely.


Sorry, there's no way you could ever describe travelling at 90mph as safe, if something went wrong there'd be little or no chance of recovering.

Sure nothing happened, but that doesn't mean it was safe to do it.


I'd have to agree with Ernest on this one. If you can't travel safely at 90 mph, where appropriate, you must have very poor driving skills.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 263 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.037s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]