Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed May 22, 2019 22:35

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 19:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Topic - A14 dual carriageway.
Fined £320 fine not banned.
For tomorrow.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 18:57 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
I see this .. I think you said well Liebchen :clap: I will put into the Normal News for discussion und hope that ist OK to do so.

_________________
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
!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 04:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Yes that's fine but I will add it here too - thanks :)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -work.html
and topic thread : here
Telegraph wrote:
By Andrew Hough
Published: 7:00AM BST 03 Sep 2009

Policeman caught speeding at 100mph 'because he was late for work'

A police officer with more than 20 years experience, Matthew Stott, was allowed to keep his licence despite admitting speeding at 100mph because he did not want to be “late for work”, a court heard.

The Suffolk police constable, 40, was suffering “stress-related problems” at work when he was recorded speeding at more than 30 mph above the normal limit earlier this year, South East Suffolk magistrates court was told.
But he instead of banning him from driving, the magistrate decided to put six penalty points on his previously clean driving licence instead and issue him with a fine.
He was also fined £320 plus £85 costs with a £15 victim surcharge.
Road safety campaigners last night reacted with fury, labelling the decision an example of “one rule for police and another for everybody else”.
Experts say that while the final decision rests with the judge, under the law most motorists caught doing 100mph would expect to be banned.
The father of three, and a 20 year veteran, is now facing an internal investigation from Suffolk police, which could lead to disciplinary action.
The court was told the officer was recorded speeding in his Vauxhall Vectra on the A14 dual carriageway at Bucklesham near Ipswich, Suffolk.
He had been caught by a mobile camera van parked in a lay-by at 9 am as he was rushing to work on May 6, prosecutors said.
The court heard he worked in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, neighbourhood response team that dealt with 999 calls.

Ben Gordon, defending Stott, told the court: "He was on his way to work in the morning.
“Due to difficulties he was suffering at the time, he was desperate not to be late for work.
"He had been suffering stress-related problems.”
He added: “He regrets what has happened.
"He accepts his judgement was wrong."

Anne Walker, the presiding magistrate, said she would not ban from him driving after taking into account his early guilty plea and mitigating factors.

Claire Armstrong, co-founder of Safe Speed, a road safety group, said the decision “defied belief”, labelling it one that set a bad example for others drivers.
“There is always a danger that when police are not banned for offences that others are very likely to be, it puts out a double standard that encourages the hypocritical belief that there is one rule for them and one rule for everyone else,” she said outside court.
“That alone is driving the rift between the police and the public.
“When other people are caught driving at 100mph they are usually banned, or sometimes even worse.”
She added: “It defies belief really.”

In June, three High Court judges ruled that the “special skill” of a police driver was an “irrelevant circumstance” when considering whether driving was dangerous.
Their ruling on the issue of a driver's skills arose out of the case of Sergeant Craig Bannister, 30, of Briton Ferry, Neath, South Wales, who was originally sentenced to five months in Jail after earlier being found guilty of dangerous driving.
Bannister, who qualified as an advanced police driver a month before the accident, was driving on the M4 near Swansea when his BMW 5 series spun out of control after he reached speeds of up to 120mph.

A Suffolk Police spokesman declined to answer a series of questions, due to an internal inquiry.
"There will be an internal investigation and so we cannot comment further at this stage,” he said.
They would not confirm he was still on active service.
A Department of Transport spokeswoman said it was up to a judge’s discretion on each case.
“The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 indicates that a judge may consider a disqualification for excessive speed however this is not mandatory,” she said.
“Each case will be for the judge or magistrate to consider individually.
“Where no disqualification is given, the offender must however be given an endorsement on their licence.”
Latest figures show just 0.1 per cent of officers caught speeding by cameras were fined, with police vehicles activating speed cameras more than 107,000 times.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 17:33 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
He should be sacked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 23:59 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Or put aside the legal aspects for a minute.

Lets look at the driving principles,
IF the A14 (Dual carriageway) was dry, clear with good visibility and was likely a straight section (mobile unit in action) could not 100mph possibly be 'safe' ? (- and he is traveling in a good capable car.)
If he has good police training, might he not be able to judge and risk manage appropriately, to conditions ?
If he can drive during the day at high speeds, then why not to work - apart from the lack of B&T's and highly visible car markings ?
Should not 'all' drivers capable of showing ability and in good conditions be safe and be able to judge and risk manage - without this being a free for all to do speed when or how ever!

The excuses given are more worrying however, as if he is stressed on the way to work, and failed to notice the MCV, then IF he is a police driver or even possibly going to drive during the day at all then were his boss's not aware of his stress and potential inability to 'cope'?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 23:31 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
he should be sacked.

simple as that.

far too much hypocrisy in public office.

when we see some more pragmatism in road policing then i may review my position.

The police must clearly enforce the law but.....you don't have to be a police officer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
I do totally agree that the double standard is unacceptable.
I agree he should be fired, but I would rather see someone rise up and have the courage of their convictions and stop denying the truth as the facts are quite clear. The sooner we return to intelligent policies the better.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 00:08 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
I do totally agree that the double standard is unacceptable.
I agree he should be fired, but I would rather see someone rise up and have the courage of their convictions and stop denying the truth as the facts are quite clear. The sooner we return to intelligent policies the better.


agree 100%

I've consistently held this view on here. absolute justice cuts both ways I'm afraid.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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 cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.191s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]