Safe Speed Forums

In view of the recent high-profile cases concerning PC Mark Milton and Chief Supt Les Owen, what do you believe should be the legal position covering police officers exceeding posted speed limits?

I considered setting this up as a poll but struggled to frame a suitable set of choices.

_________________
"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

Leave it as is.

At the times when they have a pressing need to exceed the speed limit they have enough to worry about without having to consider whether they can later comply with some convoluted set of rules.

It needs to be simple and clear that trained police drivers have carte blanche to exceed speed limits in the pursuance of their duties, but that if they drive recklessly the book will be thrown at them. In fact this should be thrown harder than for "normal" drivers, as they should know better.

That said, I could live with the notion of linking the speed limit exemption to the driving qualifications of the officer, rather than merely the fact that he is a Policeman. In other words only class one's automatically have speed limit exemption perhaps???

Assuming that the driver in the Les Own case was of this standard I have no problem with him cracking on a bit, even if it had only been to take his boss to get some donuts! My take is that their job demands them to be maintain familiarity with driving quickly, and having his boss in the back is probably as good a dampener on any potential recklessness as you can think of! It's all good training.

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

Yes, wholly agreed. The idea of drawing a distinction between "Panda" and "Pursuit" drivers might well be worth exploring, but it doesn't exist at present.

If police officers had to continually justify even trivial transgressions of speed limits to which they themselves might have objected, they would be acting as if they had one hand tied behind their backs.

But it is incumbent on them to use this freedom responsibly and not "take the piss".

_________________
"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

I say leave it as it is too. But also it's important to reduce the pressure by being intelligent about wider speed enforcement. We didn't have a problem in the pre-camera era...



There's no room in law for such distinctions - I'm quite sure that all sorts of bonkers anomalies would appear if we tried. Restrictions on lower grade Police drivers should be applied as force rules (as indeed they are already).

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

Mmh I'm sorry Paul but I must disagree. In my view the same law applies to ALL..................................

In fact, IF a POLICE officer, (a chosen profession), breaks the law that HE expects the uneducated "plebs" to obey" he /she should be "piiloried" for their transgresssion, for THAT ....IS what they have taken on,...the pay...the Pension......the perks....!

Paul, I have first hand knowledge of a "policeman living next door" but!.......enough of that: .....My friend, a very houseproud/gardending/Lawabiding/individual/a nicer person you would NOT wish to have as your neighbour., had a Police Sargent for a neighbour.

One day, he "visited" home in the "patrol car", after which he reversed into my workmates drive, hit and broke a potted plant, knocked over his young toddler,..........and drove off!

1 week later, My friend saw his wife arrive home...........so he said to her: "she's OK......"margaret".........to which she replied: WHAT?......

The Swine didn't even tell his wife!!...........................

I just wonder what his reaction to this would have been been to Joe Public in a similar situation?...........

Despite my "devils advocate" post in another thread, I basically agree that police drivers should be able to exceed speed limits WHERE OPERATIONALLY REQUIRED. This does not mean on all journeys and especially, for example, being late for meetings, going to the chip shop etc.

Most of us here believe that exceeding the limits set is not inherently dangerous and I don't see why this shouldn't be applicable in this case.

I agree that the presentational problem is big. "Well, it was alright for me to speed but not for you." is always going to wind people up. Of course, if an accident occurs then the police will have to justify their actions.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

The point here is that the Police, through the Camera Partnership fiasco, have already distanced themselves from the public and this sort of thing does not help to regain any of the lost respect.

If they want to push the, "Speed Kills" campaign then they should adhere strictly to the limit whenever they are not on an emergency call.

This, "Don't do as I do, do as I tell you to," attitude just drives people further away from the Police force which is supposedly there to protect them!

57 Police cars speeding in Derbyshire were just let off even though they were not on call. To anyone who has been dragged through the courts for doing 35 in a 30 late at night on perfect safety, this is a smack in the eye.

It's time for the Police Force as a whole to realise that they are there to serve the public, not to rule them.

I am not making judgement on individual officers, but the whole sorry state of the Police Force from the Home Secretary down.

The Police can only enforce with the consent of the Public.

_________________
If you're right, did your heels in
If you're wrong, admit it!

Sink the scameraships
Give us back our Police Force

That is exactly my view as well Malcolm.

Sure the police have to exceed the speed limit at times, nobody is disputing that. However, travelling at over twice the limit in a 40 zone (which is an instant ban for us mere mortals) just because you are late for a meeting is NOT acceptable as a valid excuse.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

That IS what the law says already... (just in case anyone doesn't realise).

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

I've stated my views on this a number of times but will restate them.

Any police officer should be subject to investigation as to whether the speeding incident was operationally necessary. I would extend this to private motoring offences.

If not then disciplinary action must be taken.

I see the ultimate sanction as dismissal.

We are told that speed kills....not that maybe its not a good thing in certain circumstances.....it kills. 'Its no accident if your speeding'.

We are also reminded that speeding is a criminal offence.

If this is the view of the law enforcement establishment and they police it in a zero tolerance manner then police officers should be beyond reproach.

I didn't always have this view but I'm afraid that the current speed dogma has brought me to it.

I fail to see why I should display reason and pragmatism to those who don't extend it to me.

As civil engineer says, we are reminded by the police constantly that 'speed kills', just 5mph over the limit is murder, speeding causes asteroid impacts, that sort of thing.

I would be happy to leave the law as it is, and allow the police tyo speed where necessary, IF the present obsessive enforcement against the public at large were dropped and replaced with enforcement against people who take the piss.

I agree with your general view, except that people (like, for example, me) who 'take the piss' as you put it, might still be driving quite safely, in which case they should not be subject to overly heavy handed enforcement IMHO.

Best wishes all,
Dave - biased in favour of the safe speeder.

This is going slightly of topic BUT ......
When you look at the publicity oozing out of the various government departments ( and their attached sidekicks)- it all has the same theme -

Exceed a number in a box and you're doing something wrong.

Look at the hoardings and telly ads -

"Don't eat more than 6 g of salt" --NUMBER
"Don't let your chlorestrol level get above 5" --NUMBER
"Don't drive above the number in the little red circle" -NUMBER.
The latest ones to come out are about age and body size.

What we really need is a sign in Parliament - "no session in progress unless more than 10 brain cells present" - problem is-- have we got enough MPs

its not far off topic.

this lot have an obsession with the rules, except the rule makers need not follow the rules.

the great unwashed need the rules you see.

Another point to reflect on is the amount of advertising--
26 October 2005
WE'VE AD £157M
THE Government's advertising bill was £157million last year - third highest behind soap powder giants Unilever and Procter & Gamble.
---

article from todays mirror.

Why are they trying so hard??

Because they can see that the general public do not believe them so the only course of action open to them is to tell more lies and shout louder.

This is how it was done in the past and this is how they are doing it now.

Gov: Speed Kills
GP : No it doesn't
Gov: Speed Kills!!
GP : I don't think it does.
Gov: (Running around like OZ himslef) Speed Kills, Speed Kills we are not doing it for the money!!

_________________
If you're right, did your heels in
If you're wrong, admit it!

Sink the scameraships
Give us back our Police Force

Money, Money, Money - it's a speed cams world ( apologies to ABBA)

But how can a police driver keep in practice unless he does whizz down to
the chip-shop with his blue-light flashing ?

And senior police officers need to know what can be expected of their
drivers in an emergency. So sometimes they do order their drivers, in
non-emergency situations, to drive as they would in an emergency; that
is, having full regard to safety but without any regard to the speed-limits
set down by the law.

But how can a police driver keep in practice unless he does whizz down to
the chip-shop with his blue-light flashing ?

Chips ,and donuts ---you're on the pushbike next week m'lad

Hello all, i've been away a while!!

Civil Engineer, to put it bluntly, you're a disgrace! So if you believe in the 'one rule for all' idea, shall we bring in a law where if you're caught speeding you are automatically sacked from you're job? Good God man, get real! Discipline yes, but 'dismissal'? Come on!! Tell us you were joking, please!