Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Dec 05, 2020 12:38

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

What is your opinion of the verdict in the case of PC Mark Milton?
He should have been acquitted 18%  18%  [ 13 ]
He should have been acquitted 18%  18%  [ 13 ]
The verdict was a reasonable compromise in the circumstances 12%  12%  [ 9 ]
The verdict was a reasonable compromise in the circumstances 12%  12%  [ 9 ]
He should have been severely punished 20%  20%  [ 15 ]
He should have been severely punished 20%  20%  [ 15 ]
Total votes : 74
Author Message
 Post subject: PC Mark Milton
PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 19:07 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
There's been a lot of debate about the outcome of this case, in which he was convicted of dangerous driving but given an absolute discharge. So do you think the verdict was right?

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 20:21 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 09:13
Posts: 771
I'd like to qualify my vote here.

I went for the third option - but only because I think those speeds are beyond excessive - ie dangerous. NOT because he was breaking any arbitrary limits. If he'd been doing more reasonable speeds my vote would have been different.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 20:59 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
I went for the first option. The facts of this case and the bringing of it to court expose the hypocrisy behind the 'speed kills' mantra. The reality is that speed doesn't kill as this case proves - it is bad driving that kills.

The law however is being engineered to align itself with the lie that is being repeated so often that people are starting to believe it is true.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 21:02 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
I went for "punished".

I recently found out that he didn't take the necessary measures to minimise risk to other road users; that qualifies for dangerous driving (regardless of speed travelled).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 21:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Much as I'd love to answer this, I cannot.

Is 159mph dangerous driving in itself? Of course not - ask a German.

Did Mark Milton drive dangerously? I suspect he did, but I haven't seen the evidence and I really don't know.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 00:13 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 22:31
Posts: 407
Location: A Safe Distance From Others
I'm ambivalent to the 159mph on the M54.

I'm a little uncomfortable with his 91 in a 30 though.

Personally, I'd have been happier if this had not been brought into the public domain though, and addressed through private Police channels.

_________________
Simon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 00:30 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 14:04
Posts: 216
Location: Manchester
I've voted for punished if only because of the hypocrisy of the situation. Like Graeme says though, these speeds really are very OTT and unnecessary - I'd be curious as to what percentage of Autobahn drivers actually achieve 159mph. I also have never encountered a 30mph limit where 90mph would be safe; 60mph maybe, but certainly not 90 (though I wouldn't be surprised if there are one or two around where 90 *may* be possible).

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 00:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Nemesis wrote:
I also have never encountered a 30mph limit where 90mph would be safe...


Think of the transition out of a 30mph limit zone. So many are extended for 1/4 mile beyond the buildings...

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 02:22 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 00:11
Posts: 764
Location: Sofa
I don't feel I have enough info to decide on his guilt or innocence, so I haven't voted. I don't understand how he can be guilty but not be punished.

If he's guilty of dangerous driving he surely must deserve to be punished for it?

If he doesn't deserve to be punished, which is supposed to act as a deterrent after all, then was what he did really dangerous?

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 14:31 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 23:17
Posts: 499
MrsMiggins wrote:

If he's guilty of dangerous driving he surely must deserve to be punished for it?

If he doesn't deserve to be punished, which is supposed to act as a deterrent after all, then was what he did really dangerous?


I agree, my thoughts exactly...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 15:02 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
MrsMiggins wrote:
If he doesn't deserve to be punished, which is supposed to act as a deterrent after all, then was what he did really dangerous?


That's well put, and if he doesn’t deserve to be punished and wasn't really dangerous, then how can they condone the average motorist being done for 10%+2mph over the speed limit, and their lives made a misery.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 16:50 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
MrsMiggins wrote:
f dangerous driving he surely must deserve to be punished for it?

If he doesn't deserve to be punished, which is supposed to act as a deterrent after all, then was what he did really dangerous?


This is pretty much the loop I'm stuck in myself over the issue, too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 21:57 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 14:47
Posts: 1659
Location: A Dark Desert Highway
SigmaMotion wrote:
I'm ambivalent to the 159mph on the M54.

I'm a little uncomfortable with his 91 in a 30 though.

Personally, I'd have been happier if this had not been brought into the public domain though, and addressed through private Police channels.


I think I'm right in saying that this took place in south Shropshire in the wee small hours. If that were so there was probably a rusty 205 diesel full of drunk young farmers flashing it's lights trying to get past...

I've no idea how fast people go past my house, most people do high 30's, but some of the sports bike really push on. I can tell this by the high pitch screaming from 4cyl jap bike and the 5 gear changes. Just 'cos it's a 30 doesn't mean you're going to cause death and distruction at high speed in the middle of the night.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 21:22 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
The wide divergence of opinion on this issue is interesting, and reflects the discussion in the main thread. Clearly this is one where the "SafeSpeed community" doesn't enjoy broad agreement.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 21:29 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4814
Location: Essex
PeterE wrote:
The wide divergence of opinion on this issue is interesting, and reflects the discussion in the main thread. Clearly this is one where the "SafeSpeed community" doesn't enjoy broad agreement.


I think it proves that the Safespeed community are not "sheep" and that, in tyhe absence of concrete facts from which one can draw concrete conclusions, they will form opinions based on their own logic and not be frightened of speaking their mind.

I think had you put an option "too little information" or "This case should never have been brought in the first place" you might have had nearer 100% agreement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:36 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1272
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
Roger wrote:
I think had you put an option "too little information" ...

I haven't voted and have refrained from comment exactly for this reason.

None of us know the facts of the case, we're all speculating from what's been in the press - and we all know (or should!) how accurate that normally is!

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 14:35 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 02:02
Posts: 258
Location: Northern Ireland
I choose the first option... It would be nice to see the evidence though, and have a bit of an evaluation of his driving...

_________________
Mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 00:23 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 00:42
Posts: 832
I think if we are going to penalise driver for excessive speeding when not authorised to do so, then let it apply to ALL drivers


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 16:20 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
I voted for the first option, as 159mph (or even higher) is perfectly safe, when appropriate...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 13:06 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 13:41
Posts: 514
Location: Thames Valley
I think he should have been disqualified, so I voted for the last option. What defence would I have, if I were caught doing 159mph on a motorway? Would it do me any good in court to argue that I needed to find out how my car handled, and that because there was no traffic around, it was perfectly safe? If the police need to assess a particular car, it should be done on a dedicated test track, and if they don't have one they could build one out of the proceeds of speed camera fines.

I was in the Ledbury area recently and saw a mobile van trap being operated by the West Mercia police. It was clearly at a designated location because my RoadAngel™ unit began singing like a canary, which it does even when no van is there. On this occasion, however, oncoming cars were flashing their lights at me. Sure enough, there it was. I waved at the police as I went past - no, not the Agincourt salute, but just a friendly "ner-ner-ne-ner-ner-better-luck-next-time" wave. Maybe I'll get a NIP for that!

I think WM police have got a thundering cheek to target motorists who might be doing 45 in a 40 area such as this, when they themselves are seemingly exempt from the rules. What next - legalised homicide? "Well, your honour, I'm in an armed unit, and needed to try out my Heckler and Koch MP5 to make sure it could do the job for which it was designed".


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

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 : 0.063s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]