Safe Speed Forums

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

By the sound of it he probably wasn’t driving dangerously, I don’t know. What will not go down to well with the majority is, how he got away without a ban? If it had been a member of the public they would most certainly would have been banned.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

So: how many communities were wrecked and how many families destroyed by tis speeding policeman.

Banning people from destroys families too.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

The incident was just down the road on the A1 from where fools were driving a Jag at 100+ mph, and killed some people who had broken down. This was reported a few weeks ago, when both passenger and driver were jailed for years. People know that coppers go around at 100+ mph.

Was the copper drunk?

There have been loads of people given fines and points for offences in the 101-110 mph on a motorway bracket. I concider this to be consistant with other sentencing.

101mph is not dangerous in light traffic condition with a drivcer who knows how to observe in a well maintained car. However I would say that light traffic conditions are getting very rare in the south.

_________________
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

No, he was sober while he was doing it, as far as anyone knows.

Here we go again bash bash bash,whats the difference between this person and the 118mph chap on the other thread and it would appear he has also committed it but a higher speed,and he might get off with it and this person has been found guilty and has been given his penalty.

At least he is being punished for it and I dont here anyone kicking up a fuss,i bet if the cop was the one getting away scot free on the technicality ie device not being approved then everyone would be saying scandoulous,cover up etc etc.

I dont suppose him being a detective has got anything to do with him not having the same regard for road safety as perhaps a TO which I am sure the other BIB on here will know what I mean when I say that,sad,but true. At least he has been punished and will no doubt get his second punishment from his internal affairs department.

What will happen to the 118mph man nothing he will walk away a hero beating the system and perhaps,just perhaps will think this was easy and do it again,only this time might not be so lucky all round.

I agree we should have consistancy within the judicial system but unfortuneately when we have members of public in charge ie magistrates who may not have the same view on certain offences like each of us then this is why,you get the so many different results,perhaps it is time to get rid of magistrates and put more Barristers /Solicitors in the Bar to erradicate the possible weaknesses in the system.
Stephen

To be honest Stephen, I dont think any posters bear any ill feeling towards the officer concerned.
They are more irate that civilians who have attained the same speeds have been banned - while this officer has not.

They are underlining the fact that the speed quoted is NOT necessarily dangerous in every case, and does not always warrant a ban.

This is all part of the backlash against remote "enforcement" (no camera offenses are ever "enforced" as they allow the offender to carry on offending) especially under the guise of so called "safety" cameras!

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

Indeed. I have always responded within reason when on duty and always with regard to safety of self and other members of the public. I do not not nor ever have "flaunted this permission to respond as and when required". To do so undermines police reputation and alienats the public at large.

I thus do not condone those who "test their police cars without authority to do do" nor those who get pinged by Gatos when picking up a take-away meal and using a radio shout by chance in defence. I do not think the public were as easily fooled as the JP in that case

I do not support those Over Kellett officers either and fully support Lancs in their disciplining of this pair.

I thus conced that members of the public who have other experiences and training and expertise have the right to criticise and comment on press reports of rogue cops. I do not defend rogue cops .. but will seek to justify actions if misrepresented by press or bashed unduly by them Swiss hooligans at large

I do not condone any flaunting or pretence of "police duties" if a police officer deliberately abuses his or her "exemption form normal rules if and only IF on authorised police business"

I said to willcove back in 2004.. if you think or fully believe a police officer has overstepped the mark .. please dfo reprot it to us. We may seem to "ignore" as in not updating you.. but that does not mean no action taken all the same. We may perhaps choose to keep the disciplinary out of the press as it concerns only the officer concerned and we do not ever want to embarrass a person by telling him or her off in public all the same for a small-ish transgression

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

All jobs are done by members of the public. In the case of JPs, we are trained and regularly appraised for the work we do. The work consists of applying the laws made by government, using the structured decision making process set down by HMCS and in accordance with the sentencing guidelines laid down by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Our personal view of the relative seriousness of offences is irrelevant as there is no opportunity to substitute our personal opinion in place of any of the factors I have already mentioned.

We do have some lawyers who sit as judges in the magistrates courts. They are the only people in the justice system who can decide what the law is, what the facts are and what the sentence should be without input from anybody else. To my mind that is too much power for any single person. The majority are white, male, middle class and privately educated. All earn a minimum of £104,000. I think a bench of three JPs, from the local area and with a wide range of backgrounds are far less likely to fall for sob stories.

As an example, at the crown court not so long ago sitting on an appeal with a well respected and quite street wise judge the defendant was giving details of his means so that the correct fine could be assessed. He stated that his sole income was job seekers allowance. The judge was happy to sentence based on that. it took the 2 JPs to mention council tax benefit, housing benefit and so on which are not income in the usual sense, but which increase the effective income of the person concerned.

The question of consistency arises all too often. We have consistency. But its consistency of approach NOT consistency of sentence. No two cases are going to be exactly the same and it is right that the differences should be considered. My local paper regularly slams us for inconsistency in sentencing drink drivers. They think all such people should receive the same sentence. That would be consistency of a sort, but would it be just? Should a 5 times the limit driver get the same sentence as a just over the limit driver? I think not.



The issue of the speeding policeman is a case in point. The public seem to think that over 100MPH is an automatic ban. That is not the case. The bench are required to automatically CONSIDER a ban, which is not the same thing. The guidelines allow for a ban OR 6 points for that sort of speed. 6 points for 101mph is a very common sentence for police officers, sales reps and shop assistants. And any other driver for that matter. The only report I have read doesn't say if he made an exceptional hardship ban or not. Even without such a claim I would be surprised at a ban for 101mph unless there are current points for speeding or the driving was substandard in some other way - tailgating, bad weather, pedestrians etc.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Its not only consistent with other cases its in line with the sentencing guidelines which all courts are obliged to follow.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

I would hope that drivers who have been banned for this sort of speed have factors other than the simple fact of speeding, involved in their case. Although I have to say that we do get a few requests for short bans instead of points. Usually from drivers whose employer has 5 points or under rule. Its a very odd day indeed when you hear an exceptional hardship claim that is intended to get the driver a ban.


Incidentally what would posters here consider appropriate for 102mph, in the wet on 4 bald tyres? I had this exact scenario last month.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

The better the driver, the more vehicle they can handle, but in every case, a wise driver never asks too much of:
a) themselves or other drivers
b) their vehicle
c) road conditions
d) traffic conditions

The so-called article in the Fenland Citizen doesn't give nearly enough info, probably knowing full well that duh-mbasses will probably side with Brake's spokesparrot, who probably had little more info to go on than what was in the article, and thought that that was more than enough info.

The article's dearth of info also implies that there was 'no good reason' for him to be driving at that road speed - non-official capacity, some silly personal reason. (Thanks for telling me only what I need to hear.)
I want to know why he was driving at that road speed, or at least whether or not he offered a reason.

I don't know the A1 MotorWay in Woolley, or his Ford Focus's roadworthiness. I also don't know his level of driver training. Should I assume it exceeds that of the general public? It is important.

I can only guess that the sentence handed down would have been more severe if any of the following conditions were met:
a) he wasn't an officer
b) he had offered a reason for speeding worse than the reason the Fenland Citizen refuses to cite
c) the magistrate thought that the totality of the offense deserved a greater sentence

Again, what more can I - reasonably - guess, given so little information?

Even knowing full well that one of the reasons to set speed 'limits' is an attempt to control fuel expenses, it doesn't change the fact that driving at 31MpH above the posted limit, in and of itself, is not enough information to go on.

I haven't even gotten started on whether or not that posted speed 'limit' is appropriate, much less my suspicion that it is probably a bit low.
...

[Your Honor,]
I fail to see how "102MpH in the wet on 4 bald tires" would be appropriate, without major environmentally controlled conditions; any publicly accessible road that met such conditions would be impossible/miraculous/outside the jurisdiction of the law.

Were I in a position to 'judge' this person, my only other concern would be whether or not he was effectively alone - would a reasonable person conclude that anyone else was in potential danger, or not?
The answer to that question would determine the length of the suspension of his driving priviledges and the severity of the fine.

I would also mandate a reeducation period and a retesting following the suspension. If he doesn't pass, that's his problem.

Does the above explain why I am not involved in law?

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

I have read The Rush's post and it seems quite indirect for some reason. My response to this is that having any bold tires is bad enough. That is very negligent to let them get to that stage. I am surprised that someone would go out onto the road with tires in that condition. I think that the prosecuters should focus mainly on the tire situation. Driving at all with tires like that is very bad.

_________________
Currently undergoing training with the I.A.M.

I've never felt the automatic ban @ 100 thing is appropriate or representative.

120 on an empty motorway is far safer than, say, passing 40/50mph traffic at just under the ton on a DC. Yet the formers an automatic ban, huge fine and many points, the latter what, 3 points FPN?




I drive fast, or at least used to a fair bit, but tyres were/are one thing I'm fastidious about, probably one of the single biggest safety factors on a car. I'd like to think that a judgment would reflect the difference in a drivers attitude to such things.

(I recently had to tell my mechanic what he could do with the michelin x he sourced after I asked him to match the factory fitted continentals as close as poss - by all accounts my van will nudge 130 - I wouldn't fit michelins to a wheelbarrow.)

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

Many years ago, I got banned for doing 103 on a motorway - I'm starting to feel a bit hard done-by, now! No other factors, just speed. It was only 28 days though, so I guess it could have been worse!

With regard to the bald tyre question, I think it probably deserves a ban more for the tyres than the speed! The main thing it suggests to me is that a driver who doesn't think there's anything worng with driving in the wet on 4 bald tyres, probably isn't the kind of person I'd be wanting to share a road with at ANY speed! Of course, it depends on a few other things too though. Were the tyres really bald or just below the 1.6mm limit? Was the road wet with standing water or just damp? These (and other) factors would need to be considered before trying to decide how dangerous the act was. I also think that we concentrate too much on tyre tread depth and not enough on other related factors. OK, I know the law only really covers tread depth, so there's not much anyone can do, but there is no legal requirement for how much grip a tyre needs to have and there are some absolutely DIRE offerings out there from the Eastern Block and other parts of the world - some of which probably have less grip when new thatn a bald tyre of a better brand might have! Similarly, what type of car was it? A very light car with ridiculously wide tyres will aquaplane much more readily than a heavy car on skinny tyres.

I was drving down the M6 once around Lancaster and a BMW joined from a curving slip road. The driver gave it a bit too much throttle a bit too early and it spun in front of me before disappearing through the hedge and down the embankment. I stopped and saw that the occupants were OK and someone else must have called the police because they turned up very quickly. I hung round in case a witness statement was needed. As I stood there, I noticed that one of the rear tyres was bald. The copper obviously noticed it too because he said "well, it's easy enough to see why that happened"! I pointed out that the bald tyre would have been the INSIDE tyre on a left hand bend and that while it wouldn't have helped, it might not have had that much to do with the crash. He just looked at me blankly...

...his mind was already made up and I'm pretty certain I know what his statement to the court would have said!

I often draw circles around the target before hitting the bull's eye. Allow me to clarify.
Set aside the bald tires for a moment, please.

102MpH in the wet [on bald tires] is inappropriate, unless the conditions are controlled; I.E., the environment is closed to the general public.

Since it's a given that the environment was not closed or in any way controlled, I want to know how far from 'controlled' the situation was. Succinctly, how many people were in potential danger besides himself?

The probability of injuring someone else is not merely about 102MpH in the wet [on bald tires]. It is also very highly dependent on how many other people were in the immediate vicinity. The more people in potential danger, the more negligent and/or reckless, the greater the length of the suspension, and the greater the fine.

Now, on to the bald tires.Touche, Flynn.
Nevermind that his negligence to properly maintain his car is additional circumstatial evidence against his choice to drive at 102MpH in the wet on bald tires. Unless he is not going to use his car at all, he has failed to properly maintain his car.

I don't know the details of how I would do it, but since his car is no longer roadworthy, I would revoke his roadworthiness/safety certification on the spot, which would, at a minimum, compel him to purchase new tires - assuming everything else is in order. (And if anything else needs to be addressed, there you go.)

Again, touche, Flynn.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

That would mean more questions, and the use of time and money. Should we use up tax-money on pathological cases?

often when court cases come up we start to speculate and we don't really know what went on in court and the ins and outs of the case.

Would it not be better that an offical summary of the case was released with a summary of the defense and prosicution and a summary from the Judge? The also could be some law that states that if summary is misquoted that is contempt of court. That way we, the public, could know for sure what went on in court and know why any given verdict is reached, it would put a stop to people with vested interests in a particular case manipulating information and we would have a better understanding of how law works and hopefully trust it a little more.