Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 23:26

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Mark Milton
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2005 08:23 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
This topic is reserved for discussion of the following Safe Speed Page:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/milton.html

The page discusses the case of Mark Milton - a Polce a driver acquitted after driving his Police car at 159mph on a public road.

_________________
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: Fri May 20, 2005 10:19 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 18:38
Posts: 396
Location: Glasgow
I don't believe Mark Milton was driving dangerously.

The impression given by the headlines, and what a lot of people will take from this story, is that Mark Milton will have been driving at 84mph for miles along a 30mph limit, and for miles at 159mph on the motorway. I am assuming with his training he only achieved these speeds for short bursts at appropriate sites on the roads. This is a completely different matter than barrelling along round corners etc. at 84mph or 159mph.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2005 11:58 
Offline
Police Officer and Member
Police Officer and Member

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 22:53
Posts: 565
Location: Kendal
I'd imagine the 84mph in the 30mph limit was the highest speed recorded as he was leaving the 30mph limit zone to go into the NSL zone.

To report for speed there should IMO be some evidence of inappropriateness of driving behaviour included. This may simply be excessive speed for circumstances, but it may also be a display of aggression or lack of concentration.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2005 23:07 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 21:00
Posts: 93
Location: Bristol
IanH wrote:
I'd imagine the 84mph in the 30mph limit was the highest speed recorded as he was leaving the 30mph limit zone to go into the NSL zone.

To report for speed there should IMO be some evidence of inappropriateness of driving behaviour included. This may simply be excessive speed for circumstances, but it may also be a display of aggression or lack of concentration.

Or could also have been a 30 limit like this one:-
Image
(from the Rules Page).

I'm sure we've all seen them - dual carriageways, armco, 30 limit.. Why :?:

Unless we get to see the video it's impossible to judge IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 03:20 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 02:21
Posts: 14
fergl100 wrote:
I don't believe Mark Milton was driving dangerously.


I don't believe he was too, but so was millions of other motorist who were flashed 15-25 mph over the limit, and was penalised heavily..

I think everyone is just furious about the double standards..



Quote:
To report for speed there should IMO be some evidence of inappropriateness of driving behaviour included.


IMHO, with the technology these days, they should let drivers take responsibilities for their own actions, and since you have all these photographic cameras and video cameras, no one should be penalised for not injuring any people, but instead should be penalised heavily if they have caused damage and the evidence have found that he was driving aggressively/negligently etc.etc. But we all know the government are just way too addicted to their revenue raising and just wouldn't put their technology to proper use instead, which is a shame... :x


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 13:18 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 13:08
Posts: 1
Location: Grimsby
I agree that the reason for outrage is that there seems to be one rule for police officers, another for civilians. Police traffic officers are more highly trained than most other road users, so are best equipped for very high speeds. However, many other road users could easily exceed the statutory speed limits in complete safety. The main danger on our roads is unaware drivers who blindly drive unsafely. A driver overtaking innappropriately at 50 on a 60mph road can be infinately more dangerous than a well trained driver going at 80mph on the same road. Why we take a driving test when we are 17, and are not obliged to undertake ANY further training escapes me. My opinion for many year has been that some form of further skills testing every 5 years or so would cut accidents dramatically. Such successful testing could provide eveidence of a driver's abilities to cope with driving safely.
The problem with speed cameras is that a motorist can go through one set at 60mph whilst driving at 55mph on the wrong side of the road, eating a sandwich, adjusting the radio, or anything else.
Speed does not kill. Hitting things does.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 15:48 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 02:21
Posts: 14
the points that you've mentioned have been said before, but all these have fallen on deaf ears, especially it's now very obvious that the government are just too addicted with the extra revenue, "Speed doesn't Kill, Ignorance and Greed does!"

the point about ongoing training, I've actually thought if they really cared about safety, on minor traffic offenses, like U-turning at wrong places, not giving ways, not signalling, parking at dangerous places etc.etc. they should order the driver to re-take a knowledge test etc. or even order the driver to take the knowledge test every 3-5 years, I'm sure there's so many drivers out there that would fair the knowledge test if they were to asked to take the test again, but again, the government doesn't care, they're too greedy to care about anyone's safety if u ask me..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 18:44 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 13:21
Posts: 6
Here we go again. This continual madcap apologia in this website for excessive speeding. Jesus - 159 mph on a public road - 159! - and you seek to justify that!!

The fact is Justice Hallett, 'one of the country's top judges', said:

"Driving at those speeds on public roads without any warning in conditions, no matter how good, and no matter what the skills of the driver, amounted to dangerous driving"

I couldn't have put it better myself. End of story.

Once you have guys like you saying that in such and such circumstances I should be excused excessive speeding, we are on the road to catastrophe. By what right should cretins like this be allowed to impose their personal view of what is safe on all other road users? Why bother with speed limits? Why not just say everybody can drive as fast as they like, and to hell with it? Then everybody's 'personal view' would be equally valid.

Of course, there has to be a line drawn at some point, and the arbiter of that is and can only be the law.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 19:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 01:59
Posts: 280
And 'the law' permits police officers to ignore the speed limit, amongst other restrictions, when on duty...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 20:25 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 13:21
Posts: 6
The Judge has ordered, in effect, police authorities to review their entire procedures in this area, i.e. she did not see that the 'law' you refer to, as pleaded by the officer, permits what he did


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 21:44 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
xylophone wrote:
The Judge has ordered, in effect, police authorities to review their entire procedures in this area, i.e. she did not see that the 'law' you refer to, as pleaded by the officer, permits what he did

Nothing of the sort.

Actually, what the judge has ordered is that the case be re-tried, as there was an incorrect piece of logic applied in the original trial. For all you know the new trial may well find him innocent just the same as the first did, but for subtly different reasons.

The nearest thing to "facts" that I can sift out of all the various reports on the judgment are:

1. He is not guilty of speeding. Full Stop. Period.
2. The original court were wrong to find him Not Guilty of dangerous driving on the grounds of "hearsay" evidence of other officers, which should have been declared inadmissible.
3. A re-trial has been ordered, with instructions only to consider relevant evidence

On this basis there would seem a strong possibility that the new court will simply acquit him on the grounds that there isn't sufficient relevant evidence.

As an aside, I was actually speaking to Lady Justice Dame Heather Hallett on Friday, though we didn't discuss PC Milton's case...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 23:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 17:37
Posts: 702
Location: Whitby, North Yorkshire
xylophone wrote:
Here we go again. This continual madcap apologia in this website for excessive speeding. Jesus - 159 mph on a public road - 159! - and you seek to justify that!!

The fact is Justice Hallett, 'one of the country's top judges', said:

"Driving at those speeds on public roads without any warning in conditions, no matter how good, and no matter what the skills of the driver, amounted to dangerous driving"

I couldn't have put it better myself. End of story.


People who come out with this 'end of story' business sound to me as if they have closed minds, so there's not much point in trying to make any sense of them while they take that stance.

Best wishes all,
Dave.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:38 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 17:46
Posts: 823
Location: Saltburn, N. Yorks
In the first half of the '60's 120mph was deemed acceptable with drum brakes and no servos, so what's so wrong with 159 on today's roads with a modern car :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:21 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
xylophone wrote:
Here we go again. This continual madcap apologia in this website for excessive speeding. Jesus - 159 mph on a public road - 159! - and you seek to justify that!!

[...]

Of course, there has to be a line drawn at some point, and the arbiter of that is and can only be the law.


You might be interested in the press briefing that Safe Speed issued before the appeal hearing:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/133

If there must be a 'line drawn somewhere' perhaps you're suggesting that Police officers should be subject to speed limits - possibly their own special speed limits. But if they were, then criminals would only need to be able to travel a few miles per hour faster to get away. That doesn't strike me as sensible at all.

And even more importantly, the bottom line is that you can't replace responsibilities with rules.

_________________
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: Tue Feb 07, 2006 21:25 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 17:37
Posts: 702
Location: Whitby, North Yorkshire
Oscar wrote:
In the first half of the '60's 120mph was deemed acceptable with drum brakes and no servos, so what's so wrong with 159 on today's roads with a modern car :?


Probably nothing, so long as you confine it to the right circumstances and you do it properly.

<Thinks: 'Ah the early 1960s - happy days! Bring 'em back. Oh, I forgot, I already have done, in a manner of speaking.' :) >

Best wishes all,
Dave.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 22:16 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 18:13
Posts: 1
This quote shows the abysmal quality of the debate on the other side and is the most perfect example of projection I have ever seen.
Quote:
By what right should cretins like this be allowed to impose their personal view of what is safe on all other road users?

_________________
ASLAN IS ON THE MOVE...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 13:22 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
CLEARED!

SKY News wrote:

159mph Officer Cleared
Updated: 11:27, Friday March 16, 2007

A police officer caught speeding in an unmarked Vauxhall Vectra at speeds of up to 159mph has had his conviction for dangerous driving overturned by the High Court.

PC Mark Milton, 38, of Telford, Shropshire was found guilty following his second trial for the offence after the High Court overturned his original acquittal.

District Judge Peter Wallis, sitting at Ludlow Magistrates' Court, ruled that his expertise as a Grade One advanced police driver was "irrelevant" to whether or not his driving was dangerous.

But Lady Justice Smith and Mr Justice Gross, sitting at London's High Court, said the district judge had "misdirected himself".


They sent the case back to him to decide whether "PC Milton's unusual driving skills were such as to make a crucial difference to the dangerousness of his driving".

Lady Justice Smith said: "It seems to me that this matter is of considerable importance to both sides of the dispute."

PC Milton had been given an absolute discharge for the offence.

During the trial, footage taken from the camera video fitted to a West Mercia Police Vauxhall Vectra was shown.

Milton was seen to be regularly travelling over 100mph on A-roads and up to 159mph on the M54 during the early hours of December 5, 2003.

The armed response officer, claimed he was honing his skills following an advanced driving course.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 14:36 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 17:37
Posts: 702
Location: Whitby, North Yorkshire
Good. That sounds like common sense.

The higher level skills of a genuinely advanced driver must be taken into account in deciding whether or not the driving was dangerous.

Basing the judgement on the opinions of normal 'careful and competent' drivers is not adequate.

Best wishes all,
Dave.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:48 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:40
Posts: 3
TripleS wrote:
Good. That sounds like common sense.

The higher level skills of a genuinely advanced driver must be taken into account in deciding whether or not the driving was dangerous.

Basing the judgement on the opinions of normal 'careful and competent' drivers is not adequate.

Best wishes all,
Dave.



What complete rubbish. There are plenty of places the driver could have tested out the handling of hias car without doing it on a public poad.

If Michael Schumacher is caught speeding on a public road he runs the risk of losing his racing licence and yet who is the better driver????

Nobody has the right to do this speed on the roads. It does not matter how advanced a driver you are. You cannot predict the unforeseeable. An animal could run in front of you. A tyre could blow out. The guy is just an idiot and he should have been convicted of this in the same way any of the rest of us would have been.

Do you honestly think when the police find these videos by idiots on you tube showing themselves at ridiculous speeds that they will consider whether the driver is doing 159mph in a 'safe way' or how advanced their driving skills are. Don't make me laugh!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 13:51 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 17:37
Posts: 702
Location: Whitby, North Yorkshire
Piddy wrote:
TripleS wrote:
Good. That sounds like common sense.

The higher level skills of a genuinely advanced driver must be taken into account in deciding whether or not the driving was dangerous.

Basing the judgement on the opinions of normal 'careful and competent' drivers is not adequate.

Best wishes all,
Dave.



What complete rubbish. There are plenty of places the driver could have tested out the handling of hias car without doing it on a public poad.

If Michael Schumacher is caught speeding on a public road he runs the risk of losing his racing licence and yet who is the better driver????

Nobody has the right to do this speed on the roads. It does not matter how advanced a driver you are. You cannot predict the unforeseeable. An animal could run in front of you. A tyre could blow out. The guy is just an idiot and he should have been convicted of this in the same way any of the rest of us would have been.

Do you honestly think when the police find these videos by idiots on you tube showing themselves at ridiculous speeds that they will consider whether the driver is doing 159mph in a 'safe way' or how advanced their driving skills are. Don't make me laugh!!


Welcome to SafeSpeed, Piddy - and thanks for your contribution. Don't worry, I won't attempt to make you laugh; I know when a job's too much for me. :)

Meanwhile I stand by my comments.

Best wishes all,
Dave.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 : 0.554s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]