blonde poker forum

I was just listening to the news story about the policeman in court over his excessive speed.  160mph they said.

He claimed to be practising in the early hours of the morning to get used to his new patrol car.

I say fair enough.  If my loved ones are in a pile-up, I'd rather have this guy racing to the scene to get them out than someone who daren't put their foot down because they have never experienced high speed.

I'm more surprised a Vectra will do 160mph!  :D

id prefer an ambulance to get there first instead of george carter!

I heard it was 159mph  :D

The problem is police have high speed training, this guy just wanted to play with his new car. I'd love to be able to do that.

Ideally yes!  But the police are always there first, they all have some medical training too as far as I'm aware.

I know he was off duty and should have got permission from somebody but I feel he's been harshly treated.

He hasn't had any punishment, just a long trial

whether or not  he was harshly treated is up for debate, i still think the guy acted like a twat!

He was convicted of dangerous driving.  I don't think he was given a punishment though.

It's tough to know who to believe.  I'd like to think his intentions were good and he really was just trying to get used to his new car.

Must be a bit of a mug if he got done.

Usually the polis get away with this kinda jazz.

He must be pissed at the guy who shopped him.

I think he should have got the same punishment as anyone else. Why do i get punished for speeding yet he doesn't.

If he needs to practice at those speeds he should go to a track, like anyone else.

;iagree;

One more point, the fastest person caught speeding up until this incident was at 157mph. He was given 6 months imprisonment and a big fine, somehow it doesn't seem fair that this guy gets away with it.

This was months ago wasn't it?
Anyway the geezer should be locked up, laws apply to everyone and he should get what is deserved.
There was an ambulance driver done for this sort of thing while back, he was delivering organs for transplants and would have lost his job if convicted.......yet some Schumacher wannabe is allowed to do it for no reason, makes no sense.

I agree 159MPH in a Vectra is Quick. But I cannot understand all the drama .
At my work place we have cars that can exceed 200MPH. So 160 is not that quick.
However in a Vauxhall (other than the old Lotus Carlton) I think it is a bit risky.

In Nottingham we don't have any quick roads. We have to use an official Test Track
called the A50.

However you look at it speed does not kill.

Highly Trained Police officer doing 160MPH in the early hours or drunk driver at any speed? Your Choice.

Regards

M
 
   

Agreed

There's no track in the Country where he could get to those speeds.
Anyway all the bad guys are on the roads. Not the track.

Regards

M

There's nowhere that they can replicate a bar brawl either.

I still want them to throw the book at a coppah who knocks some heads in on his Saturday night off.

Highly Trained Police officer doing 160MPH in the early hours or drunk driver at any speed? Your Choice.

Neither thanks. Both are dangerous. This guy was just another example of someone abusing his position and the soft touch approach with him by the judiciary just sends out the wrong message IMO.

Lets be honest here. He was most likely speeding to get wherever he was going, got caught and made up an excuse. Now he's gettin let off lightly cos he's a copper and that sets a bad example and is an injustice to people who have been punished for doing the same thing.

do you think Jenson Button would get let off for this if he said he was practicing?

lol, or Lennox Lewis starts a bar brawl cos he's 'practicing'.

LOL imagine Ron Jeremy practicing his trade :D

When i get a speeding ticket and 3 points for going 7 mph over the speed limit at 2am on dual carriageway with not another car in sight i feel a bit offended because it's presumed i'm not responsible enough to make the decision that it is safe to do so. Some bloke goes at 159mph and gets off, i think it's disgusting.

I keep thinking that if I or my family are upside down on the tarmac, I'd rather have this guy hammering it towards the accident to help injured passengers (ambulances don't patrol motorways), than somebody who dare not go too fast because he is not used to his car.

Police do train at high speeds on public roads.  I remember watching something about the training of three officers a few back.  They would exceed 100mph in their Omega in 60mph zones.  Dangerous for most people but not if you've been trained to handle those speeds for months before hand.

I don't have any problems with this guy driving at this speed, even if I'm not allowed.

There seems to be a lot of feeling like that.

If I can't do it, why can he?

I bet if this guy lost control of the car while he was 'practicing' and ploughed into your wife and kids you would think differently.

Absolutely.  But, the fact is he was running at that speed on an empty motorway, in good weather, in a new car designed for high speed.  I know motorways (I'm sure you've driven on the M69, Red) that are complete void of all traffic after a certain time.

Now if he was driving by the local school!

I'm about to spend 4 hours on the M6 today.  I hope I don't need the speeding policeman!

I have not read the papers relating to this incident as half the time the I don't belive the crap that is put in them, however I have been reading the posts on here,  although this info is gathered through the press i shall still put in my opinions.

To me the matter of facts are as follows. ..Q1. Would they police allow a member of staff to perform high speed driving without full training and been passed as competant.        Answer................. NO

Q2 Was this oficer on duty at the time of the incident.
answer NO..


Come on guys be real ..this fella would have had his training at the right time and place, therefore there can be no justifiable reason for him to " practice" out of work hours.


Next thing we know I shall be waiting for the Traffic Lights to change and a fireman will come along and cut the roof off my car on his way home..just to " Pracice".. 8)

slightly off the topic but another example of police being able to do what they want and get away with it. ive seen the cops sitting on double yellows causing traffic to narrow into 1 lane from 2 fast lanes, right next to the row of takeaway shops. they were in gettng their dinner. also, ive seen them going through lights for no obvious reason and glaring into cars as if they are trying to intimidate folk. i dont like it one bit. pisses me right off. on a more balanced note im sure plenty of police dont do these things but some do :(

...and they never clean up their horse poo.  ;yellowcard;

I went to a meeting at night, and parked on the roadside. Also attending, and parked on the same road, were a high-ranking policeman, someone from race-relations, and a politician.

Guess who was the only one to get a ticket for parking without lights?

What nonsense.

The higher the speed the less control the driver has over the vehicle, the breaking disatnces increase so if there is something happening further up the road and this bam is doing speeds over a 150 mph and can't stop the car in time and runs into the back of another vehicle and kills the passengers you are saying speed is not responsible for this?

IMO, there is no reason for cars to have the capacity to do any more than 70mph, afterall that is the fastsest anyone should be driving in this country.

Look at it this way, from an insurance perspective why do you think insurance companies load policies for drivers who drive high power sports vehicles, or for motorists who ECP remaps done to increase BHP?

The reason is its a higher risk, motorists driving at high speed are more likely to be involved in an acident than those driving with the speed limits.    Another reason why insurance premiums go up for motorists with speeding convictions no matter if its someone who does 38 in a 30 zone or someone doing a 100 mph on the motorway.

The fucker should have been locked up and banned from driving for a very long time.

There are other things that cause people to have accidents yet the government chooses to ignore them. A motorbike magazine called RiDE did a test testing low speed motorbike skills. They did 5 tests (but i can only remember 4) to study the influence of drinking, tiredness, the cold and stress. As you would expect the drinking guy performed poorly (but only after 4 pints of stella, at 2 pints he didn't do badly), the coldness guy did terribly and the tiredness and stress guy did very badly (worse than the guy who had 4 pints). These are guys who regularly go to track days, constantly push their machines to the limit, are very experienced and skilled.

Basically they showed that while speed can have an impact on the potential for an accident, stress and tiredness are have a much larger influence.

Stress, coldness and tiredness kill? So can having a wasp in your car.

I don't quite get the motorbike magazine's point. When a coppah pulls you over, he can test yer breath for booze, are they suggesting you should take their blood pressure and temperature too.

dont give them any ideas tank.....lol

lol, there were saying that too much emphasis was being put on speeding and people were ignoring the other factors that cause accidents. Basically as a biker you are more interested in this kinda stuff because it hurts when you crash  :D

>:?

as i understood it it wasnt just the motorway he was clocked at various speeds exceeding 80 up to 130 on A class roads with soem parts of it single lane....
not thought out and  certainly not safe...indeed is it not policy to now pull back from high speed chases and rely on helicopters or staging to deal with the danger of chases.
i see no valid reason for this....if you need to "get experience" i`m sure that the police could cordon off roads at times of the day or evening for high speed practise.....not DIY efforts at getting to know your car.

it just doesnt wash that he was perfoming real in depth practise....he was thrill seeking under the guise of training and in  my humble opinion what makes it worse is he attempts to put a veneer of credability to it when ge gets pulled....

i believe the phrase is policing by consent for our good and on our behalf....i dont see any of that here.

i`d have him off traffic, out of a car , a decent fine and doing the beat to knock the bravado out of him for that...i would not however ruin his life by sacking him...too much time and effort went in to training him to throw a career away...

The one without any lights on??  8)

I am ex job (but I'm ok now) and the guy who did him should be given a medal. Brave thing to do - dobbing your mate in. Within the job, imho, traffic are the most intimidating section towards other officers - and thats how it should be - live and die by the sword.

There are plenty of courses to go on to improve driving skills, and if the force thought it was that important they would send officers to race tracks abroard to get more experience. His excuse was poor and I cant believe he thought he would get away with it.

In reality high speed chases are frowned upon - and they would prefer to catch then using stingers or other methods rather than chasing them at high speeds which is dangerous to all including innocent bystanders. 

Admittedly - I want someone who knows how to drive well and fast if I need them in an emergency but practice isn't needed - they are always driving at speeds to attend incidents - it's not a rare job for them to be doing during the day. The training for traffic is brilliant - once they have passed they don't need practice - they are doing it all the blimmin time!

There is absolutely no chance of them being able to do 160mph when trying to get to a major incident....

Exactly my point - never needs to drive at that speed in the Uk - ever.

Apart from June time by a small village near Northampton?!

Sorry - haven't had my dinner yet - whooshed over me completely!! Need it explained in words of one syllabul!  8)

was my poor attempt at humour... the F1 Grand Prix.... (but I suppose he wouldnt be in that anyway!)

(http://www.heli.com/about/stories_pics/nigel_clarke.jpg)

LOl... thou technically they would be doing knotts ph

I think responding, by road, to a major incident would be far too dangerous to do in practice - unless the roads were also deserted at that time.

As to his "practice" well i think it's inexcusable. If he felt it was neccessary then he should have sort permission in advance and, if his employers agreed, then they should surely sort something out. Whilst I may agree somewhat with MPower about speeding not being the ultimate evil on the roads I do think the law should be applied consistantly and he should receive the same punishment a member of the public would get for the same offence.

It's 5am, a patrol car is heading towards the M6 via the M69 (5 miles from the exit), a call comes in and it's a pile up 1 mile after the M69 joins the M6.

The speeding policeman will hit 160mph in his Vectra on the M69.  If I'm in the crash and my legs are on fire, I'd like him to exceed 160mph if possible.

If i'm on the motorway and a speeding policeman shoots past me and surprises someone further up the road who then loses control and forces a pile up which involves me, i would be pretty pissed off with the copper.

Surely you don't need to practice to do 160mph. You just turn on your siren and push your foot down.

If your fuel filled car is on fire and you are trapped I'm not sure if the he would be allowed, trained or prepared to get you...unless the call went in at exactly the time you caught fire, or just before, then again this example doesnt really work, but even if it did i think you have shown the level of presise detail that would be needed to make it remotely viable.

I think he said it was the new car he was trying to get used to at high speeds.  Rather than just the high speed itself.

Yes you need the practice which is why they do practice.  This guy just got caught doing it off duty, which suggests he was just "giving it the beans" to get home for supper.  Perhaps so.  I think a lot of people would do the same if they could get away with it.

Especially if it was king prawns in chilli sauce, yum!

Yes, if a car comes up behind you at 70 metres per second it would undoubtably cause problems with anything more than a completely deserted road.

On duty officers dont do it on the roads....
another thing, why the hell did he have access to a police car while off duty, poor controls

But that is the point. Other people get punished for it.

There are plenty of examples I can give you, Rooky.

On duty officers do use very high speeds.  Especially when they are 10 mins from clocking off and 20 miles from base ;)

If your're trapped in your car and your legs are on fire then it hardly matters what speed the attending officer's able to travel at. This ain't the movies!

It's interesting to read the points of view on this and the reasoning behind them.  Thanks for all replies.

I like a healthy debate.

dont have as much of an issue with 120 mph....

True, it's not the movies, but there are lots of examples of a need to get out of a car or get basic medical attention quickly. 

yep...

Now that is interesting.  Care to elaborate?  120mph crash or 160mph.  It's not going to be pretty and both are very illegal to you and I.

Perhaps more control is retained at 120, I wouldn't know, honest guv! ;)

What if, as the paramedics say, "every second counts" and the cops aren't going quite as fast as they could to attend a crash?

Firstly it would have to be on duty and in reponse to a call. 

120 is 53 metres/sec, 160 is 71, that is a lot quickert in % terms. (using a mile as being 1600 metres, always not sure between 1500 or 1600!!)

Didnt really answer your question thou... the problem is the chance of injury to others not in the accident. Its harsh but it is not worth risking serious injury to many people, for the 'chance' of increasing the chance of saving another... spot the theme?!! Chances not worth taking imho

Sorry MrMoves. I was being flippant. The serious point I was making was that there'd have to be someone at the scene (not racing to the scene) to be of any use to you should you find yourself trapped in your car with your legs on fire. I REALLY appreciate the fact that I can come on here and have a difference of opinion with a total stranger/fellow poster without getting verbally abused as would happen on most other forums.

Cheers,

Will

Doh - it confused me because I live in a small village near Northampton and just got done for speeding.......and I was wondering how you knew!!  ::)

I agree. Unfortunately in reality by the time the call has been passed through the emergency operator, to the control room who take the details and type it into a computer, this is then sent to another computer with the dispatcher who gets the nearest available car to respond - your legs are likely to resemble a sunday afternoon barbeque.

I have worked at Luton, which at that time was the third busiest station in the country, on a saturday night with 5 officers to cover the entire area. I honestly thought at the briefing that some guys had already gone out on a job..but it's very common to have that level of manning. If you have 2 traffic cars covering the M1 and are 15 miles up the road at the service station and 2 patrol cars already committed elsewhere they're a long time coming.

However good a driver you are you have to negotiate the road traffic that resembles New Delhi on a Saturday night in some areas - stalls and people spilling out on to the road, small children playing in the street, no one would ever be able to get anywhere in that area quickly unless they ran peole over.

His excuse tha he was practising is laughable, should have got the same punishment as anyone else.

The thing with speed is that other people don't expect you to travel at that speed. If he's going 160 under blue light then everyone will expect him to go that fast and will get out of his way. Therefore he doesn't really need to practice driving fast in a straight line, how your car handles through corners at high speed is a different issue.

If he isn't under blue light and he is going that fast he is a serious danger to himself and others. The difference between 120 and 160 is that people may expect to see someone doing 90-100 on a motorway so an extra 20 mph means that the guy won't close on them too quickly. However, 160 means he is closing on the person 60 mph faster than they expect. They may suddenly be frightened by a car appearing behind them so quickly and they may not leave themselves/the other person enough space when changing lane.

On the road you regularly drive down you know how much space you need at xyz junction before pulling out however, if someone is speeding you are not going to leave them the right amount of space when you pull out and they may have to brake heavily and lose control. That is the problem.

I am still adamant that you do not need to practice driving fast in a straight line in a car. Getting used to driving fast in a new car means getting a feel for how the suspension/chassis moves. In a straight line you aren't really going to notice a difference.

I know this isn't the point you are really making but it just isn't true.

There are loads of drivers when faced with a blue light approaching drive very badly. On a motorway people are oblivious and continue meandering between middle and outside lane, in the towns they dither as to where to pull over and if they're on a mobile - well they often just don't see the lights, not much good when the boys are on a silent approach (burglary in progress etc)

Also - this one really annoys me - people oblivious to traffic around them don't see the lights until they are right up their arses, a good driver is continually looking in rear view mirror to see whats going on behind as well as in front.

Unfortunately, its a bit like people in the queue at sainburys, when the cashier asks them to pay its as if this is a new concept and they fiddle about in their bags looking for their purse. With drivers, when the lights come up behind them it's a complete shock and then they have to look for a place to pull in or move over.

ok, fair enough.

I couldn't disagree with that more, speed limits are just the best way of handling safety, they are flawed in some cases.

If it's snowing visability is poor doing 60 on the motorway is clearly more dangerous than doing 100 on a dry empty motorway.

I can't see what he did that was dangerous. As for the Police getting a softer ride than Joe Bloggs, so they should! It's not the nicest job in the world and they are not paid nearly enough. The guy can clearly drive well it serves the general public better to have him on the road than in a prison.

I thought i was the only one!

Note to Flushy ..... STOP USING A PURSE ... it aint helping quash the rumours :D :D

If there is a law which the people agree with, then it must apply to all.

Now the speed limits in this country are a joke which are ignored by most if not all the non pedantic motorway users, but this clown doing 156ish on public roads is unacceptable and he should be punished just the same as you or me, to discourage  future breaches.

Do you really think after what he has gone through he is going to do it again? He has taken far more punishment than he deserves.

Do you really think after what he has gone through he is going to do it again?

I don't know the answer to that and putting myself in his shoes won't help as I wouldn't have done it in the first place so trying to think like him would be a bit of a non starter.


He has taken far more punishment than he deserves.

Isn't this what's being debated? I don't think he's received a fitting punishment at all. The police should be accountable to the same laws as the rest of us. A two-tier, biased, justice system just serves to perpetuate antisocial/criminal thinking/behaviour IMO.

@flushy, But now people are going to believe it is ok to do 156mph on the motorway. He was trained for high speed driving which is a good thing but what about other people who aren't.

You have to take into account the individual circumstances, thats why we have courts! He is trained at high speed driving, he presents less of a danger to the public than you or i would at those speeds. Do you want the police pulled over when they are whizzing about on the job aswell? They are breaking the limit afterall!

If a trained fighter gets in a bar fight and hurts someone, he should be punished to a greater extent than a normal person as he knows full well the capability he poses in a fight. The same has to work the other way, his rule breaking is less severe because he has extensive training in breaking that rule.

He has been talked about in the media for ages, he has been hounded by the press for ages his face has been on the news constantly he has little chance of career development, i really don't see the need to punish him any further.

When they're on duty they may well break the limit but they're not at that time breaking the law.

He wasn't on duty and had no business driving as he did. His reasoning has a childhood charm about it though which is kinda cute. It's the type of excuse a group of primary school pupils would come up with but it shouldn't cut the mustard in a court of law. Terrible judgement on his part.

By your reasoning then racing drivers may aswell do the same thing as the courts would be lenient.


Boxers do get treated more harshly, i think you get done for using offensive weapons rather than assault, GBH etc.
As the copper was off duty he was just another member of joe public with no extra priviledges.
As for being hounded and harrassed etc. GOOD!!! the courts didn't punish him so he should get grief from elsewhere instead.
I keep laughing at the practising excuse, imagine if a lapdancer was practising in a primary school playground :D

 rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao   I like that analogy!

That might not be as ridiculous as it sounds. They have to practice somewhere right? We need an expert opinion on this one. Where's Ironside?

Yes exactly so if you punish someone more severely based on their skills surely you can be more lenient as-well?

A racing driver has skills at driving fast but not at driving fast on open roads. Although yes they are still less dangerous than you and me so the punishment should reflect that.

Diving Laws and attitudes are so out of date.

Look at tyres, legal tread depth is 1.6mm. Everything proves in dry weather 1.0mm tread depth (Not Legal)
will stop you alot quicker then a new tyre with  8-10mm of tread on it.

Braking in a good sports car at 62mph 120ft at 124mph 700ft.

Speed does not kill. Not being alert or having a car which is not maintained is the problem.

Your doing 150mph MPH on the Autobahn( a 2 lane dual carriageway) and Doris pulls in front of you
not looking in her Micra. Who's fault is that.

The problem with speed in this country is people in shite cars thinking  "He's speeding I'll pull out and try and kill him"
he's going too fast so it must be his fault.

I think every U.K motorist should be sent to Germany to learn how to drive. In Germany on the Autobahn (2 lane Dual Carriageway) your doing 160mph MateyBoy in his Lambo is going 190mph. In the UK you would Brake test him, In Germany you move out of the way.

The PC who has had this Drama for him and his Family for doing 160mph is Disgusting. You don't become a Police officer for the Ego or the Money.

Some moaning do gooders on this site Partner/Husband/wife/Child is about to pop to the paws I'm sure they'd be miffed
if  Mr Officer did not go above the speed limit in the early hours on the Motorway.

Regards

M

Complete >:?

Regards

M

The grooves are only there to help in wet weather.

M.     Can't you disagree without resorting to that?

In the scenarios you use to 'support' your argument you confuse the issue of whether or not the officer in question is on or off duty.

   Some moaning do gooders on this site Partner/Husband/wife/Child is about to pop to the paws I'm sure they'd be miffed
    in Mr Officer did not go above the speed limit in the early hours on the Motorway.

How does disagreeing with you on this = being a 'moaning do gooder'?