Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Awol, May 18, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. OK , So i am an Advanced driver, I am also trained in fire arms, but i am not in the police. Do you think i would have been able to get away with going that speed? I think not.

    Ok he was seeing what the car can do, surely they have test tracks for that sort of thing. And you dont hone your skills on the road at going more than double the legal speed whilst putting every one in danger.
    Even advanced drivers cannot say the actions of other idiots on the road, you have to second guess half the time.

    He should be made to walk the beat, and loose his license at least.
  2. Got to agree AWOL. So, next time the beak drags me up for doing over the ton I can use this case as an example? My excuse could be 'I was honing my skills as a pilot by 'driving low level and at high speed simulating the effect of flying in a hostile environment..your honour...'

    Was he on duty, on a shout? Was he cleared and authorised? Was he undergoing or giving instruction? When would a Police officer be required to ever drive at 159mph? I thought thats why they have helis now. Sounds like a big bag of bull.

    My Black Rat traffic pals over at the Met tell me that they cannot drive above the speed limit unless they are on a call or on official training cleared by the appropriate channels.
  3. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    It is always difficult to make a complete judgement from brief newspaper or media reports. However i find it difficult to empathise with this PC. he may be very highly trained in driving and skilled in the use of vehicles. But the other people using the roads certainly ain't and if he is travelling at that speed how can he react properly so someone else's driving?

    The report also said he was trying out a new vehicle to find out its capabilities - so he drove a vehicle without knowing how it would handle. Public streets are not the place for that sort of training.

    Im my very humble opinion, and going on what is ion the report - he should have been convicted as charged as it appears he was guilty as charged.

    I know that this is a spurious argument but this could also apply to firearms officers with a new bundook, trying it out down the high street because he wants to know how it shoots around buildings with wind blowing in all directions. 'Honest m'lud, I was not shooting at anyone and I am a highly trained marksman.'
  4. Newsnight just reporting he did 84 in a 30 limit!! What's he got, a bloody forcefield around him?

    Chunter, chunter, mumble, dribble....
  5. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    Well it would appear that District Judge Bruce Morgan has set a precedence.
    Just got to have the Advanced Driver's cse up and we're away !

    We'll be supported by "two police officers who gave evidence for the prosecution, including West Mercia Police's senior driving instructor, had declined to classify the defendant's driving as dangerous." After all, these two officers couldn't have been prejudiced just because he's also a copper, could they ?

    Or perhaps Bruce Morgan is also in the habit of putting his foot down ?
    You scratch my back...
  6. Some of West Mercia's drivers are bloody nutters - particularly when you consider just how rural some of their roads are - so I'd not consider their chief instructor much of a witness.
  7. Hypocrisy? Police?

    Well if you wonder about that then may I suggest you apply for an FAC, or talk to them about the scale of policing of hunt saboteurs versus the scale of policing of the Countryside March/Rally...

    Or possibly ask Ian Blair to make a non-partisan point during a General Election...

  8. Humph! I got 3 points & GBP 40 for doing 50mph on a temporary 40mph stretch of an (aside from me) EMPTY 3 LANE 'A' ROAD! Then again, I consistently bust speed limits, so I'm not saying I'm hard done by, but hypocrisy is hypocrisy & this is a neon signed example of it. :evil:
  9. If there is any good news it's that he was bubbled by his own.

    They replayed the on board video and shopped him for what they saw. The fact he got off (84 in a 30?!!) is quite frankly a sign of legal corruption :twisted:

    He should now be taken off driving duties as he clearly can't exercise self control.
  10. It's worth noting that he did this 'in the early hours' of 5 December, i.e. at night, which makes it even worse, in my view, unless of course he was wearing some special NVG device which let him see beyond his own headlight beams.
  11. The most annoying thing about this is inconsistency. My mate (an advanced driver) driving on an authorized operation has just been stuck on by a county force for doing (wait for it) 34 in a 30 on a semi-rural road!

    He'll almost certainly have it boshed, but it does illustrate the double standard, not to mention the paperwork.

    As for this bloke, well you might take some crumbs of comfort from the fact that although the criminal justice system has taken it's course then the internal discipline system now gets it's bite of the cherry at him. And clearly his force aren't impressed...

  12. Agreed, so should Insp Keith Howes for trying to cover this with that inane excuse story.
  13. 159mph and case dismissed? Unbelievable (except in BLiar's Britain)
    159mph in a Vauxhall Vectra? Unbelievable
  14. Having re-read the story, the thing that is really inexcusable is his speeding in a 30 MPH zone.

    I'm not an advanced driver, I'm the next one down from that (usually called "response") but I've driven with many "Class One's" on numerous shouts in both marked and unmarked vehicles. The better ones really are the dog's B's when it comes to driving extremely fast safely.

    When the instructors couldn't bring themselves to say that this driver's conduct was dangerous was because it's a core part of police driving doctrine that you drive to the conditions of the road. You might agree or disagree with that, but that's the way the training works.

    Having said that, when training (which was this guy's defence) police vehicles will abide by the speed limits in all areas except roads with the National Speed Limit. Then you drive to the speed the conditions safely allow, and to the driver's skill and ability. Therefore, this bloke is bang to rights for his conduct in the 30 MPH zone at least. He wasn't on a shout.

    As somebody else said, here in the Met the advanced drivers are only allowed to drive like that when they are assigned a call, or if the advanced driver initiates a pursuit with a suspect vehicle (whereupon the control room gets involved, including making the increasingly common decision to terminate the pursuit).

    Lastly, the civilian advanced driving qualification is in no way analogous to a police advanced driver. I was allowed to call myself a civilian advanced driver and claim the insurance discount after my driving course (and as I said, I'm not police advanced). The police advanced driver training is a month long and builds on the three week "response" course. Two weeks is high-performance driving skills and the other two is pursuit driving skills. The standard is high and they're not afraid to fail people.

    Most police accidents involve "basic" panda car drivers or ambitious "response" drivers trying to chase people. Even more are caused by people not knowing how to respond when they see blue flashing lights in their rear view mirror (not a criticism, it's not really covered in the Highway Code except to say give way).

    This story is really about the alienation between the law-abiding majority and the police, mainly due to politically-correct policing and ruthless revenue-gathering from GATSO cameras (discussed at length elsewhere on this forum). A few years back people would have been far more relaxed about this; after all he is technically qualified to drive that fast in certain circumstances.

    A bit of devil's advocacy but yes, he should have been prosecuted for the 30 MPH offence.