isnt on the armed response unit

Well, it says he was in the new articles...

and wasnt even responding to an incident...

No, he was practicing what he would have had to do if he had been responding to an incident.

Rob.

This has two important elements to it.

Firsty Speed, Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 Section 87 states that no statutory provision imposing a speed limit shall apply on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the provision was likely to hinder the purpose for which it is being used. Clearly if he ws getting his refs, then he would be stuffed. The use here was to asceratin what the vehicle capabilities were, therefore having greater knowledge of that vehicles capabilities in a real life situation, therefore Police use.

Secondly, dangerous or careless driving. Evidence of the manner in which a vehicle is driven is needed to consider supporting a prosecution in both cases, pure speed does not suffice. In regards to Careless driving, there is only one objective standard of driving expected by us all. It has to be proven that the driver fell below that standard of driving, again we're talking speed, not manner of driving. Then the standard of driving expected of a competent and prudent driver is a matter for the courts to decide. I would suggest that a class 1 advanced police driver, with experience of handling a performance vehicle at high speeds drove within the capabilites of his competence.

There is a hell of a difference between an IAM driving course and a police driving course. The former will teach you to read the road at speed limits. The latter to read the road, for as far as the eye can see, whilst conducting high speeds.

Forget opinion, and mine is in agreement with the court,the above is hard fact.

My rambling is now complete!!!!!

Stone Cold...Yep!

I think the for me at least after the initial well I'd get the book thrown at me is that...he is trained I am not...but I don't profess to ever trying to go that fast even on a track yet!

But what it does show / highlight is the appropiate use of speed. I still stand by the initial high speed testing should be done privatly or superiors being aware of testing periods, if this was so then this case should never of happend, the more I read and appreciate the views, it does feel like he's a victim of office politics, I mean they could of just erased the tape and wound him up about it.

What an absolute load of rubbish all this debate is.No one has even touched on the most significant area which surprises and annoys me greatly

How did the son of a gun get 159 mph out of a vectra repmobile and why wasn't he caught doing it in a chipped Skoda vRS high speed response car.

Think of the publicity there would have been.Vauxhall must be chuffed to bits

I reckon a Skoda employee should sacrifice his licence for the benefit of us all,get collared doing 170 down a deserted motorway and well and truly put the vRS on the map(bleedin vauxhall gsi mumble grumble buggrit)

As for the case,with no one being hurt or injured,I don't really care if he got off or not

in oxford there is a road that is single carriageway but pretty wide and long, its the marston ferry link road from marston to summer town. its also pretty damn straigh for the most part, the only bend being gentle. this road has a 40mph limit on it. there are no pavements there, but if i drove down this road at 3am at 70mph while absolutely no one was about i would get done for wreckless driving, speeding, dangerous driving and anything else they might be able to find, yet i am driving within the speed limits i have been trained for, my car is more than capable and the road was perfectly clear and safe.

if anything me doing that is safer as it is at a much lower speed so the car can cope a lot better

i would get done for wreckless driving, speeding, dangerous driving and anything else they might be able to find, yet i am driving within the speed limits i have been trained for, my car is more than capable and the road was perfectly clear and safe.

Yes. Because legally you don't have any exemption from the speed limit...hence you will be charged with speeding...

Rob.

Colin

Each force deals with things differently. In my area, if you're on a 999 call, then you're exempt. If you're not, then you're stuck on as per Joe Public, whether you're driving a marked or unmarked Police vehicle. If you're engaged in testing a vehicle, the usual thing would be to inform your control, so when the gatso pictures come in, the time and date details can be verified against the CAD log. Clearly it is unknown what course of action was taken prior to the drive.

I agree office politics look to have played a part. Could be a newly promoted Inspector or above, or one going for promotion. It could simply have been the local authority saw the speeds on the photos, liased with their own legal team and pased it straight on to the CPS, who in some areas love nothing more than to raise their profile by gunning for Police officers. Think, how else did this make the national press? Someone somewhere has decided to leak it, and given the support of his superior ranks, I cant see it being the Police.

What no-one has mentioned surprisingly is that respect is due to the Officer for getting a car to 159mph, and for controlling it on the Highway as well. Goes back to my point about the training.

my only point is, yeah the guy was trained and maybe a damn good driver. but most other road users arent trained at high speeds and are not used to cars approaching at that kinda speed. all it takes is someone to pull out into his lane, driving skill goes out the window, laws of physics take over.

training should be fully documented and done in a proffessional manner, not one guy choosing to have a fast journey in is nice new car.

i really dont see many persuits etc being allowed to drive at that speed, most would be stopped as it would start being dangerous to the public.

How did the son of a gun get 159 mph out of a vectra repmobile and why wasn't he caught doing it in a chipped Skoda vRS high speed response car.

the vectra GSI in question is a 3.2v6 with 211bhp and 221lbft it hits 60 in 7.2 seconds and tops out at 154mph

if he's getting done for 159mph then that'll be an actual 159mph and not an indicated 159mph therefore he was driving the car outside of the manufactures safe limits for the car by a noticable amount, so was driving exsesivly in a car that isn't capable of what he was doing

I reckon a Skoda employee should sacrifice his licence for the benefit of us all' date='get collared doing 170 down a deserted motorway and well and truly put the vRS on the map(bleedin vauxhall gsi mumble grumble buggrit)

Or a non UK resisdent from a forgin national country who's only here once.

Can't argue with that!!!

Because he's undoubtedly a better driver than Mr Average he's safer to drive faster.

That must mean those amongst us who have passed the advanced driving test are allowed to drive quicker without penalty than normal motorists?

Not that I would encourage anyone...

The comment I made before about civil....if it's ok to have autobahn's in germany why not here...well that logic was ok untill Germany thought about pulling them.

The point is similar to on the continent it's possible to buy a car with a waranty covered remap, the UK it's unsafe to remap thus the warranty issues.

Similar logic, why 26 miles of water makes a difference. Ok I'm seriously over simplfying the logic, but lets face it M6 to Scotland at 2 in the morning...or rush hour, it's obvious when to use it and when not to. I think the time of variable limits is nigh. That said night time driving is spooky....but hey thats why we have natural selection.

Oh parts of the M54 are downhill; he's was cheating or the gear was not calibrated ( but I don't know about that stuff ).

That must mean those amongst us who have passed the advanced driving test are allowed to drive quicker without penalty than normal motorists?

With all due respect, that's somewhat spurious logic.

It would mean that yes, you'd probably be safer than someone less trained even driving quicker, but there's no automatic "entitlement" as a result of this. Furthermore, police grade 1 is a bit more advanced than the likes of IAM and RoSPA...

The reason he got off wasn't because he was more highly trained, or they were "looking after their own", or whatever other theories people wish to put forward.

It's because it was deemed that he was obeying the law of the land, and under these circumstances it's difficult to be found guilty of a crime...

Rob.

No. By doing an advanced driving test, you should be naturally quicker, (within the speed limits!!). There is a hell of a difference between a Police driving course and a normal driving course. Lets not get away from the fact that this was not in his own vehicle, but a Police vehicle, if it was his own then the book would have quite deservedly been thrown at him.

I don't speed in proximity of others, or I try not too, they will encorage me though...

You might be skilled, but Mr Dobsy who isn't skilled, so pulls out unaware your there or approaching at lets say 30+ speed difference, as Loz said physics takes over, even Gt racers won't stop that impact.

It's the age old thing of knowing when and where to use it. Aproach speed needs to be minimal whereever possible, that includes catching traffic. If two lanes are full I'm very very cautious, anything could happen in lane 1 to effect lane 2 and so on.

A roads are different...for some reason I'll push on them more than an M-way, but they are more fun and I've taken to trying to stick to 60 for as long and return to 60 as soon as possible. Which actually might be more dangerous than taking my time and doing 70...but it's less stressfull driving and I get there about the same time; except when I get overtaken by Xania's in Scotland, albeit 5 miles after the last sharp left

Dont forget he's also got Police Disaplinary to go through now' date=' which is "on the balance of probabilities" not "beyond a reasonable doubt" so he could yet lose his job technically, and his pension which goes with it.

[/quote']

As this bloke seems to have done nothing wrong in driving at these speeds why does he have to go through a disciplinary?

If his speed was acceptable accordoing to the remit of the police this seems odd.

If the police deem his speed unacceptable then surely this would constitute dangerous driving? :confused:

If the police deem his speed unacceptable then surely this would constitute dangerous driving? :confused:

It was an unauthorised action - but the judge retrospectively agreed that what the guy was doing was doing fell within the remit of the police.

Neither the judge nor the driving trainers felt the guy was driving dangerously - hence no charge for this.

Also, excess speed does not automatically incur a charge of dangerous driving - less so if you work for an emergency service.

Rob.

my only point is, yeah the guy was trained and maybe a damn good driver. but most other road users arent trained at high speeds and are not used to cars approaching at that kinda speed.

What other cars?

It was 3am on an empty motorway and was all documented on film for the court to see exactly what happened

Reminds me of my grandad when he picked me up from Gatwick airport a few years back in his Lada Estate. That was embarrassing, especially as he had the keys to my Saxo VTR I owned at the time, but he then proceeded to drive on the M23, in the fast lane, at 5pm, at no more than 50 mph, and then swear and gesticulate wildly at every driver who undertook him, flashed at him, gave him the bird etc. I was rapidly sinking into the footwell by the time we hit the M25!!!!!! To top it off, when I advised him of where he was going wrong, he didn't offer to let me drive, (that would have been fun, not), but promptly slowed down, still in the fast lane, and stated that he had bee ndriving a long time, new what was right and said if I didn't like it he'd stop and I could bloody well walk home. I kept quiet as he would have stopped right where he was in the fast lane -needless to say I drive myself now!!!!!!! A bit of light relief from the subject at hand!!!!!!

If he is a trained persuit driver, and in the Judges eyes it was alright for him to drive the way he did, surely a legal precedent has now been set: if all of us do all the advanced drivers courses that he did, then as long as we can prove that we are "as qualified" as the officer in question, we all should (in legal theory at least) get away with 84mph in a 30mph zone too.

Thats only in theory I guess....

if all of us do all the advanced drivers courses that he did, then as long as we can prove that we are "as qualified" as the officer in question, we all should (in legal theory at least) get away with 84mph in a 30mph zone too.

Not even close. The guy didn't get off because he was "highly trained". He got off because he was performing a legitimate exercise in a police vehicle which doesn't have to adhere to speed limits if to do so would hinder the purpose for which the vehicle is being used.

So legal theory/practice hasn't changed as a result of this case...

Rob.

He was not authourised.......Thats the point.....He was taking a Joy Ride, If he wanted to test the top speed then he should have done it on a runway somewhere......

Well trained he may be, but it only takes one bimbling idiot to pull into his lane off a slip road at 70mph, no matter how well trained he may be he would just not stop in time.......totally irresponsible!

He was not authourised.......Thats the point...

Because West Mercia police didn't have a policy in place for requesting authorisation before doing these. Which is the only reason why it ended up in court in the first place. The judge deemed, retrospectively, that the officer's activities were legitimate...

Well trained he may be, but it only takes one bimbling idiot to pull into his lane off a slip road at 70mph, no matter how well trained he may be he would just not stop in time.......totally irresponsible!

Yeah, of course, would've been impossible to steer round a car on an empty motorway...

Rob.

Mmmmmm Steering or actually swerving at 160..........Go on then

Plus the M54 where he was speeding is basically a dual carrigeway.....

I think the speed was and is excessive, here are a few figure:

The question really is, how fast is reasonable.

At 159mph he would have covered 10 miles in 3 minutes 45 seconds.

At 120 mph he would have covered the same 10 miles in 5 minutes.

Whilst reponse time is important it is all relative. Is the extra risk worth saving 1 miniute 15 seconds fo???????????

if he can get away with it, why did the ambulance driver earlier this year lose his job for trying to get valuable organs to the hospital on time......

If I'm not mistaken he was using an emergency vehicle and so should also be exempt........