Mmmmmm Steering at 160..........Go on then

By the time you've seen the car coming down the slip road and manouvering off the motorway, you will have been able to reduce speed considerably. So you won't be steering at 160. Either way, if the judge and police driving instructors (both parties of whom have ACTUALLY SEEN THE IN CAR FOOTAGE) deem the guy wasn't behaving dangerously, why is that not good enough for you?

Rob.

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

Yes, AFAIK he should. However, was he charged with speeding (which would've happened if he wasn't exempt)? Or did he just lose his job?

I don't know the circumstances of that particular case though so couldn't really comment any further on it...

Rob.

at the speed he was doing he was covering approx. 72m a second, if something appeared and it took say 3 seconds to react then he would have traveled over 200m before even braking or steering, then you would be braking or steering hard and imagine the stress on standard brakes and tyres under those forces.

it doesn't have to be a car that he hit, what if it had been a fox, dog, badger or worse still an unhappy galoping horse. he wouldn't have a chance

the judge and police driving instructors (both parties of whom have ACTUALLY SEEN THE IN CAR FOOTAGE) deem the guy wasn't behaving dangerously' date=' why is that not good enough for you?

Rob.[/quote']

so judges always make good decisions then? always give what seem like worth while punishements for a crime?

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

if he can get away with it' date=' 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........[/quote']

He didn't lose his job.

He was sent a summons/fpn (can't remember which) which was later dropped.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/3207466.stm

It's amazing how many people's arguments in this thread (and the other one) are based on false information or "some bloke told me....."

When any vehicle , even if it was a police car or ambulance , sets off a camera the paperwork is sent out to the registered keeper. In the case of police cars is then checked to see who was driving on that occasion and assuming that the vehicle was being used correctly , no further action is taken.

If they shouldn't have been speeding at the time then they can and will be done for it. I have seen CID officers in a plain car go through a speed trap when driving to see a witness and they *were* given the ticket as it was not necessary for them to do that speed to get to a pre-arranged appointment.

it doesn't have to be a car that he hit, what if it had been a fox, dog, badger or worse still an unhappy galoping horse. he wouldn't have a chance

And yet, possibly by some divine miracle, the guy survived doing these speeds without so much as a scratch.

I'd disagree about him not having a chance. Plenty of people go that fast on the roads without mishap.

Just look at the autobahns...

Rob.

By the time you've seen the car coming down the slip road and manouvering off the motorway' date=' you will have been able to reduce speed considerably. So you won't be steering at 160. Either way, if the judge and police driving instructors (both parties of whom have ACTUALLY SEEN THE IN CAR FOOTAGE) deem the guy wasn't behaving dangerously, why is that not good enough for you?

Rob.[/quote']

Because it isn't........if you think that doing nearly 160 on a` public road is safe and responsible then(No matter how good you are, a Vectra GSI brakes are not 160mph good) then you really do need you're head read!

so judges always make good decisions then? always give what seem like worth while punishements for a crime?

No, but then that's not what I said, or even implied. I was merely pointing out that people who are qualified to make this decision and who have actually seen the footage are probably more in a position to judge whether someone was driving unsafely, than a bunch of people on an internet forum who don't seem to have even bothered reading more than one new story before casting judgement about something they don't know about.

Rob.

did i say that the chances of hitting something are high? no, all i'm saying is that there is a chance.

so you honestly belive that traveling down a motorway covering 72 meters every second a badger runs out from the central reservation 100 meters or so away you could slow down enough and safely drive round it without the slightest hint of danger? in the space of a second and a half?

And yet' date=' possibly by some divine miracle, the guy survived doing these speeds without so much as a scratch.

I'd disagree about him not having a chance. Plenty of people go that fast on the roads without mishap.

Just look at the autobahns...

Rob.[/quote']

Yes thats why Germany now has speed limits on it's Autobahns

Because it isn't........if you think that doing nearly 160 on a` public road is safe and responsible then(No matter how good you are, a Vectra GSI brakes are not 160mph good) then you really do need you're head read!

And do you know the brakes were standard? Do you know that how accurate the technology which recorded his speeds were? Have you seen the footage of him driving to know what the roads are like?

Just because *you* don't think driving at 160mph isn't safe doesn't mean it isn't.

Rob.

Just look at the autobahns...

ah, the infamously safe autobahns that have never had an accident, never had a person die on them. brilliantly green aren't they?

And do you know the brakes were standard? Do you know that how accurate the technology which recorded his speeds were? Have you seen the footage of him driving to know what the roads are like?

Have You????

Just because *you* don't think driving at 160mph isn't safe doesn't mean it isn't.

Rob.

So 160mph on Public roads is "Safe"........One Word B0ll0cks!

Just because *you* don't think driving at 160mph isn't safe doesn't mean it isn't.

so would you consider say DaveU's car which has brakes/suspension/power that is more than capable in the hands of one of our very experienced track drivers doing that speed on that road at that time a safe thing to do? or would think it was being a bit silly?

ah, the infamously safe autobahns that have never had an accident, never had a person die on them. brilliantly green aren't they?

Hmm...did I say that? No. I do wish you'd stop reading what you want to read from what I say.

There are risks associated with *everything*. Just because someone was doing 160mph does not mean they were unsafe. Your opinion may differ, but frankly I don't really care.

In a court of law, this guy was found to be Not Guilty. If you don't like the law, write to your MP.

Rob.

so would you consider say DaveU's car which has brakes/suspension/power that is more than capable in the hands of one of our very experienced track drivers doing that speed on that road at that time a safe thing to do?

I'm sure it (or something similar) has been done. And without incident too.

Rob.

the thing is don't seem to care for your opinions either as i don't think it was a safe thing to do and your not going to convince me it was.

and i reads it how i reads it, can't help that can i?

I'm sure it (or something similar) has been done. And without incident too.

Rob.

i don't deny its been done, the question i asked was is it a safe and responsable thing to do?

i don't deny its been done, the question i asked was is it a safe and responsable thing to do?

Depends on the circumstances. In the case this thread relates to, a court and some professional police drivers surveyed the evidence throughly, and deemed the driver was safe. As I've previously said, I think this qualifies them much more to pass judgement on the case as compared to a bunch of amateur drivers who have read a newstory from the BBC.

So, yes, I'd deem it was safe.

In the officer's line of work, he will need to travel at high speeds in his vehicle. To familiarise themselves with the vehicle *before* being in an emergency situation and when the roads are typically deserted, I think is a very responsible thing to do.

Rob.

Whatever the arguements the simple fact remains that this chappy endagered his own life and the lifes of other road users in an unauthorised bit of fun.

Training or not, 80+ in a 30 when you're not on your way to save a life or catch a baddie is an unacceptable risk to take reguardless of his ability.

Peoples response to this will of course be "it was 3 in the morning there was no one else around"

****** - I've found myself driving at that time in the morning on many occasions and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Training or not, 80+ in a 30 when you're not on your way to save a life or catch a baddie is an unacceptable risk to take reguardless of his ability.

But if he practises while it's quiet, when it's not so quiet and he's on an emergency, his performance will be better, ie. the risk in the busier situation will be reduced.

Furthermore, without knowing the nature of the 30 roads, surely it's a bit hard to comment as to whether 80 was an appropriate speed?

Rob.

I would hope that when the roads are busy he wouldn't still be doing 80+!!!

From what I've seen of traffic police activity (admittedly only from tv shows) they tend to back off from high speed chases when it is deemed that it may be a danger to other road users even if it means letting the chasee get away.

This attitude would seem to be in complete contradiction with some bloke driving the tits off his car in a "practice run"

From what I've seen of traffic police activity (admittedly only from tv shows) they tend to back off from high speed chases when it is deemed that it may be a danger to other road users even if it means letting the chasee get away.

The main reason for that is to stop the chasee getting too "flustered" - if the police slow down, the perp is more likely to slow down, which makes them less of a liability.

However, this guy being armed response probably won't do much chasing, but will be doing a lot of "get here quickly" type travelling.

And, if it was the gun of a crazed mad-man pointing at your head, would you be especially bothered if he broke a few speed limits to help you out that little bit quicker?

Rob.

Hi

The funniest thing I find is that the copper could get away scot free, yet a racing driver like Damon Hill, driving a high performance car (read supercar) got banned (for a short while) for doing considerably less a few years back. Now admittedly the ban only lasted till the next grand prix, but Damon Hill in a supercar travelling at just over a hundred on a motorway, must have been safer than a police driver doing 159mph in a police pursuit car.

all the best

Brian Jones

Hi

Just had a quick thought though. If you've been a bit naughty and are pulled over by the sherriffs, and he/she comes over with the usual "trying to get your pilots license sir". You can straight faced reply that you are considering a career change to become a police driver

Think it'd work

all the best

Brian Jones