no.....he was iresponsible...........not on police business.....naughty naughty

he could of at least got to 160mph......it's apparantly safe and responsible don't you know!!!!

I refer you all to my postings earlier on in the day dealing with the law. Also Rob talks complete sense. This has become very much a matter of opinion. There's one thing giving your own car a good spanking to see what its like, and run the risk of getting caught, and another to hone your skills that you've been trained to use, in a vehicle used for that very purpose andhaving the knowledge that during a shift you'll be called on to use them for real. Not knowing whether you're responding to a real call or a hoax. Driving at 60mph in a 30 mph takes great concentration to do it safely and responsibly, doing over a ton in a 60 zone even more so. I think that knocks the idea on the head of it being a joyride.

I would like to say that most of the people complaining about this are not actually that bothered about what he was doing, but more the fact he got away with it. I am sure many people on here have done similar and got away with it by luckily not being spotted. He is undoubtedley a very skilled driver, the main problem is that many others are not. We have had a big discussion on this in our office today, and between the 4 of us instructors we cant agree.... no change there then

MY OPINION is that it's a joke, he should have had the book thown at him.

And as for the opinion of people saying "he has to train on the open road, thats where he would have to do it in a real situation & not on a track or private road" - lets only hope the criminals he chase choose to commit their crimes on a quiet road when there are no other road users!!

What a load of old tosh, the pursuit would take place with other road users & they would weave through the traffic to assist in their escape, but the police choose to 'practice' when the roads are dead - so much for realism in their practice then, they may as well be on a private road.

I know, I know, of course the police wouldn't practice when the roads are busy because its TOO DANGEROUS.......... I rest my case your honour.

I refer you all to my postings earlier on in the day dealing with the law. Also Rob talks complete sense. This has become very much a matter of opinion. There's one thing giving your own car a good spanking to see what its like, and run the risk of getting caught, and another to hone your skills that you've been trained to use, in a vehicle used for that very purpose andhaving the knowledge that during a shift you'll be called on to use them for real. Not knowing whether you're responding to a real call or a hoax. Driving at 60mph in a 30 mph takes great concentration to do it safely and responsibly, doing over a ton in a 60 zone even more so. I think that knocks the idea on the head of it being a joyride.

so 160mph is "Safe and Responsible" on a public road?????? And I think he was doing 84 in a 30!!! Even Safer I would Think!

Sorry do not agree, there is a time and a place for a top speed run and a Dual Carrigeway is not one of them! A test run on a 2mile runway such as Bruntigthorpe where if anything goes wrong then it is only himself he will hurt!

As I have said before, I'm all for police drivers training to be better drivers but a high speed run at those sorts of speeds should be done "Off-Road"

As there seems to be quite a few Police Officers on this forum (Are you Traffic officers) have you ever heard of an officer chasing a suspect at this sort of speed??? I thought if a pursuit went over a certain speed then the pursuit was halted???

I and the rest of "Joe Public" can only really go off what we have seen on the likes of Police, Camera, Action etc....

Please correct me if i'm wrong

Add this to your rear window

http://img62.echo.cx/img62/9430/dsc026827fy.jpg

LMAO!!!! Loving It

Testing the cars limits, hmmm vauxhall have done that, otherwise the car would not be sold.

Testing his limits, hmmm already proven as he's taken & passed the police driving tests.

He's done it for his own enjoyment.

People seem to be clearly missing the point here...

From what I understand of the case, the guy was cleared of any wrong doing on 2 counts.

1 of Excess Speed and 1 of Dangerous Driving.

He was cleared of excess speed as the law states that any vehicle (marked or unmarked, police owned or not) that is being used for POLICE PURPOSES is exempt from speed limits [etc]. As he was using the vehicle within his role as an Advanced Driver for 'training' purposes the use counts as police purposes. There is no debating the fact that unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't using it for police purposes THE OFFENCE IS NOT COMPLETE.

Dangerous driving - it was deemed that the driving was not dangerous by a number of highly experienced persons. More experienced than anyone here, I imagine (though do correct me if I'm wrong...). If his driving was not considered to be dangerous then again, the offence is not complete. Again, his driving dangerously would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Our legal system has done exactly what it should do, and in this case if you look at the evidence provided [reported] and the legislation surrounding it then there hasn't been any offence completed and the only lawfull thing to do is find him not guilty.

Whether anybody here thinks that that's wrong is totally besides the point, the law shows he wasn't doing anything illegal. By all means apply to become a JP and try and rule differently - I certainly imagine that the Clerk of the Court will advise you accordingly with regard to the finer points of the law.

You might think he was driving dangerously, and that's your opinion - it is however conflicting with those who are more experienced and who have actually seen the incident in question for themselves with the use of the on-board camera system.

so you think it's ok to tank along the m54 at 160mph then???? Why had he needed to test the cars limits???? I think someone has already mentioned it but Vauxhall will already of high speed tested the vehicle prior to launch.......so no need for him too!

the 160 I can sought of live with....it's the 84 in a 30 that really gets my goat!!!

oh, come on...

whether he was having a bit of fun or not, he is trained to do so and any part of his high speed run may help him in a real situation saving someones life. if he will be travelling that fast on business, there is no reason for him not to when he is practicing unless it is dangerous.

Clearly he was driving responsibly (and not dangerously) since there was no incident. (Oh yep, and the courts agreed!)

We'd all love to drive our cars to the limit, however it is not safe for us to do so (the majority of people) I think there's a little green eyed monster going on here

84 in a 30... for him driving is probably the equivalent of you or I doing 50-60 in a 30 in relative terms (depending where it is this may well be safe), I doubt you could tell me you've never travelled that quickly in a 30.

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' date=' retrospectively, that the officer's activities were legitimate...

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

Rob.[/quote']

I have to disagree with you Rob.

The fact that the police force in that area did not have documented procedures/ policies in place under no circumstances excuses the officers actions imo. Common sense dictates to any reasonable person/ officer that if one's actions (necessary or not) may increase the risk for other road users/ pedestrians (especially within a 30mph zone), the officer has a duty of care to minimise any increased risk. He could have done this in a number of ways. (In rallying circles, it is common for rally cars to be tested at speeds (albeit illegally) on by-roads at night. In these cases, it is common practise for at least two other cars in radio contact with the rally car to patrol the stretch of road in question to make sure there are no pedestrians or other hazards - effectively the cars are being tested on a closed section of road).

In my opinion, the fact that the police force had no documented procedures/ policies only makes it worse on the officer in question - he effectively took the law into his own hands, and decided that in this situation the law as it stands did not apply to him, even though his actions were not necessary at the time. If there are no procedures in place, I don't see how his actions can be described as a "legitimate exercise".

At a stretch, I would be inclined to be more lenient if he had not been going so fast in the 30mph zone.... I can see no justification for such speed unless it is a rapid response call, and even if it was I still feel it is un-necessary.

In my opinion, the fact that the police force had no documented procedures/ policies only makes it worse on the officer in question - he effectively took the law into his own hands, and decided that in this situation the law as it stands did not apply to him,

Not quite - the law doesn't state anywhere that prior authorisation is required for this sort of thing. Doing so without authorisation does open up the question of the intent - some people think this "obviously" means he was joyriding, whereas others can see a very good reason why he'd need to do this as legitimate police business.

The question of this intent was the reason this case went to court in the first place, where it couldn't be proven that he wasn't doing something which wasn't deemed as legitimate police business.

At a stretch, I would be inclined to be more lenient if he had not been going so fast in the 30mph zone.... I can see no justification for such speed unless it is a rapid response call, and even if it was I still feel it is un-necessary.

However, am I correct in assuming you are associating the 30mph zone with a residential built-up area? Do you know that is was a residential built-up area?

It may not have been - and to be honest, I could probably name 4 areas with a 30mph speed limit where you could happily hit a ton at 3 in the morning with zero risk of there being other road users, because they are that deserted, and the speed limits are ludicrously low in the first place - and usually set to that because the local council don't wish to pay to maintain the road to a level which would qualify it for a higher speed limit...

Furthermore, if a group of qualified police driving instructors (who have been teaching officers to make safe progress on public roads for many years - NOT racing drivers who only have practice of driving fast round a track), after viewing the in car footage, deemed that he wasn't driving dangerously...then why should a group of opinionated amateurs think they know better?

Rob.

Rob.

Think France, Think Revolution...opinionated amateurs eventually have an effect.

Imagine if we all stopped breaking every law tomorrow for a week....G.Brown would not need prunes on the table at the next budget meeting.

Not quite - the law doesn't state anywhere that prior authorisation is required for this sort of thing. Doing so without authorisation does open up the question of the intent - some people think this "obviously" means he was joyriding' date=' whereas others can see a very good reason why he'd need to do this as legitimate police business.

The question of this intent was the reason this case went to court in the first place, where it couldn't be proven that he wasn't doing something which wasn't deemed as legitimate police business.

However, am I correct in assuming you are associating the 30mph zone with a residential built-up area? Do you know that is was a residential built-up area?

It may not have been - and to be honest, I could probably name 4 areas with a 30mph speed limit where you could happily hit a ton at 3 in the morning with zero risk of there being other road users, because they are that deserted, and the speed limits are ludicrously low in the first place - and usually set to that because the local council don't wish to pay to maintain the road to a level which would qualify it for a higher speed limit...

Furthermore, if a group of qualified police driving instructors (who have been teaching officers to make safe progress on public roads for many years - NOT racing drivers who only have practice of driving fast round a track), after viewing the in car footage, deemed that he wasn't driving dangerously...then why should a group of opinionated amateurs think they know better?

Rob.

Rob.[/quote']

Rob,

My problem with this case is quite simple - 30mph speed limits are imposed for many different reasons be it built up areas, blind junctions, etc. I do not think that it is reasonable to do 84mph in a 30mph zone... full stop. I admit there are rare circumstances where emergencies may dictate that high speed is warranted within restricted speed limits - "car familiarisation" is not one of those circumstances imo.

Secondly, regardless of the level of training or indeed competance of any driver or indeed car, we are all limited by the laws of physics (except West Mercia police officers, apparently). Any car has limited capabilities, so has the driver. Just because he has received training, does not automatically dictate that he is a better driver than either you or I. A very good friend of mine is a cop who has done rapid response training, and he would be the first to admit that he is a crap driver, and has written off more motors than he has had trade-ins! Road conditions are also a factor, not to mention other un-known quantities, such as pedestrians, cars, animals. For me the crux of the case for me is the fact that his actions were not necessary (i.e. there was no immediate threat or emergency)... therefore in my "amateur" opinion, he took un-necessary risks. He should be subject to the same charges that anyone else would have been.

I guess this is one of those cases where opinion will be split. I respect your right to your opinion Rob, and trust you will respect my right to differ.

Padraig.

PS: The rally drivers I referred to were professional drivers, that shall remain nameless.

People seem to be clearly missing the point here...

From what I understand of the case' date=' the guy was cleared of any wrong doing on 2 counts.

1 of Excess Speed and 1 of Dangerous Driving.

He was cleared of excess speed as the law states that any vehicle (marked or unmarked, police owned or not) that is being used for POLICE PURPOSES is exempt from speed limits [etc']. As he was using the vehicle within his role as an Advanced Driver for 'training' purposes the use counts as police purposes. There is no debating the fact that unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't using it for police purposes THE OFFENCE IS NOT COMPLETE.

Dangerous driving - it was deemed that the driving was not dangerous by a number of highly experienced persons. More experienced than anyone here, I imagine (though do correct me if I'm wrong...). If his driving was not considered to be dangerous then again, the offence is not complete. Again, his driving dangerously would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Our legal system has done exactly what it should do, and in this case if you look at the evidence provided [reported] and the legislation surrounding it then there hasn't been any offence completed and the only lawfull thing to do is find him not guilty.

Whether anybody here thinks that that's wrong is totally besides the point, the law shows he wasn't doing anything illegal. By all means apply to become a JP and try and rule differently - I certainly imagine that the Clerk of the Court will advise you accordingly with regard to the finer points of the law.

You might think he was driving dangerously, and that's your opinion - it is however conflicting with those who are more experienced and who have actually seen the incident in question for themselves with the use of the on-board camera system.

Excuse this question - it is asked with tongue in cheek:

Does going to Dunkin' Donuts for a fresh batch of cream donuts in a panda car qualify as being used for Police Purposes?

Just because he has received training, does not automatically dictate that he is a better driver than either you or I.

This is true - however, as I've pointed out in both this and another thread, he wasn't let off because he was a good driver.

There were two charges:

1. Speeding - not guilty because the judge deemed his use of the vehicle was proper, and as such he was exempt from the obeyance of speed limits.

2. Dangerous driving - this was judged by a group of experts in this type of driving, and as such, their opinion based on the evidence is probably about as accurate as anyone could give. Certainly more so than people who have neither seen the tape nor have the same level of expertise on the subject.

To say that travelling at excessive speed on a 30mph road is automatically dangerous simply isn't true - if it were the case, this would've been proven in court.

I'd disagree that his actions were no necessary - if he is unfamiliar with the car, the time to be learning isn't when he's on an urgent priority call and there is lots of traffic about. He needs to know what his car feels like upto and including at the limit - whether he'd use these kind of speeds in a real emergency isn't really much of an issue...if he knows what the car is capable of, driving within these parameters is therefore easier and will allow him to concentrate on the traffic, etc. which would more than likely be present during a real emergency.

I respect your right to your opinion Rob, and trust you will respect my right to differ.

Totally - I just wonder how you form your opinion, based on what evidence and how come you come to a different conclusion to people who have seen the evidence and (I guess) know more about this sort of driving than you?

PS: The rally drivers I referred to were professional drivers, that shall remain nameless.

Yes, but they don't have legal exemptions from the speed limit. If they had been caught and put on a charge of dangerous driving, they also might have been cleared of it if the evidence had suggested that they were not acting dangerously. Like I said, it's not about training...it's about the law...

Rob.

This is true - however' date=' as I've pointed out in both this and another thread, he wasn't let off because he was a good driver.

There were two charges:

1. Speeding - not guilty because the judge deemed his use of the vehicle was proper, and as such he was exempt from the obeyance of speed limits.

2. Dangerous driving - this was judged by a group of experts in this type of driving, and as such, their opinion based on the evidence is probably about as accurate as anyone could give. Certainly more so than people who have neither seen the tape nor have the same level of expertise on the subject.

To say that travelling at excessive speed on a 30mph road is automatically dangerous simply isn't true - if it were the case, this would've been proven in court.

I'd disagree that his actions were no necessary - if he is unfamiliar with the car, the time to be learning isn't when he's on an urgent priority call and there is lots of traffic about. He needs to know what his car feels like upto and including at the limit - whether he'd use these kind of speeds in a real emergency isn't really much of an issue...if he knows what the car is capable of, driving within these parameters is therefore easier and will allow him to concentrate on the traffic, etc. which would more than likely be present during a real emergency.

Totally - I just wonder how you form your opinion, based on what evidence and how come you come to a different conclusion to people who have seen the evidence and (I guess) know more about this sort of driving than you?

Yes, but they don't have legal exemptions from the speed limit. If they had been caught and put on a charge of dangerous driving, they also might have been cleared of it if the evidence had suggested that they were not acting dangerously. Like I said, it's not about training...it's about the law...

Rob.[/quote']

I accept all your points, but it seems to come back to the title of the thread, which is what I object to: One rule for them, and a different rule for the rest of us.

As far as I am concerned, you or I would not have been let bring the testimony of "driving experts" into a court, nor would the judge have allowed it. It would be an open and shut case. The book would have been thrown at us, the hammer dropped, and we would be facing the prospect of clenching for a long stretch in jail. I accept that emergency services should be exempt from speeding charges, when in the line of duty. To stretch that privelege to "car familiarisation" is in my mind a bridge too far, and is letting him off on a technicality. To say "whether he'd use these kind of speeds in a real emergency isn't really much of an issue" is a little bit short sighted (no offence intended) - that is exactly why he was given the training in the first place - for use in emergency situations in the line of duty.

I agree with you when you say it is about the law. It is minipulation and an abuse of the law imo, and is therefore wrong.

One rule for them, and a different rule for the rest of us.

Well, yes - and this is the case. And for a good reason too - in the line of duty, an officer such as this one would need to be able to handle a car at speed on public roads. This needn't apply to people aren't in the emergency services.

With regards your point about emergency drivers only being exempt from speeding charges when in the line of duty - surely training *is* in the line of duty? If it isn't, how else would you propose an officer familiarised themselves with a car that they need to use on the road?

My point about whether he would use these speeds in an emergency - perhaps I wasn't especially clear. My point was, if he was familiar with a car

at a speeds he travelled, it is fairly safe to assume that he will then have suitable famailiarity at speeds less than this. So whether he uses speeds as high as these in an emergency isn't an issue, as he will still be familiar with the car - he also is less likely to be "caught out" by the car if he really is pushing on in an emergency.

I for one wouldn't like to see emergency services having speed limits imposed on them - if it was my family who needed their help, I'd want them to get there as quickly as possible, and if they can do this in a manner that a judge and a team of professional police drivers deem to not be dangerous, I don't really see what the problem is...

Rob.

west mercia police have updated their policies and all drivers are only allowed to break limits whilst on an emergency call and no other time is permited.

this was a public service anouncement brought to you by Bengie Inc.

The key issue here is did the driver have an exemption? Clearly, yes - That is what the judge decided.

No if's, no but's.

I am absolutely astonished at the sheer level of ignorance being displayed on these pages. There is no hypocrisy, no double standard. People who think that speed is dangerous on its own clearly do not understand the principles of advanced driving.

Are we arguing about what is right/fair or what is lawful? (Since when has fairness been a factor in the Criminal Justice System, anyway?)

These are legitimate uses of a vehicle being used for police purposes and can claim an exemption:

1. Marked police car responding to a 999 call.

2. Unmarked police car responding to a 999 call.

3. Unmarked police driver training car being driven by a cilvillian instructor.

3. Off-duty police officer witnessing a serious crime who uses speed to catch the offending vehciel to get the VRM. (I think someone earlier mentioned this)

At no stage does the legislation mention:

1. Driver training level

2. 999 call

3. Unmarked or marked

4. Blues and/or twos.

The only thing that a police officer who finds himself in the same position in future needs to do is convince a Judge that observance of the speed limit would "hinder" the vehicle's use.

Now don't get me wrong, I like to drive fast like other people, but I pick my moments carefully (and ensure I don't have an in-car video). Arguing about driver training, safe speed for the conditions, etc.. is a waste of breath.

If I got caught speeding I would use all legal means possible to frustrate the process and ensure that all paperwork (relating to signage, changes of speed limit) was 100% correct.

What I wouldn't do is try to say that the sauce that is good for the goose is also good for the gander, because that is just plain silly.

The exemption is the important issue here.

The key issue here is did the driver have an exemption? Clearly' date=' yes - That is what the judge decided.

No if's, no but's.

I am absolutely astonished at the sheer level of ignorance being displayed on these pages. There is no hypocrisy, no double standard. People who think that speed is dangerous on its own clearly do not understand the principles of advanced driving.

Are we arguing about what is right/fair or what is lawful? (Since when has fairness been a factor in the Criminal Justice System, anyway?)

These are legitimate uses of a vehicle being used for police purposes and can claim an exemption:

1. Marked police car responding to a 999 call.

2. Unmarked police car responding to a 999 call.

3. Unmarked police driver training car being driven by a cilvillian instructor.

3. Off-duty police officer witnessing a serious crime who uses speed to catch the offending vehciel to get the VRM. (I think someone earlier mentioned this)

At no stage does the legislation mention:

1. Driver training level

2. 999 call

3. Unmarked or marked

4. Blues and/or twos.

The only thing that a police officer who finds himself in the same position in future needs to do is convince a Judge that observance of the speed limit would "hinder" the vehicle's use.

Now don't get me wrong, I like to drive fast like other people, but I pick my moments carefully (and ensure I don't have an in-car video). Arguing about driver training, safe speed for the conditions, etc.. is a waste of breath.

If I got caught speeding I would use all legal means possible to frustrate the process and ensure that all paperwork (relating to signage, changes of speed limit) was 100% correct.

What I wouldn't do is try to say that the sauce that is good for the goose is also good for the gander, because that is just plain silly.

The exemption is the important issue here.[/quote']

Strongly worded response.... ignorance is something we see in others, but never in ourselves!

I agree the driver was exempt, but I do not accept that his actions were warranted. I think other peoples lives could have been (and most likely were) put at risk, and this is not acceptable when it comes down to "car familiarisation" imo.

Thats all I want to say, after all this is a discussion forum. Whether it is lawful or right/wrong is exactly what is being discussed, and I do not think that anyone here has been ignorant in their opinions - some are looking at purely the legal side, some the moral side. Personally I am looking at the moral side. 84 in a 30..... it's just wrong imo.

With regards your point about emergency drivers only being exempt from speeding charges when in the line of duty - surely training *is* in the line of duty? If it isn't' date=' how else would you propose an officer familiarised themselves with a car that they need to use on the road?

My point about whether he would use these speeds in an emergency - perhaps I wasn't especially clear. My point was, if he was familiar with a car

at a speeds he travelled, it is fairly safe to assume that he will then have suitable famailiarity at speeds less than this. So whether he uses speeds as high as these in an emergency isn't an issue, as he will still be familiar with the car - he also is less likely to be "caught out" by the car if he really is pushing on in an emergency.

I for one wouldn't like to see emergency services having speed limits imposed on them - if it was my family who needed their help, I'd want them to get there as quickly as possible, and if they can do this in a manner that a judge and a team of professional police drivers deem to not be dangerous, I don't really see what the problem is...

Rob.[/quote']

I certainly wouldn't be happy if a trainee surgeon was let loose un-supervised on me for an open-heart procedure. Training could be done on private sections of road or tracks.... even better, send them off for a weekend to the Ring!

I agree that emergency services should be exempt from speed restrictions on public roads - but ONLY in response to an emergency situation. Training should be carried out in a controlled environment.

My whole issue with this is that it sends out the wrong message. Laws are there to desuade people from breaking them. The law should be black and white, but cases like this greys things up a little.

Whilst he may be innocent in the eyes of the law, he is guilty of imposing un-necessary risks to other road users/ pedestrians.

I certainly wouldn't be happy if a trainee surgeon was let loose un-supervised on me for an open-heart procedure. Training could be done on private sections of road or tracks.... even better, send them off for a weekend to the Ring!

However, he wasn't a trainee driver. I'd want a trained surgeon to have tried out a new type of scalpel before using it on me!

And, as I've already explained, familiarising yourself with a car on a track or a private road is pointless - road surfaces, width, contours, furniture is all very different from on a public road. The only way to familiarise yourself with a car on a type of road is to drive on that road. Not one which is totally different from it.

Whilst he may be innocent in the eyes of the law, he is guilty of imposing un-necessary risks to other road users/ pedestrians.

No - if this was the case, he would've charged with dangerous driving, which a judge and expert witnesses, after having viewed the evidence, decided wasn't the case. On what evidence and judgement are you saying that he was unsafe, and why is your word more credible than their's? If it was because the speed he was travelling at was a certain amount more than the limit, that really isn't a large or credible amount of evidence...

Rob.

west mercia police have updated their policies and all drivers are only allowed to break limits whilst on an emergency call and no other time is permited.

this was a public service anouncement brought to you by Bengie Inc.

If this is true..then Thank Goodness! Seems he has gotten away with it by the skin of his teeth and the powers that be have seen sense! For Once!