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!

I fear it will be a slippery slope. I sincerely hope that someone who disagrees with this verdict doesn't have to wait for an Immediate Response Vehicle from the other side of town because the driver is being hampered due to, for want of a better phrase, politically correct ******.

The exemption is there for everyone to see in the legislation. That is what legislation is designed for. A set of rules so that we know what is permitted and what is not.

84 in a 30..... it's just wrong imo.

Aren't you guilty of just concentrating on the numbers? If 84 is dangerous what speed would be safe?

I fail to see the public interest in prosecuting a Police Class 1 driver who has a lawful exemption.

Aren't you guilty of just concentrating on the numbers? If 84 is dangerous what speed would be safe?

I fail to see the public interest in prosecuting a Police Class 1 driver who has a lawful exemption.

but thats the whole point.....he had no authorisation, the police autority have just cleared up the loose ends!

so if he was speeding at 160mph and crashed into you or ran over your dog etyc etc would you say he was not drinving iresponsibly???

to put others at risk, for a test run??????? Don't go on about the motorway being deserted.....anything could have happened, it is a public road after all!if you want to try it's top speed go to bruntingthorpe or elvington........

just 'cos he has had advanced training doesn't automatically make him safer!

30 odd people so far this year have been killed by so-called advanced police drivers............

I fear it will be a slippery slope. I sincerely hope that someone who disagrees with this verdict doesn't have to wait for an Immediate Response Vehicle from the other side of town because the driver is being hampered due to' date=' for want of a better phrase, politically correct ******.

The exemption is there for everyone to see in the legislation. That is what legislation is designed for. A set of rules so that we know what is permitted and what is not.[/quote']

No......they have put an end to "Joy ride top speed runs" Time and a place and that is at an official Off road training day,

If they are on an emergency call then so long as it is safe they can exceed the speed limit without fear of prosucution!

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?

I don't think so, though it probably should :P

I haven't seen a dunkin donuts place around in years. I think it's a case of Tescos 12 for 99p

If they are on an emergency call then so long as it is safe they can exceed the speed limit without fear of prosucution!

Oh, just read the legislation and stop making up what you think the law is...

Rob.

just 'cos he has had advanced training doesn't automatically make him safer!

I believe in the article he was described as the creme de la creme of police drivers, and as others have said he did not break any laws and did not have an accident or incident (there must have been other cars around?!) and his driving was all video-taped. Surely if he was just having a bit of fun and putting everyone at risk, this would have been clear to see from the tape?

Maybe you should start a campaign to "update" the legislation?

Chris

Cra...No one is above the law. No one SHOULD be above the law.

If that cop wanted to test the car he should have taken the car to a test track, where it's safe. 84 on a 30 means any little child could have ran into the road and bang!...body parts all over the place.

Would testing a car at high speed in a 30mph zone justify the death of an individual should the God-forbidden event of an accident occur? I don't think so.

That guy got off easy. If he was elsewhere he would have been prosecuted. Very irresponsible actions of the police there I must say. Very disappointing to hear too.

Cra...No one is above the law. No one SHOULD be above the law.

I get the feeling I've said all this before many times, but nonetheless I'll have another go...

He isn't above the law - the law states that emergency vehicles are exempt from speed limits in the circumstance that these limits would hinder the purpose for which the vehicle is being used. So, he hasn't broken the law.

If that cop wanted to test the car he should have taken the car to a test track, where it's safe.

As I've already said many many times - the conditions of a track is so very different from the conditions of a road as to make such an exercise absolutely pointless.

84 on a 30 means any little child could have ran into the road and bang!...body parts all over the place.

At the 3 or 4 in the morning small children shouldn't be running around in roads. However, that said, none of us here have seen the video footage...we do not know the area which had a 30mph restriction on it. We do not know that this speed was inappropriate for the road and conditions at the time. In a court of law, a group of drivers who are more qualified than probably anyone here viewed video footage and determined the guy wasn't driving dangerously, irrespective of the speed.

Rob.

Here is another perspective on this case:

http://www.5ive-o.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6750

[brake]

Won't someone please think of the ikcle lickle children

[/brake]

People who think this guy brokw the law should read the legislation.

People who think there is no benefit to advanced driving should take some.

Oh' date=' just read the legislation and stop making up what you think the law is...

Rob.[/quote']

I'm not making up the law! FFS! Just quoting what was in a WMP Statement!

Having read the comments on this and other forums (Especially intresting on 5ive-O) It seems in the eye of the law he was not guilty.

What it does prove is that the law is in serious need of updating or a clause adding etc etc and this case just gives out the wrong message to the public........and the title of this thread!

And please don't start quoting the law again and blah blah...Rob this means you

The police will have their job made sooooo much harder due to this!

I still think what the Officer did was unforgiveable, but if that what the law states he can do then I spose I have to abide by that ruling......

Still doesn't mean I have to agree it's right and what semi-respect I had for the police has been greatly diminshed!

I still think what the Officer did was unforgiveable, but if that what the law states he can do then I spose I have to abide by that ruling......

But you're basing your opinion on, I guess, some news reports, and from deciding that 159mph on a motorway is too fast, and 84mph in a 30mph zone is too fast.

However, you've reached both of these opinions without actually seeing any evidence of they guy's driving, nor indeed the nature of the 30mph zone (ie. was it a desterted B-road, rather than a town centre?).

As such, you're just looking at the numbers and deciding that the guy was wrong - whereas better qualified expert witnesses viewed video footage and determind that the guy *wasn't* driving dangerously. And it is the charge of dangerous driving upon which the guy wouldn't be cleared of on a technicality - it would have to be determined by qualified officers, the same as if you or I went to court.

And if you or I went to court having done 159mph on a motorway, we would definitely be charged with exceeding the speed limit (as, to be honest, neither of us have a legitimate requirement to do this, unlike someone using an emergency vehicle), but we would be judged subjectively on whether we were driving dangeously or not - and, if we had been driving in a similar manner to this officer, we would have been found innocent of this charge.

Rob.

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.

But, in order for an officer to be familiar with the car and conditions, this means that EVERY DAY he or she would need to drive EVERY road in the police district due to changes in weather, surface, surface dirt etc etc, so that argument also doesn't wash in my book!!

Also, I'm struggling to come to terms how the part of the law which says that emergency vehicles do not have to stick to speed limits if it would hinder their progress can come into play here... Surely that is written to mean their progress in an emergency situation?? Otherwise, well, next time a copper comes to my work, I might ask him to take me on a high speed run to the supermarket - perfectly legal as the police car is on the road, making progress, and we would certainly get there quicker if we were doing 84 in the 30 zone instead of 30!! OK, I know I'm being cynical here, but it is how it appears to me!

OK, if it is allowed that this person was/is a highly trained, highly competent driver..... Why is it that every year, South Wales Polis go way out of there way to catch some drivers speeding, these drivers can literally make a car dance on any kind of surface and are without doubt better drivers than ANY uniformed person?? "Whom?" I hear you all cry, the drivers of the WRC on WRGB.

I defy any plod driver to outdrive these boys!!!!

The lesislation as I have heard it described here, suggests the officer was not in breach of the law, given the "expert analysis" of the video evidence. It must have been the case if the judge ruled as such.

However, he may not have endangered any lives on his "car familiarisation" excursion this time.... who's to say the next time, he or we, might not be so lucky. If I knew how to post a poll on whether or not people in here are for or against the practice of high speed car familiarisation, I would. It seems like this discussion has many passionatly held views, all of which have their pro's & con's.

But, in order for an officer to be familiar with the car and conditions, this means that EVERY DAY he or she would need to drive EVERY road in the police district due to changes in weather, surface, surface dirt etc etc, so that argument also doesn't wash in my book!!

No - using roads in general is good enough...a lot of roads have similar surfaces, with similar contours, etc. These are all totally different from non-road tracks though...

Also' date=' I'm struggling to come to terms how the part of the law which says that emergency vehicles do not have to stick to speed limits if it would hinder their progress can come into play here... Surely that is written to mean their progress in an emergency situation??[/quote']

Yes, but they need to practice for emergency situations. The more they practice, the better it is for all of us - practice makes perfect, after all...

Practising for an emergency situation is, as such, a valid use of a police vehicle, hence the exemption will apply when training.

OK' date=' if it is allowed that this person was/is a highly trained, highly competent driver.....

these drivers can literally make a car dance on any kind of surface and are without doubt better drivers than ANY uniformed person?? "Whom?" I hear you all cry, the drivers of the WRC on WRGB.

I defy any plod driver to outdrive these boys!!!![/quote']

Fair enough, if you want to overlook that:

a) driving on a rally course is very different from making progress on public roads...it's *not* all about car control.

the charges were dropped not because he was highly trained, but because he is a member of an emergency service so is exempt from speed limits under circumstances such as these, and because he wasn't deemed to be driving dangerously.

c) A rally driver's not going to come and help you in an emergency, so they have no real reason to need to drive that fast on public roads.

However' date=' he may not have endangered any lives on his "car familiarisation" excursion this time.... who's to say the next time, he or we, might not be so lucky.[/quote']

A fair point - but then I guess it depends if you think the driver didn't hit anything through luck, or whether it came down to skill and judgement. Given the frequency of familiarisation exercises (ie. this guy isn't the only person to ever have done this) and the general lack of news regarding anything other than this case, I'd think that if there was going to be mass atrocities as a result of these sorts of activities, we'd have heard about them by now...

Rob.

Rob, you are looking at this incident in isolation. My objection is that the legislation allows the potential for abuse of the law as it may have been intended.

You know as well as anyone here that the next time he goes on a run like this, he is POTENTIALLY putting members of the public at risk. Nobody can say this is not the case. Regardless of his training, he is after all only human. I (and I know I'm not alone in this), do not think it is acceptable. There are plenty other viable alternatives to high speed "car familiarisation" on public roads, which will not put other road users/ members of the general public at un-necessary risk.

Rob' date=' you are looking at this incident in isolation. My objection is that the legislation allows the potential for abuse of the law as it may have been intended.

You know as well as anyone here that the next time he goes on a run like this, he is POTENTIALLY putting members of the public at risk. Nobody can say this is not the case. Regardless of his training, he is after all only human. I (and I know I'm not alone in this), do not think it is acceptable. There are plenty other viable alternatives to high speed "car familiarisation" on public roads, which will not put other road users/ members of the general public at un-necessary risk.[/quote']

Does this mean you also don't agree with training officers to drive at these speeds on public roads? :confused:

Chris

You know as well as anyone here that the next time he goes on a run like this, he is POTENTIALLY putting members of the public at risk. Nobody can say this is not the case.

But even driving at 70mph he's putting members of the public at risk...you never know, he may have a heart attack at the wheel or something, as he is, after all, only human.

Personally, I'd rather have police drivers familiarising themselves with vehicles when the roads are deserted than have them wait until they need to attend an emergency at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon. Quite why anyone would want it any other way is a bit of a mystery to me...

Rob.

All this debate is all well and good but you can never get a policeman when you want one anyway.

Only high speeds seen in dangerous conditions/areas such as 30's are normally carried out by a wallowy astra driven by a porky policeman who is probably not a high speed response driver .

What does this creme de la creme driver do? Chase cars down the motorway till a helicopter is called in? Rush other officers to the scene of a crime?What is his speciality?

Personally I don't care.Just wish the police could be released from lots of shackles and dispense some justice in the manner of 'The Sweeny' and let someone else deal with paperwork,bureaucrats,do gooders etc

Let them get on with policing.The whole country is mad and it is all because of the compensation culture and everyone suing each other :thumbdwn:

What does this creme de la creme driver do? Chase cars down the motorway till a helicopter is called in? Rush other officers to the scene of a crime?What is his speciality?

From what can be gleaned from the news reports, he's armed response...

Personally I don't care.Just wish the police could be released from lots of shackles and dispense some justice in the manner of 'The Sweeny' and let someone else deal with paperwork,bureaucrats,do gooders etc

To a certain extent I agree. Still amazed that officers have "quotas" to fulfil...

Rob.

RIGHT!!! This topic seems to be going on and ON!!!

Lets make one thing clear.....The Police (as a whole) thought that he was taking the micky so the POLICE prosecuted him!!!!!

The POLICE think he should be punished.......

If the court decides to agree with his made up excuse that thats up to them !!!!!!!!

To a certain extent I agree. Still amazed that officers have "quotas" to fulfil...

Well , like any job the management want to see that you are doing the work that you are paid for. In a job like the police if you weren't monitored it would be all to easy to try and hide away and do nothing.

It's perfectly reasonable to look at how many tickets you have issued etc to check that you are actually doing something when at work.

For traffic officers you have to admit that they wouldn't have to drive far before they see someone comitting an offence of one type or another , and the "quotas" are at a pretty low level so it's not like they get to the end of the month and have to start making up offences.

It's also in the officers interest to be seen as more productive as the amount of offenders they deal with are one of the factors used when considering promotions

But even driving at 70mph he's putting members of the public at risk...you never know, he may have a heart attack at the wheel or something, as he is, after all, only human.

He could just as easily have a heart attack at 30mph.... or at 84mph. He is however, much more likely to cause another road user (with a heart condition) to have a heart attack driving at those speeds. That as you well know is not my point. Lets assume that if he is as good a driver as you say, that his ticker is in good nick too

Every car on the road poses a potential risk to other road users & pedestrians. Therefore, everyone using public roads has a duty of care to minimise the risk they impose on other road users. I have no issue with emergency response vehicles being exempt from speed limits when responding to an emergency situation, in fact I am in favour of it. However, when it comes to training exercises, I fail to see the logic that allows driving at almost 3 times the designated speed limit (whether it is a residential 30mph zone or not) in the name of "vehicle familiarisation".

As far as I am concerned, it is simply an un-acceptable risk for training' sake.