ian_m Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 [ QUOTE ] Coppers are the worst, bent as heck [/ QUOTE ] And you wonder why people have a go at you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachel Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 All I can say, having read this thread and sent a PM to Atomic about cars and conditions down here - be happy you can drive legally at 70 (or even 80?) MILES per hour. Thank you too to JimP for his well reasoned responses to the post. On a slight digression from the policeman driving at excessive speed in a crap car - he is, plain and simple, an idiot - someone with judgement would never push a Vectra that quickly... The fact he is a "qualified driver" shows that his judgement of speed in that particular vehicle is even more lacking. With a national speed limit in Oz of 100 KILOMETRES and hour, and draconian policing and (revenue) targeting by governments, the road conditions here are now much more dangerous than ever. Why? because drivers are now so conditioned into the "speed kills" mentality, that when they leave the city limits where 40km/h (school and hospital zones), 50km/h (residential streets), 60km/h (feeder roads) and 80km/h (toll ways) are the norm, they cannot drive safely at 100 or 110km/h (110 is the freeway limit - and is higher than the NSL - but all penalties are based on the NSL). Additionally, the number of drivers who just pull out in front of through traffic at intersections and such is also huge - as apparently they think (revealed in a radio poll) that at 50km/h any collision will be minor. Be glad you guys have reasonable limits, and well trained police drivers, because you could live elsewhere on the planet where none of these exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zharca Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 "I am a highly skilled police officer, therefore I can choose to disregard the law and break whatever limits I like. My mates will close ranks and defend me, whatever." It’s taken the best part of thirty years to not entirely eradicate that attitude from the police. That philosophy gave us the old Metropolitan force who would lie, perjure, fit up and beat up suspects, take their cut from pornographers, drug dealers and robbers and arrange for any of their number who was getting close to prosecution to retire "sick" on a full pension. Grrrrrrrr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 It would appear courts have now decided that the more training you have the higher speed your allowed to drive. Sounds good to me. The initial pass limit for new drivers should be 50mph increasing to 70 after two years. To go higher should require training and also trackdays so people can familiarise themselves with the much greater forces at work at increased speeds. ....or perhaps the judge wasn't think this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpullen Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 [ QUOTE ] "I am a highly skilled police officer, therefore I can choose to disregard the law and break whatever limits I like. My mates will close ranks and defend me, whatever." It’s taken the best part of thirty years to not entirely eradicate that attitude from the police. That philosophy gave us the old Metropolitan force who would lie, perjure, fit up and beat up suspects, take their cut from pornographers, drug dealers and robbers and arrange for any of their number who was getting close to prosecution to retire "sick" on a full pension. Grrrrrrrr. [/ QUOTE ] Now I could give you a thousand reasons why each and every remark you make is wrong and misinformed. Why you choose to listen to what you want to hear and not what is true. But then that is the whole crux of living in a democracy where you can air your views as much as the next person without repercussion and without having to justify your views. I celebrate that you can say such things on this forum. I just wish sometimes our roles were reversed! Not quite so easy when you have to do the job, and do it well but still have no right of reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zharca Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Good grief! Surely you're not suggesting that the Metropolitan force of the 1970's was not endemically corrupt? Without going into a list pages long, just a single investigation (the OP squad) resulted in 400 convictions and "resignations", including the deputy chief commisioner and a ten year sentence for a detective chief inspector. If you think it's misinformed, just read the Home Office documentation of the period, or the views of serious and honest men like Ian Blair, Marks, Faulkner, Stevens etc. To quote the Home Office Research Directorate report FPRS110: Key findings (point one) "police corruption is pervasive, continuing and not bounded by rank" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v6tas Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Several different things you need to consider here, firstly he was a police officer using the car for a police purpose therefore he was exempt from speed limits. [/ QUOTE ] That's not quite the case though, is it? He took it out for a blast on his own, not on Police business, and he recorded it to show his mates how fast he'd gone. It's like saying someone in the Army can go around firing guns just because they are trained to do so. [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps it was him that took your wing mirror off mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zharca Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Section 87 Road traffic regulations exempts vehicles ON AN EMERENCY CALL "If observance would hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose it was being used for on that occasion." There’s no blanket exemption, certainly not "Police business". In Thames Valley, and probably elsewhere, if a police car is caught speeding on camera without the Blue light on (maybe the camera just missed it) then the driver is sent a notice of prosecution and they have to show evidence that they were on a call graded as "emergency". That means the emergency must have been entered in the Force’s Control logs. I believe that very high speeds - like pursuits - have to be sanctioned by the controllers and entered into the logs as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_m Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Thats right - Police need to justify the need to speed - there is no blanket exemption but the term "Emergency call" isnt necessarily true In my experience, my speeds have been decided by me - however - if the Incident manager deems a pursuit to be dangerous then they have the power to stop it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazza_g Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 [ QUOTE ] Section 87 Road traffic regulations exempts vehicles ON AN EMERENCY CALL [/ QUOTE ] not quite true, I understood the wording was... no statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes where does it define it must be an EMERGENCY CALL? - there could be many definitions of police purposes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 ....And the words "police purposes" have been very carefully chosen to be able to be open to interpretation, mostly in the favour of the Police. [i'm not suggesting this shouldn't be the case] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve2 Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 [ QUOTE ] It would appear courts have now decided that the more training you have the higher speed your allowed to drive. Sounds good to me. The initial pass limit for new drivers should be 50mph increasing to 70 after two years. To go higher should require training and also trackdays so people can familiarise themselves with the much greater forces at work at increased speeds. ....or perhaps the judge wasn't think this [/ QUOTE ] or you have been on a TSN meet and had an "interesting drive" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zharca Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Yet the interpretations are clear: Hampshire police: ---------------------------------------------------------------- "The test as to whether the Section 87 Exemption can be applied must be based on justification, proportionality and necessity. It is not justified for an officer to drive in excess of a speed limit unless the officer is engaged in or attending an incident or emergency. The use of, and extent to which an exemption is utilised is dependent on a continuous risk assessment." ---------------------------------------------------------------- And the government view, from Hansard, Jan 2004: Lord Davies of Oldham: Drivers of emergency vehicles are subject to the rules of the Highway Code, many of which are legal requirements. However, Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 exempts drivers of vehicles used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes from speed limits in an emergency. Written answers, June 2003: "Mr. Jamieson: Regulations on the use of blue lights do not in themselves provide any special privileges for drivers. There are, however, certain relaxations often associated with the use of blue lights. Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 exempts drivers of vehicles used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes from speed limits in an emergency. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mb Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 [ QUOTE ] he was a police officer using the car for a police purpose therefore he was exempt from speed limits. [/ QUOTE ] I do not feel anyone should be "exempt" from the law whatever the purposes - if someone is caught breaking the law they should be tried & if the circumstances justified breaking the law then the defendant should be acquitted. I do not accept anyone's driving skills are sufficiently high they can drive like this with the only justification being a subjective assessment of the cars performance. If the police want to evaluate cars it should be done in a controlled manner, with objective criteria, authorised prior to the event & written up afterwards rather than being used as a "get out of jail free" card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisg Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 JimP Interesting to hear your views and perceptions on this, thanks. I've done a few track days and it is the skills of those around you that matter-- it applies to all on the track of course. I sometimes feel nervous about a situation out on the road, idiot in your boot, truck alongside - and you cannot see the driver in his mirrors = he doesn't know you're there and even if it means dropping back it is a safer move. Going back a few years I seem to remember that Jim Clark was an ace driver on the track -- but he racked up a number of road accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpullen Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 The last 4 or 5 comments make some very good observations, clearly an evocative subject which we all have an opinion on. You have to remember that 'blue' light services do not make up these regulations. They are laid down in statute. We interpretate them to the best of our ability and hope we get them right. The qualifications I have gained I have earned with hard work over many many years. I don't get paid extra, I dont get a kick. I willingly took the responsibilty because my arriving safely and quickly makes a difference. As any of you that have phoned 999 and then waited (sometimes helplessly) for that familar sound. I will give two examples, see how you might do it differently. 1, The roads are quiet, dry and well lit. It's night time. You accept a call to a life changing accident about 5 miles away. Because it's so quiet. I dont use the blue light or horns. But still make good progress arriving no later than with them. I travel in excess of the limit and only consider warning instruments when not using them would hinder my progress. i'e traffic lights, junctions etc. You might see me travelling the other way ....I'm going pretty quick, certainly well over the limit.........I wonder what your thoughts are as we pass !!! Out for a jolly? late for dinner? 2, I start to make my way to a slight accident, no one is injured. Damage is pretty minor. But it's on a motorway. Traffic is building up at 1/2 mile every minute. If I arrive in 10 minutes or an hour it makes no difference when I arrive my actions will be the same. I use blue lights and horns. I use the hard shoulder, speed isn't great but I overtake everything. Why? because it's a police purpose, it's not an emergency...or is it? I want to clear the carriageway. This is causing a major obstruction. If I sit with everyone else then I wil be hours. Each and every time I answer a call I make a judgement call and keep doing that till I arrive. My licence is the same as yours......and every day I put it on the line, I don't want special treatment. I just want a fair crack of the whip. Jim Clark was an excellant driver....but to win races driving at 80-90% of your capabilities aint going to win races....If you go flat out you are right on the limit of brilliance and lunacy. And thats what makes the top racing drivers so good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 [ QUOTE ] I seem to remember that Jim Clark was an ace driver on the track -- but he racked up a number of road accidents. [/ QUOTE ] An ace driver on the track until he killed himself... I'm not sure you can compare the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 The fact that Jim Clark died on the track doesn't mean he wasn't a good enough driver. I've seen him race many times and imo he was good. A brilliant lunatic? - This is a different thread topic. Re JimP's two examples, I personally don't have any problem seeing someone driving fast if they are police or similar services and it makes no difference to me if marked or unmarked. Such drivers are usually highly trained and must continually assess all risks and act accordingly. That assessment must surely also include how a life may be saved by certain actions which may be termed as illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v6tas Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 [ QUOTE ] The fact that Jim Clark died on the track doesn't mean he wasn't a good enough driver. I've seen him race many times and imo he was good. A brilliant lunatic? - This is a different thread topic. Re JimP's two examples, I personally don't have any problem seeing someone driving fast if they are police or similar services and it makes no difference to me if marked or unmarked. Such drivers are usually highly trained and must continually assess all risks and act accordingly. That assessment must surely also include how a life may be saved by certain actions which may be termed as illegal. [/ QUOTE ] I think people are losing sight of the thread in the first place. We all know (reading between the lines) he was tearing around because "he could" and knew that if caught would just pull the old " i was practicing my advanced training" card. It just sucks that he is allowed to get away with it and joe blogs wouldnt. But thats the way of the world and it will never change i suppose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Yes, we have "lost sight of the thread" but it's become more interesting imo. We often lose sight of the thread - At least, I do . No, we don't "all know" he was behaving as you suggest. He may have been and he may not have been. A court has found him 'innocent' regardless of what we think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 [ QUOTE ] The fact that Jim Clark died on the track doesn't mean he wasn't a good enough driver. I've seen him race many times and imo he was good. A brilliant lunatic? - This is a different thread topic. [/ QUOTE ] My point exactly - the Jim Clark argument is maybe spurious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jettadeluxe Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 AFAIK, any emergency vehicle that exceeds the speed limit is obliged to have warning lights and sirens active to alert other road users and therefore designates it as 'in police use'. Was this Vectra displaying such warnings at the time of the offence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 [ QUOTE ] AFAIK, any emergency vehicle that exceeds the speed limit is obliged to have warning lights and sirens active to alert other road users and therefore designates it as 'in police use'. Was this Vectra displaying such warnings at the time of the offence? [/ QUOTE ] No it isn't and no it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpullen Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 [ QUOTE ] We all know (reading between the lines) he was tearing around because "he could" and knew that if caught would just pull the old " i was practicing my advanced training" card. It just sucks that he is allowed to get away with it and joe blogs wouldnt. But thats the way of the world and it will never change i suppose [/ QUOTE ] You may say that but I couldn't possibly comment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 [ QUOTE ] Going back a few years I seem to remember that Jim Clark was an ace driver on the track -- but he racked up a number of road accidents. [/ QUOTE ] I can see your point here - that even the best drivers can end up involved in someone else's accident. However, I know enough racing drivers to know that one should never equate ability on the track with being a good (and safe) driver on the road! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now