david.c Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Just heard on the news this morning that a copper got away with driving his patrol car at 159mph on the motorway........................for a bit of practice Anyone fancy trying this excuse David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I wish I'd still got my cosworth sometimes, 180mph M'lud.........I was just getting used to it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man On The Clapham Omnibus Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 He was described by the judge as "the creme de la creme of Police drivers". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Podmore Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 So anyone that can show they are an accomplished, skilled and trained driver can now do any speed they like on the road? Can just picture the scene now...... Copper: 'Alo, 'alo, 'alo, do you think your Stirling Moss? You can't drive that fast on the road. etc. Driver: Yes, on a par with him. Copper: OK then, drive safely. Somehow, I just don't think that will ever happen..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmc_3 Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 It wasnt even a marked police car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gadrego Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Assuming that he could use the excuse that he needed to know how the car handled at that sort of the speed, how the hell can he explain why he also felt the need to do over 80mph in a 30 limit on the same trip? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letterkenny Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 There is of course more to this. Apparently the car was a 3 litre vectra, which won't do 159 mph. So the coppers had to either ban/jail the guy (never going to happen!....admit that their speed detecting equipment was way off (still never going to happen! ...or come up with a p**ss poor story (did happen! Looking foward to explaining that I was just testing the grip on that roundabout officer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracoro Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Yes it will. Official top speed of a 3.2 is 155mph. Remove the speed limiter and it might do a few more. Anyway, I'll post my response that I put on the other thread below: This result can mean one of two things 1 - Corruption in the case in hand. This must be addressed if this is the case but will any of the media take up this campaign? 2 - Exceeding the speed limit is NOT necessarily dangerous if done where appropriate by people with the skills and experience of fast driving? Hopefully this'll spark that debate in the media, however I'm not holding out much hope as a) the anti car lobbies aren't ever gonna change their minds whatever facts are put before them and b) the govt. and local authorities get too much cash from cameras to risk reassessing these things. Not sure how he got off the speeding charge though. The law states the limit and you're either speeding or you're not. The dangerous driving charge is open to interpretation and is a matter for the police/judge in each individual case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adhawkins Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Not sure how he got off the speeding charge though. Surely a traffic cop is 'exempt' from speed limits when he's working? ISTR recall Studbuckle telling me that one of the jobs his mate (a traffic cop) has to do is write back in response to all the speeding tickets he gets explaining... Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chappers Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Surely, if he was trying to see how the car handled at speed, then he didn't know how it handled at those speeds, in which case the safest place for the tests to be carried out would have been a racetrack/airfield etc. I don't see why the public should be endangered for "a bit of practise", since you can't ensure against unforeseen things like blow-outs etc. It would be different if he was in pursuit of armed criminals or something, but there is no need for those speeds in other cases. If he was also doing 80 in a 30mph limit, I don't care how good a driver he is, a 3ltr Vectra will still take a finite time to stop when a child runs into the road.....the 30 limit must be there for a reason..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracoro Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Problem with testing in airfields/tracks is that they are NOT like real world driving. For one the grip levels and types of tarmac etc. are often rather different. As I said, unless there's corruption going on somewhere, it must be judged that it WAS safe for him to do those speeds in that car in the conditions such that they were at the time. Not all 30 limits are appropriate. It used to be the case that they were in built up areas where the proximity of the road to pedestrians, visibility etc. were all taken into account. Now it just seems inappropriate to dump 30 and 40 limits everywhere. And we all know why that is don't we!! £££ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterOz Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Surely a traffic cop is 'exempt' from speed limits when he's working? Don't think so... at least this one wasn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adhawkins Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Yes, but that one was speeding cos he was late for a meeting... Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studbuckle Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Not sure how he got off the speeding charge though. Surely a traffic cop is 'exempt' from speed limits when he's working? ISTR recall Studbuckle telling me that one of the jobs his mate (a traffic cop) has to do is write back in response to all the speeding tickets he gets explaining... Andy Yes and no. No cop, traffic or otherwise is automatically exempt from speeding. It has to be shown that it was part of the job. That's the reason this case was brought to court. It was in question not if the speed was excessive but whether it was appropriate for his job. I believe it was, thankfully, so did the judge. I'd like to think that everyone who says that he should've been found guilty is just jealous they can't 'get away with it' but unfortunatley there are still people who think they are capable of driving at 100+mph on public roads without any additional hazzard perception training and please note that I said hazzard perception, I make no reference to driving skills in their own right. I have been outraged by some of the medi comments made over this case and even the spokesperson for RoSPA this morning was being nothing more than hipocritical when we consider that in order to achieve the RoSPA standard of driving we have to be examined by the standard of driver that this officer is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_m Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 . . . the spokesperson for RoSPA this morning was being nothing more than hipocritical when we consider that in order to achieve the RoSPA standard of driving we have to be examined by the standard of driver that this officer is Am ignorant t*at standard driver ? How can 84mph in a 30 limit be anything other than reckless and plain stupid. Even if you have the hazzard awareness skills and eyeballs of Superman and the reactions of M Schumacher there's no way you can stop a 1.5 tonne car in the time usually available in 30mph limits from over 80 mph. 160mph on an empty motorway is a different matter though and had it been a car of higher quality that's designed for those speeds, that might have been as safe as 50mph in the rush hour. Not sure I want to see Vx Vectras chuffing along at such high speeds unless they are specifically adapted for it. He was out for a bit of a laugh and would have got away with it had he noticed the video was running. (He can't have been that observant could he ! ) As it is he got away with it by fibbing and getting his friends to fib for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.