159 MPH and got away with it

Currently reading:
159 MPH and got away with it

Strange isn't it, I know of people who have been caught doing 2mph over the limit and have had points on their licence for "Dangerous Driving".
What bulls**t. He should have been banned. But hey different rules for different people.
The good old British law system fails again.
I understand that they have to test the new cars to get a feel for them, but their ment to have a police driving instructor with them at the time. Even still 159mph is excessive and dangerous because people don't expect you to be approaching that fast, and so pull out thinking their safe to do so.

Ben
 
Well, the press have hyped the story up to suit themselves and turn the public against the police, really.

The copper was charged by his own force, who have an 'open policy' for testing cars. He had no procedure to follow, despite asking.

The testing was carried out at 1am on a friday.

159mph was achieved on a deserted stretch of motorway.

We can't use the same excuse, we're not trained and expected by the general public to catch criminals who are using excessive speed. Would you rather he was used to the car if he had to pass you in pursuit of a knife wielding maniac, or as ROSPA are demanding that a blanket maximum of 100mph should be applied to any emergency service vehicle?

Testing on a racetrack will give an idea of how the car performs, but as the judge said it's not the same as what he will be expected (by us) to do in the course of his job.

Police often carry out pursuit training in traffic in order to assess drivers. This includes speeds approaching those quoted above. Local to me I have been passed by unmarked and marked cars travelling I'd say at up to 130mph.

I can understand why people may be against the judge's decision, but in my own opinion we need drivers trained to do so. If he hadn't video taped the driving, he wouldn't even have been questioned.
 
‘Deserted stretch of motorway' I rather doubt it. That just pleads complacentcy. Quiet maybe, but certainly no assurance that the road is clear from obstructions.

I've no doubt the car and even the driver can handle that speed, on a track. Part of the argument behind limiting road speeds is that road surfaces are not made for vehicles to travel at such speeds. Within a quarter mile you might cross 4 or more different surfaces AND that's supposed to be suggestive of a ‘well maintained' road in some instances!

Knife wielding maniac!! I'm sorry Pete, but I think a maniac behind the wheel of a two tun bullet is rather more dangerous than a knife.

The bottom line is… what the F*** is this guy supposed to do when he catches up with said villain anyway!!?? A lot of the time, the guy is guna try and out pace the copper making them both go faster anyway. Then the villain gets desperate and starts making more dangerous manoeuvres with the copper on his tail.

Police pursuits envloving one car are just an excuse for officers to seek that thrill of going faster like the rest of us. Coordinated efforts at much lower speeds are the only way to minimise risk to the public.

Police are only human. Like the Inspector who risked the lives of his kids and indeed sacrificed his, after driving home drunk off duty. Their judgement simply cannot be relied on at 160mph. Accidents will happen because of the way police drive, and they DO. If one caused my mum to have an accident cos of a high speed pursuit, I'd treat the officer like i would any other villain, and string the F***** up!
 
The guy is a highly trained persuit driver, familiarising himself with a highly maintained vehicle on an empty stretch of motorway in the early hours. What the feck is the problem.
I want him to practise every night so when some cnut nicks my 150mph Alfa he has every advantage available to him to catch the theives.
And as top thieves and terrorists etc are not going to be pootling about in Nissan Micra's and play like gentlemen then it is even more reason to be practising.
The press have hyped this up out of all proportion as have radio phone ins etc and of course every effing forum as this as a thread at the moment lol

worshipalpha.gif
 
But he also did 120 in a 60 zone, and 60 in a thirty zone!!!

From an OFFICIAL site

Police, quite rightly, often emerge as heroes in these incidents, but they too are involved in their share of fatal road accidents. One of the most notorious in recent times was the incident when a police driving instructor, driving an unmarked, high performance Rover 827 on the A10 at Harston in Cambridgeshire, ran into a nurse's car and killed her. PC Gerard Sharratt was involved in a 100mph training exercise, with three students in his car, acting as a “bandit”, being chased by another car driven by a police student. He rounded a left hand bend and “did a double-take” when he saw cars queuing in front of him, braked, skidded and hit the stationary car owned by Miss Judith Wood, 27, at 56mph. Sharratt had been driving at between 100 and 116mph when he had braked44.

Then, in March 1996, Channel 4 TV news presenter, Sheena McDonald, was knocked down and seriously injured by a police van answering an emergency call to a fight in Holloway, north London45.

But by no means all accidents occur while police vehicles are responding to emergency calls. In 1997, PC Adrian Ward was taking Shelley Simmonite, 15, home to her parents after she had been arrested for suspected shoplifting. Driving at up to 120mph, he had gone through a red light and had lost control, hitting a van. He was estimated to have been travelling at 65-75mph when had applied the brakes. Shelley was killed in the crash46.

In 1996, after the Cambridgeshire incident, police were being urged to review their pursuit training47 and, in 1998, the Lund report recommended that all police involved in pursuits be given special training. But, in November 2000, it was being variously reported that the number of deaths from accidents during police chases had risen by more than 50 percent48, by 140 percent49 and, in December, by 300 percent50. Either way, 22 people had been killed during police chases and there had been nine deaths arising from other police road accidents. Overall, there had been 17,300 road accidents involving the police in 1998. Sir Alistair Graham, chairman of the Police Complaints Authority, observed:


“There is worrying evidence (that) the skill and judgement of some police officers is open to question and criticism”51.
Nor are police evidently great respecters of traffic laws — or, at least, any greater respecters than ordinary people. That was a finding of the TRL, which suggested that only nine percent of magistrates and 11 percent of police would observe the 30mph limit on an urban road in clear daylight with little traffic52. And, apart from the celebrated case of Home Secretary Jack Straw's police driver who escaped prosecution despite driving at 103mph on the M5, there have been a number of other high profile embarrassments.
In 1996, Ben Gunn, the Chief Constable of the Cambridge Police, was seen driving at 90mph on the M1153. At least he was given a fixed penalty ticket and three penalty points. But not so the chauffeur of Dennis O'Connor, head of the Surrey police, who in December 2000 saw his driver escape without sanction when his car was pulled over by his own officers on the A3 near Guildford, despite his driving at 78mph in a 50mph zone54. Others had not been so fortunate. In September 1999, three policemen were banned from driving after being caught riding their motorcycles at 110mph through one of their own speed traps, on a road with a 60mph limit55.
 
Maybe the press are hyping this up, but you cannot deny the facts.

IMO The speed he was doing was unacceptable, especially travelling more than twice the limit in the 30 zone... (i have read a couple of reports of him doing 87mph)

As for the roads being 'deserted', at those speeds, there is no way he could have stopped in time in an emergency and just glad i wasnt stumbling home from a night out when he was flying past at more than a mile a minute!

"Even in emergencies we consider that driving at 100mph or more is too dangerous."

Just glad that no-one got hurt during his 'testing'...

Daz
 
Yeah I heard he was doing 85mph in a 30.

Why did he have to test up to 160mph? You would never reach the speeds in a day time or in any pursuit as its way too dangerous.

Why couldn't he just ask the top speed? The speeds they need to practice at are a lot lower than that.

The big factor for me was that he was shopped by fellow police drivers so clearly if even they thought he was driving recklessly its a problem.
 
honestly you lot(not all) are so anti police, im sure they would be the first you would call if you needed them, good luck to the guy, he didnt hurt anyone, he wouldnt have done it if there were people around, obviously!

there are "no test tracks" that do high speeds, the police advanced drivers get taught on tracks that test handling on different surfaces- oily etc.. with obstacles! the high speed training is on the road, would you rather this done with other people on the road, i think not!
 
And how exactly does this help him?

I could drive 160mph in that car too, it takes no skill. You have contradicted yourself slightly. He was training at night so no-one would be hurt and he wouldn't do it when anyone else is involved. But that is precisely the time he should be training for, when people ARE involved.

Slamming your foot down until you reach 160mph takes no skill at all.

Edit: spelling
 
police

This oficer was travelling at 60 and 84 mph in 30mph residential areas. He was driving at 159 mph on the M54, on a 2 lane stretch of the motorway.

Travelling at night a driver's field of vision is very much reduced.

Stopping distance increases by almost 30% when speed is increased form 70 to 80mph.

Last year 30 civilians were killed by speeding police cars. Nationally 3,500 people are killed on the roads every year.

At 1,2,3,4 or 5am there is very much reduced traffic volume, people returning from clubs, nightworkers, criminals between jobs, HGVs etc.

3 weeks ago near me again in Cambs a speeding motorist at about 1.30am knocked down and killed a 17 year old, throwing his body 50m into an adjacent canal. Fortunatley he was killed outright and is unlikely to have suffered. His friends estimated the driver's speed who did not stop to have been in the region of 70 to 80mph.

Ok perhaps it wasn't a bright idea for 5 blokes to walk home after a party along quiet Fen roads, but one man didn't deserve to die.

Why? Speed.

The fact the police officer got off pales into significance that he didn't crash into some one going about their legitimate business or into some ones property. The phrase, there he goes but for the grace of God springs to mind.

Hopefully he won't do it again.

I heard a radio phone in on a major station earlier today. 2 senior traffic police instructors grade 1 etc contacted the show to say how appalled they were that their fellow police officer had not been found guilty. They felt his recklessness was criminal and he brought shame on the Police. They did not condone in any way the speeds at which he was drving.

Between stages of last years RAC rally Welsh police were targetting experienced professional rally drivers driving between stages. Several were issued with speeding tickets when their speed was not excessive by any means.

Who would you consider more skilled a driver?

Carlos Sainz or this so called highly experienced Police pursuit driver?

Remember the Police are public servants. They must obey the law just like the rest of us. If they do not they must have a bloody good reason to justify why they haven't.

Had he killed or injured some one, then he would facing a charge of causing death by dangerous driving which carries up to 10 years in prison. Would he have gone to prison do you think, if he was still alive of course after the impact. There we go but for the grace of God.

There is no margin for error at these speeds.

If he hit some one in a 30mph travellling at 84mph and say the other car was travelling at 35-40mph then the impact speed would be over 120mph...........wow in a 30mph limit.

His driving was so reckless it became criminal.

I wonder if he is now doing desk duties or being retrained?

Next time you're out late at night, thinking how quiet it all seems and should a speeding car approach you could swerve out the way, then think again as you wouldn't stand a chance, you wouldn't know what had hit you as he didn't even have his blue lights and siren on.

The car's mpg must have been in single figures at 159mph. Taxpayers expense............

If I'm ever facing a charge of dangerous driving, not that it's likely, as I'm not a copper, then I want the name of his defence barrister.
 
the press

i think the press have got hold of it because there is like a million or 2 million people caught for speeding every year.

this seems like one rule for them and 1 rule for us

the law applies to everyone.

thats what a judge would say to me in the dock.

Not all police men are honest, some are crooks remember.
 
Did we not have this a few weeks ago? PC Milton doing 84 in a 30 zone (same case, different heading).

Mark.
Council estate lad.
And proud of it!

Member of the Guild of Experienced Motorists.
travelsmall.gif
 

Similar threads

C
Replies
0
Views
7K
ChrisKnottIns
C
D
Replies
1
Views
763
Ozric-Al
O
J
Replies
1
Views
616
Dark Lurker
D
R
Replies
6
Views
531
M
Back
Top