WARNING! Unmarked Subaru on M23

Yeah, I just bet not one other policeman went out familiarising himself with his car.

Definitely.

 

 come come livvy

"i think they were all aware that self familiarising was not training & never considered it was such. That is why they prosecuted him in the belief that nobody was going to wear that lame excuse"

Incidentally, the Police Federation also defended Milton. They said that he was driving 'in accordance with his training, honing his skills while possible and testing the vehicle's capabilities. errrrrr

livvy wrote: Well I'm pretty sure that at least a few others will have at some time as well. But that doesn't make it right & I'm sure they would get prosecuted if caught as well.

Mmm. Just for going a couple of MPH over the limit? I doubt it.

"the Police Federation also defended Milton"????????

60 in a 30, 120 in a 60 and 160 in a 70. 

To my mind that's dangerous even with 'a police purpose'.  The old chesnut 'if a kid ran out..' springs to mind.  He'd have little more chance of avoiding an accident than we would.  There's possibly a misconception that police advanced driving makes you superhuman. 

There is a time and a place to test the limits of the car, and a limit to how far to push it, and I really don't think that was it. 

I'm glad you agree Livvy. 

livvy wrote: scarface wrote: 60 in a 30, 120 in a 60 and 160 in a 70.  We can't however say the speed he was doing was dangerous at the time though unless we have viewed the evidence, because it is dependent on the circumstances.

So, one rule for us ... because I'm sure no policeman would ever tell me that doing 60 on a dead-straight, empty, well-lit road that happened to be a 30 zone was not dangerous.

He may CHARGE me only with speeding, but I'll bet a fiver (or even a tenner) I will get a mahoosive lecture about how dangerous it was for me to do what I was doing, and how lucky I am that he's not charging me with dangerous driving.

spokey wrote: He may CHARGE me only with speeding, but I'll bet a fiver (or even a tenner) I will get a mahoosive lecture about how dangerous it was for me to do what I was doing, and how lucky I am that he's not charging me with dangerous driving.

As I said I can't account for what he'll say. But the important thing is what can they prove.

livvy wrote: As I said I can't account for what he'll say. But the important thing is what can they prove.

I'll put a fiver down. Wouldn't you?

scarface wrote: livvy wrote: I agree he was wrong to be doing what he was doing. I agree that Police training can't make you superhuman. I would state however that I don't think you can get training  anywhere else that can better equip you to travel at higher speeds on our roads. I don't disagree with that, I was just saying that there are limits, before you reach the cars limits ,no matter who you are as you're not the only factor, it's not like he was on a race track.  It was reckless, for no valid purpose.  IMO

There are various limits. Yours, the cars, the conditions. Some people could never reach the cars limits safely before outrunning their own. Others can.
On public roads you should never be approaching the limits of any of them. You should always be within limits with a bit in reserve.
On the race track you can operate on the limit because it's a more sterile controlled environment.
I can't say he was reckless. His speed was very high on public roads. It may or may not have been. The court said it wasn't.

scarface wrote: livvy wrote: I would also say that the majority of the public if subjected to that training could pass it as well. You obviously have a higher opinion of the general public than me   That does actually surprise me.  The police I have heard interviewed have always given me the opposite impression.

The Police are representative of the public they serve. As such their standard of driving is representative of the public. Some good, some bad & a lot of indifferently poor.
Why wouldn't the public who started from the same levels be able to pass the courses that a Police driver does ?
Most of the public could never afford what it would cost on the other hand.

scarface wrote: livvy wrote: We can't however say the speed he was doing was dangerous at the time though unless we have viewed the evidence, because it is dependent on the circumstances. I have never subscrribed to speed in itself being dangerous. I concede that.  I suppose you see the limit and think of a road you know with that limit and imagine him there.  It is possible he was on a road with an inappropriately low limit, they are springing up everywhere.

Indeed taht's what they do.
Say 60 in a 30 & they think in a quiet residential side street with children playing.
There are however 30's in very different circumstances where at certain times speeds higher than 60 could be safe. (I can think of some) but I at the sametime can see the reason why it's a 30, because of the problems that occur at other times.


Edited by livvy