Traffic Cop Gets away with driving at 159mph

[G60Jet 1]

Thats right a traffic cop got away with driving 159mph, with the excuse he was honing his skills as a advance police driver.

 

from what i've heard some of the "session" was done in a 30 zone, it was in the ealry hours, but i think that recless.

 

This give traffic cops the right to drive how fast and get away with it.

 

I agree they should be allowed to practise, but not at over twice the legal limit.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shro ... 559173.stm

[vr6corrado 0]

Hmm they're protecting each other it seems. Wonder what car he was in?

[G60Jet 1]

I think it was a vectra, Hmm some tweeking done me thinks

[RadoAds 0]

A Vectra at 159..............Fook me

Id love to know how they shoe horned that V12 in there :)

[Henny 0]

he was taken to court due to the video in the car being spotted by someone else...

 

We reported it as 79mph in a 30 zone on our radio station today... I hadn't seen the 159mph bit... :|

[vr6corrado 0]

A Vectra?!!! 159mph?

[dr_mat 0]

Clarify the poll please:

 

Is WHAT justified?

His driving at 159mph to practice or the prosecution of said driver?

 

Given that I think it's ok for ME to speed when I deem it to be safe, I will support this highly trained driver to speed when he deems it to be safe (4am on deserted motorways pretty much sums it up to me).

 

Or maybe we should demand higher standards from the police force than we expect of ourselves?

 

And then there's the question of "how fast is too fast" when trained pursuit drivers are concerned. You can be pretty sure the bad guy isn't going to slow down because "159 on public roads is just ridiculous", so surely the police have to use whatever methods are required?

 

Anyway, that's my 2p.

[RadoAds 0]

Sorry I thought the poll was for if it was justified for the Vectra being able to do 159 in the first place :)

[OSV 0]

Its the Police that brought the prosecution against him remember so its hardly a case of 'looking after their own' or 'one rule for one'. It was the court who cleared him based on his expertise and the need for familiarity and confidence in the tools of his trade. Personally I think he was just caught out finding out what it'll do on a quiet motorway and should have been convicted accordingly as it wasn't authorised or in response to an urgent job.

[Guest]

There was a simlar case not that long ago of an ambalance driver travelling from leeds to london with organs. He put the lights on and foot down as organs were going off (limited time frame, for them to be used).

 

He was pulled/tried and resulted in losing his job as it was deemed it was not an emergency.

[mark28G60 0]

Seeing as though the average car will not do 159 and then it would need to be on a very long strech of road, id rather the police back off a pursuit in that case and use the helicopters that i pay for.

NO WAY should he be doing 159 in some areas of a 30.

He should have been banned from driving for at least 1yr and been given a desk job.

But then the uni would step in and we wont even go there..........

 

just my 5p worth

 

Mark

[ZippyVR6 0]

Personally I dont have a problem with it. He is a trained driver and it seem that the media have spruced the story up a LITTLE.

 

If he can get away scott free then it seems that the attitude towards the silly low speed limit that this country enforces might just be slipping. if a trained cop can get away with 160 then we the general public should be able to jaunt along at 90 on motorways.

[BigTartanJudge 0]

There is absolutely NO WAY he was justified to drive at that speed on the public highway (even on motorway M42 / M6 where he was clocked by the vehicles own video recording) whilst quote, "getting used to his new traffic patrol vehicle".

 

Another good one I heard was the chief constable of the constabulary where the officer comes from saying "it's a double edged sword, if the public want us to be able to respond in an emergency where their livelihoods are at risk, they have to be prepared for the police to drive at this sort of speed".

 

Yeah right, how many times have we all heard about instances where it took the police ages, sometimes even hours or more etc. to repsond to a call where peoples property / businesses / relatives / friends etc. were being put at risk ?

 

I think that particular police officers actions were very reckless, dangerous and stupid, e.g at 160 mph it takes over a quarter of a mile to slow to zero by the most experienced of drivers. How does he think he would have been able to safely stop if there was a collision up ahead, debris on road, peolple crossing or roadworks etc. ?

 

This recent judgement only serves to reinforce the opinions of recent times that state that and also remind motorists / the general public that police officers always think they are "above the law".

 

Ok, rant over.

 

By the way, have been told that the police traffic vehicle he was driving at the time of this incident was a modifed Vauxhall Vecta 3.2L V6 GSi "breathed on" by VXRacing with reground cams, enlarged throttle-body and specially remapped ECU etc. (and 155 mph speed restrictor removed-rumour is they have top speed in excess of 170+ mph-I have a good source BTW)

 

Cheers

[Storm 0]

use the helicopters that i pay for.

 

Please in future do not be so impudent, we do not tolerate simple tax payers expressing an opinion. If this happens again you WILL be reported to the rt Hon Jon Prescott.....and you know he's an 'ard b'sted.

 

Yours

Rt Hon Tony B-liar

PM of Scotland

 

P.S. as for the copper he created a potential situation for a disaster, unacceptable in my book.

[Timo. 0]

I reckon that kind of speed can be nearly justified in special circumstances.

 

I.e. In serious emergencies, i.e. RTA's, the Police are usually first on the scene by many minutes and often provide 'First' Aid until the Ambulance arrives.

 

I think, when it comes to peoples lives, then higher than legal speeds should not be a problem.

 

Its like learning the limit of the car. Its good to know the limit of the car, not only speed but handling so that when it comes to an emergency etc you know where the limit is.

 

160mph is a little too fast.

 

Simon.

[Slimbo 0]

If he was off duty at the time, he should be thrown in jail, that's just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than drink driving.

[Bally 0]

If he was off duty at the time, he should be thrown in jail, that's just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than drink driving.

 

Agree with you.. funny how they let him off being a copper!! facking bastids!!

[dr_mat 0]

NO WAY should he be doing 159 in some areas of a 30.

 

He wasn't doing 159 in a 30. He did 159 on an empty M54 at 4am.

 

(I agree by the way that it wasn't acceptable to be doing 70+ in a 30 zone, and think he should have got done for that.)

 

How many people on this very forum claim top speed trials on "private roads (ahem)"? What's so different?

 

What's acceptable then? Given that every one of us speeds, particularly on the motorway, what speed do we allow someone else to do? Isn't it just the jealousy that he got away with it that riles us?

 

Was 159 mph "Justified" in the circumstances? No. Would I have done it? Maybe. So who am I to judge? Therefore I won't.

 

I think this is yet another example of the press trying to win shock points by hyping a non-event.

[Guest]

Just applied for a new job... Wonder if they'll let me use the raddo'

[fatherted 0]

I agree about the 159 on the M54 but over 70 in a 30 zone? That should be a ban at any time of day or night.

[dinkus 10]

I wouldn't want to pass judgement until I knew a bit more about the car and driver.

 

It sounds like although it was a Vectra, it had been pretty well sorted so it's unlikely to be unstable at that speed and one would hope it had seriously uprated brakes as well.

 

You also need to consider the driver. If he's a well trained police driver (rather than a poorly trained police driver, of which there are quite a few) then 159 on a deserted motorway at 4am isn't really a problem. There won't be anything blocking his path and if there is other traffic then he should hopefully have the skills, car ability and most importantly, space to avoid it.

 

Yes it was probably a bit reckless and 70 in a 30 is more than a lot excessive and dangerous, so I'd have to say that's got to be a banning offence.

 

The other point worth noting is if it's responsible to be doing that kind of speed on Her Majesty's highways without good cause to. My opinion on that one is almost certainly a no. If you're a member of the police force you have access (or at least should) to driver training facilities and could quite easily have taken the car on a track to find out what it was capable of. So yes, I do expect police to abide by stricter standards than I do, because they should lead by example and they have no excuse for it.

 

Makes the whole "speed kills" campaign look even more rediculous than it is at the moment tho, don't you think? :D

[g60greeny 0]

throw away the key

[vr6corrado 0]

Its the Police that brought the prosecution against him remember so its hardly a case of 'looking after their own' or 'one rule for one'. It was the court who cleared him based on his expertise and the need for familiarity and confidence in the tools of his trade.

 

The court cleared him but two senior traffic cops both declined to classify his driving as dangerous when giving evidence - for the prosecution. However I do think that ambulance driver shouldn't have been banned.

[swfblade 0]

I wonder how we'd all react if he'd been in a Corrado......? ;)

 

I do believe that 160 is rather excessive tho. Especially as he was learning the vehicle! Blimey, 160 and he doesnt even know how the cars going to react?!?!

[G60Jet 1]

I have no problem with them training, infact they all need to practice, but what practice do you get out of driving at 159 on a motorway, the motorways are basically striaght, i know at those speeds things are gonna be happening a lot faster. as for the 30 zone, it only takes a Cat, Dog, fox other other animal in the road to cause a potential situation where there could be a RTA or damage to tax payers property. If he was off duty was he insured??

 

To my way of thinking his should of put the car through its passes at a test track not public road. if he wanted to test his speed there is plenty of runways around. If top gear get slated for doing on a track this guy is WELL out of order. Where were the speed cameras?