sorry, I'm not normally a police basher but had to smile when I read this:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands...m
|
I believe what he says, it's good to see him admitting he was caught fair and square.
You have to ask yourself though was his 'crime' actually a 'crime' or was it merely illegal?
Certainly I've driven at speeds far in excess of that in the past* on that road, it's a fantastic road that has some great stretches with good visibility and double the posted limit could be a safe speed if you're in the right car.
*Please note I may or may not have done this and may just be saying it for purposes of effect if any net-Police are reading this.......
|
>>road that has some great stretches with good visibility and doublethe posted limit could be a safe speed if you're in the right car.
As the chief constable obviously knows.
I can't imagine why this is a news story really. Another driver has been caught going a bit too fast on a road with a ridiculously low limit. Yawn.
|
Maybe I should set-up a petition on the number 10 site to have him sacked?
Should someone guilty of such a serious crime be allowed to keep such a job in the Police force?
|
|
|
*Please note I may or may not have done this and may just be saying it for purposes of effect if any net-Police are reading this.......
Although perhaps tongue-in-cheek, your proviso may not(*) be necessary. I believe that without a Police caution, self-incrimination (via that sort of general statement) has no more standing as evidence than 'hearsay' would. Although, I'm sure if a 'proper' crime was admitted to on a public forum it could at least form the basis for an enquiry, but again proof or admission under caution would be required to form a viable prosecution one assumes.
(*) from my layperson's understanding of the P.A.C.E. Act 1984 - I stand to be corrected by a law professional or Police officer!
|
The courts don't take the view that flouting the speed limits (single carriageway road) is safe: news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1504472006
|
"Perhaps this will act as a warning to other drivers."
Why? I hate this arrogant, parsimonious twaddle that chief coppers come out with when they have been caught doing something (politicians do the same thing).
|
far from being a 'police bashing' thread, this actually shows the police in a very positve light. He admitted the mistake and takes full responsibility - no lame excuses or trying to get out of it. And 72 in a 60mph isn't exactly crime of the century.
|
And 72 in a 60mph isn't exactly crime of the century.
Quite the contrary: it's a sign of true human worth. I like a sporting copper.
|
Re the point firther above, 60mph on this road is not an absurdly low limit. the A9 is well known for being a killer road, there have been numerous fatalities along its stretch as a result of speeding, wild animals, foreign tourists etc.
Which makes it all the more amazing that their Chief Constable not only drove that fast on it, but didn't realise that it is the one road that is littered with fixed and mobile cameras.
However the report I read said he received the NIP this week and the offence happened on 1 July, do I see a little technicality get-out clause here?
Also, how does this information get into the public domain?
--
2007 Seat Altea XL 2.0 TDI (140) Stylance
2005 Skoda Fabia vrS
|
"However the report I read said he received the NIP this week and the offence happened on 1 July, do I see a little technicality get-out clause here?"
As he is head honcho he may get a lease car as part of the job, so NIP could have gone to a different office first.
|
|
|
well known for being a killer road there have been numerous fatalities along its stretch as a result of speeding wild animals foreign tourists etc.
There's no such thing as a 'killer road' merely innapropriate driving. As I said I can think of a few stretches where it would be safe to do double the limit as you have fantastic visibility.
|
|
Nothing is completely safe. As a previous poster pointed out, there are hazards that you'd have to ignore to do 120mph, with a braking to halt taking about 250 yards, on the level. As the A9 is sinuous, you'd be trying to brake hard at 120 probably in or approaching a bend. All sounds a trifle foolhardy to me. 120 in a 60 (your implication) would be how safe: 50%, 20%, 5% safe?
|
I agree nothing is completely safe and I didn't think I'd implied it. 60 isn't completely 'safe' neither is 100mph or more.
As for applying percentages I think it's
a. Not possible
b. A pointless exercise.
What I can (and have been saying) say is that I can think of stretches of that road that it would be as safe to drive at twice the posted limit as it would at the limit, dependent on the conditions.
|
The A9 is one of the classic 'real driver's roads' or was before the cameras. It was the advent of the cameras that prompted me to give up field service and move indoors. Lots of long flat straights, swooping bends with lots of vision - I'd never have kept my licence, that's what made me smile.
As an aside the police used to use a Jag XJ12 to catch speeders on the A9, fantastic chase car but if it ever had to go off the A9 onto a side road - hopeless, couldn't catch a cold....
|
|
Also how does this information get into the public domain?
Most police forces leak like a sieve, and the senior officers know that. So if this man had any sense he will have issued a statement so that he can have some control of how the story starts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back in 1971 the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire (the late John Gott) was reported for speeding between Kettering and Corby one night, but the report disappeared when it got higher up.
|
|
|
|
Parsimonious ????? twaddle angelman
Parsimonious (adj.) = excessively unwilling to spend
Did you mean 'sanctimonious ' perchance?
|
helicopter - I do believe that I did.
|
Thought so angelman. .
You may of course have meant that the Chief Constable may have been unwilling to excessively spend his twaddle.......
Then again , what can you spend your twaddle on these days .....
You can tell its a slow day at work today .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe him. I think that inside his head he is thinking "Whatever, I was driving safely, blasted cameras do nothing for road safety." He has just done what all those in similar positions have done and condemn himself as that is the best option but not the most honest.
|
if he had any spine he'd ban the damned things......unless there were true accident blackpots to worry about
trouble is his performance related pay...and some of the income from the cameras regurgitated into his accident reduction strategy would dictate not
|
|
I wonder whether his NIP was hand-delivered.
|
|
|
if he had any spine he'd ban the damned things......unless there were true accident blackpots
>>
But Westpig, bit difficult politically to show spine when you are hoist with your own service's petard bang to rights... he might have been dreaming of it until then, but hesitating.
If I were (God forbid) a chief constable I too might dream of instituting rational motoring policies, until I remembered the storms of carp that come from all directions when a public figure says anything remotely offcentre... Just imagine the ghastly politicians from all the parties coming down on you like 100 tons of toxic waste for saying the most anodyne things...
Poor guy. You should be on his side. But I agree that it won't concentrate the public's mind on the dangers of speeding. Not mine anyway. I've done my share today.
It's a long time since the excellent rally-driving John Gott slipped through the net. A grimmer, sillier world.
|
|
|
|
|
