Found guilty and then let off? What a cop out (excuse the pun)...
One rule for them, and another for the rest of us. Excuse me whilst I go and try out the top speed in *my* Vectra, I have an urgent need to "familiarise myself " with the car...
Fuming mad doesn't even begin to describe this. Wouldn't you or I end up with a driving ban and likely imprisonment for being found guilty of dangerous driving in these extremes? I hope West Mercia sack him, at least that would be some form of justice.
|
|
|
Frankly I am more than happy that he practices his skills. I would like him to be able to drive at that speed when it really matters, and I'd rather he knows what he's doing. If he has familiarised himself with the car in a non-pressure situation, then I tend to think that's a good thing.
And I'm not upset that if he drives at that speed he gets away with it but if I drive at that speed I get imprisiond. I'm not a copper. Its not my job. It could have been if I'd wanted but I chose not.
We want these people to look after us, we complain when they do not, we complain about pretty much anythign they do and pretty much anything they don't do. We complain if they cause a traffic jam by driving at slow speeds, we complain if they drive at fast speeds because of the risk. We believe that cameras are unneccessary because speed is not dangerous and we can judge better than a camera, but we complain if a policeman thinks the same - and before you say it, its not the police drivers bringing in cameras.
A message from me to the police -
Do what you think you need to. If you need to break laws to fulfil your job, if you need to do things I don't like to achieve your goals, then crack on, you'll get no grief from me. Your bosses wind me up and the politicans are clowns, but I have dealt with the policemen/women over the years from various angles - from where I was the aggreived to where I was the scroat, as part of an effort or from watching an effort, the worst I have ever found you is sarcastic, but usually not even that. More power to you.
|
It's not a matter of supporting the Police generally, point is, he didn't need to practice his high speed driving in such uncontrolled circumstances, the Police have special training days with expert assistance for familiarisation with such speeds and getting to know the cars. At those times, and those times only are they permitted to speed without being on a "shout" with the blues and twos. Plenty of time and scope to improve their driving and get to know cars in a safe and controlled manner. They never had, and don't need carte blance to go out and hit the maximum speed in any car they might try just to get to know it. No need.
In any case, he has been found guilty of dangerous driving, so even the courts don't support your idea that he needs to "practice his skills", at least not when *he* feels like it! ;)
|
Oilburner - "At those times, and those times only are they permitted to speed without being on a "shout" with the blues and twos" you're entitled to your opinion, fair enough - but that sentence is actually wrong in law.
Neil
|
|
|
|
Surely though the law of the land says that speeding is illegal and he was not on an emergency mission.
There are places to practise safe driving at speed. racing drivers are more able to drive at speed than an average motrist but they still are at the mercy of the law if they are caught doing such speeds?
Fair treatment of the motorist is more important than over fair treatment of an upholder of the law?
|
|
|
If you uphold the law to others, then you should keep it yourself wherever possible.
I do not agree (and I am not falling out with you No FM2R, merely debating) that such "familiarisation" is necessary, or indeed that it is the truth.
Let's be honest here: he thinks he can get away with driving fast because it's FUN. And, it appears he can. It's the same reason the upper classes hunt foxes, they justify it with all the "no-one understands the countryside" hyperbole, but really it's the thrill of the hunt and they enjoy watching the death.
I am NOT saying that they don't need training, god knows they do. Please do it on a track, or in virtual reality machines or whatever. Do not risk my life and that of my family or else I will spend the rest of my life making yours a misery.
159mph on the M54, honestly speaking not that bothered, if conditions are good. 60mph+ through town.. very bothered. I don't give the proverbial's proverbials HOW GOOD a driver is, you cannot react quickly if a drunk walks off a pavement etc... that's physics. Yes, that's my personal take on it, and I'm more than happy to discuss it.
|
|
PS I am NOT anti-police. Very pro in fact, and I think the last thing they need is clowns like PC Leadfoot turning people against them.
|
|
|
|
Absolute discharge for dangerous driving at 159 mph makes £75 for dropping fag ASH out of a car window look pretty fierce (case earlier this week)
|
|
|
Too right.
Never mind the headline figure of 159 on the M54, the bit that gets me 84mph in an urban 30 zone at night, the mind boggles...
Famaliarisation or no, it was only sheer luck that someone wasn't killed. I'm not sure in a real chase whether or not the police would actually back off if someone was travelling that fast, because it's better to back off and let things slow down and loose track of the suspects than have to inform someone that their kid/wife/mother has been run over by a police car chasing some spotty youths?
|
|
|
>>159mph on the M54, honestly speaking not that bothered, if conditions are good. 60mph+ through town.. very bothered.
Fair point. But how does someone become capable of doing something like that, or at least familiar with it ?
We worry too much about the removal of risk. An easier example is children's acitvities; Children like to climb trees. If you do not allow them to climb trees then you will have spoiled their life just a little. However, if you do lel them climb trees then one of them might die. How many times do you spoil a little bit of children's life before it exceed the valu eof saving one life ?
Translate that back to this subject - how many times do you curb the excess of a minority of police officers before you seriously hinder the ability or willingness of the other officers to even try ? Would I accept a serious, perhaps fatal, accident caused by an idiot copper if the overall result was a police forece better able to attend incidents quickly and safely by driving very very fast. Well, excluding the chances of it being my family that was killed, then yes I would probably be prepared to accept that risk on behalf of society.
How many times would a slap around the ear from a copper to a kid causing trouble solve the issue ? A lot. Why doesn't it happen ? Because there are a very few number of coppers who moved from a cuff around the ear to a beating. And because we could not accept that, we restricted all police.
The greater good matters, even at the cost of the suffering of the few.
>>and I am not falling out with you No FM2R, merely debating
Don't misunderstand, I am not bothered by someone disagreeing with me, in fact I would be a little surprised if people did not. I am no delicate flower and can cope with the shock..
|
>>because it's better to back off and let things slow down and loose track of the suspects than have to inform someone that their kid/wife/mother has been run over by a police car chasing some spotty youths?
Is it ? I'm not so sure. That spotty youth and his 2million peers may get over cocky and mvoe on to serious crime, killing and pilaging and cause the deterioration or even loss of more than that one life that was saved.
Anyway, I suspect that the subject is too emotive and too complex for an internet forum, so I believe that I shall leave it there.
|
It's ok if a member of someone elses family is killed but not yours. Ok we all agree with that deep down.
But in a real life and death situation you don't get to choose who gets killed. Its an accident.
You either have to allow for such things to happen or try and stop them by making the majority not do it, in this case speed excessively.
I prefer the police to be trained in a safe environment and speed excessively only when its vital; not chasing spotty youths and not seeing how fast a car will go and not escorting a famous person somewhere fast etc.
|
|
|
|
I DO see your point, in isolation. However, with my pragmatic real-life commonsense filter on, I would refer to Oilburner's very succintly put comments:
"I'm not sure in a real chase whether or not the police would actually back off if someone was travelling that fast, because it's better to back off and let things slow down and loose track of the suspects than have to inform someone that their kid/wife/mother has been run over by a police car chasing some spotty youths".
I do not accept the overall risk idea, which is maybe where we fundamentally differ. And no, I don't object to kids climbing trees and the like, my argument is slightly more complex in that the risk of dying from falling out of a tree is a lot less than the risk of killing someone if you hit them at 80. If you hit someone at 80, they will almost certainly die. A kid would have to be remarkably unlucky to die falling out of a tree. Now for the subjective part: how much angrier would you be if a copper killed your flesh and blood than if they died having fun with their friends?
Now I don't want to be morbid, but I do have experience of such an issue. Someone close to me was killed by a police driver, who was found guilty of dangerous driving. Do I feel better that he was found guilty? Yes, I do. Won't bring the person back, but justice was done.
I hope that I am being objective in my arguments, and I request you tell me if I am not... personal experience does not excuse subjectivity, and that is why I shared the story with you.
|
>>I do not accept the overall risk idea, which is maybe where we fundamentally differ.
I suspect so.
>>Someone close to me was killed by a police driver
I'm sorry about that, but the following is equally true and equally sad...
Someone close to me was killed by a local drunken idiot in his dad's car the day after he had outrune a police chase. Now I don't know why/how he'd escaped, but kind of ironic if the chase had been caled off to avoid danger to the public.
That would be my point. And *absolutely* my last word on the subject.
|
My last word is, i) sorry about your similar experience and ii) yes, I see your point, and there are so many angles on it, it IS too complex to address on here. I suspect, unfortunately, that it's too complex to discuss full stop.
Can I add here that I am always very impressed with the way you discuss things? It's always a pleasure disagreeing with you! : )
|
|
|
|
Do we know if the driver was flying solo, or had a colleague in the LH seat? A good friend is on the Thames Valley armed response team and he reckons only to hammer along above limits when a) on a blue light and b) with a second pair of eyes as back-up. I'd suggest that >80 in an urban 30 at night, solo, was highly dangerous, despite his skills and training.
|
Will he declare it to his insurance company - will cause a hike in his premium!
Familiarisation should be done on a track, not on a public road especialy at a time when there are likely to be people with impaired judgement (Those who have had a couple of drinks) walking home.
What position is he in now when he pulls someone over for speeding? My father was a serving officer for over 30 years and took the view that you have to follow rules to be able to enforce them!
|
Why don´t they all go to Millbrook, for example, and familiarize themselves with new vehicles? Lots of closed roads there and a high-speed bowl.
I have to say I have nothing against doing 159 on a deserted motorway per se (I´ve done a similar speed on the Autobahn myself), but it is against the laws of the land.
Did he really do 84mph in a 30 zone, BTW? I don´t remeber reading that bit.
Regards all,
Barchettaman
|
I can't find a source for that, so you'll have to discount that remark.
See:
tinyurl.com/pk3cf
He was observed doing 60mph+ in a 30 zone and 100mph in a 60 zone.
I'll post here if I find a reliable source for the 84mph remark. Quite sure I saw it at the time of the original trial, but it's proving tricky to find now! :)
|
Aren't we all forgetting one thing - from "someone in the know" that previously posted on here - it wasn't actually 159 mph (as well as a few other facts).
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=31...9
|
from Reuters
tinyurl.com/ef2pj
Milton, a qualified advanced driver, was recorded in December 2003, by an onboard camera in his upgraded unmarked Vauxhall Vectra police car travelling at 91 mph in a 30 mph zone
If true, I can find NO excuse for this speed whatsover.
|
|
"Would I accept a serious, perhaps fatal, accident caused by an idiot copper if the overall result was a police forece better able to attend incidents quickly and safely by driving very very fast. Well, excluding the chances of it being my family that was killed, then yes I would probably be prepared to accept that risk on behalf of society."
Mark, I don't think I've ever taken issue with you before, but I find that statement wholly objectionable. If this is what you really think, what risk are *you* actually accepting on behalf of society? Either be willing to include yourself or your own family as potential sacrificial victims, or support the idea that the sacrifice isn't acceptable whoever the victim may be. Or is the concept of privilege (private law) also acceptable?
I don't intend entering into a slanging match - god knows there have been enough of those on here - and I know you wrote that you've said your last word on the subject, but I really am interested in your thoughts on this.
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
Another point on Mark's remarks, Andy...
There is also the inherent contradiction between wanting a police driver to be safer, but willing to risk lives to have that higher skill level?
To me, that is a clear oxymoron. Not only objectionable, but doesn't make much sense either.
I'd rather have police drivers that have little experience at 159mph and not risk the lives of people whilst testing a car when there is no need to travel that fast at the time. How often do real world chases (even on glamourised TV programmes) actually reach anything like those speeds?
|
Am I alone in thinking this something of a storm in a teacup?
Obviously the unfortunate cop is in for trouble having come to the notice of the double-take brothers. OOh! Scandalous!
Come on. Driving down the Clapham Road late at night in the early seventies in company with two other minicabs, I was mildly surprised to see my speedometer reading 85. Not all that unusual.
I see police cars doing 60 plus every day in dense London traffic, and very well they do it on the whole despite the bumbling of some citizens apparently keen to trip them up.
I simply cannot feel shocked that a police driver has driven a car at more than twice the national speed limit. I'd do it myself like a shot in the right car if I didn't think anyone would notice or care. People do worse every day and some of them aren't really up to it.
If plod is careless and takes out a family, bust him by all means. Otherwise let him have his fun and hone his skills.
All of that said, the law is the law. This individual has been unlucky.
|
"If plod is careless and takes out a family, bust him by all means".
These are PEOPLE who have been killed. Not an occupational hazard, and I find it worrying and almost but not quite offensive that you think it is.
"Let him have his fun". WHY? I can't, and shouldn't, so why should he? We should all get out of this ridiculous and antiquated cap-doffing nonsense that the police are special beings who have privileges us everyday Joes don't. They are public servants. Hone your skills on a racetrack. If you see police cars doing 60mph in dense London traffic, I would suggest that if they don't have their lights and sirens on that you report them as they are breaking the law they're paid to uphold. Yet again.
PC Leadfoot hasn't been unlucky, he's been incredibly lucky.... he has had a complete discharge. How is that unlucky, when you consider that if we lived in a just and fair society he'd be in jail?
|
> PC Leadfoot hasn't been unlucky, he's been incredibly lucky.... he has had a complete discharge. How is that unlucky, when you consider that if we lived in a just and fair society he'd be in jail?
I didn't realise he'd been given an absolute discharge stevied. So yes, he has been lucky (or privileged as you suggest). May yet suffer a bit of professional blight though.
I don't have a cap-doffing attitude to plod, far from it actually.
|
He might well do, and I hope he looks back and realises that he could have done things differently.
I didn't mean to infer you particularly had a cap-doffing attitude, by the way.... more of a general thing.
This is a very emotive subject isn't it? I agree and disagree with the same people in the course of one sentence!
I hope that people don't think I am being over-emotional in my arguments, I am trying to present them logically, without offending anyone*. Voltaire and all that.
* Some might say "why don't you do that at work/at home/on the bus etc.. rather than just on here. To them I say "shut it". : )
|
I was on a 'deserted' M62 the other week - late at night and I'd not seen another car for a few miles. Another two drivers thought it was deserted too as they came hurtling past at a speed which must have been approaching twice the legal limit.
What quickly became apparent to me was how at those speeds cars virtually appear and disappear - by the time I noticed them in my mirror they were past me. It actually shook me up to think if for any reason I had had to move lanes the two cars would have had zero chance of reacting to the situation and all of us would have been wiped out.
For any driver (however many bits of paper they have showing how good they are) to believe they are competent to drive at over 150 mph on a motorway when there is a possibility of other cars being around shows a degree of recklessness which I cannot comprehend. The Courts may appear to have been lenient but I hope his employers take away his police driving licence and make him walk the beat for a few years.
|
|
In general terms, if the police don't pursue a yoof on a stolen scooter and without a crash helmet, on the basis that if he fell off they'd be liable (recent case/excuse), I can't see that they need to drive anything, anywhere at !50+ mph, even of they can. H & S regulations, and perhaps common sense, will mean that there are NO circumstances where such a speed could be needed or considered.
|
>>To me, that is a clear oxymoron. Not only objectionable, but doesn't make much sense either.
Objectionable by what standard or in what way ? By what logic, interrpretation or reasoning do you arrive at that dubious and simplistic opinion ?
And doesn't make much sense how ? In that you don't agree or in that its very complicated and you're not smart enough to understand or that it truly makes no sense to you ?
Do you *really* need me to explain it to you or would thinking about it help ? Lets assume you've tried that but find yourself still need an explanation. Try this;
I am a police driver
I need to be safer because I am killing 10 people per day.
To be safer I will need to practice, but that will cause me to kill two people during the practice.
Now I have practiced I am only killing 5 people per day
I have taken risks. I have risked lives. However, I am safer as are those around me..
Does that help ? [ and please, that's a simple example since it seemd approriate and more likely to help. It is not a real life example].
|
I am a police driver I need to be safer because I am killing 10 people per day. To be safer I will need to practice, but that will cause me to kill two people during the practice. Now I have practiced I am only killing 5 people per day
Nobody would argue against the principle that police drivers need to practice. However, they don't need to practice on public roads. The fact that his defence said that he couldn't be expected to practice in a car park, or driving around in circles on an airfield, is just plain silly. There are surely roads that are/can be closed, or race tracks were this kind of experience can be gained.
|
>>but I really am interested in your thoughts on this.
I also wrote that it is too sensitive for an internet forum. However, given your concern and the fact that I have an amount of time for your thoguhts as well, let me try and clarify. - inevitably a simplistic illustration so try to see through the example to the point.
Amublance drivers need to drive fast. If I am in that ambulance, or one of my loved ones, then I'd really like that ambulance to go very fast. The problem is, in going fast, he is taking a risk. The nature of risk is that there is a possiblity that it will happen. So one day an ambulance driver is going to be driving fast to someone to hospital and he will have an accidetn and kill someone en-route.
Let us say that by driving fast throughout his career he has save 10 people from dying. Let us also say that by driving fast he has killed someone. So the same action in the same circumstances has killed 1, saved 9 with a net benefit to humanity of 9 lives. If the one that died was my mothe,/wife/daughter then I would nto judge it properly since there will never be a time when 10 people I don't know is worth the life of one that I love - to me. However, if I take that personal and subjective part of it away, then I have to think that a net gain of 9 lives is worthwhile.
Take that further and include the fact that the ambulance driver should know how to drive fast before he has to do it for real. And bear in mind that he doesn't need to know how to drive fast on a track. He needs to knwo how to drive fast in the environment in which he works. Well that seems worthwhile. However, in training to drive fast he kills someone. Still, overall even losing another one his career is still going to be 8 lives in profit. Is it still worthwhile ? Well with the same exception as above (my mother, etc, etc) then yes, it probably is.
Would I ban all of that because there is another idiot driver who does not know how to behave ? No, I probably wouldn't. Because there is a risk that might discourage all the other guys from trying and from taking those risks - risks that it is perhaps essential that they do take.
If I address that "offensive" idea of driving fast when it is not neccessary, something which a fair chunk of people on here maintain is their right, then I might stop myself being offended by the morning press, but I might be responsible for the death of 8 people who migh totherwise have survived.
Now, if that same ambulance driver did all ofthe above in his private time, when not an ambulance driver, then he should be punished severely. Because in my opinion that would be different.
As I said, its complex, there's mroe to it than I can cover in a written note, and mroe than I want to go into in an internet forum. Bu tI stand by my point, and if someone thinks its offensive, then they weren't listening or understanding. If they think its wrong, well that's another matter altogether and in that disagreement they may be enitrely correct,
And in my opinion, and I specifically exclude Andymc from this, half the objecitons and outraged reacrtions on here are nothign to do wiht the complex issues at stake, and are much mroe to do with a churlish, simplistic and immature reaction at the idea that someone else can do somethign that they can't.
|
|
And those are my last words.
|
There's nothing "churlish, simplistic and immature" about objecting to the fact that this guy is punishing other people for doing what he can get away with. It's simple double standards.
I do not, and cannot accept your argument that by practising such driving he will save more lives than he risks. There's no evidence for that at all.
What I do know is that police drivers have special courses (as mentioned previously) where they get to drive at high speeds under observation in controlled circumstances and that is the only sanctioned way to improve these high speed pursuit skills. It is not about how fast he went, he is entitled to go at the appropiate speeds during training excerises and in high speed pursuits, but not when he feels like it.
Nobody here is complaining about the police breaking the speed limits when they need to or when they have reason to. It's doing it when they feel like without proper planning or support that is the big issue. It's not allowed and I'm thankful he was found guilty.
Saying that the issue is too complex seems to translate to you as "I'm right and you're all wrong, end of discussion". If that fails you then resort to calling people simplistic and immature. Please, you can do better than that.
|
The bottom line is that this was not a training exercise of any sort. He just fancied giving a new car a burn and was stupid enough to leave the onboard camera switched on. Someone found it and probably in order to settle some score dobbed him in.
He has been let off because he is plod, in the same circumstances likely I would have been jailed.
Just another example of 'do as I say not as I do' by an entire legal system that has fallen in to disrepute.
They might as well wear big red noses and floppy shoes as a uniform then their outward appearance would match the publics opinion of them.
Finally there is now absolutely no need for any police driver to exceed the speed limit ever. They no longer chase speeding crooks due to 'ealth and safety' and even if they speed to scenes of violence they merely set up a perimeter and do a risk assessment before proceeding so their speed of arrival is irrelevant.
Any comparison of them to ambulance drivers or fire crews who are still performing a public service is an insult to those services.
|
This is from the West Mercia Police website, taken from their "Seven Deadly Sins" section, can I hear Alanis playing in the background? "Every single driver can make a difference"... indeed they can! As Oilburner rightly says in his dignified entry above, few object to fast driving in emergency situations. This now infamous case was NOT such an example, and therefore, I would suggest that they take their own advice and read the below. This just reinforces the HUGE problem with "Them and Us" that the Police have.
"Speed - Introduction
Driving at an excessive speed is a serious traffic offence and continues to be a problem that results in accidents, fatalities and serious injuries. During 2005, there were 3352 injuries caused by road traffic collisions in West Mercia. Excessive or inappropriate speed was a contributory factor in many of these collisions.
Unlike drink driving, which has become socially unacceptable over recent years, speeding tends to be widespread and is often perceived as a minor offence in the eyes of the driver. It is estimated that 70% of drivers exceed the basic speed limit (30mph) placing vulnerable road users, particularly pedestrians, at high risk of injury.
If a pedestrian is hit by a car, their chance of survival decreases dramatically with even just a small increase in speed.
If a pedestrian is hit at:
30mph - there is a 20% chance that they will be killed
35mph - there is a 50% chance that they will be killed
40mph - there is a 90% chance that they will be killed
Many of West Mercia?s 3352 injuries in 2005 could have been avoided and every single driver can make a difference to the number of injuries on our roads just by slowing down a few miles per hour and observing speed limits. Research suggests that if the speed of traffic is reduced by just 1mph, there would be a 5% reduction in casualties. You will also drive more cost-effectively "
|
Ambulance drivers need to drive fast…...
This is not specifically to do with “159mph cop” but the comment above raises a general question I’ve wanted to ask for a while - why is there a general assumption that getting to an incident (by any of the emergency services) as quickly as possible will save lives?
I maybe need to rephrase that otherwise it sounds ridiculous on its own….how many incidents are there that would have resulted in death or a more serious injury if the emergency services had arrived 1 minute later, or 5 minutes….
Maybe those sort of stats are impossible to collect but the point I’m trying to (badly) make is that out of the hundreds of calls to the emergency services that result in a “get there ASAP response” I would assume that the importance of the response time (in terms of resultant fatality or further injury) would be quite a low percentage.
Equally, the percentage of fatalities/injuries caused by the emergency services speeding to an incident (and subsequently causing an accident) would be pretty low (I assume) with regards to overall callouts.
But surely in these days of H&S and risk assessments someone somewhere has researched into this and come to the conclusion that either; a). getting to the incident in the quickest possible time saves more lives than it might lose (due to accident) or b). going more slowly has a negligible impact on the “survivability” of people in an incident and minimises risk of subsequent accident.
I could see this might also be different for the different services….getting to a fire might need a quicker response than say a callout to the police because of a burglary, for example…
Just some thoughts….
|
What I do know is that police drivers have special courses (as mentioned previously) where they get to drive at high speeds under observation in controlled circumstances and * that is the only sanctioned
way to improve these high speed pursuit skills. *
AFAIK a lot of Police response and pursuit driver training is done on public roads. www.met.police.uk/mpds/courses.htm . I would think that driving between rows of cones on a test track is not a very effective substitute for real road/ traffic conditions.
A friend of a friend recently passed his basic response training and the only bit that was done on private land was skid-pan training, the rest was done on public roads. Apparently there was quite a high failure rate as people were weeded out whose driving was not up to the required standard.
But I do agree that where PC Milton went wrong was in taking the car out and carrying out his "familiarisation" without the approval of his superiors. Remains to be seen whether he will now face some internal disciplinary action due to the negative publicity the case has created.
|
If that's true then I suppose I will have to lose some of my indignation. I disagree about as wholeheartedly as it is possible to disagree with the idea of a bunch of green wet behind the ears coppers driving like prannocks, in fact I think it's: arrogant, ludicrous, stupid, misguided, dangerous and provocative. Cue 100s of people saying "ooh but they're magic beings from the planet Zarg and they eat magic beans that make them immune to prosecution, sorry I meant killing people". I am sorry if that appears childish, but then I think the police are, if that's the sort of moondust they sanction. Can I assume that some of the morons I report for driving dangerously past my house (in a 30 zone) are learning to drive for the police? Jeeeeeeeez what a magic job for the (secretly) immature and ill-disciplined. Hide those areas of your personality (and I've done it for years) and wheeeee! A licence (literally) to drive how you want.
If you want to accuse me of sour grapes because "they can do it and I can't" then please, let me pre-empt you. No-one should drive like that in urban and suburban areas. Blah blah motorway blah. It's a lot less likely that a drunk or a child will walk off a pavement on a motorway and with the very odd incident apart, most traffic is going the same way. Again, I would say that there are VERY few occasions when you can safely do 159mph on a motorway, although Zarg-born Milton (38), would no doubt disagree.
Am I the only person here who feels that public servants should be accountable for their actions in front of those who pay for them? OK, he is "guilty" (until the appeal goes through on his side as I have a horrible feeling it will) but because he has "suffered" he doesn't have any punishment!!! What is going on? And why does it say on the BBC report "West Mercia police have said they are disappointed and will appeal." WHY have they said that? Back the statement up. (And I know they may have, please tell me if you know). Don't make an arrogant statement and then don't explain it just becaue you can. If you GENUINELY believe something, then IMHO you'd back it up with a statement there and then, no nonsense.
Rich 9-3, I agree that if they are thick enough to let people drive like that on the roads for which I pay my taxes, then his only crime he is guilty of is not getting approval of his superiors. Pretty bad crime though eh? Especially for a copper, who is supposed to set an example.
And lastly, before I become guilty of emotive actions and either i) explode or ii) get told to shut up....
Familiarisation? Absolute nonsense, pigswill and other Victorian phraseology. Admit it, Milton, and I'll have more respect for you: you wanted to drive a fast car very very quickly because it makes you feel big, powerful and clever: all the things that we secretly want to experience, because most of us are not any or all of those things. However, most of us are not in a privileged position where we have the opportunity to so it, so don't go all bleeding heart on us when you get caught doing it and, in doing it, bending the rules.
|
My old Dad was in 'The Job" for 28 years. Not fast cars, but in the job nevertheless and as a lad I respected all of them in fact cos they were worth respecting. Now, (in the main, but not all), when one enters a Police station one is greeted by, "Yes mate", by some bod, (Officer) without a tie! I wouldn't trust most of them as far as I could throw them and it would seem from recent news reports that several have criminal convictions, both when in the force and before joining, all accepted by the powers that be.
Tell me I'm not losing it.
VBR.........................MD
P.S. Anyone here tell me that they can drive sensibly and concentrate at 120mph on 'normal' roads then I will give up Vin rouge!!
|
MD.. I can drink sensibly and concentrate at 120 mph on any road... but then after today I've given up normality. : )
See? I can relax.... count to 5,445, 234 Steve, you can do it....
|
>>t I think it's: arrogant, ludicrous, stupid, misguided, dangerous and provocative.
Will you please get off the fence and tell me what you really think.....
8-)
|
This boils down to one of thwo things, with a single outcome
1/ The speedy cop was doing no harm, and was shopped by an officious senior officer with more brains than sense, over enamoured with a huge sense of his own self importance,
or
2/ the cop was/has been/is likely to do something wrong and senior officers used this as a way to discipline/remove him
The outcome being that the public view of the police force has taken another huge blow and makes the job of the majority good blokes doing a tough duty that much harder.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
We've been here before ? Wasn't the corrected speed something like a 140mph, not that it makes a difference to the outcome but let's not descend to tabloid levels. I honestly can't get that wound up about the whole thing..
|
Mark,
I don't expect you to answer this, but I would like to respond to your thoughts as you took the trouble to go into some detail.
I think it's clear enough that I'm not commenting on the case in the OP, or whether speed is wrong or right etc., but instead on a moral question arising from the discussion. I understand your logic - risk the loss of x number of lives for the benefit of saving x+9 lives, or whatever the additional number may be. I accept that you view it that way, and I don't object to this as a hypothetical view.
In the post I first responded to, to me you seemed to be saying that this risk was acceptable so long as it applied only to those outside the circle of those you care about - in other words, that it's ok for others to bear this risk and lose loved ones as part of this "cost-benefit" balance, but not those you care about. You later said "If the one that died was my mothe,/wife/daughter then I would nto judge it properly since there will never be a time when 10 people I don't know is worth the life of one that I love - to me." That is a slightly different way of expressing it, and I'd have to think about whether the two statements amount to the same thing.
My view (perhaps I'm repeating myself here - if so, sorry) is that if there is a level of risk deemed acceptable in order to be achieve a greater good, it is one that must be shared by all or none. This may seem a black or white way of approaching it, but then loss of life is about as absolute as it gets.
My own viewpoint is that most people are precious to someone, whether to you or me or J Bloggs. I couldn't expect someone else's loved ones (strangers or not) to risk being the ones sacrificed for the benefit of me & mine, without accepting the corollory of that risk, i.e. that we may be the ones sacrificed for them. Since that level of risk is unacceptable to me, I can't expect it of others. Neither would I support or condone a course of action, a system, or even the opinion that some people's lives are deemed to be of lesser worth than others'. If I have misinterpreted that as being your view then I retract my previous objection.
Anyway - I guess that's also my last word on the subject. Thanks for taking the time, even if we don't agree.
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
Andymc, only one point and just to be clear;
Clearly a decision about whether or not a single death is acceptable if it saves ten others is difficult. The approriate decision is, I believe, yes. I believe that that is the decision that society in one form or another should make. However, were I emotionally involved, e.g. that "one" is me or someone I love, it wouldn't matter to me that it was the right decision, all I would be able to see is that it wasn't worth it to me - however right and appropriate it was that the decision should be made.
One cannot make an appropriate decision if one is emotionally involved. That's my point. Not that it should apply to others and not to me. I was discussing one's ability to make a decision when emotionally involved, not what that decision should be.
I don't know how to make it clearer than that - it'd be easy verbally.
|
We've been here before ? Wasn't the corrected speed something like at 140mph,
Pug, I posted a link to that reference earlier.
I honestly can't get that wound up about the whole thing..
Me neither. The money wasted on taking to court (again!) could have been better spent on something else far more beneficial.
|
|
Sorry DD. I read upwards today :-(
|
Strange how differently this has pushed various peoples buttons.
For the first time in my life I feel a "disgusted of Tumbridge Wells" coming on!
|
|
I think this should be drawn to a close now if only out of respect for an Officer who died on duty on his motorcycle yesterday in North Wales.
|
And why does it say on the BBC report "West Mercia police have said they are disappointed and will appeal."
>>
steveid - no it doesn't. it is the police union who are quoted as saying that.
... think this should be drawn to a close now if only out of respect for ...
>>
sorry to disagree pugugly, absolutely no connection between the two.
anyway, where is the proof (apart from one post on a previous thread here) that this man was doing 140mph and not the claimed 159mph?
and even if it was 140mph, he was brought to justice by the police & cpa, and dealt with in a court of law, and given an absolute discharge by a sympathetic judge.
i do not agree with the judge, just as with many other judge's lenient sentenceing these days.
at least caprice did not get off her drink driving charge today, even though she employed nick freeman to defend her!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
