Having watched the video of the whole incident, it shows that Dougal took a bit of time to find some where to turn so as to make after the car concerned that was traveling in the opposite direction when it pinged his ANPR.
If 94 mph is dangerous on that sort of road in daylight, it's even more so at 11.20 pm at night but that didn't stop our fearless upholder of the law. After all, here was a menace to society with an out of date tax disc or no valid insurance ( or not , as it was later proved in court that the driver of the vehicle was perfectly legit ).
So , as the video shows, the speed was not an element of a chase but an attempt to catch up with the car that had made ground through the gap in Dougal turning his vehicle around.
By the way, you forgot to mention Douglas driving history before he even joined the force.
'Mr Elvidge said the officer, who joined Northumbria Police in 1996, had received a caution for a motoring offence when he was 16 and had also incurred penalty points for speeding and contravening a traffic signal by the time he was 20.'
tinyurl.com/d3ku4y
Edited by Mr X on 01/05/2009 at 16:49
|
Mr X, What do you really want? On many posts here you complain bitterly about the police failing to pursue, aprehend and catch any one who trangresses the law in any way.
Suddenly when a Policeman acts upon your your desires, he suddenly becomes a villan himself when he is slighly over zealous in his actions.
>had received a caution for a motoring offence when he was 16 and had also incurred >penalty points for speeding and contravening a traffic signal by the time he was 20.'
75% of the male youth of this country get points up before their 20th birthday. Its called experience.
You know Mr X, I used to be amused by your tirades, now I am just simply disgusted.
|
I think Westpig makes a valid point here that across all occupations, we are trained in our jobs to do one thing, but management either turn a blind eye or accept that we will do other things. But when push comes to shove, management wil hang you out to dry.
In my supermarket days, we were advised not to chase after shoplifters. We were also sacked if our shrinkage was too high. A manager once chased a shoplifter and was stabbed. He was sacked for breaching company policy. Every day up and down the country shop staff chase shoplifters.
Going back to this case I think the ANPR is a bit of a side issue. If officers are trained to use this eqpt and to act on any pinging then that is what they will do. However if the training is along the lines of "its for guidance only, no need to take any risks etc" then that may have provided a different outcome.
IMHO what he did was wrong. He chases after him and what happens - car seized maybe, a fine and some points? But as I have said before, who makes that policy decision of what to pursue and what not? IIRC there was one police area that had a policy of no pursuits and it turned to anarchy?
A tough one but I bet there are many many traffic officers having a good serious think about this now.
|
In my supermarket days we were advised not to chase after shoplifters. We were also sacked if our shrinkage was too high. A manager once chased a shoplifter and was stabbed. He was sacked for breaching company policy.
:-O
|
|
|
|
'when he is slighly over zealous in his actions.'
Slightly over zealous in this case is a bit of an understatement when you consider he mowed down and killed a young girl at 94 mph in a 30 mph zone having chosen not to use siren or blue lights.
|
'when he is slighly over zealous in his actions.' Slightly over zealous in this case is a bit of an understatement when you consider he mowed down and killed a young girl at 94 mph in a 30 mph zone having chosen not to use siren or blue lights.
Yes it is a bit of an understatement. I am pleasantly suprised you know what that is or what it means.
|
|
|
Slightly over zealous in this case is a bit of an understatement when you consider he mowed down and killed a young girl at 94 mph in a 30 mph zone having chosen not to use siren or blue lights.
you're over egging it again Mr X....his max speed was 94mph, his impact speed was 68mph, becaused he'd slowed down somewhat...she's still deceased i'd grant you and 68mph was more than double the limit... but it would be handy if you stated the facts as we know them
|
|
|
|
Mr X, I used to be amused by your tirades, now I am just simply disgusted.
Some call Mr X a troll. I don't know about that, but he enjoys manipulation. I do get the impression that some of the attitude is a bit put on.
There are echoes in the demeanour sketched in his posts of a certain sort of semi-public figure. The posts are consistently and rabidly anti-police and anti-government, not from a left-wing point of view but often parading sympathy for the less well-off; they appear to revel in causing widespread offence; the points made are sometimes (but only sometimes) genuine and quite smart, but the follow-up is often deeply silly while pursuing the same rationale.
I am reminded of the so-called historian David Irving and the late Colin Jordan. Saw the latter's obit the other day, but he has been so quiet for so long that I thought he was dead already. I passed him once in the earlyish sixties ranting in the street on a corner of Earl's Court road to a small crowd. Among the thugs and geeks in his entourage was a pale-faced, slightly sinister but undeniably elegant lady, like a member of the Addams family who had wandered accidentally into the GBH wing at Rampton. She may have been the Dior heiress who, I learn from the obit, married and supported the ghastly fellow for some time.
|
|
|
|
but that didn't stop our fearless upholder of the law
Using sarcasm in a topic like this isn't going to help lead to a rational debate.
|
>> but that didn't stop our fearless upholder of the law Using sarcasm in a topic like this isn't going to help lead to a rational debate.
>>
Mr X isnt rational.
|
Most people I have spoken to would find Dougal's actions more acceptable had he been chasing after a real criminal.
To me, 90-plus in a 30mph should be reserved for pursuing the likes of armed robbers, murderers and rapists.
This type of response simply cannot be justified for the pursuit of someone who may have carried out a minor motoring offence.
By all means spin the car around and go after the guy, and by all means exceed the speed limit, just use a bit of common sense when deciding by how much.
Three years is far from stiff, I think he'd be mad to appeal - could get more.
|
Im not for all this Police-bashing - sure they get it wrong on occasion but they are human and clearly this fellas human side got the better of him and he messed up, he is one individual.
Too much speed, far better to let that one go than persue at that sort of speed in a 30 zone and one doubts the girl would have had any idea that a vehicle would be approaching unannounced at that sort of speed.
A real shame it happened and I would fully understand the family of the girl struggling to understand how it could happen, because it shouldnt have. Jail was the only answer really and I take his resignation as a personal acknowledgement of the mistake he made and its consequences.
|
I think that as this is a tragedy all round, I think the back room lawyers and the opposite Daily Wail readers should leave this alone.
I'm sure he didn't set out to kill her nor did she intentionally step out to be killed..
He and the family have to live with this for the rest of their natural lives so all this 'debating' is pouring salt into their wounds, IMHO.
Move on. I'm sure that lessons have been learnt and this 'discussion' is doing nothing more to help the situation.
Take care
Benjurs
|
And for the reasons Benjurs says this will probably end up locked. There is nothing we can add to really is there. A real tragedy for all concerned.
|
|
|
|
But if a car shows up as of interest on ANPR does it say why? It probably says the car is of interest. Could be for no tax but could be for a more serious crime etc.
I am not commenting on what happened in this tragic case. And we do not know all the details for sure. Like I don't know why two marked police cars were leading/following two plain white police cars today (but they had small police stickers and blue lights) and we waving out at cars to not turn into the road. They were travelling into Manchester on Oldham Road.... there are things we will never know.
|
|
|
|
Most people I have spoken to would find Dougal's actions more acceptable had he been chasing after a real criminal.
How on earth are you going to know that?...from a distance
the way to catch 'real criminals' (unless you're exceptionally lucky and catch them in the act) is to use your training and instinct, as well as the tools provided for the job, to catch them for the minor things and then do a bit of digging to find them out for the more major things..(and the digging can be CID based officers through interview and enquiries after they're arrested for minor things).
an ANPR hit is a start. It might end with a minor offence and that's that...it might well lead you into a right cracking job....you're never going to know unless you stop them and try... and unless you're psychic... and i don't know anyone who is... you often cannot differentiate between minor, average and major until you get your teeth into it.
it is well known that out and out crooks, because of their selfish mindset, are involved in a multitude of other more minor offences, inc all the motoring ones...and indeed it can be a law enforcement spoiling tactic to concentrate on the car offences, to get them disqualified and thus interrupt their driving ability.
an ANPR hit at night for a suspect vehicle would be a good start IMO....i'd rather the officer was doing that, than sipping coffee in a petrol station
|
>> Most people I have spoken to would find Dougal's actions more acceptable had he been chasing after a real criminal.
Same here, and I find that view rather disturbing, given that it completely ignores the timeline and sequence of events. The real facts about the car's status were only made available after the event, which means that PC Dougal did not have the benefit of this glorious hindsight in the heat of the moment. As far as his ANPR was concerned, that car was flagged as having something noteworthy about it, and he acted on what information he had at the time. Yes, the ANPR gave duff information, but was that PC Dougal's fault?
The fact it would go on to end in the most awful, tragic accident, and turn out to be an innocent motorist after all that could not have been foreseen by anyone, much less PC Dougal at the time.
I feel very sorry for the family and friends of the young woman killed, but based on my non-expert analysis of the situation, and the information made available in the press, it was a tragic accident. Nothing more, nothing less.
Edited by DP on 01/05/2009 at 18:38
|
I have no knowledge of the details with which ANPR works. Surely it comes up with "Vehicle has no valid MOT" or "Vehicle has been used in 3 armed robberies" and the person who has to undertake the pursuit has some way to judge an appropriate response?
|
|
|
A few weeks ago, we were all debating a thread on here about a police vehicle traveling on the M4 at 100 mph in the rain which subsequently crashed. Todays debate is about a police vehicle traveling at speeds up to 94 mph before killing a pedestrian.
Perhaps a joint thread along the lines of ' driving outside of your capabilities ' would be a better one to debate ?
|
|
|
|
Yes, an ANPR hit is a start. But if it's only (and I take it that it could be) a hit for no tax or insurance, does that justify driving at 94 mph at night in a built-up area?
Personally, I don't think so. Let the car go on it's way if you can't catch it otherwise. Or why not use the radio and see if a colleague or two can't cut the car off somewhere ahead?
It's indefensible I think.
|
|
'It's indefensible I think.'. It would appear not judging by some posts.
|
|
|
But if it's only (and I take it that it could be) a hit for no tax or insurance, does that justify driving at 94 mph at night in a built-up area?
But without the follow-up work nobody will know why it was flagged up via ANPR. It could be because a known criminal was spotted. And as said above driving around in uninsured or untaxed cars is common with criminals.
The fact the ANPR error is not the fault of the police driver. He was doing his job. Again I am not commenting on speed etc.There is little point debating that as it does not change what happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If 94 mph is dangerous on that sort of road in daylight it's even more> so at 11.20 pm at night but that didn't stop our fearless upholder of the law. After all here was a menace to society with an out of date tax disc or no valid insurance >>
would it be o.k. for the police car to do that speed if the car it wanted to stop was a true crook?
if no....because it's too dangerous, then would it be o.k. for a police car to do that speed chasing another car that has failed to stop?
if no... then you'd be talking about a ban on vehicle pursuits...because most of the time you have no idea what the clown fleeing has done
my point is, you cannot often differentiate what the offences are..at the time of deciding whether or not to drive after a car at speed...because you don't know the full picture. Putting a blanket ban on it would have substantial negative side effects for crime detection/prevention
|
|
DP's recent post, whilst i was furiously typing away, sums it up nicely IMO
|
DP said>>As far as his ANPR was concerned, that car was flagged as having something noteworthy about it, and he acted on what information he had at the time.>>
Sorry to be boring but I think it's important so I'll say it again. If the ANPR ping can merely be lack of tax or insurance and the officer has no other info, then a high speed pursuit at night through a town is just insane.
Don't blame the machine for giving out duff info. Blame the man who failing to use his judgment.
|
Don't blame the machine for giving out duff info. Blame the man who failing to use his judgment.
Optimist,
You're coming from the wrong angle. As stated above, the officer would not have the benefit of hindsight, so would not know the whole score... the duff info could have been minor, duff as it was.. or a really good introduction into something else.
Many vehicle pursuits have started out as merely a vehicle failing to stop for police. The real reason is not known at the start. If there were to be a fatal accident and the only reason for the driver failing to stop was no MOT, then there'd be armchair lawyers the breadth of the country moaning about it...if on the other hand it was an armed robber etc, then no doubt there would be a different song being sung.
|
|
Regardless of the crime the driver being chased may have committed, in the end, the persuit claimed a life that would have been otherwise unaffected. Even if they were bank robbers and the like, you cannot value the lives of members of the public above 'getting your man'.
|
That video does make the blood run cold. I believe it ends just as the victim steps into the road to cross behind the car being pursued, around 100 yards apparently ahead of the chasing car. A truly horrible freeze frame.
Everything up to that moment has appeared almost leisurely and under perfect control, despite the speed readout. Dream-like almost. The next three or four seconds can only be imagined, in their combination of one, perhaps two, bad decisions and everything going pearshaped. Makes you sick to your stomach.
|
'Everything up to that moment has appeared almost leisurely and under perfect control, despite the speed readout. '
Not an opinion shared by a police driving instructor at the trial.
'Dougal, a qualified advanced driver, was travelling so fast he had effectively become a passenger in his own car and had surrendered ?to physics?, according to a police driving instructor who gave evidence during the trial."
|
Not an opinion shared by a police driving instructor at the trial.
retired police driving instructor....see the previous BBC link
was he paid to be an expert witness for the prosecution?... why no currently employed police driving instructor?
|
Well known that you can find an 'expert' to say anything you want especially if they are paid.
|
That driving instructor wasn't talking about the impression given by the video. He was talking about the excessive speed that contributed to the tragic death of this girl.
Have you ever driven a bit too fast, Mr X? Ever had a crash and time to enjoy the prospect, or just come close enough to it to ponder things deeply for a while? I won't claim these things are part of everyone's motoring experience, but I know I am not the only person here who has done things like that in their time. The point here is though that without any kind of experience of the edge of things on the road, you can't easily understand how things like the death of this unfortunate girl really happen. You are a victim of raw figures, dodgy journalism and the things said by police experts. You can't really judge for yourself. You aren't in much of a position to take a strong line.
|
'Everything up to that moment has appeared almost leisurely and under perfect control despite the speed readout. '
'Dougal a qualified advanced driver was travelling so fast he had effectively become a passenger
in his own car and had surrendered ?to physics? according to a police driving instructor
who gave evidence during the trial."
Watching that video I have to say IMHO the car was on the point of losing control, watch how the driver has to make quick corrections, and I got a sense the car was beginning to 'float'
also note the time in the top right - 23.21, half 11, not long after pub kicking out time, ie, the time as a driver you have to EXPECT people to be more careless, and to do the unexpected.
Why the hell does the ANPR system just flash up the car is 'wanted' and not give the reason why?
I wouldnt expect a war and peace explanation, just a code letter/number stating the level...
ie 1 = no tax to 9 = driver known to be armed at times, that kinda thing?
|
|
|
you cannot value the lives of members of the public above 'getting your man'.
that taken to its' nth degree would mean a blanket ban on anything over any speed limit, on all occasions...and all the other traffic regulations e.g. red lights etc.. because no one plans to have an accident do they.
would that be reasonable for the Ambulance Service and Fire Brigade as well?
there will always be risks for any emergency service... it's how you manage those risks, train staff, what equipent you provide them, etc....and then carp can still happen
and i'm not at all advocating a 'free for all' or 'get out of jail free card'...just trying to put some balance into the equation
|
|
|
|
>>then no doubt there would be a different song being sung.
Damned if you do damned if you dont. Things dont change much, do they?
|
Damned if you do damned if you dont. Things dont change much do they?
sadly, no
|
I find it very sad for all concerned, particularly for the family of the girl who died. However, I think he's been harshly treated when you consider the punishments meted out to consistent lawbreakers. Many hit and run miscreants get away with far lighter sentences even though they have records as long as your arm. A recent case of an illegal immigrant is testimony to this.
The officer has lost his job, and the affair has had repercussions for his family.
|
Give a man ( or woman) a uniform and they change from being a person to a machine.
Now this is very useful in time of war, but in peace it is hard to control.
There is a very fine line between getting a result and causing more harm trahn good.
Saying that the police seem to be so much more gung-ho at catching motor crime than many others - such as burglary.
The police do not seem to miss an opportunity for a speed chase , get the helicttper out and cats claws. And teh magistrates fine the bloke £50 and endorse the 'non' licence.
Is it worth it? I want the roads to be free of villans, but I don't want to be mangled by the cops .
The sentance looks very harsh for teh circumstances that we see,
( 75% getting points before 20 seems high, or a lack of regular eyetests)
|
Give a man ( or woman) a uniform and they change from being a person to a machine.
You'll have to excuse me if I find that somewhat offensive. The people I work with do a damn fine job, despite the rubbish that gets thrown at them on a regular basis. All this 'don't miss an opportunity for a speed chase' nonsense. Everything we do is carefully considered, one of the main reasons being that we know we'll be hung, drawn and quartered if anything goes wrong, regardless of whose responsible.
I've called my own pursuits off and the pursuits of others. If you want a no pursuit policy, that's fine by me. But I'll guarantee that Mr X, will be posting numerous threads about Police making no effort to catch criminals. (Along with the chaos that ensued once the policy gets known amongst the regulars).
|
A woman died. A man lost his liberty. Tragic in both cases. A court has decided what action to take. For pity's sake let her rest in peace and let him make what he can of the rest of his life.
I wish someone would lock this.
|
I wish someone would lock this.
Seconded.
|
The fact the ANPR was wrong is irrelevant.
Dougal was presented with information from a normally reliable source that a driver was driving with no insurance.
He chose to process that information by driving hell-for-leather after the car.
Wrong decision.
Think about it, if you or I reported such a crime, would there be patrol cars screaming around the district at 90-plus mph?
Course not.
Westpig's point that a bloke with no insurance might also be a serial killer or a drugs baron is the sort of hook wriggling excuse that might pass muster at a police disciplinary hearing, but not in the real world.
|
Westpig's point that a bloke with no insurance might also be a serial killer or a drugs baron is the sort of hook wriggling excuse that might pass muster at a police disciplinary hearing but not in the real world.
you might not like my point, you are entitled to disagree with it...but that sort of working practice is the bread and butter of policing.
If you faff, the moment is lost. If you don't deal NOW...the vehicle you want to stop has gone. Who knows what you'll find, unless you go digging for it.
I'm not saying 94mph in a 30mph limit is needed every time..but if you do a 'U' turn to go back after someone, you need to do it sharpish, because the oiks or crooks of this world will see you do it and immediately turn off, doing the back doubles. That is very common. If you can mix with other traffic or you're initially out of sight, you don't put the blues on either, otherwise you warn them too quickly and your headlights alone could be some other member of public, not a police vehicle.
Your chances of catching a drugs baron or serial killer i'd admit are well remote. But you may well catch a burglar or stolen car or someone wanted on several warrants for thefts etc or a drink driver or someone who habitually drives whilst disqualified.
That is the real world. Isn't that what you want your police doing on nights, after all you're paying for them.
|
Give a man ( or woman) a uniform and they change from being a person to a machine.
I find it offensive too, friends of mine have died in uniform for your protection.
|
I once suspected that Mr X is in fact HJ himself. Whoever he/she may be does appear to be deliberately inflammatory sometimes, notwithstanding that the death of anyone on the road is cause for deep concern and sympathy for the family. Mr X - the same law that applies to us all has been applied to the officer and he has been judged by his peers and sentenced accordingly. So what's your point? Were he to have been in some other occupation he may well still have a job and not have lost his pension contributions. There is a viewpoint that says the Police officer is tried and sentenced twice, and still some people are not satisfied. For certain he won't be working in the Police service again.
I propose that all Police officer contributors withdraw from making comment on all similar posts in the future. Perhaps Mr X can gain some satisfaction without our contributions.
|
' So what's your point? Were he to have been in some other occupation he may well still have a job and not have lost his pension contributions. '
Do you remember a thread on here about a self employed glaizer ( I might have the wrong occupation ) who a police force refused to use because he had speeding convictions . Thats right, speeding convictions. He hadn't killed anybody but they were happy to strip him of his right to earn an income.
The loss of job is wholly appropriate in the circumstances of PC Dougal.
|
...lost his pension contributions...
Woodster, that's utter tosh, all he's lost is the opportunity to contribute more.
From a pension point of view, all that's happened is he has resigned.
The sentence of the court is three years.
It is not, and can never be: "Three years, and while we're about it we'll have those pension contributions off you."
|
"they were happy to strip him of his right to earn an income"
A classic Mr-X-ism.
The refusal of the police to employ an individual has become (in Mr X's way of telling it) a complete block on his ability to earn anything. If you think about it for a moment, you might see that the tradesman in question can still take his business elsewhere.
That being so, what's the point of comparing someone who has lost his job with someone who has not been hired by one organisation?
PC Dougal probably rightly lost his job.
Weren't we going to have a rational debate?
|
Do you remember a thread on here about a self employed glaizer ( I might have the wrong occupation ) who a police force refused to use because he had speeding convictions . Thats right speeding convictions. He hadn't killed anybody but they were happy to strip him of his right to earn an income.
I seem t recall one of the things you damned PC douglas with was that he had had sppeding convictions before he joined the force.
whats it to be Mr X you cant have it both ways,
|
The glazier was not in a job that would need him to stop motorists and lecture them about the standard of their driving.
Sorry but if you are going to be a traffic officer, you have to be squeaky clean when it comes to your driving history and your standards when driving.
|
Sorry but if you are going to be a traffic officer you have to be squeaky clean when it comes to your driving history and your standards when driving.
I'd better hand my resignation in immediately! I got a speeding ticket when I was 20. Twenty years later, I'm clearly not fit to be doing the job!
Couple this with a fanatical devotion to the ANPR system and computerised policing
It never ceases to amaze me how your (extreme) opinion is always written as fact. I've lost count of the number of Police Officers on here who've tried to explain to you the actual facts when it comes to the use of ANPR and other systems. However, you immediately dismiss (along with being downright rude on occasion) them and give your 'facts'. Sorry to disappoint you, but the rantings printed in the Daily Mail are not facts, but you've never let that get in the way of your previous rants.
There are many posters on here who have expressed strong opinion against this Officer, but in a subjective and balanced way. You could certainly learn a thing or two from them
|
Strange, I read about the Dougal case in the Telegraph, on the BBC news Website, on the PA news service. Following the recent events at the G20 summit, I would whole heartedly expect members of your profession to decry the media at every opportunity and lay the blame for everything at their door. Shoot the messenger still seems to be alive and well.
As for computerised policing, I read this week about a bloke who has been in and out of court for the last two years because a car which bears the same reg plate as his broken down silver tractor has been collecting various motoring tickets around the country.
As he said, how many times must he prove that it's not him or his tractor ? Computer says ' Yes "... end of common sense.
|
>>. Shoot the messenger still seems to be alive and well.
It's not the case of 'shooting the messenger'......it's asking the messenger to tell the whole story in an open balanced manner.... not concentrate on a couple of bits to highlight an angle that suits the messenger, so he can sell more of his scroll
|
"I'd better hand my resignation in immediately! I got a speeding ticket when I was 20. Twenty years later, I'm clearly not fit to be doing the job!"
Lightweight!!! 17 years, defective horn on a Triumph Tiger Cub - Fined £2.
Hangs head in shame. But you know what they say, "If you can't beat them, join them." :-]
|
|
...if it's confession corner.... 1979, written caution letter and no prosecution for having two up on my moped...declared it on my joining application and got a right old grilling on my interview about respect for authority and the law etc....which was fair enough
|
|
Careful you two, someone will be demanding your resignation. Or reporting you to the Daily Wail. :)
Edited by Old Navy on 04/05/2009 at 10:17
|
|
I don't know, OldNavy, as they say, the best are the "poachers turned gamekeeper"?
|
The ANPR hits I've seen being returned on numerous "reality" TV shows thus far have usually indicated what the suspected offence was - seem to recall they were even programmed to play a different tune according to offence. Granted these were all straightforward offences like tax, insurance etc. Not sure if a car was wanted for some other reason if it would display that reason or just refer to officers to the PNC.
I remember when this originally happened, all discussion of it was locked for sub judicial reasons, so seems fair that some element of discussion should now be allowed.
My own feeling is that the circumstances did not justify the speed here. Had a member of the public been caught doing 94mph in a residential 30 zone in the dark, it would have been branded as lunatic and suicidal. I don't see how any amount of driver training could alter that fact.
As far as I'm aware, the suspect car showed no signs of fleeing at any stage? Therefore surely the officer would have caught up using a far more moderate speed, albeit a few seconds later?
As has been mentioned, though, he didn't set out to end someone's life that night - but he did, in my humble opinion, make a very, very poor judgement call.
The issue of pursuit policy - well, if I'm absolutely honest, I don't want police cars to do that kind of speed on that kind of road at night over something like a lapsed tax disc or insurance. These issues are a nuisance, to be sure, but they're not worth that kind of risk to innocent life.
|
I will second the request not to lock this thread.
This is a motoring forum relating to all things motoring and police policies are at the forefront of discussion many a time.
Lets just discuss it maturely, no baiting, no police slanging.
Surely we can do that in the BR on a Friday night when we are all sitting back with a beer or nice red?
|
Damned if you do damned if you dont.
sums this thread up for me
no winners only losers
i always dread the day i send a car out with a fault that kills someone.im careful but im not perfect,nobody is
|
Surely we can do that in the BR on a Friday night when we are all sitting back with a beer or nice red?
I wish!
Ok, then, lets put something out to discussion... there is a lot of debate elsewhere about inappropriate speed limits and "variable" limits where speeds could be higher at quieter times of the day...
Watching that video, and noting how quiet that road was at that time, it does just go to prove that the unexpected can happen at any time, and especially when least expected... he was an advanced driver, I wonder how the rest of us would have faired even if travelling at considerably lower speeds....
Edited by b308 on 01/05/2009 at 22:26
|
I will second the request not to lock this thread.
i third it.....
so far the posts have all been fairly adult, so I for one dont see the need for locking.
IF however the rants start in earnest............................................
|
OK - rational debate exhausted. Locked.
Edit:
Unlocked after an e-mailed appeal (from a reasonable quarter !) keep it civilized.
Edited by Pugugly on 01/05/2009 at 23:52
|
Could the crim' not be visited the following day if it was only an ANPR 'ping' Even if he was a known felon the speed thing was not justified as from my reasonably wide experience the correct/sufficient punishment rarely seems to get handed out to those that need it, but those of us that generally do play the game seem to get 'whacked' if we transgress.
Having said that the BIB can't win either way.
Have a pleasant Bank Holiday all..........MD
|
|
|
|
|
|
