police + 160mph = ?

[andy]

So what is the braking distance for 159mph?

150, 200 yards???? if so, he wouldn't be able to see to stop in time surely???

your going down a motorway at 70MPH after a bend where you cant easily see round, overtakin a truck at whos going at 60. so when he comes along at 159, he has a good chance of hitting someone. and his braking distance must be at least 350-400M

 

[pipme]

I must repeat --->
Dec 5th 2004 Sunrise 7-49 A 'kin M, he was driving in early hours .... Therefore In the DARK -- 'driving conditions good' for 233 ft/sec ? Really, I wonder if we could quote that ? ---
Maybe in the rally 'supercar' era ... closed roads .. or Le Mans 24 hr, even the latter plagued with problems due to speed differentials .. and that for race drivers looking out for each other.

...Constable Milton was driving on deserted roads when visibility was good and there was no ice on the highway....

Oh, just the odd mid-wife on-call, or one of the 24 hr people to or from work or maybe looking for an all night pub ? maybe an accident just around the next curve... beyond the headlights ... Macho bravura at best criminal at worst...... BTW Was he on n/shift pay ? Overtime ? or on a personal journey ? Or all bl##dy three !!

 

[pna]

AdamW - the difference between him speeding and JoeP is it is this guy's job to undertake high speed pursuits. Or should he stick to 70mph?

Andrew2022 - the M54 has parts that are straight enough which also offer good visibility, away from junctions so that it would be possible to safely get up to high speed and then slow down again.

 

[jtaunton]

Its nice for the cop that he could have the safety of what he was doing taken into consideration. For example, if I was caught doing 95mph on a clear straight motorway at 5am on a dry Summer Day when the sun is already up, only one of those facts would be taken into consideration, whereas he benefits from having the whole picture looked at.

 

[Thermo]

I think you need to put a little perspective on this.
This guy is an advanced driver. What does that mean? First off he'll have gone through the following courses as a Bare Minimum.

Basic driving course - 2-3 weeks dependent on force
intermediate driving course - 2 weeks, night driving, skid pan
advanced - 4 weeks, double white line overtakes, snap overtakes, night driving etc.
Thats a minimum of 360 hours of intense specialized training. How many does a normal car driver have? 10-20?

Thats a minimum of 9 weeks driving at least 8 hours a day under continual assesment, with instant fails at any time on the course. The courses are mentally exhausting. At the end of each drive usually an hour long, you are debriefed and virtually every corner, overtake, safety aspect etc is gone through. Can you remember every detail from a drive you do for an hour? When they are taught to drive you are taught the system of driving, which teaches you to take in a number of things but is based around and above all safety. When you drive it you are reading the road as far ahead as you can see. That doesn't mean the bit of tarmac in front of you, but if you can see the tops of street lamps over a mile away over the top of a hill you are taught to interpret them eg a roundabout coming up etc.

After that comes constant assesments during the working career, retests, refreshers, further courses such as pursuit, tactical containment etc. Have you ever sat in a car with someone whose a numpty driver who you don't trust? You sit there with your foot going through the floor where the brake pedal should be and you crap yourself. Sit in a car with one of those guys driving and you will feel totally confident and struck by the air of calm thats in the car. Listen to a commentary from one of these guys driving in a follow at speed and hear how calm it is. You can tell an advanced driver from a normal patrol car driver. They are calm and clear and concise. The untrained driver normally sounds like they are on helium, don't listen to whats being said and repeat themselves over and over again.

So when it comes to the crunch, your child gets abducted, a police car gets behind it and gets on the motorway and gets to a speed of 160 mph. Now the helicopter is scrambled but its going to take 5 minutes to get overhead. What do you want that police driver to do. Do you want it to be a driver whos been trained to do that and is as safe as possibly can be?

Testing out the car? Its a fair point in principle as every car drives differently. The cars they use are checked every day eg oil water, tyre pressure etc. They do all handle differently and all have their own little idiosyncrasies. Not to much of a problem at 30 mph, but in a follow at 100 mph it makes a big difference.

Every time those blue lights go on every individual has to take a decision. Is what im doing justified, is the way im driving acceptable and safe? Believe me i've seen a lot of policeman end up in court for various accidents or offences that happened during their work when involved in a follow. Some have been absolutley justified and some seem to be the higher ranks covering their arses. As for this one. Well his case has gone through the judicial system and a district judge has passed the judgement on him.

Personally i think that the force would appear to be to blame for their policy and i think he went about it in a stupid way that has not gained any support from the public. In my old force any training drives or familiarisations had to be booked as such and you had to have a senior driver with you.

As for the moustache. Totally and utterly unacceptably silly

 

[david and julie]

The motorway speed was bad enough but what about the 2 other recorded speeding offences, of 131 on an A road, (no mention of speed limit so that could of been a 30) and 84 in a 30 zone.

The last one is downright criminal, anything could have gone wrong,such as an animal or blind person walking into the road, which would of been beyond his control, regardless how good his training.

I would of thought the motorway was also the last place you need high speed pursuits anyway, surely it is safer for all concerned to use helicopters and wait at junctions. Once on the motorway you are more or less trapped in anyway.

I am curious if each driver uses the same car all the time or whether they go through this reckless behaviour every time they change?

Clear and blatant double standards really, but then in reality we all know that.

 

[securespark]

This website http://www.police999.com/traffic/speed4.html says that "twice the speed= 4 times the SD"

So by that reckoning, at 140mph the stopping distance is 1260 feet.

(Or 384 metres, for metric brains)

This site http://www.hintsandthings.co.uk/garage/stopmph.htm

works it out at 1423 feet, or 434m.

 

[david and julie]

The point been though Thermo, noboby had been kidnapped and the only one committing an offence was him! Are you saying the police are trained at these speeds on the public roads as part of their normal training? what do they tell you to do in the event of a blowout or other mechanical failure? How do you read the road over the brow of a hill or round a bend?

What do you think about the other offences I mentioned which were reported in the Express today?

I have no axe to grind as (in the main ) I support the police and have had a clean licence for 35 years. This must however really upset people who have just been done for much less serious driving offences.

 

[Thermo]

d & j, no nobody had but what do you do when somebody has for example. would you prefer a trained or untrained driver to be behind the wheel. As i said i dont think he went around doing it in the right way and i find it difficult to support him, im just trying to put a little perspective on it, as somene whose gone through the process and the training.

Police are trained at speed on public roads, because there is no other way of doing it. Its not easy, but how else do you do it. You can drive around an airfield or racetrack, but it teaches you very little. Unfortunatley accidents happen during police pursuits, however the vast majority do not happen with advanced drivers, but the local patrol drivers.

You read the bend in a road or a brow of a hill by assesing the bend using the way the tarmac goes, other cars that may be on the road, the path the trees take as you look across to where the road should carry on, the wetaher conditions, the traffic on the road, any micro climate etc. You then set your speed accordingly, chose the correct gear, position the car correctly to give the best view and balance, and once your view opens up you then increase your acceleration. If you think this guys gone blatting around bends continuously at 160 then id like to see it!

You cannot legislate for everything, that is life and that is why they are trained as well as they are. You cannot make everything safe, i wish you could but you cant. Someone has to be there to do the job that many people expect to be done. SOmeone has to make that concious decsion to do their best in the circumstances and weigh up the risks. Do you let a well trained person do it so they can make informed decsions or a relativly untrained person do it.

As i said, i dont think he went about it in the right way and i think the force are to blame as well. I wouldnt be surprised if he gets thrown off of the traffic division. Those speeds are not routine in the course of training or in the course of their work, but it does happen. Im not saying that there arent those that take the mick and do stupid things just because they can. Thats wrong and i think that was probaly the feeling of the police force and the cps in taking the decision to put it before the court. The judge however has made his decision, thats the law and thats how it works.

It is much safer to use helicopters and that is why they are so widely used to oversee and command pursuits, but someones got to be behind the car, and someones got to be with it until the helicopters over it. SO ill ask again who do you want there trained or untrained? I know who id rather have, but i have more of an insight into what goes on and how it goes on.

 

[david and julie]

I would prefer them to have proper and safe driving at high speed but only use that skill when they are actually engaged on a chase or genuine emergency. Not for what appears to be little more than a bit of fun for the officer concerned.

I Take your point about reading the road but that wouldn't tell you if someone had broken down or such like. Do you mean most times you get away with it by skill?

Regarding testing of the car that was done by the police and Vauxhall before the police bought it. They do this here on private land.

http://www.bruntingthorpe.com/

To be honest I find the other offences on A road and normal streets worse as anything could go wrong. The press are only using the larger figure because it sounds worse, but in reality the other offences are much more dangerous.

 

[Thermo]

i know what you are saying and i think you may be right in this case, however, how do you give someone an appreciation to do a job without actually getting them to do it during training. Yes cars are tested before they are put into service, but they all feel different to drive and its used as a tool of their trade. They need to know how it feels and as i explained before, each car has its own characteristics which affect it and how it drives. im not for a minute suggesting taht they are all blatted ariound at 160 mph to do that far from it.
As for someone breaking down, yes it would. You read the road and you adjust your driving accordingly. You dont go flying over a blind brow of a hill, you go onto a trailing throttle, change to a reactive gear and prepare for what may be over the brow.

 

[Scoby_Beasley]

[And how many situations in the whole history of the British Police have required driving at 159mph?

The last time someone dialled 999 and said "someones trying to break into a house !"
**** No ! Sorry , thought that was number of days

 

[op]

wots wrong with the police doing 160 mph they are training to do there job just like the r.a.f pilots in the lake district doing 1500mph over your head. the trouble with the public is that there is to many do gooders and not enough dogs *******s in the public.

 

[andy]

wots wrong with the police doing 160 mph they are training to do there job just like the r.a.f pilots in the lake district doing 1500mph over your head. the trouble with the public is that there is to many do gooders and not enough dogs **** in the public.

but in the air, there isnt much chance of a slow driver infront of you, or a broken down plane blockin the road

 

[david and julie]

wots wrong with the police doing 160 mph they are training to do there job just like the r.a.f pilots in the lake district doing 1500mph over your head. the trouble with the public is that there is to many do gooders and not enough dogs **** in the public.

Do you mean practicing? you can't really train someone, or be trained to drive, whilst on your own can you? In reality if a police driver had to do this type of speed he would be in contact with his base, he would not be doing it off his own back and for no good reason, that is the difference.

You are missing the gist of the case, it is not about the speed in itself, it is about hypocracy and double standards. The public see a judge making excuses to justify his poor decisions. By saying the likes of the weather was good,road quiet, no traffic, early hours etc. These are not fair and proper reasons, they are excuses, this type of thing makes the public believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are all peeing in the same pot and it is difficult to believe any different.

What do you think about the other offences he got away with then? how would you feel if you had kids playing in the street and someone drove past at 84 in a 30 limit, to try his car out?

I doubt very much that a pilot could go doing the same thing in a plane and get away with it, be realistic it is nothing to do with do-gooders, he got away with it because he is part of the same system as the judge.