[EGK]

just heard on radio 1 that some traffic cop (most probably a beard) has been found NOT GUILTY of dangerous driving after his in car video caught him doing 160mph!! apparently he was "testing" his new patrol car :crackup:

fair enough it probably wasnt dangerous driving but what do you think the chances of any of us getting a not guilty are after getting caught at those speeds?

 

[TurboTom]

I just heard the same thing , i might go out today and give it a whril !!

Well their can't be one rule for them and a different rule for us ........

.........can their ?!


:crackup:

 

[EGK]

no surely not in this fair and democratic society. in fact i am thinking of "testing" my 5 later today on the m9.

 

[Fish Monkey]

I can understand saying it's not dangerous driving (time and a place and all that + I remember a 'regular' getting off his dangerous driving for similar speeds pointing out there was no-one else about)

BUT, the speeding he is on camera doing 160 for no good reason. How can he not be guilty of speeding

 

[mike_turbo]

bent as f*ck

 

[Leonard]

Now the thing is if I remember rightly his patrol car was a new V6 Vectra and it is only capable of 145mph tops. So that means the video they use to catch you and I is WAY OUT!

 

[Leonard]

BUT, the speeding he is on camera doing 160 for no good reason. How can he not be guilty of speeding

Exactly there is no reason what so ever to be testing the max speed of a car, if he wants to know that then buy a copy of Autocar!

 

[Bream]

BBC new report :moon:

 

[mike_turbo]

its disgusting - so now whats gonna stop people referring back to this case when they have a trial for speeding? surely thats the highest speed ever to be found not guilty of?

 

[Leonard]

its disgusting - so now whats gonna stop people referring back to this case when they have a trial for speeding? surely thats the highest speed ever to be found not guilty of?

I will try it when i go to see the magistrate about my 104mph

 

[mike_turbo]

yeh why not! its ok for him to do it so why not

 

[Leonard]

yeh why not! its ok for him to do it so why not

They will say because I'm not a police advanced driver :angel: and dont have a fetching moustache, oh and I'm not bumming the chief of police who just happens to be bumming the judge! :shake:

 

[Evoedd]

If the 159 was all right on the M54, how can they justify the 84mph in a 30mph zone, as in the report of 20 April, and 131 on an A Class road.

Whole thing stinks.

Steve

 

[Bex]

They will say because I'm not a police advanced driver :angel: and dont have a fetching moustache, oh and I'm not bumming the chief of police who just happens to be bumming the judge! :shake:

I'm sure you could oblige on a couple of things, Hey Leonard, if it meant getting away with it :crackup: :crackup: :crackup:

Bex :angel:

 

[jcremonini]

*Sticks neck out*

Personally, I don't know what all the fuss is about. It's common fact that advanced police drivers use public roads for practicing and to do so they have to exceed the speed limit.

If one life is saved as a result of a policeman being able to get somewhere faster through breaking the speed limit than not then I am all for it as long as they are competent at those speeds - and to be competent involves high speed.

All he was doing was testing the peak performance of his car on a deserted motorway early one morning - best he do that than have to 'test' it when he first had to chase a car,for real, at high speeds.

James.

 

[Fish Monkey]

BBC new report :moon:

But the Police Federation defended the driving of Pc Milton, who is also known to have travelled at 120mph in a 60mph zone and at more than 60mph in a 30mph zone.

Speaking on the steps of the court, Insp Keith Howes, said: "Pc Milton was driving in accordance with his training, honing his skills while possible and testing the vehicle's capabilities so that if he was required on an urgent call he would be driving safely."

The court heard the roads on which Pc Milton drove were deserted at the time of the patrol and that driving conditions were good.

So, if I wanna drive ridiculously fast all I need to do is take the advanced drivers test and I'll be fine. It won't be speeding, I'll just be checking out the high speed handling just in case I ever need to escape the Police :moon: W4NKERS

 

[mike_turbo]

well basically if you wanna speed, get a job in the police force, the law doesnt apply to you then

 

[Evoedd]

James,

if you read the reports on the BBC pages you will see that he was also filmed doing 84mph in a 30 and 131 on an A Road!

Steve

 

[Leonard]

*Sticks neck out*

Personally, I don't know what all the fuss is about. It's common fact that advanced police drivers use public roads for practicing and to do so they have to exceed the speed limit.

If one life is saved as a result of a policeman being able to get somewhere faster through breaking the speed limit than not then I am all for it as long as they are competent at those speeds - and to be competent involves high speed.

All he was doing was testing the peak performance of his car on a deserted motorway early one morning - best he do that than have to 'test' it when he first had to chase a car,for real, at high speeds.

James.

There is no situation that I can think of where lives would be saved by a police man travelling at 160mph!
In fact quite the opposite

 

[Bream]

There is no situation that I can think of where lives would be saved by a police man travelling at 160mph!
In fact quite the opposite

What about if he was late picking up his kebab and it was getting cold