Speeding -- it's not just the fine and/or the ban

It's par for the course. He was charged with section 2 dangerous driving not speeding.

Given his job requires a licence he should have known better.

In E&W that case may not have attracted a section 2 charge but in Scotland speed alone will get that charge.
 
OK guys Before this goes down the inevitable route,
Yes we know that ST4 went faster.
Yes we know he got caught, yes we know he did the crime and is now doing the time.
All that is irrelevant, to this discussion.

Lets try and keep at least one discussion, about the subject matter.
And not get side tracked.

Big brother is watching ;)
 
tbh the example in the post is more moronic than speeding on a motorway anyway - 127 on a single cariageway road , what a ****
 
Cobra said:
OK guys Before this goes down the inevitable route,
Yes we know that ST4 went faster.
Yes we know he got caught, yes we know he did the crime and is now doing the time.
All that is irrelevant, to this discussion.

Lets try and keep at least one discussion, about the subject matter.
And not get side tracked.

Big brother is watching ;)
Click to expand...

Ha! ..... You're expecting a miracle? ;)
 
big soft moose said:
surely not ? - that the first any of us have heard of that ;)

tbh the example in the post is more moronic than speeding on a motorway anyway - 127 on a single cariageway road , what a ****
Click to expand...

Do you know the road then? Is it wide open or residential with schools, hedgehog crossings etc?
Looking at Google maps it appears to be a open wide road, long straight, and was almost 1am so limited traffic on the road, however I don't know the area.
127 is a little excessive, I could probably understand about 90.

PC Mark Milton was cleared of 'familarising himeself' with a new police car, involving 157mph on the mtorway and 80mph in 30mph residential roads...
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
None mentioned in that story, but you'd have thought it would be given in court. He writes for AutoExpress and has worked for Mazda racing MX-5's

Further details here: https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/f...r-being-clocked-at-127mph-on-busy-north-road/
Click to expand...

I read that link. Sec2 doesn't consider the skill of the driver. The driving failed the careful competent driver test. That's enough to get a sec2 conviction. It would be apparent that driving at 127mph falls far below the standard of a careful and competent driver.

It's a broad sweeping statement but that's it.

His job and undue hardship plea of needing a licence to fulfil his duties would be sufficient to retain it but then again saying to a judge I wish to retain my licence to write about on limit handling might just make the sentence worse and set a bad public example.
 
Last edited:
Just because he holds a race licence doesn't make him a better driver. You only have to look at BTCC to see that.
 
PC Mark Milton was cleared of 'familarising himeself' with a new police car, involving 157mph on the mtorway and 80mph in 30mph residential roads...
Click to expand...

He wasn't.
The CPS took a second bite of the cherry after he was acquitted, and he was convicted on retrial, for S2 as I recall. However, he was given a conditional discharge, leading a lot of police officers to believe this was a summons for 'political' reasons, not necessity.

The proceedings were wrong in my opinion. Had he been on a call, nothing would have been said, but in order to drive at speeds like that, you need to be practiced and know the car is safe and capable at that speed. So for example, you need to kn ow when you stand on the brakes, the car doesn't turn left, life one police car I once drove did! You can't find that out until you drive at that speed.

There's an exemption in law from the speed limits, if the vehicle is being used for Police purposes. It was being, so no excess speed charge.

Just because he holds a race licence doesn't make him a better driver. You only have to look at BTCC to see that.
Click to expand...

Correct! Police drivers don't make good racing drivers, and vice versa. It's a completely different type of driving. For example, race driving involves using all of a tack to keep speed up around a bend. Police driving involves using the position road for visibility. One is entirely defensive driving the other is attacking.

His job and undue hardship plea of needing a licence to fulfil his duties would be sufficient to retain
Click to expand...

No its not. A police officer convicted of speeding off duty above 100 would lose his job. Even though he would in all probability be better trained to drive at speed on a public road.
 
Last edited:
munch said:
Just because he holds a race licence doesn't make him a better driver. You only have to look at BTCC to see that.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow. In terms of car control he'll have an edge over most, and an awareness of what it's like to drive, steer and brake at high speed.

Driving experience is irrelevant. It's the careful competent driver test that matters and in the eyes of most if not all careful competent drivers a speed like that will be seen to be dangerous. It's a speed completely alien to the bulk of British motorists and will be seen as dangerous in itself.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I follow. In terms of car control he'll have an edge over most, and an awareness of what it's like to drive, steer and brake at high speed.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but a track and a road are different places with different hazards. Any fool can drive fast round a track, it takes skill and training to do that on a road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Byker28i said:
Do you know the road then? Is it wide open or residential with schools, hedgehog crossings etc?
Looking at Google maps it appears to be a open wide road, long straight, and was almost 1am so limited traffic on the road, however I don't know the area.
127 is a little excessive, I could probably understand about 90.
...
Click to expand...

even if its wide and straight 127 on a single carriage way is deeply irresponsible - more so than a Mway as theres no armco to seperate you from the other carriage way
 
Last edited:
I suspect the loss of the job was more related to bringing the company into disrepute by getting caught speeding rather than the punishment levied, such that ban or not he would have got the sack...

The same as Martin Clunes (sp) lost his advertising deal with Churchill Insurance, because he was convicted of a driving offence, sorry cannot remember what exactly
 
Bernie174 said:
No its not. A police officer convicted of speeding off duty above 100 would lose his job. Even though he would in all probability be better trained to drive at speed on a public road.
Click to expand...

Hmm. There have been cases of non police claiming employment and the employment of others as reason to retain a licence when facing disqual.

Freddie Flintoff being a recent case.
 
As Bernie said driving fast around a track is very different from driving safely around public roads. And if you look at this guys CV he wasn't even that good a racing driver.
 
munch said:
As Bernie said driving fast around a track is very different from driving safely around public roads. And if you look at this guys CV he wasn't even that good a racing driver.
Click to expand...

Point taken.

I also note the case is of night time driving, the risk of deer and to himself at that speed is grave. Sec 2 covers danger not only to others, but to yourself, wildlife and property. Given the test for dangerous driving is that the "driving fell far below the standard expected of a careful competent driver or it would be clear to a careful competent driver that the driving was dangerous" I doubt unless judged by speedofiles and petrol heads he was ever going to be able to deny that one with a straight face.

Looking at the CPS link I posted earlier, and that road traffic law is the same in E&W as it is in Scotland, the right charge and outcome were delivered.
 
The other thing in this case is that he had been on the road all day driving from London to Inverness via Aberdeen, so was unlikely to be as fresh and alert as he might have been for a shorter journey. He apparently told police he had no excuse for driving at that speed, so at least he owned up to it then and pled guilty later.

Not sure if the link will work, but he came off the roundabout at upper right and was heading through the wooded area towards Tornagrain. Streetview is your friend!

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...m2!3m1!1s0x488f79a871569817:0xa0c681c77df6170
 
Last edited:
Hmm, seems that points don't always mean prizes. I wonder if the SACHS cameras between Dunblane and Inverness caught him out on his travels up. If he drove up that is because the A96 runs from Inverness to Aberdeen.
 
Peter B said:
The other thing in this case is that he had been on the road all day driving from London to Inverness via Aberdeen, so was unlikely to be as fresh and alert as he might have been for a shorter journey. He apparently told police he had no excuse for driving at that speed, so at least he owned up to it then and pled guilty later.
Click to expand...

He probably was driving well above the NSL for the whole day. That's a 700 mile drive. I know myself driving from Dover to Aberdeen then back to Glasgow in a 24hr period its a) f*****g tiring b) if you choose, as I did to obey the NSL, then it truly takes ages. I've driven Aberdeen to Inverness several times when I lived in Aberdeen, it's a long drive, easy 2hrs. London to Aberdeen is the best part of 8hours.

What excuse can you really give a) they've heard it ALL before b) it's best to co-operate but not imply guilt (in the event of a technicality later if you admit the offence but come out with some bull excuse you've admitted guilt) c) the evidence usually gathered is pretty concrete and the conviction rates high. Fighting it is futile. Trying to tell a sherriff 127mph isn't dangerous won't work, and there is legal precident here in Scotland (Google the case Selkrirk vs Drummond) which the sherrif would fall back in. He, on the dilligent advice of counsel pled guilty. The lawyer can say the lack of aggrivating factors, otherwise good character, in employment spiel to try keep him out of jail. Which for sec2, is the lawyers course of action, plead guilty and get sentencing done then and there to ensure custodial sentencing isn't doled out. Once the Sherrif calls for background reports on deferring sentence, the chance of jail increases. The lawyer did a good job in getting the Sherrif to sentence him then and there and avoid a spell in the pokey.

CaveDweller said:
Hmm, seems that points don't always mean prizes. I wonder if the SACHS cameras between Dunblane and Inverness caught him out on his travels up. If he drove up that is because the A96 runs from Inverness to Aberdeen.
Click to expand...

He will have gone either A1, M90, A90 to Aberdeen or M40, M6, M74, M80, M90, A90. He won't have travellled on the A9 to go London to Inverness via Aberdeen.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
He probably was driving well above the NSL for the whole day. That's a 700 mile drive. I know myself driving from Dover to Aberdeen then back to Glasgow in a 24hr period its a) f*****g tiring b) if you choose, as I did to obey the NSL, then it truly takes ages. I've driven Aberdeen to Inverness several times when I lived in Aberdeen, it's a long drive, easy 2hrs. London to Aberdeen is the best part of 8hours.

What excuse can you really give a) they've heard it ALL before b) it's best to co-operate but not imply guilt (in the event of a technicality later if you admit the offence but come out with some bull excuse you've admitted guilt) c) the evidence usually gathered is pretty concrete and the conviction rates high. Fighting it is futile. Trying to tell a sherriff 127mph isn't dangerous won't work, and there is legal precident here in Scotland (Google the case Selkrirk vs Drummond) which the sherrif would fall back in. He, on the dilligent advice of counsel pled guilty. The lawyer can say the lack of aggrivating factors, otherwise good character, in employment spiel to try keep him out of jail. Which for sec2, is the lawyers course of action, plead guilty and get sentencing done then and there to ensure custodial sentencing isn't doled out. Once the Sherrif calls for background reports on deferring sentence, the chance of jail increases. The lawyer did a good job in getting the Sherrif to sentence him then and there and avoid a spell in the pokey.



He will have gone either A1, M90, A90 to Aberdeen or M40, M6, M74, M80, M90, A90. He won't have travellled on the A9 to go London to Inverness via Aberdeen.
Click to expand...

Didn't know he went via Aberdeen otherwise yes I agree.
 
Bernie174 said:
He wasn't.
The CPS took a second bite of the cherry after he was acquitted, and he was convicted on retrial, for S2 as I recall. However, he was given a conditional discharge, leading a lot of police officers to believe this was a summons for 'political' reasons, not necessity.

The proceedings were wrong in my opinion. Had he been on a call, nothing would have been said, but in order to drive at speeds like that, you need to be practiced and know the car is safe and capable at that speed. So for example, you need to kn ow when you stand on the brakes, the car doesn't turn left, life one police car I once drove did! You can't find that out until you drive at that speed.

There's an exemption in law from the speed limits, if the vehicle is being used for Police purposes. It was being, so no excess speed charge.
Click to expand...

Entirely true and I agree with most of this if his driving had been restricted to appropriate roads. 157mph on the M54 at night on a quiet motorway, maxing out the vehicle to see how it handled, how fast it accelerated, I can see the benefits of that, even his excessive speed on the dual carriageways around Telford, but you really can't excuse the 80mph through 30mph residential streets. You and I know no matter how it's spun he took a new fast car out for a jolly ;) Only trouble was he forgot about the camera fitted and bragged about it to colleagues.

Quite a debate at the time about taking police cars to the limit on public roads and the suggestion that perhaps initially a track would be more suitable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I think he was lucky not to go to prison.

I don't know if you still can go to prison "just" for driving too fast but I think it should be a possible consequence of this kind of idiocy.
 
, but you really can't excuse the 80mph through 30mph residential streets.
Click to expand...

Of course you can. Had he been on way to a call, would he have been doing that speed? Yes, if safe to do so he would, I certainly have, often!

Quite a debate at the time about taking police cars to the limit on public roads and the suggestion that perhaps initially a track would be more suitable.
Click to expand...

A track isn't a road. It's designed for high speed driving, but without the hazards, changes in road camber, pot holes, drains etc. Thats assuming ones available, and in many areas they aren't. So, you're left with like it or not, using roads. Advanced Police drivers are trained to do that sort of speed, and we're trained on roads. Provided you are properly trained, in practice and in a car that is not only capable of accelerating, but also of stopping, and the road conditions are appropriate then it is safe.

At the time I looked at the roads on google street view, and to be honest, I'd have probably been doing that speed too.

It's very rare to have a non emergency services trained driver who is trained to the right levels to drive at high speed, almost every driver in the UK was trained to drive at no more than 30, and most of those really shouldn't be driving any faster, as they are dangerous at that speed.
 
Last edited:
JonathanRyan said:
I think he was lucky not to go to prison.

I don't know if you still can go to prison "just" for driving too fast but I think it should be a possible consequence of this kind of idiocy.
Click to expand...

I agree he was lucky not to jail as the guideline punishments for s2 are custodial ones. Although up here for this sort if thing no jails been handed out.

The law and sentencing places a great weight in outcome/consequences. There were no injuries, deaths or property damage nor any additional aggravating factors such as alcohol, drugs, theft, lack of licence, near miss, adverse weather, other road users, speeding in residential areas, prior record, evading police or police chase or racing other road users.

As such I think a custodial sentence would be wholly inappropriate and an early plea of guilty mitigates against this.

If there had been a combination of factors like I listed above combined with the speed I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

If other crimes, non motoring, like assault, being drunk in public etc carried jail sentences I'd also be more inclined to agree with you bit given the present legal and justice system the outcome is a just and fair one.

As such I believe on sentencing on act not outcome. The act was driving a car he had permission to do so at 127mph, he wasn't intoxicated, didn't have priors, didn't do it in a busy stretch in adverse weather, pulled over for the police or race another road user. The only aggravation is the speed. Sentence is ok.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
ST4 said:
I agree he was lucky not to jail as the guideline punishments for s2 are custodial ones. Although up here for this sort if thing no jails been handed out.

The law and sentencing places a great weight in outcome/consequences. There were no injuries, deaths or property damage nor any additional aggravating factors such as alcohol, drugs, theft, lack of licence, near miss, adverse weather, other road users, speeding in residential areas, prior record, evading police or police chase or racing other road users.
Click to expand...


I guess. And I'll be the first to admit that the court heard far more details than I have the patience for so I wouldn't seriously consider disagreeing with their verdict. However, I'd look at the possible/likely consequences. If something unexpected had happened I suspect he would have been unable to do anything other than watch.

IIRC the fastest I've ever driven is 147mph. And I certainly wasn't in control at the time. We were practically airborne.
 
Speed Kills...
Send him Down :-)
 
Bernie174 said:
almost every driver in the UK was trained to drive at no more than 30, and most of those really shouldn't be driving any faster, as they are dangerous at that speed.
Click to expand...

That's a sweeping generalisation that your not qualified to make.
 
Bernie174 said:
Of course you can. Had he been on way to a call, would he have been doing that speed? Yes, if safe to do so he would, I certainly have, often!



A track isn't a road. It's designed for high speed driving, but without the hazards, changes in road camber, pot holes, drains etc. Thats assuming ones available, and in many areas they aren't. So, you're left with like it or not, using roads. Advanced Police drivers are trained to do that sort of speed, and we're trained on roads. Provided you are properly trained, in practice and in a car that is not only capable of accelerating, but also of stopping, and the road conditions are appropriate then it is safe.

At the time I looked at the roads on google street view, and to be honest, I'd have probably been doing that speed too.

It's very rare to have a non emergency services trained driver who is trained to the right levels to drive at high speed, almost every driver in the UK was trained to drive at no more than 30, and most of those really shouldn't be driving any faster, as they are dangerous at that speed.
Click to expand...

Ok, in the other thread we were discussing lack of support for the police and this sums it up.

Police are humans and make the same wrong decisions that non police make, however they are consistently excused. This was the same with this case. There's actually little difference between a racing driver doing 127mph on a straight empty road at night, or a trained police driver doing the excessive speeds mark Milton was doing on a jolly especially on residential roads. The roads and risks are the same.

Had he been on his way to a call then possibly yes he would have had a reason to speed, however he was on an unauthorised jolly. He'd just taken the car out to test was the excuse. The response from various parts of the police was to stand by him and try to excuse it.

One rule for the police, one rule for others this was seen as by many. My whole point to the comparison.

For the track, you'll notice I said initially. Want to test a car to the limits, then initially a track or test track is a perfect place to do this. You can test handling, acceleration, braking, cornering all in a safe environment.

Uk drivers trained at no more than 30? Depends where you are, but even in North London where I took my test I was tested on dual carriage ways at speeds of 40mph and 60 mph.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Mr Bump said:
Speed Kills...
Send him Down :)
Click to expand...

I thought speed was only the 7th most contributory cause to deaths on the roads. Given the number of daily speed limit breaches and speeds like this are an everyday occurance on the roads yet so few accidents are reported because if events like this versus the actual number of events like this I maintain the belief that speed is quite unlikely to kill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top