| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
John Prigent
Homosapien
United Kingdom
8414 Posts |
 Posted - 23 August 2006 : 7:19:24 PM
|
The Sussex police driver who killed an innocent woman last year has just had his disqualification period reduced by a year - it was only 4 years in the first place.
Since his victim lived in my town I may have read more about this case than any of you saw in the national press. He was _not_ racing to an emergency call. He did _not_ have his blue lights and siren going. He _did_ go through a red light, above the speed limit.
Those circumstances sound to me like "causing death by dangerous driving". Needless to say the CPS didn't press for a conviction for that offence.
Now, I may be old-fashioned but I expect a higher standard of driving from a professional, such as an HGV driver, than from a "Sunday driver" and I believe that the standard required of a police driver should be even higher. To me the police driver's driving was so atrocious that he should have been disqualified for life and sent down for at least five years.
Cheers
John
|
|
|
Mace
Small mammal
United Kingdom
586 Posts |
Posted - 23 August 2006 : 9:36:55 PM
|
The courts do seem to take a random approach to cases these days, and incidents involving off duty police appear to be the worst. It's unfair to demand that any policeman involved in an off duty motor accident should be given extra punishment due to their proffesion. However, once off duty, a policeman should therefore be treated exactly the same as Joe Public, and if the law calls for the same punishment as you have, then there seems very little cause to reduce it.
You go in a car, you speed, you'd better be prepared to accept the consequences. |
 |
|
|
WarrenH
Homosapien
United Kingdom
1778 Posts |
Posted - 24 August 2006 : 09:53:28 AM
|
Based on what you have said, and assuming that the facts are correct, I would have charged the Police Officer for Culpable Homicide Count 1; Negligent driving Count 2. I am well aware that the UK law does not have those type of offences, they should! This driver will have got at least 5 Years imprisonment, and "Discharge form Service". He would also be open to be sued by the family of the deceased, and he would have to pay for his own defence.
It just proves that the UK courts SUCK!
"Ying tong, ying tong, what a miss mash of cods wallop and gungafof. Never in my life have I had the pleasure of reading a concoction of trype and onions." |
|
|
|
Ankhsy
Homosapien
United Kingdom
7087 Posts |
Posted - 24 August 2006 : 10:26:03 AM
|
The Police ARE treated differently in the Courts, more leniently than the general public in my experience. I think it is disgraceful!
"It's hard to work in a group when you're omniscient."
|
|
|
|
John Prigent
Homosapien
United Kingdom
8414 Posts |
Posted - 25 August 2006 : 1:11:53 PM
|
And the BBC news has just announced that the low-life PC who drove at 159 mph on a motorway "to familiarise himself with the new car" has been convicted of dangerous driving at his retrial but let off with no penalty. If any of us were mad enough to drive that fast on a public road we'd be lucky to get away with only 6 months in jail and a_long_ driving ban. Double standards yet again.
Cheers
John |
|
|
|
Turretmuppet
Dinosaur
United Kingdom
396 Posts |
Posted - 07 September 2006 : 4:46:32 PM
|
Couple of years back I was driving along a windy but quite fast country road toward my local town. I suddenly found I was being tailgated by an unmarked police car. There appeared to be some form of instructor in the passenger seat and young, white shirted policemen in the driver and back seats. It looked like they were undertaking some form of training.
They went to overtake, at least I thought they were, but they stayed in my blindspot at the rear of the car on the otherside of the road, 'shadowing' me for some time. I don't know what they were up to, but it was damn dangerous. |
|
|
|
Peter Croft
Dinosaur
United Kingdom
291 Posts |
Posted - 12 September 2006 : 12:20:56 AM
|
| I think they must have been on a crash-management course, Turret. |
|
|
|
histfan71
Single Cell Organism
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 14 September 2006 : 1:50:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by John Prigent
And the BBC news has just announced that the low-life PC who drove at 159 mph on a motorway "to familiarise himself with the new car" has been convicted of dangerous driving at his retrial but let off with no penalty. If any of us were mad enough to drive that fast on a public road we'd be lucky to get away with only 6 months in jail and a_long_ driving ban. Double standards yet again.
Cheers
John
John, I feel the need to make a few points here since I am an American police officer:
1. Police officers are HIGHLY trained to drive safely even at high speeds and to safely control their cars in a variety of emergency situations such as a blowout, a skid, etc. while at high speed. The average civilian driver does not have this training or experience.
2. Police cars are designed and manufactured with speed and extreme driving conditions in mind. Police cars are not "off-the-shelf" vehicles. I have read some articles on this case and from what I read the BMW (or was it an Audi?) the cop was driving is known as a "police package" vehicle meaning it was equipped with special tires, power plant, suspension, and the like especially for driving at high speeds.
3. Finally, police package vehicles are equipped with special safety features not available on civilian model cars.
I do not feel there was a "double standard" applied here; although, I do concede the PC showed extremely poor judgement. The PC was trained and experienced to handle driving fast, and that was reflected in the judgement. |
|
|
|
WarrenH
Homosapien
United Kingdom
1778 Posts |
Posted - 14 September 2006 : 2:29:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by histfan71
quote:
Originally posted by John Prigent
.... Double standards yet again.
Cheers
John
John, I feel the need to make a few points here since I am an American police officer:
1. Police officers are HIGHLY trained to drive safely even at high speeds and to safely control their cars in a variety of emergency situations such as a blowout, a skid, etc. while at high speed. The average civilian driver does not have this training or experience.
2. Police cars are designed and manufactured with speed and extreme driving conditions in mind. Police cars are not "off-the-shelf" vehicles. I have read some articles on this case and from what I read the BMW (or was it an Audi?) the cop was driving is known as a "police package" vehicle meaning it was equipped with special tires, power plant, suspension, and the like especially for driving at high speeds.
3. Finally, police package vehicles are equipped with special safety features not available on civilian model cars.
I do not feel there was a "double standard" applied here; although, I do concede the PC showed extremely poor judgement. The PC was trained and experienced to handle driving fast, and that was reflected in the judgement.
Hello histfan71, I myself a former police officer and Military Policeman. I agree with with you have said partly, the other part, well, I do not have much confidence in the "local" constabulary. I have found the training in a number of areas lacking, combined with continuous Political interference, does not help at all. More training is given to being "Politically Correct" than to actually been a Policeman.
As regards driving, well I do truly differ there, most have obtained their licences through normal channels, yet only "special" drivers receive any advanced driving skills. The majority have to live and learn so to speak.
"Ying tong, ying tong, what a miss mash of cods wallop and gungafof. Never in my life have I had the pleasure of reading a concoction of trype and onions." |
|
|
|
John Prigent
Homosapien
United Kingdom
8414 Posts |
Posted - 14 September 2006 : 2:45:22 PM
|
Sorry, Histfan, I can't agree. The standard of driver training is exemplified by the first case I quoted - it apparently didn't occur to him that driving through a red light straight into a passing car might be contraindicated. As I understand it emergency vehicle drivers are _required_ by their training to check that it is safe to proceed before going through red lights. He didn't, so end of story. As for the 159mph driver, it doesn't matter how good or bad the police training might be. The simple fact is that _most_ other drivers are not trained or experienced enough to cope with someone zooming up behind them at that kind of speed. Look in mirror, car 200 yards behind, plenty of room for me to overtake the one in front, indicate, pull out, BANG! And all because the car behind was closing at more than twice the permitted road speed. No-one, but no-one is going to be able to judge _that_ kind of closing rate with any accuracy. Even the experts in court said that being passed by a car at that speed would frighten most drivers and could make them lose control from the suden shock. Now, if he'd been driving with lights flashing and siren going it might have been a different story and he could have been said to be driving safely within his own physical and mental limits and with due regard to the safety of others.
Cheers
John |
|
|
|
Parmenion
Homosapien
United Kingdom
13892 Posts |
Posted - 14 September 2006 : 2:52:32 PM
|
so would this also justify that muppet who was clocked at 150+ mph who said he "was test driving the car"??
nah the police over here take liberties the same as they do everywhere.
dot get me wrong there are good ones but ther are alos alot who abuse the power they have!
LASCIATE OGNE SPERANZA, VOI CH'INTRATE
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Lower standards applied to Police drivers?
