ADUK Archive

Can I just remind you James that up and down the country every day there are police officers doing their very best to drive effectively and safely in order to keep criminals off the road so that you can enjoy some of the safest roads and one of the safest societies anywhere in the world. Every now and then one of them will get it wrong, and quite rightly the circumstances will be examined and lessons learned from it. The Police in the UK are still some of the best drivers anywhere in the world, their training and the way they do the job has had to evolve to keep up with the changes in vehicles, the changes in the roads and the changes in the expectations placed upon them.
Yes you are entitled to your opinion, but try backing it up with some reasoned argument if you want to be taken seriously.

jbsportstech wrote:PC Milton case got my blood boiling and its yet to cool down.

Mine too. I couldn't believe so much public time and money was wasted in pursuing this case, when at the very first hearing a police instructor who viewed the video had been unable to say that the driving was dangerous. I don't think the clarification of the law was for the better. But why bring the Milton case into this thread, when we have all already had our say in various other threads? No, no answer required.

waremark wrote:I don't think the clarification of the law was for the better.

If the law had gone the other way and excess speed could, of itself, be dangerous driving I believe we would be worse off for it (although prosecutions do appear to be run on this basis).

Criminal liability being determined by one's colleagues, in this case a police driving instructor, would, in my view be a worrying development in the law.

Although one instructor wouldn't state conclusively that he believed the driving was dangerous he did state Milton would be unable to stop safely in an emergency and he felt the practice session should have been carried out in the day.

'dammed if you do, dammed if you don't'

jbsportstech wrote:'dammed if you do, dammed if you don't'

Now you're beginning to sound like a police officer.....!

I have to admit I didn't think of the presadent set if he was convicted and its a very good point I must conceed.

Mate you not believe how close I became to becoming a traffic cop it was my dream, if it wasn't for a problmatic ex I would be.

There are a number of steps one has to go through to become a "Traffic cop", but I'm struggling to imagine one that a "problematic ex" could impact on. She wasn't the Home secretary was she, or did you bump her off.....? As a matter of interest just how close did you get?

I was sworn in and started my basic training.

A sitaution arose after she met another policeman in a night club, but I took her back then promptly splilt up. I was then accused of something I didn't do I was suspended and after all the hard work I did to get in I went a little off the rails and lost my temper with the aformentioned police officier as it turned out he made her make the allegation and so one dropped allegation and admitted it was made up, a gbh charge later it was obvious I wouldnt make it through my two year probation so I resigned b4 I was booted out. He was charge with attemping to pervert the course..... given a suspended sentance sacked and she promptly went off with yet another guy!

That's rough - sympathy to you

Rough yes, but being falsely accused is something police officers have to put up with on a regular basis and if you didn't feel able to go through it, especially given the strong position you must have been in considering the end result, perhaps it was just as well you got out early.

I was 21 call it lack of maturity.

Fair enough, I guess we've all got it wrong once or twice. Guess I ought to try and get this thread back on topic but I've sort of forgotten where it was going........

Can we merge this thread with the 'Fatal crash Pc 'drove at 104mph'' over in the members section as it is the same topic (or was) and the nature of its content might be more appropriate to 'members only'.

MGF wrote:If this was a small error then why the disciplinary?

Naseem Malik, IPCC Commissioner for the North West.

"It was clear from our independent investigation that the driving of these two officers fell well below the required standard," she said.

"It is essential that lessons are learned and action is taken to ensure the standards expected of police drivers are maintained".

Seems to me that if it was a small and inevitable error then any attempt to avoid it in the future is futile.

As I said, they made the serious error of driving in such a way that a small error (the 2nd car went slightly faster round a bend) resulted in a fatality. They were presumably disciplined for creating a dangerous situation rather than misjudging one bend.

I would suggest that if it were pursuit training then it would be important to try and make the training realistic, and therefore easier to justify going closer to that magic line between "fast" and "to fast". This however (as I understood it) was a training exercise for speed detection equipment and I not sure it is even necessary for either driver to speed at all. All that is required is for the lead driver (the instructor) to set a speed, and for the pupil (the following driver) to report what they are measuring it as. It may be that the instructor wanted to put the pupil under a little pressure and make him have to concentrate on driving quickly whilst operating the equipment, but I would have thought the instructor would still leave some margin for error, and that doesn't apper to be the case in this instance.

The ultimate responsibility for the way they drove lay with each driver, but I can see why the Force would want to discipline the Instructor for creating this situation in the first place.