What's your view on this?

[ExadiNigel]

Whilst the figures quoted by Toper & Ripley may be inaccurate this policeman was way way above those figures.

I still maintain that, even if he was on a shout, his speed sounds rather irresponsible for the conditions as described.

Nigel

[TripleS]

Whilst the figures quoted by Topper & Ripley may be inaccurate, this policeman was way way above those figures.

But if their figures are hopelessly unreliable, and I think they are, we don't know the magnitude of his transgression. All we do know is that he got something wrong and had a shunt.

I still maintain that, even if he was on a shout, his speed sounds rather irresponsible for the conditions as described.
Nigel

That seems fair comment in view of what happened.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[daz6215]

link on viscoplaning ,aquaplaning
http://www.michelin.co.uk/michelinuk/en ... 6_100.html

[Stephen]

I certainly would say that he has not got an exemption in this case if the reporting is correct that he was not going to a job or not following a suspect etc. Then I think the good old Sgt should just hold his hands up and say Ive F****d up and take what is coming to him.

I read that it was just his vehicle involved and only him suffered injury,then in my book it is not a Dangerous but Due care and attention,it would appear that he is only in court because he thinks that he has done nothing wrong and should not be punished.

Obviously someone else in the job along with the Criminal Protection Service think differently. But he is going to try and hide behind his exemption and leave a bad taste in everyones mouth.
Stephen

[vonhosen]

I certainly would say that he has not got an exemption in this case if the reporting is correct that he was not going to a job or not following a suspect etc. Then I think the good old Sgt should just hold his hands up and say Ive F****d up and take what is coming to him.

I read that it was just his vehicle involved and only him suffered injury,then in my book it is not a Dangerous but Due care and attention,it would appear that he is only in court because he thinks that he has done nothing wrong and should not be punished.

Obviously someone else in the job along with the Criminal Protection Service think differently. But he is going to try and hide behind his exemption and leave a bad taste in everyones mouth.
Stephen

None of the articles allege it wasn't a lawful use of the exemption & they don't say he has been charged with speeding either (which you'd expect if he wasn't lawfully using an exemption.)

He admits it's his fault, whilst his employers & the CPS think it amounts to dangerous driving.

[ROG]

He admits it's his fault, whilst his employers & the CPS think it amounts to dangerous driving.

One easy way to get an idea to see if it should be considered dangerous - who on here would do that in those conditions

[ScoobyChris]

One easy way to get an idea to see if it should be considered dangerous - who on here would do that in those conditions

Legality aside, without knowing what the exact conditions were who can accurately comment?!

Chris

[Red Herring]

I think the line between making appropriate progress as a police officer and what even we might consider "dangerous" driving is so fine that it would be impossible so make a reasonable judgement from what is available in the press. I very much doubt if even the courts with all the evidence and opinion they have in front of them would always make a fair decision. If the officer can justify use of such speed and the circumstance warranted driving in the upper levels of what can safely be achieved then he should be allowed the luxury of making a small mistake and ending up on the wrong side of the line. I would imagine there are occasions where officers have to make the decision to drive close to the limits of their abilities in order to do their jobs properly and if we do not support them at such times we will end up in the situation where they will not make such decisions and the consequence will be a loss of service and an increase in risk to the public.

[TripleS]

One easy way to get an idea to see if it should be considered dangerous - who on here would do that in those conditions

Legality aside, without knowing what the exact conditions were who can accurately comment?!

Chris

It's not an accurate comment, but for me the really damning aspect was that he did it during the hours of darkness, which gave him no chance of reading the condition of the road surface adequately. To me it was therefore not on.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[ScoobyChris]

It's not an accurate comment, but for me the really damning aspect was that he did it during the hours of darkness, which gave him no chance of reading the condition of the road surface adequately. To me it was therefore not on.

Was the section of road he was driving on lit? Did he have his lights on? Was there other traffic around?

Chris

[TripleS]

It's not an accurate comment, but for me the really damning aspect was that he did it during the hours of darkness, which gave him no chance of reading the condition of the road surface adequately. To me it was therefore not on.

Was the section of road he was driving on lit? Did he have his lights on? Was there other traffic around?

Chris

As I understand it:

No.
Presumably.
Apparently not much.

Even if he had the road to himself, and used his full lighting resources, at speeds of 115-122 mph I don't see how he could have had sufficient vision of the road ahead to satisfy himself that he was not about to encounter standing water.

In addition to all that, it was apparently raining very heavily at the time, which is also seriously detrimental to good vision.

I haven't read all the reports but my impression is that he made a bad mistake.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[jbsportstech]

If he had no genuie reason/s for that speed then remove his advanced/immediate driving status and take him back to the police driving drawing board and demote him.

Personally I am only to aware that if drive at that speed and loss control the consequences even if all I total is the car and some highway future are very much loss of licence and or prison etc.

In my in there needs to be justifaction for the speed and if there is no tagable reason why in what sounds like very heavy rain he was driving @ 122mph then he needs to be punished as there is nothing advanced about that. There needs to be closer corelation between police drivers who are blatantly using there job and status to take unecessary risks with peoples lives and vehicles that don't belong to them.

I am not saying dangerous driving and prison but due care and attention maybe and certainly driver retrain and hopefully a demotion otherwise it sends people/pistonheaders the message it one rule for them adn naother for the public.

[ROG]

UPDATE -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/7888908.stm

Crash police driver found guilty

Sgt Craig Bannister denied driving at an inappropriate speed

A traffic officer who crashed his police car while travelling at 115mph in "appalling weather" has been found guilty of dangerous driving.

Sgt Craig Bannister, 30, aqua-planed before skidding off the M4 and landing in trees on the non-emergency journey.

A jury at Cardiff Crown Court took three hours to reach a guilty verdict.

Mr Recorder Peter Murphy said Bannister of Briton Ferry, near Swansea, would be sentenced next month as first he wanted to know how it would affect his career.

He has already been withdrawn from operational duties and had his driving permit taken off him.

Following the verdict The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said it would consider South Wales Police misconduct recommendations for Bannister.

During the trial prosecutor Michael Hammett had told the court: "Conditions were appalling. There was heavy rain, lots of spray and standing water on the carriageway.


Tom Davies, IPCC Commissioner for Wales

"Bannister's car showed he'd been travelling at 122mph before slowing to 115mph when he hit the water and began aqua-planing.

"He left the road and mounted the grass verge demolishing fencing.

"The car then skidded another 200 yards before coming to rest in a crop of trees facing the wrong way.

"It's important to note that he was not answering an emergency response call at the time."

The court heard a police investigation showed the car had no mechanical defects and the crash was caused by driver error.

Mr Hammett said: "When Bannister was interviewed he refused to accept that driving at those speeds in those conditions was dangerous.

"There were signs on the road warning of standing water and many drivers were travelling well below the 70mph limit.

"He couldn't offer an explanation as to why he was travelling that fast."

Diligent investigation

The court heard Bannister had received an emergency call minutes earlier but he had been "stood down" before his car joined the M4 at Junction 46 near Neath.

The jury was told Bannister was a grade two qualified police driver, and had been trained to the second highest level of traffic officers.

Bannister had denied dangerous driving.

IPCC Commissioner for Wales Tom Davies said: "Police officers are given special dispensation in certain circumstances to drive faster then the speed limit allows.

"That power carries a responsibility not to abuse it.

"South Wales Police voluntarily referred Sgt Bannister's crash on the M4 to the IPCC.

"They have carried out a diligent investigation under my management and found no policing reason why this officer was driving so far above the speed limit.

[Red Herring]

Thanks Rog, There's a whole lot more information in there and it just about answers all the questions we have asked. I don't agree with some of the blanket suggestions that you cannot drive at 120 plus in the dark or in the rain but clearly in the circumstances described here it was a totally inappropriate speed. I also note that there was no reason for him even attempting such speeds so as far as I am concerned her deserves everything they throw at him. He's let a lot of people down.

[ExadiNigel]

Mr Recorder Peter Murphy said Bannister of Briton Ferry, near Swansea, would be sentenced next month as first he wanted to know how it would affect his career.

This is something that has always bugged me. Why should the legal system care about how a sentence will affect his career when he obviously sisn't care when he committed teh offence?

Nigel