This get my blood boiling..........(breathe, stay calm!)

[JamesAllport]

The instructor was of the opinion that Police driving standards had fallen generally

And

As Advanced Drivers, we anticipate that which can be 'Reasonably expected to happen'

Is it reasonable to expect a car to be closing on you from behind at more than twice the maximum national speed limit?

What happens if someone pulls out, having not seen the approaching vehicle of misjudged it's speed?

Who is responsible for the ensuing spectacular and no doubt fatal wreck?

What can possibly happen to justify this type of speed?

In what distance can the police vehicle reduce its speed from 159 to 70, including thinking distance?

As Advanced Drivers, we would very likely be OK, but what about the Ordinary Joe, who has no advanced training?

It goes on and on.......

The bit that worries me most about all of this is that there seems to be a consensus among experts that police driver training standards have fallen because of shorter courses and less funding.

Meanwhile, cars have got faster, traffic density has increased and tough standards have been set for how quickly the police should respond to 999 calls.

I've had the privilege of sitting alongside some serving or former police instructors and would have no hesitation in saying that they could safely do 140mph and more where safe.

What worries me is that, to a man, they all agree that, "Things aren't what they used to be".

It just isn't fair on the officers who we ask to do these drives.

If we want them properly trained, we need to pay for that training.

http://www.faxyourmp.com - I just have.

James

[vonhosen]

The bit that worries me most about all of this is that there seems to be a consensus among experts that police driver training standards have fallen because of shorter courses and less funding.

Meanwhile, cars have got faster, traffic density has increased and tough standards have been set for how quickly the police should respond to 999 calls.

I've had the privilege of sitting alongside some serving or former police instructors and would have no hesitation in saying that they could safely do 140mph and more where safe.

What worries me is that, to a man, they all agree that, "Things aren't what they used to be".

It just isn't fair on the officers who we ask to do these drives.

If we want them properly trained, we need to pay for that training.

http://www.faxyourmp.com - I just have.

James

And I predict speed limits for the emergency services.
Tighter restrictions with arbitrary maximum limits set above our current speed limits for the public.

The setting of the limit for each individual will be dependent on the level of training they have received. There will no longer be an all encompassing, you can drive at any speed as long as it is safe for the circumstances for everyone, that there is presently. Each individual will instead have a maximum that they are not allowed to exceed & are not allowed to make an assessment of safe speed beyond. Where they do they will be disciplined.

I can see the writing on the wall.
Mark my words.

Everyobody is romantic about the "good old days" & says "things ain't what they used to be", but time makes your memory selective.

It's not so much training has got worse, it's that more is expected of the drivers today IMHO. They have to complete more competencies in less time, but the actual quality of instruction they receive is certainly higher (and more encompassing) than when I did my courses. What does appear to be happening though (at least to my eyes) is that the base skill level of pre course students is lower than it was in years gone by. The have spent so much of their short driving lives living in cities with constant jams & they haven't developed the basic skills that pre course students had years ago. I am of course just speaking from my personal experience on these matters, no doubt others may think differently.

Officers who have only received response level training, are also driving vehicles that out perform in every single way, the cars that were only alllowed to be driven by fully qualified advanced drivers 15 years ago. There are also more Police vehicles on the roads than in years gone by. That's far more exposed to high risk activity than previously.

[crr003]

No force wants you out testing the vehicle on your own against your own testing criteria & if you look in your driver's regulations you'll find it's expressly forbidden.

So why wasn't he done up like a kipper the first time round? (Whatever that means...).

Also, over 200 views and 9 votes.......poor show.

[rlmr]

I stay only a few miles from RAF Leuchars (Squadrons with Tornados and Euro fighter to arrive when available). These young men and women "go for it" almost every day, because one day they might have to. No practice = disaster.

When on Traffic Patrol, unless we were 100% tied up with incidents, we had a fast run, just to keep the hand in. The ones that did not were the ones who had problems.

As time progressed the rules changed and whilst practice was not banned, it had to be covered by Blue lights to "protect" both cops and public.

I have no doubt that the traffic cops and instructors still need to practice, but there is a time and a place. I do not know enough about the case in question, but either someone was out to get this cop (his bosses?) or it was a Camera Capture. The chaps boss could easily have signed a certificate indicating the officer was required to exceed the speed limit as part of his duty... why was this not done? From the outside looking in its rather as if this was not a sanctioned road test by a wee flee to try out a new car .

Unfortunately good guys being portrayed as bad guys is news and just makes the job even harder. Thankfully there are always politicians falling on their public faces, which usually takes the heat of the polis for a wee while.

Now stepping off the soap box.

[vonhosen]

No force wants you out testing the vehicle on your own against your own testing criteria & if you look in your driver's regulations you'll find it's expressly forbidden.

So why wasn't he done up like a kipper the first time round? (Whatever that means...).

Also, over 200 views and 9 votes.......poor show.

Because it wasn't written in the drivers regs at the time he did it, just as all other manner of reasons that aren't considered a Police purpose aren't listed.

That was half the problem. His force thought it was obvious what he was doing wasn't training & the original trial judge took a view that if the regs didn't expressly forbid it, he was entitled to think it was OK.

(at least that is my understanding of it from reports on the net that I read - I could of course be wrong)

I haven't voted in the poll because I don't think the question is a *real* question. Nobody is let off. There is sufficient evidence to convict or not & each case must be judged on it's individual merits against the law.

[vonhosen]

When on Traffic Patrol, unless we were 100% tied up with incidents, we had a fast run, just to keep the hand in. The ones that did not were the ones who had problems.

Do people really not get enough genuine emer calls nowdays where they can lawfully use their exemptions, thus keeping their hand in ?

Any active operational driver is going to be exposed to having to use their exemptions regularly & they don't have to go off on an unsolicited run to do it.

People who are office bound for a long time may lose their skills, but in that case they should be getting professionally assessed, there's little value in them going out for a burn without it (IMHO).

[Nigel]

I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but apart from a burn being dam enjoyable, I fing it keeps my hand in, although to a lesser level than the proffesional guys.

[vonhosen]

I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but apart from a burn being dam enjoyable, I fing it keeps my hand in, although to a lesser level than the proffesional guys.

Nigel

If you have a burn in excess of the limit you are addressing a skill level that you shouldn't need or be using on a public road. You can drive within the limits & practice what you need to as that suits what you should be doing in the real world.

My point about emergency service drivers is that they already can use their exemptions & drive in excess of the limits (honing their skills for the task) whilst dealing with real emergency calls. Why do they then need to go for a burn for the sake of it ?

Just as there is no real need for you to, there is no real need for them to, because you will both be already practicing quite legally to a skill level that is necessary for how you drive on a daily basis. Either of you breaking the law to fulfill that requirement is not necessary.

[Nigel]

You will have to agree ( I think ), that I, and many others have been allowed ( read not caught) to drive in excess of legal speed limits for many many years, both on two as well as four wheels.

During this period, those of us that survived have built up some sort of skill level, on top of that we have been clever enough to realsie the benefits of what extra training is available.

And above all.........its fun !

Enjoying my driving is what keeps me interested.

I mustn't give the wrong impression here, I rarely, very rarely exceed the speed limits on normal roads, and if I do, I will know the road very very well.

Even with all my training, and knowledge I've gained, the one area I will openly admit to flouting the speed limits is on motorways.

Now unlike most people who post on this subject, I'm not the type that does 150 mph on an empty motorway at night, because I'm not stupid, I know the risks of driving in the dark, I also realsie that when I'm the only vehicle on a stretch I'm going to stick out like a sore thumb to any lurking patrols.

Trying to religously stick to 70 mph on a fairly busy motorway can be dangerous, its a lot easier, and more free flowling to trot along at 80 - 85 mph, providing everyting is ok to do so...although I do know its illegal.

On the odd occasion a police patrol car is present, all this happens at 70 mph.

[vonhosen]

I mustn't give the wrong impression here, I rarely, very rarely exceed the speed limits on normal roads, and if I do, I will know the road very very well.

People do still speed & not get caught, all that's happened is the amount of times people are caught & prosecuted has changed.

There is a danger assosciated with driving quicker on roads that you know well. You should drive to what you see today, not what you know from previous days.
Whether you know the road well or not should be immaterial to your approach in driving it. A truely good driver will get the timing right & mainatin the four S's on roads they have never driven before. It's a natural habit to fall into, going quicker on roads you know, but one you must resist.

My comments are not a critcism Nigel and I am not saying you drive quicker than is safe, they are just a point I make when people say they only drive quick on roads they know well. Because in truth, how well you know it shouldn't affect the level of progress, only your accurate observation, anticipation & planning should.

[Nigel]

You are as always correct, and have I dropped the odd "bollard" for being too familiar ? ....of course I have, and its all part of the learning process.

One of the funniest things I have heard on this subject was from Jasper Carrot, on insurance claims....

"I pulled into my neigbours drive by mistake....and hit a tree I don't have".

On roads I'm not familiar with, I find my sat nav ( I know we have the same system) quite useful, in an "extra bit of info" way.

Its not good at showing the severity of bends , but it is good at showing what junctions are around the corner, and the layout of approaching roads.

any thoughts ?

[Nigel]

oh...and.....I tend to only drive quicker on roads I know, as it reduces my chances of being caught, rather than what you were pointing out.

[vonhosen]

oh...and.....I tend to only drive quicker on roads I know, as it reduces my chances of being caught, rather than what you were pointing out.

I wouldn't rely on that either, it's a gamble you can still lose

You are not too familiar Nigel, we are all friends here.

As for Sat Nav, I would never use or rely on the information from one to formulate my driving plans about upcoming hazards (again it's yesterday's information). I prefer to rely on what I can see today & drive to that.

I have no problem with it directing me to take the next left though because that request can't impact on safety, any communication that results into poor assessment of a hazard could though.

[vonhosen]

My point about emergency service drivers is that they already can use their exemptions & drive in excess of the limits (honing their skills for the task) whilst dealing with real emergency calls. Why do they then need to go for a burn for the sake of it ?

I hesitate to disagree with you Von but I would have thought that the opportunity to check the performance/handling characteristics of a car without the distraction of radio information in a possibly rapidly changing real situation would be of great benefit. After all, in the real situation you need to know how the car's going to behave & what you can/can't do with it.

Don't hesitate, it's just my opinion.

You are trained that driving is your focus, that you should never be approaching your limits, the vehicles limits or the limit for the conditions. The vehicle should be behaving in a totally progressive manner to your smooth progressive inputs. (It's already been throroughly tested as fit for purpose). If ever it gets out of shape you have failed & you should never be pushing to the point that it does.

Your driving on the road is not about you exploring the limits, it's about being comfortably within them. Everytime you drive in use of exemptions you should be applying those principles & if you were having a dry run you should be still driving to the same principles. So what's the difference & why the need for the dry run ? Surely the best practice for something is continually doing it in the circumstances of that requirement & not a dry run. It has more real world relevance & it's not about your learning somethings new, just practicing something you are already competent at.

I'm not saying that not using your skills & practicing them won't result in them dropping off. It will.
I'm saying that there shouldn't be any difference in your approach to the emer call & how you would approach a drive if you were given free reign to do that for practice alone. As such there is no need for the dry run practice alone, provided you have sufficient call to use them under normal circumstances.

Now if you aren't exposed to driving using your exemptions for a long time & you are worried your skills have diminished, in that case you shouldn't go out & test yourself, you should be doing it under guidance, in case your judgement has dropped off.

A modern cars safe limits will beyond the limits of the road condidtions & as such if you get to where you are reaching vehicle limits, you'll be going too far. Can you think of a car that the Police drive on emergency calls & a bend where if they drove to the limit point it would be beyond the capabilities of the vehicle ? If you are then finding the vehciles limits you are pushing too hard.