Police Drivers Cleared of Death by Dangerous !!

[jbsportstech]

Abit laughable but they have been stripped of their advanced driving status:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lanc ... 746749.stm

You will also note that since the accident the police instructor has been convicted in court of a speeding offence as well. It begs the question are some police driving instructors that good?

[ScoobyChris]

It begs the question are some police driving instructors that good?

I guess it depends how you measure "goodness".....

Chris

[Porker]

If anything it begs the question "Why was the trainer actually convicted of anything at all?".

Presumably the exercise was authorised, and it seems rough justice that the guy in the target car is now apparently responsible for the driving of the pursuing vehicle.

It also seems strange that the police driver who was actually involved in the fatal collision received only a two year ban and a modest fine. I would have thought a member of the public convicted for a similar offence would have been likely to receive a custodial sentence.

Those thoughts have to be weighed against the fact that we only have the "facts" presented in the write-up to base our "verdict" on.

regards
P.

[jbsportstech]

I think he got off lightly as well although they have failed to convict him of death by dangerous so a civilian would probably got with due care or careless and inconsiderate so would of got a ban a suspended sentence..... You can't use the excuse he is a police advanced diver as its been removed now and his driving fell below the stanard.

As we have found casuing death by dangerous is does not caryy much of sentence in this country kill to innoccent children and you only spend 3.5 years behind bars doesnt really send the msg I would hope.

As for the instructor I think he has been punished as he led the excercise and choose the road and set the pace which based on the accident was not correct for the prevailing conditions.

[MGF]

I believe the report is incorrect. Schofield was cleared of CDBDD and convicted of careless driving. Obviously Massingham was cleared of CDBDD as well but did not face a charge of careless driving as an alternative so he could not be convicted of it.

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr071008_lancashire.htm

May I humbly suggest this thread be merged with the exisitng one.

[Horse]

If anything it begs the question "Why was the trainer actually convicted of anything at all?".

Presumably the exercise was authorised, and it seems rough justice that the guy in the target car is now apparently responsible for the driving of the pursuing vehicle.

It also seems strange that the police driver who was actually involved in the fatal collision received only a two year ban and a modest fine. I would have thought a member of the public convicted for a similar offence would have been likely to receive a custodial sentence.

Those thoughts have to be weighed against the fact that we only have the "facts" presented in the write-up to base our "verdict" on.

regards
P.

I don't know the exact legal 'justification', but the BBC link explains:

Earlier the court heard from Martin Greaves, a retired sergeant in Lancashire Police traffic division, who worked as an accident investigator.

He said training exercises had to be "realistic" and put officers under pressure.

He said the instructor decided the speeds at which the exercises were carried out, and that such exercises were exempt from speed limits under the Road Traffic Act.

Simon Russell-Flint QC, defending Pc Schofield, said: "If the instructor drives off at 80mph (128.7km/h), the student's going to have to follow? He needs to be able to keep pace. He's got to go faster to catch him up?"

"Very probably yes," Mr Greaves replied.

The retired sergeant was asked if it would be safe for a competent driver to drive more than 100mph (160.9km/h) on the road where the crash happened.

He replied: "It's feasible. I wouldn't. If someone said go down that road at 100mph, I would say 'No'. I think 100mph would be too fast. That's my opinion."

[Horse]

And,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lanc ... 644794.stm
A police driving trainer who was on an exercise in which a colleague crashed into a pensioner's car, killing him, has told a court he felt responsible

FWIW, I've been in the situation where a trainee who was following me crashed, and I spent a lot of time afterwards wondering what I could have done differently . . .

The answer was 'not a lot'; we'd been riding through a 60 limit at 60 (car drivers who followed us and saw the crash were kind enough to stop and tell the police who attended that we'd been riding sensibly) and then through a 30 at 30.

The rider told me he 'mentally went to sleep'.

Perhaps we should have been going faster to keep his concentration up

And it's not nice to look in your mirror and see a person flying through the air, I can't imagine what it felt like at the scene of that crash . . .

[jbsportstech]

I think some police advanced drivers need to go back tothe old principle 'IS IT SAFE' as for any advanced driving thats what all decision should be based upon. Derek Van Petergem, John Miles and Chris Gilbert all stuck to the principle anyone can drive fast its knowing when to drive slow makes a good advanced driver. Some of them seem to fall back on we are exempt from this and that 100mph was to fast for the previaling conditions for the trainee as he crashed killing someone. Should be sacked as he doesnt have the skills to be a police advanced driver anymore. All I hear is excuses not an admission that he got it wrong and someone lost their life because of it.

[vonhosen]

I think some police advanced drivers need to go back tothe old principle 'IS IT SAFE' as for any advanced driving thats what all decision should be based upon. Derek Van Petergem, John Miles and Chris Gilbert all stuck to the principle anyone can drive fast its knowing when to drive slow makes a good advanced driver. Some of them seem to fall back on we are exempt from this and that 100mph was to fast for the previaling conditions for the trainee as he crashed killing someone. Should be sacked as he doesnt have the skills to be a police advanced driver anymore. All I hear is excuses not an admission that he got it wrong and someone lost their life because of it.

'The old principle' ?
Some have a rose tinted view of Police driver training of old.

[Porker]

I think some police advanced drivers need to go back tothe old principle 'IS IT SAFE' as for any advanced driving thats what all decision should be based upon. Derek Van Petergem, John Miles and Chris Gilbert all stuck to the principle anyone can drive fast its knowing when to drive slow makes a good advanced driver. Some of them seem to fall back on we are exempt from this and that 100mph was to fast for the previaling conditions for the trainee as he crashed killing someone. Should be sacked as he doesnt have the skills to be a police advanced driver anymore. All I hear is excuses not an admission that he got it wrong and someone lost their life because of it.

Where did you hear any excuses?

May I also, gently, suggest that you restrain your criticism of other drivers until you have a little more training and experience yourself? None of us is exempt from making mistakes and you may come to find that the more you experience higher end driving the more you'll come to realise this.

regards
P.

[waremark]

Should be sacked as he doesnt have the skills to be a police advanced driver anymore.

How does that stop him being a policeman, which he will have been before he was ever an advanced driver?

Personally, I think the outcome for the trainer is very severe, even if it is (probably) appropriate.

[7db]

None of us is exempt from making mistakes and you may come to find that the more you experience higher end driving the more you'll come to realise this

Amen

[zadocbrown]

I think the present obsession with PC1 bashing is a little unhealthy.

The real lesson here is this: If we routinely put ourselves in situations where a small error could be fatal, 'superior' driving skill may not be enough to save us. This applies equally to everyone on the road.

[MGF]

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.

[jbsportstech]

I think some police advanced drivers need to go back tothe old principle 'IS IT SAFE' as for any advanced driving thats what all decision should be based upon. Derek Van Petergem, John Miles and Chris Gilbert all stuck to the principle anyone can drive fast its knowing when to drive slow makes a good advanced driver. Some of them seem to fall back on we are exempt from this and that 100mph was to fast for the previaling conditions for the trainee as he crashed killing someone. Should be sacked as he doesnt have the skills to be a police advanced driver anymore. All I hear is excuses not an admission that he got it wrong and someone lost their life because of it.

Where did you hear any excuses?

May I also, gently, suggest that you restrain your criticism of other

drivers until you have a little more training and experience yourself? None of us is exempt from making mistakes and you may come to find that the more you experience higher end driving the more you'll come to realise this.

regards
P.

Think I am entitled to my opinion regardless what level my own driving is up to.


Its not pc1 bashing just the way its handled in comparison to civilian drivers and the light way the police and judges treat them. PC Milton case got my blood boiling and its yet to cool down.