Re: so what does "dangerous driving" really mean?

But there is disagreement within the court system as to whether a crime has
even been committed!

For a start it would not be possible for you to gain a Police Grade 1
Advanced Driving qualification unless you became a police officer. The
'Advanced Driver' qualification issued by the Institute of Advanced
Motorists is not the same thing at all. In order to gain a Police Grade 1
you have to demonstrate that you are capable of maintaining very high speeds
on public roads safely. Police advanced drivers under training can exceed
NSL speed limits for the purposes of training - civilians cannot. Secondly,
there is a very good reason for police officers to be able to drive at high
speeds on public roads. There is no such good reason for a civilian.

There are no double standards. Police officers can, by law, exceed speed
limits if it is necessary in the course of their work (as can ambulance and
fire-engine drivers). It is important that the levels of skill obtained
during training are maintained throughout the period that the officers are
attached to Traffic duties.

Research tends to suggest that that just is not possible. The human brain is
incapable of efficiently multi-tasking. The moment you being to concentrate
on a phone call, you lose concentration on your driving.


FFS, I

I don't disagree with that latter comment!

Uno-Hoo!

 

A certain half of the world's population might disagree.

 

But as I have pointed out many times, the skills required to be a track
racing driver are vastly different to those required to be able to drive
fast and safe on public roads. On a track there is no opposing traffic,
there are no pedestrians, no trucks, no junctions, no traffic lights, etc.
The 'racing line' taken through a bend is fine on the track - but lethal on
public roads. Many excellent racing drivers are not good public road
drivers.

Uno-Hoo!

 

I was referring to a certain gender's claims about multitasking,
actually.

 

Actually your statement proves there are double standards. The skill
level required is not met. Accidents occurring during these high speed
escapades are "not in the public interest" and are therefore never in
the local papers. It's not unknown for a police force to write off all
it's traffic cars in a season. Joe public have no knowledge of this. The
police have a terrible problem with the ladish attitude that pervades.
However they would have even more problems if this was disclosed to joe
public. Thanks.

 

That it's not!

In order to gain a Police Grade 1
No problem. Where do I collect my certificate from?

I'm not overly fussy, a Class 2 will suffice. Anything will do, just so
long as I don't have to bother about these piffling 60/70 mph speed
limits.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

 

So a 'joyrider' who can successfully outun a Grade 1 Police Driver without
causing any accidents or injuries would undoubtedly qualify then. As would
a Grade 1 Police Driver who was caught at 159mph the day after s/he
retired.

I wonder if the Judges realise that in their eagerness to excuse one
officer's recklessness, they've opened Pandora's Box.

 

No they haven't. The officer in the case can argue that as a police grade 1
advanced driver he is required to familiarise himself with the capabilities
of new traffic vehicles and to maintain his advanced driving skills. To that
end, driving within speed limits would hinder his role and he can claim
exemption.

No civilian driver (including retired grade 1 police drivers like me) can
claim such a requirement or exemption.

Uno-Hoo!

 

<thinks: similar to, different from?>

Ah Kev, you know I'm one of the most prominent members of your fan club,
but that isn't entirely right.

You are right to point out that track driving skills do not transfer
well to normal road driving in their entirety, but I happen to know a
piece of track (er, sorry, I mean A171) where in some locations the
racing line can be used perfectly OK and no problem. Example:

Picture two RH bends about 100 yards apart.

The first one 80 mph, using the full width of the road because vision is
unrestricted, so no danger of coming into conflict with an oncomer.

The second one, drop to 65/70 mph using acceleration sense only (no
braking) and keep on your own side of the road as you can not see across
this one due to a drystone wall on the RH side.

Two bends only 100 yards apart - different treatment required. HTH.

Enjoy your motoring, but look what you're doing, and take care.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

 

"eric the brave" <""simonb_at_zapik_dot_co_dot_uk\"@foo.com (eric the
brave)"> wrote in message

Of course it is - although there are occasional lapses of course.

Accidents occurring during these high speed

Utter rubbish. I was a police officer for 30 years and served as a Traffic
Officer as constable, sergeant and inspector. It was extremely rare for
traffic cars to become involved in accidents, let alone write-offs.


Joe public have no knowledge of this. The

Sigh......................

Uno-Hoo!

 

Why not, if it is based on something logical and sensible?

I expect we're referring to women here, as they seem to claim enhanced
multi-tasking skills compared with males, which inciddentally I don't
believe is justified.

It's a well known fact that women are just too scatterbrained to have
any such superiority. I mean, hell, it stands to reason.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

 

You must have lived in a parallel universe.
I would respectfully suggest you just Google for the information
regarding these accidents, as they are in the public domain.

Never mind. Some know some don't.

 

Utter bollocks.

 

Uno-Hoo! said:

....as I have pointed out many times, the skills required to be a track

I am!! I do it all the time, hugely, and it ought to be made legal - at
least for me.

Incidentally my friend Kev used to criticise me for doing 85-90 in SC
NSLs and I paid careful attention to what he said, so I've changed my
ways. I now confine myself to about 105 - which is limited by the
available machinery, dammit. No worry though, I've slowed down in
the 30s and 40s to compensate.

We do need to be clear about the meaning of NSL. There is a body of
opinion that holds that it means National Speed Limit, and this is quite
wrong. What it actually means is No Speed Limit. prior to about 1965
the signs compridsing a white disc with a diagonal white stripe used to
mean DERESTRICTED. That is still the best and only legitimate meaning.

We have yet to see how that will end up.

I honstly believe it is nonsense to ignore the superior skills of a
driver like PC Milton. To make any sense of this sort of case you
*must* take into account the enhanced skills available before deciding
whether or not what he did was dangerous. To base it on the opinion of
the notional 'careful and competent' driver is not satisfactory in
arriving at a fair judgement.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

 

http://emuse.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/6536

Make sure you watch right until the end. I'll concede that it's not
the UK but who would you say possessed safer road skills?

Certainly not the "super qualified look at my certificates"
cop.............and to think, you might find him coming towards you at
159mph one day........

 

Yebbut racing drivers have a better track record on other road users
killed and injured.

 

I agree that a specific exemption applies to emergency service drivers, and
quite rightly, but that's not the point at issue here Kev.

The specific issue here is whether an individual driver's level of expertise
is relevant in establishing whether their driving was 'dangerous' within the
criminal law. To repeat from the OP :

"Lady Justice Smith, at the High Court, said that Judge Wallis had
misdirected himself when he ruled that Mr Milton's expertise was
irrelevant to whether his driving could be considered dangerous. She
ordered Judge Wallis to reconsider the case. A court may find that
the driving was "thoroughly dangerous regardless of the skill of the
individual driver" or that the driving was less dangerous for "a man
of exceptional skill", she said."

That judgement quite explicitly means that a particular manoeuvre may be
lawful when performed by a highly skilled driver, but not lawful when
performed by an ordinary driver. This is what I meant by Pandora's Box.

 

I know know which side of the fence you sit. Shame....

 

I've just worked out what side of the fence he's on from another post.
The driving instructor that probably trained him to grade 1 has other
views in private. But the face of the "boys" must never become public. I
can't really blame him I suppose. It's like being god as far as a lot of
them are concerned. After all they object is to make joe public believe
the bullshit.

 

Quite. Would you consider a police class 1 licence to constitute sufficient
proof?