Originally posted by graememk
quote:
Originally posted by vanepico
Ambulances and fire engines weigh ~4 times more than a car, and they think they can drive twice as fast just because they've done a driving course?
our appliance is limited to 56mph
Quote BBC Scotland News
" A police officer who crashed into another car after driving at 149mph on his way to deal with a diesel spill will not be fined or lose his
licence.
PC Jacob Marshall was found guilty of careless driving earlier this month after his Central Scotland Police Volvo clipped a private car on the M9.
But a sheriff said "special circumstances" would mean he would merely be admonished.
Marshall, 31, had originally faced a charge of dangerous driving.
He was found guilty of the lesser offence of careless driving after a two-day trial at Falkirk Sheriff Court.
Link to full story on BBC Scotland Site
The guy was on his way to a diesel spill, OK all in this forum (I hope) appreciate the dangers of Diesel on roundabouts and other parts of the
road but 149 mph !!!!! on the M9 of all roads!
[Edited on 25/2/12 by britishtrident]
IMO driving this fast 'safely' is like shooting yourself in the foot 'safely', in that it isn't safe in the slightest.
Inevitably something will go wrong and a crash will happen. I don't like how emergency services are allowed to drive at these insane speeds.
Ambulances and fire engines weigh ~4 times more than a car, and they think they can drive twice as fast just because they've done a driving
course?
And why is a policeman required at a diesel spill? send the fire brigade with a bucket of sand.
quote:
Originally posted by vanepico
Ambulances and fire engines weigh ~4 times more than a car, and they think they can drive twice as fast just because they've done a driving course?
One day you might be thankful an Ambulance/Fire/Police drives faster than the speed limit. They might save your life one day!
maybe instead of ambulances we need some mash style bell 47s :p
I think its really irresponsible and downright ridiculous the emergency services break the speed limit, to save life and property.
All Police cars should be replaced with officers on elephants, and ambulances replaced with wheelbarrows.....
Fire service - well why do they need big trucks, get them a horse and cart and a few buckets.
Have a word please
quote:
Originally posted by vanepico
maybe instead of ambulances we need some mash style bell 47s :p
quote:
Originally posted by graememk
quote:
Originally posted by vanepico
Ambulances and fire engines weigh ~4 times more than a car, and they think they can drive twice as fast just because they've done a driving course?
our appliance is limited to 56mph
quote:
Originally posted by Alfa145
One day you might be thankful an Ambulance/Fire/Police drives faster than the speed limit. They might save your life one day!
quote:
Originally posted by T66
quote:
Originally posted by vanepico
maybe instead of ambulances we need some mash style bell 47s :p
Obviously the cry will be why do the ambulance service need shiny helicopters ? If we use the simple theory applied earlier in the thread.
All helicopters to be replaced with airships, slower and safer.
my mum and bro nearly got ran off the road by a policeman overtaking on a blind bend
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
quote:
Originally posted by Alfa145
One day you might be thankful an Ambulance/Fire/Police drives faster than the speed limit. They might save your life one day!
More than once I have encountered Police cars and Fire Appliances at stupid speeds on the wrong side of the road, one a fire appliance nearly took me out on a very blind corner when he could easily have passed the vehicle in front at the dual lane roundabout 30 metres down further along the road. The situation is always a comprimise but as anyone who has raced cars knows getting a case of the "red mist" isn't the way.
quote:
Originally posted by T66
The guys need your support, not criticising.
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
quote:
Originally posted by T66
quote:
Originally posted by vanepico
maybe instead of ambulances we need some mash style bell 47s :p
The incident concerned has more than a wiff of joy riding about it, the fact " originally faced a charge of dangerous driving. says it all.
[Edited on 25/2/12 by britishtrident]
Why does it say it all then ? reducing to a lesser charge means the evidence did not support a charge of dangerous driving, please explain ?
You clearly have read the case file to make such broad assumptions ?
"Wiff" of evidence is not sufficient in a UK court to convict yet, long may it continue - You base the use of the word "wiff" as if you know that the cop was joy riding, based on what "wiff" is that assumption made ? I would be interested to read it ?
Dont forget to allow "wiffs" to be admissable as evidence, may also include you if you were ever to break the law and be caught, so convictions based on "wiffs" would be proportionate and fair ?
The guy has made a mistake, get over it, he will be lucky to keep his job.
britishtrident - 25/2/12 at 09:20 PMYes the guy should support he should have got consoling when he lost the his job, his license and some would say his liberty.
T66 - 25/2/12 at 09:32 PMquote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Yes the guy should support he should have got consoling when he lost the his job, his license and some would say his liberty.
I didnt read the article you posted , but just have...
Read what the Sheriff said, its relevant and for once actually a common sense application of the law, not a sighting of a "wiff" anywhere.
Sheriff William Gallacher told Marshall, who is based at Stirling, that he had found enough reason not to endorse his licence or fine and ban him. He said: "Even people driving emergency vehicles need to drive with care and attention, but the emergency services do need to get to an incident as quickly as safely as possible. "The lack of care was fairly minor, but it was in a context in which any lack of care could have had very serious consequences. "But special circumstances do exist. At the time of the trial I made it clear that, the situation having arisen, your way of avoiding an accident showed a level of skill."
So then, back to my original point- The Cop took a calculated risk, based on his experience and training. The Sheriff even supported that fact.
Support your local Police department, whatever you think of them, its the only number in the phonebook you can ring when its all going wrong.
britishtrident - 25/2/12 at 09:39 PMI know an honest PC of 20 years service in his words "after a few years 1/3 of cops are good and honest. 1/3 are just so lazy they don't do anything , 1/3 are corrupt in someway."
T66 - 25/2/12 at 09:51 PMquote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
I know an honest PC of 20 years service in his words "after a few years 1/3 of cops are good and honest. 1/3 are just so lazy they don't do anything , 1/3 are corrupt in someway."
There you go again - Which Police force report ? which Cop ? Or did you think you thought you read that in a newspaper ?
Did you fail a Police entrance exam or something ? Few speeding tickets maybe ?
You appear to be anti Police, or is that me making a sweeping assumption about you ? As opposed to you suggesting that out of the 35,000 Cops in the UK, 11500+ are corrupt, 11500+ do nothing, leaving 11500 to do all the work ...
Are you mad ?
graememk - 25/2/12 at 10:14 PMand there are the ones looking for dounut shops
TAZZMAXX - 25/2/12 at 10:53 PMDamned if they do, damned if they don't. If the diesel spill had caused an accident where there was a fatality or people were hospitalised as a result, the bleeding heart brigade would be asking why the emergency services took so long to get there!
These guys are trained to drive fast and, let's face it, no one died did they? Slap on the wrists, job done, can't see the problem really.
The Police have a tough job, I wouldn't want it to be honest.
RK - 25/2/12 at 10:56 PMWE aren't allowed to speed, so nobody else should either!
dlatch - 26/2/12 at 12:10 AMi have not seen on the road fire trucks or ambulances being driven dangerously while responding to a emergency
but i have seen many police cars doing crazy manoeuvres
i would still they speed and get there as soon as poss
90% of all drivers speed and the other 10% are bloody lying
bj928 - 26/2/12 at 12:51 AMif it had been anyone else caught with or without an accident they would be in jail at those speed, even if the person was as trained as the copper, from my experience the court has made it's mind up before you even walk in the court room, as joe blogs on the street no matter what evidence or lack of, you are guilty, he should at least get a section 59 see how he likes that, i've been driving 25 years with an average mileage of 100,000 a year, now doing around 150,000 a year, so i know what goes on, on the road, and most police i have delt with are dicks, you get the odd one thats ok, but most couldn't give a damn about evidence, cos their word always wins in court, just my 2p worth, i know they have a job to do and we would be in the crap without them, but its cases like this and the section 59 crap that turn the public against the police.
Ninehigh - 26/2/12 at 01:45 AMI'm curious if a diesel spill warrants a 999 call..
They're trained to drive fast, we're not. Heck some of us here weren't trained in vehicles that could do 70!
If he was going to an emergency then you can't really be going fast enough, but by the sound of people here they're making their fair share of dumb manoevres (magnified by the speed they're doing)
I'm not saying it's right or wrong
JoelP - 26/2/12 at 08:56 AM150 is ridiculous for a diesel spill.
Toprivetguns - 26/2/12 at 10:01 AMIf im being attacked at home or having a heart attack I want the emergency services to do 149mph, safely!
Everyday, everyone speeds and upon this occasion the officer in question was unlucky enough collide with another vehicle.
whitestu - 26/2/12 at 10:31 AMIn these cases you have to balance two things - the risk of the speed he was doing and the urgency of getting to where he needed to be.
149mph to avert a terrorist attack is fine
149mph to get to a diesel spill perhaps is not.
T66 - 26/2/12 at 07:14 PM
vanepico - 26/2/12 at 08:39 PMI personally think I should be allowed to go 149mph when my haynes roadster is build but no one else should.
scootz - 26/2/12 at 08:43 PMquote:
Originally posted by vanepico
I personally think I should be allowed to go 149mph when my haynes roadster is build but no one else should.
LOL... will it be rocket propelled!?
vanepico - 26/2/12 at 09:09 PMcan you get 5 litre pintos?
It'd be ironic if he hit the diesel patch at 149mph wouldn't it :p
[Edited on 27/2/12 by vanepico]
coyoteboy - 27/2/12 at 06:10 PMI've no issue with them driving quick when needed. I just hope they do it sensibly. It's perfectly safe to drive fast safely but first you have to drive safely. If you're going too fast to stop/avoid people etc it's not safe. If you overtake on a blind bend you're just driving dangerously, emergency services or not. Though I suspect many people do stupid things liek stop in front of you on a blind bend.
And FWIW an appliance may be limited to 56 but having been left for dead by an ambulance in a 30 zone doing 70 it doesn't mean you can't speed
[Edited on 27/2/12 by coyoteboy]
owelly - 27/2/12 at 06:28 PMIf it was safe for the copper to be doing 149mph, he wouldn't have crashed. Simple.
He's a professional driver who, as part of his job, shouldn't be taking risks that are avoidable.
But there again, lorry drivers are professional drivers and a lot if them are rubbish.
I wonder if the copper would be doing the same speed if his wife and kids were in the car with him....?
coyoteboy - 27/2/12 at 06:40 PMAnd to be fair we have no idea of the scale or location of the spill. Imagine a 2 lane wide spill of huge quantities of diesel across a whole motorway - you're going to want to get there pretty fast. A small slosh on a roundabout...slightly less of a concern.
