... obviously a slow news morning!
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
... obviously a slow news morning!
Do we really care? So a specialist advanced driver was driving slightly over the speed limit in a marked vehicle with blue lights flashing. Would you complain if that specialist driver was driving an ambulance with you in it. It's not as if Brown himself was driving at that speed just going to see a friend.
Spurious arguments there! 
It's a stretch of road with fairly complex roadworks that change almost every day, contraflow, and many averaging speed cameras.
An ambulance (or fire engine, or police car going to a life-threatening incident) has a duty to go as fast as he can safely manage. This was just a
politician going from point A to point B - no more, no less. Not in the least bit life threatening or urgent...
I wonder how they'll sweep the speed tickets under the mat...
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
Do we really care? So a specialist advanced driver was driving slightly over the speed limit in a marked vehicle with blue lights flashing. Would you complain if that specialist driver was driving an ambulance with you in it. It's not as if Brown himself was driving at that speed just going to see a friend.
The point is that a convoy carrying a PM or senior Royal will always seek to make progress and avoid non-essential stops or queuing traffic.
It's not done as a perk of being a VIP, it's done purely for their personal safety and protection.
What the paper has described is the absolutely normal way for such a convoy to be traveling... and the way it's been done for decades!
They know this perfectly well, but are sh*t-stirring just for the sake of a story!
As for the speed element... they say that 'eyewitnesses' (presumable the one saddo who felt the need to phone the news-desk as it was the
single-most exciting experience of their lonely dreary life) estimated the convoys speed at 60mph. Of course, that must be accurate because they said
so! I know from experience that if you ask 10 different people what speed a vehicle was doing, you'll get 10 (often very) different answers!
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
The point is that a convoy carrying a PM or senior Royal will always seek to make progress and avoid non-essential stops or queuing traffic.
It's not done as a perk of being a VIP, it's done purely for their personal safety and protection.
What the paper has described is the absolutely normal way for such a convoy to be traveling... and the way it's been done for decades!
They know this perfectly well, but are sh*t-stirring just for the sake of a story!
As for the speed element... they say that 'eyewitnesses' (presumable the one saddo who felt the need to phone the news-desk as it was the single-most exciting experience of their lonely dreary life) estimated the convoys speed at 60mph. Of course, that must be accurate because they said so! I know from experience that if you ask 10 different people what speed a vehicle was doing, you'll get 10 (often very) different answers!
The quicker he got there the quicker he spouted more crap and got back in his car a f***ed off again!!
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
Do we really care? So a specialist advanced driver was driving slightly over the speed limit in a marked vehicle with blue lights flashing. Would you complain if that specialist driver was driving an ambulance with you in it. It's not as if Brown himself was driving at that speed just going to see a friend.
So if someone has got an advanced driving qualification they can drive more quickly?
quote:
Originally posted by matt_claydon
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
The point is that a convoy carrying a PM or senior Royal will always seek to make progress and avoid non-essential stops or queuing traffic.
It's not done as a perk of being a VIP, it's done purely for their personal safety and protection.
What the paper has described is the absolutely normal way for such a convoy to be traveling... and the way it's been done for decades!
They know this perfectly well, but are sh*t-stirring just for the sake of a story!
As for the speed element... they say that 'eyewitnesses' (presumable the one saddo who felt the need to phone the news-desk as it was the single-most exciting experience of their lonely dreary life) estimated the convoys speed at 60mph. Of course, that must be accurate because they said so! I know from experience that if you ask 10 different people what speed a vehicle was doing, you'll get 10 (often very) different answers!
Totally agree ^
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
The point is that a convoy carrying a PM or senior Royal will always seek to make progress and avoid non-essential stops or queuing traffic.
It's not done as a perk of being a VIP, it's done purely for their personal safety and protection.
What the paper has described is the absolutely normal way for such a convoy to be traveling... and the way it's been done for decades!
They know this perfectly well, but are sh*t-stirring just for the sake of a story!
As for the speed element... they say that 'eyewitnesses' (presumable the one saddo who felt the need to phone the news-desk as it was the single-most exciting experience of their lonely dreary life) estimated the convoys speed at 60mph. Of course, that must be accurate because they said so! I know from experience that if you ask 10 different people what speed a vehicle was doing, you'll get 10 (often very) different answers!
yes, but as the OP states, one law for them, one for us.
the fact that the convoy was breaking the law and got a way with it but if me or anyone else tried that, we'd be getting points and fines.
Yes, and it's NEVER going to change.
I would (not!) recommend that you peruse the entire criminal law and statute books of Scotland, Ni and England / Wales... then travel the length and
breadth of the UK to study the individual local by-laws and Crown Office / PF's guidelines.
Once you're finished (in a few weeks time), then it will become abundantly clear that the 'law' is not holistic... it is very specific
and does indeed treat people and circumstances differently. Again, it always has done... and more often than not, for good reason!
I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with the circumstances described.
It doesn't matter if he was on his way for tea with his Auntie Jessie in Kirkcaldy or heading to the Command Centre in his Nuclear Bunker. When
the PM is on the move, these things will happen as he is particularly vulnerable to attack when traveling by car.
Many years ago when following the RAC rally in my Mk2 Mexico, I was in traffic with the tail end of the competitors on a road section through Cheshire. We were escorted by a flashing blue bike at speeds well over the limit. Did I complain - of course not!
The Road Traffic Regulation Act is pretty clear about exemptions to speed restrictions:
quote:
87. No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for [F347 fire and rescue authority], ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.
quote:
89. A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with the circumstances described.
Offensive??? You must be a sensitive wee soul! I suppose defining someone by their disability as you did (the 'one-eyed remark' ), is
not offensive... well, each to their own I suppose!
Anyway, you can be pedantic and quote all the selected bits of legislation that you like to support your absolute horror of the situation... if you
can't accept that there are exemptions that cover the reported incident, then I'm afraid you'll just have to stew in your anger at the
whole injustice.
Me... ??? I'll happily dismiss it as the non-news story that it is!
Speed kills - so we keep getting told............. so of Gordon's car is in a crash then there's a better chance we'll be rid of the
bugger a few month's earlier!!
Go faster I say!!
(to be taken tongue in cheek) 
I posted this article this article while in a mischievous mood, just to see what the reaction was...
...but I still don't see why a lard-arsed politician with a slim grasp of reality should get priority over the general public!
(Normal service will resume shortly... )
they should practice what they preach. theyre essentially saying that if youre a good driver you can speed.
there are 2 sets of rules, take the whole benefit fraud thing. the politicians get away with it, then have the cheek to say 'were coming for
you'
Then next thing they'll want is dedicated lanes for the Politbureau members to speed along on the way to their office...
(Sorry - can't stop stirring today... )
Actually Mike has a point, if speed kills as much as his party say doesn't that mean he was being put in danger?
However with it being a Police escort it's covered under "Police business"
It would be good if they trialled a scheme that allowed holders of an advanced licence an extra 10% over the speed limit. See just how much speed does
kill when compared to the skill of the driver
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
...but I still don't see why a lard-arsed politician with a slim grasp of reality should get priority over the general public!
Lets twist this another way - would you prefer the person in charge of the country to spend an hour in a traffic jam or an hour governing the
country?
Ignore the fact he may be (in your opinion) useless or the visit (in your opinion) pointless.
Answer based on the principle. Do you want the man with his finger on the nuclear button, the man in charge of the entire country, sat in a traffic
jam twiddling his thumbs not working and potentially open to assassination or kidnap?
Whilst I may not (or may) agree with the unelected person in charge of our country, i can see the advantage of making sure he gets to places quickly
and securely. Although if i was in a traffic jam as he went past i may also utter a few choice words.
This entire thread seams to be taken completely out of context, notwithstanding the necessity to maintain a speed differential between the convoy and
'normal' traffic in order to easily identify threats to the, in this case, high value asset being transported, (no I can't believe
I've written that either!) but also the weight being given to an 'eye-witness' (who presumably has shown the police the calibration
certificate for his Mk1 eyeball) who no doubt looked down at his speedo, which tend to under-read by 10%, saw he was driving at 48mph (43 actual) and
decided the convoy was travelling 10mph faster?
This really is none news!
So if GB is driven too slowly he's in danger of being assassinated, and if he's driven too quickly he could end up in a road traffic
accident.
Oh dear
[Edited on 17/2/10 by General Bilko]
Oh dear - I really must put a flag next to my text that indicates that "this text was written with tongue firmly in cheek and should not be taken
too seriously"...
...I have been previously accused of having a far-too-subtle sense of humour... perhaps they're correct!
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
Lets twist this another way - would you prefer the person in charge of the country to spend an hour in a traffic jam or an hour governing the country?
quote:
Answer based on the principle. Do you want the man with his finger on the nuclear button, the man in charge of the entire country, sat in a traffic jam twiddling his thumbs not working and potentially open to assassination or kidnap?
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
Lets twist this another way - would you prefer the person in charge of the country to spend an hour in a traffic jam or an hour governing the country?
... his car is armoured, but not impenetrable.
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Offensive???
Anyway, you can be pedantic and quote all the selected bits of legislation that you like to support your absolute horror of the situation... if you can't accept that there are exemptions that cover the reported incident, then I'm afraid you'll just have to stew in your anger at the whole injustice.
Me... ??? I'll happily dismiss it as the non-news story that it is!
This incident even consumed a fair amount of time on BBC East local news - perhaps news WAS short that day!
Interesting point made though - the speed limit was set to protect the men working on the road...
discuss.
Yaaaaaaaawn!
By virtue of Section 87 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended by Section 19 Road Safety Act 2006),
(1) NO STATUTORY PROVISION IMPOSING A SPEED LIMIT ON MOTOR VEHICLES SHALL APPLY TO ANY VEHICLE ON AN OCCASION WHEN –
(a) IT IS BEING USED FOR fire and rescue authority purposes or for or in connection with the exercise of ANY FUNCTION of a relevant
authority as defined in section 6 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, for Ambulance purposes, or FOR POLICE or Serious Organised Crime Agency
PURPOSES,
(b) It is being used for there prescribed purposes in such circumstances as may be prescribed, or
(c) It is being used for training persons to drive vehicles for use for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above, if the observance
of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it was being used on that occasion.
(2) SUBSECTION (1) ABOVE DOES NOT APPLY UNLESS THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN BY A PERSON WHO -
(a) HAS SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED A COURSE OF TRAINING IN THE DRIVING OF VEHICLES AT HIGH SPEED PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS UNDER THIS
SECTION, or
(b) Is driving the vehicle as part of such a course.
The legality of the matter is not in doubt...
whats next 3 points and £60 fine for police officers driving over the speed limit on a hurry up call.
oops thats my licence long gone then
Davie
[Edited on 21/2/10 by davie h]
[Edited on 21/2/10 by davie h]
Watch that Jenkins: he's a known troublemaker around here. I think he's probably on some list somewhere the government keeps. Of course, ask them to produce said list, and they probably won't be able to find it.
The whole concept to which David alluded is reminiscent of the Eastern Bloc of 20 years ago.
To me, it stinks as does the whole of this rotten incompetent maladministration that have wrought such incomprehensible damage.
John.
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
The legality of the matter is not in doubt...
quote:
Originally posted by davie h
whats next 3 points and £60 fine for police officers driving over the speed limit on a hurry up call.
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
Interesting point made though - the speed limit was set to protect the men working on the road...
quote:
Originally posted by RK
Watch that Jenkins: he's a known troublemaker around here. I think he's probably on some list somewhere the government keeps. Of course, ask them to produce said list, and they probably won't be able to find it.
he wasnt speeding anyway, not to a prosecutable limit, and i'd be a hypocrite if i pretended to care anyway.
Another dull story like the one about his temper.
I must say though, i suspect he will survive the election. Cameron is a poor alternative and his policies arent different on some significant issues,
whereas Gord at least has experience in governance.
Discuss
Mike... you're either on the wind-up, or your obvious hatred for the PM is clouding your ability to accept fact (and it is fact, Mike... whether
you approve or not!).
Every time the PM travels, coughs or farts, there will be a lengthy policing Operational Order drawn up, together with a Risk Assessment. His driver
is a Police Officer, he is On-Duty, and he will be driving in accordance with Police Procedures surrounding VIP transport and will be bound by the
Operational Order. Every aspect of his use of the vehicle is for 'Police use'.
It is an accepted fact of high-level Personal Protection that you do not stop unnecessarily, nor do you allow yourself to get caught up in a slow
moving convoy unnecessarily (as well as many many other things that would undoubtedly upset you!).
I suggest you lobby parliament for a change to all this if it bothers you that much... be prepared to be told where to go though!
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
I must say though, i suspect he will survive the election. Cameron is a poor alternative and his policies arent different on some significant issues, whereas Gord at least has experience in governance.
Discuss
Rather...
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
... a complete wimp...
... 
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
he wasnt speeding anyway, not to a prosecutable limit, and i'd be a hypocrite if i pretended to care anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
(2) SUBSECTION (1) ABOVE DOES NOT APPLY UNLESS THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN BY A PERSON WHO -
(a) HAS SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED A COURSE OF TRAINING IN THE DRIVING OF VEHICLES AT HIGH SPEED PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS UNDER THIS SECTION, or
(b) Is driving the vehicle as part of such a course.
So, who's in favour of me deleting this thread?
I don't mind either way...
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
So, who's in favour of me deleting this thread?
I don't mind either way...
quote:
Originally posted by Ninehigh
As soon as Scootz answers my question please, cos if what I'm thinking is right I'm gonna have sooo much fun!
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
So, who's in favour of me deleting this thread?
I don't mind either way...
I'm bored with it now...