Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34766241)

Training is not the same as experience.
90MPH is 90MPH. training doesn't make it any slower.



Police Officer then.

---------- Post added at 21:22 ---------- Previous post was at 21:20 ----------



No they are not.
I'm a superior driver. only difference is I wasn't trained by a police man and I don't have a certificate.

Originally Posted by rogermevans (Post 34766265)

hmm training should make it safer ( i am not nor have i ever been an officer of the law;) ) though i wouldnt say it makes them superior drivers

side note the police ( and politicians ) make this harder to defend with thier constant speed is bad instead of bad driving is bad message

i wouldsay not having his lights and two tone on wont help but pedestrians should be taught to look out for cars but unfortunately are still brainwashed by the media that they have a perfect right to walk anywhere and the nasty car drivers will always be at fault

in this case he was working and made a desicion to try and stop a crime it may or may not have been a good choice but at least he was doing his job i have more of an issue with those exceeding the limit while not on duty

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34766257)

...snippety snip snip..

Because everyone tells me I am. do I have to get an approval by the police in someway to prove it? :)

Originally Posted by zinglebarb (Post 34766266)

car comes at you @ 90mph in a 30 zones its gonna be on you massively quicker than normal. If the car was traveling any slower(or faster for that matter) she would be alive now. You can not blame someone crossing a road as the car would have been a dot in the distance then suddenly bang purely because it was traveling 3 times the limit

Originally Posted by zinglebarb (Post 34766254)

so he turns round goes 90mph without sirens and kills someone and you think its ok?

Originally Posted by zinglebarb (Post 34766254)

is an arrest that precious to you that a teenager can die and you feel the need to jump in and say we are prejuduced because he was a cop?

Originally Posted by Gary L

Because everyone tells me I am. do I have to get an approval by the police in someway to prove it?

Originally Posted by Zinglebarb

Some of the facts and possibly fabrication.

Originally Posted by rogermevans (Post 34766276)

don't normally disagree with you but on this i will

if he was rushing to get to your house because the nasty man was attacking you you would want him there fast

if a loved one has a heart attack you want the ambulance there as fast as he can

if your house is on fire and others are still in there you want the fireman there quick

pedestrians should look and check what's coming and NEVER assume they are travelling at the proscribed limit

as with those i used teach when driving yes the 32 tonner coming on to the roundabout to your left maybe should be giving way to you but if he cant stop it will be your relatives sueing him !

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34766281)

No OK but there are some circumstances where I think sirens and lights might not be absolutely necessary.



No. The Police aren't paid per arrest but every time you drive after someone you have to balance the risks to yourself, the public and the person you are pursuing.
In this case someone died. From the initial reports I'd imagine he'll be found guilty of death by dangerous or death by careless driving. Either way he'll probably lose his job and license and quite probably his liberty.



Err yes. If you want to discuss the full ins and outs of Police driving it would be nice if you had some form of advanced (Police, Ambulance, Fire Brigade, Armed Forces) driving training with regards to high speed driving.



And some of the facts can't be fabricated. The use of lights etc. is recorded, the ANPR will have recorded when it alerted the driver, recordings of transmissions etc. can't be tampered with and I'd imagine the crash investigation would have been undertaken by a separate force.

Originally Posted by rogermevans (Post 34766276)

pedestrians should look and check what's coming and NEVER assume they are travelling at the proscribed limit

Originally Posted by zinglebarb (Post 34766282)

So you think on the face of the evidence he is guilty.

Originally Posted by zinglebarb (Post 34766282)

the lack of blues and twos in this is unforgivable. An ambulance or fire engine at night use the lights and often leave the sirens off . Police should do the same. a car with no warning traveling at 90 mph in a 30 is just not on . After all if someone was threatening me this copper would not have got here would he as he killed someone

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34766289)

On the initial reports I think he'll be found guilty.

Whether there was a reasonable excuse for his actions remains to be seen and the full facts will need to come out.

Originally Posted by rogermevans (Post 34766291)

i agree not having the blues and twos on does make it harder to defend but there are many reasons for not putting them on including just for getting




pedestrians must make sure its safe not assume that the cars will be doing the correct speed

Originally Posted by zinglebarb (Post 34766296)

what would be a reasonable excuse?

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34766300)

I'm not wanting to discuss the full ins and outs of police driving. I am a skilled driver, and proving my grade shouldn't determine whether my opinion counts.

Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34766306)

Surely it does, if it is backing up your opinion (showing that it is informed)?

Have you taken any advanced driver training (and passed)?

Originally Posted by rogermevans (Post 34766304)

not saying that he had those excuses BUT any pedestrian should be aware that they could have