Motorcycle Forums

159 MPH Police Officer Not Punished.

159 MPH Police Officer Not Punished.

Police Officer Mark Milton drove at 159 mph on the M54 and at speeds of 120 mph in a 60 mph zone and more than 60 mph in a 30 mph zone Ludlow magistrates court heard.

Pc Milton’s excuse was that he needed to practice speeding in the new, unmarked patrol car and that police trainers encouraged officers to TOP 145 mph.

District Judge Bruce Morgan cleared Pc Milton of speeding and dangerous driving.

Once again we have one set of rules for the police and one set for the general public. The Crown Prosecution Service should launch an appeal and demand a prison sentence plus 10 year ban for Pc Mark Milton.

Police kill 30 people each year in high speed chases and recently Pc Hibbert crippled a 12 year old girl while speeding in a bus lane.

Police appear to be able to kill innocent citizens, either by shooting unarmed people or using police vehicles “in the line of duty.”

No wonder the police and the court system are held in such contempt.

Article updated 19 May 2005
 

What If?

Perhaps he should have thought what if I get caught doing 160mph? Rightly or wrongly the law says the limit was 60mph on that bit of road. Given the long and extensive previous history of bikers being made examples of for speeding offences it's not actually unreasonable to think that if I get caught at 160 mph I'll probably go to prison. That's not a real intellectual leap. It might not be right but that's the way it is. Yes his sentence is harsher than similar offences for drivers - the fastest ever speeder was a guy in a Porsche who got done at 172 I think, he got 10 weeks inside and a ban and a fine - but it's not entirely unexpected.

The reason we can buy bikes that are that fast is the same reason we can buy fast cars -  you know what the law is, you chose whether to brake it or not and as an adult you chose to deal with the foreseeable consequences - in this case I would argue that a prison sentence was foreseeable. If I get caught at 85 in a 60 zone I expect to get points and a fine, if I get caught at 95 then I'd expect to get  ban. Regardless of how the legal system deals with muggers or junkies I know what the likely outcome of doing big speeds are.

While we're on the subject of excessive speeds and the 'what if' factor. It's when someone doing 160 mph gets caught or gets killed that's the issue. All this does is re-enforce the general publics image of speed freak bikers and the police and the courts become even more determined to make examples of those who chose to do it.

I enjoy biking, I have fun whether I'm doing 8 or 80, but perhaps those that can't enjoy themselves unless they're well over the ton should look at getting their adrenalin kicks elsewhere because they'll be the first ones to hang up their boots if and when 'speeding' becomes impossible due to systems like ISA.

zephyrdave:

You seem mis-guided. You would EXPECT to go to jail for breaking the speed limit? Where did you formulate this expectation? Is it simply that 'others' have been wrongly jailed for simply speeding and you now base your thoughts on the assumption that if you are caught you WILL get the same? Why would you expect to get a ban for 95mph in a 60mph zone? Where are your expectations coming from? Control dear fellow...

The more the police and the courts seem 'determined' to clamp down on things the more things get out of hand and the more individuals start to seriously question the relevance of the legislation. DO NOT CONFUSE LEGISLATION WITH LAW (I recommend you do some reading up on this!).

Your last paragraph is nice. i entirely agree. Sometimes though it is nice to simply open the bike up. I sure don't fly around maxed out constantly but I sure do see it as a nice thing to fit in somewhere on my ride. Everyone and their grannie 'knows' a place where it is assumed safe to speed, that big long straight for miles where there aren't any roads joining et cetera... I don't condone speeding in unsafe circumstances but I do feel that jail should not even be considered UNLESS there is a consequence of the speed involved. Dangerous people should be in jail not those who possibly could be dangerous (bit of Minority Report anyone, it's happening in America just now...). Guy stretched the boundaries a little and a two year ban would've been more fiting but saying that I would ban him for 6 months and restrict his licence to 33 bhp for 3 years...

NumptyScrub:

You seem to miss my point. People kill people with guns and fireworks. People kill people with speeding motorcycles... There ARE those who are too stupid to be left to their own devices. This is all part of a wider picture. It's a political battle to deny you the exact pleasures you seek on your bike. Bikes WILL be limited as will cars as with fireworks and guns (guns already restricted!). Nonsense like this case where a guy gets jail for nothing but disobeying a piece of legislation simply solidifies the gobbermints position. The more they adveritse these incidents the more the brain washed general population begin to believe that REAL changes and restrictions are needed. 'Step changes' over a period of time are what's going on. My angle is that we need to stand up and tell em to bugger off. We are quite capable of controlling ourselves! Some people will never be controlled. Some people are inherently thick and will kill themselves or others, it is a risk that everyone takes and no gobbermint is ever going to change that and they know it so what they will do is impose tighter regulations and make more profit from the situation whilst pretending that they are 'sorting' it, they will then stop advertising things so heavily so we will all think it is happy days. Happens again and again and will not change, a bit like insanity in reverse...

expectation

Yellowninja, you miss my point. I didn't say it was right, or wrong for that matter, that riders get jail time for getting caught at well over the ton just that it happens and on that basis it's reasonable to assume that I would get the same treatment. In that same way that I would assume that water will boil at about 100C based on the fact that this has happened a number of times in the past. Whether I agree with the laws of physics about why this happens is largely irrelevant. I just want a cup ot tea. If it suddenly boiled at 50C I would change my expectations based on those facts.

It's about taking responsibility for your actions. As a grown up you have a choice about what speed you do or whether you smoke or drink or shoot someone. But you know what the likely consequences are going to be and you deal with them if or when they come along - if you smoke then you accept that there's a good chance you'll get lung cancer. If you speed then you accept that there's a chance you'll get caught and you accept the punishment whether it's a fine and some points or jail time depending on the scale of the offence. Complaining that it's not fair because you got caught and you don't like the punishment is childish.

Jail him

He has knowingly committed a crime (yes, speeding is a crimianl offence) and given the level of his deliberate transgression, a jail term seems appropriate.  If he wants to do those speeds and can afford a GSX-R, why can't he afford trackdays?

As to the woman driver, one of the the things the law takes into account is intent.  Did she intend to kill anyone?  What level of "risk" did her driving put the general prublic at?  How does that compare to deliberately doing 166mph on the public highway?

In this roll of the dice he didn't kill anyone, but she did.  Could so easily have been the other way round and if it was; what you you lot be saying then?

Do you want every trangression dealt with as if someone had been killed?  You realise that you'd probably be one of the ones cuaght and jailed too; don't you?  Whatever way you cut it, it will have it's problems and its inconsistencies.  But cease with the knee-jerk, ignorant "Wot justice?" crap and think before you write.

BTW the law on causing detha by driving has changed - why not go find out about that?