But credit to him for owning up immediately and stepping down from his position immediately. If only all police officers in positions of senior responsibility would stepdown when they've been caught screwing up...

he didn't try to bullshit his way out of it. Fair play to him for honesty, that surprised me more than the sentence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=483152&in_page_id=1770

"South Yorkshire's Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes has backed the family of seven-year-old Kyle McDermott who are calling for harsher penalties for drivers involved in fatal ACCIDENTS...Kyle died in September last year after he was riding his bicycle back from a sweet shop when he was struck by a van "

"Mr Hughes said: "Kyle's death was a tragedy not only for his family but also for the community."

"Collins was jailed for five months at Doncaster Crown Court after admitting driving without due care and attention, failing to stop and failing to report an accident and perverting the course of justice. After the hearing Kyle's mother Katy, 32, said: "It's disgusting. He should have got life."

I highlighted one word there.

To be honest this seems like a perfectly reasonable punishment, if not bringing the full weight of the law beacuse he's a road safety copper. I know for a fact that you can be stopped by police doing that around speed and just get 3 points and a £40 fine (ok this was actually a number of years ago so fines may have gone up since), certainly no 42 day ban which is a much stiffer penalty. IMHO the court actually made an example of him which is nice to see.

He had 6 points already. The guidelines for this offence are 6 points. 6+6=12=ban.

John

Everyone breaks the speed limit on the motorways and dual carriageways. No doubt he would've felt a bit pathetic slugging along at 70...

It looks like the court dealt with this no differently from normal. The Reg didn't point out (but the BBC did) that the limit was 60mph, so this is what you'd expect - you get an automatic ban if you go 30 or more over the limit.

As for points on his licence, even though it didn't say so in the article, there would definitely be some points along with the ban, there always is.

Well if he had been involved in a fatal accident i seriously doubt he would have failed to report the incident or pervert the course of justice and again the courts would have made an example of him entirely because of his public position.

However he probably wouldn't have campaigned for stiffer sentences during his trial.

I would imagine if he had hit and killed a child, the punishment would have been much more severe.

Plus...there's probably not many sweet shops/playing children on the 60mph A5.

"As for points on his licence, even though it didn't say so in the article, there would definitely be some points along with the ban, there always is."

Not so. I've known a 14-day ban to be awarded with a fine but ZERO points ....

It's good to know that although the bluebottles can execute and taser us with impunity, they will face the full penalty of the law for speeding... if they own up. Oh, unless they're having a high-speed chase with some joyrider and run you over, zero chance they'll be sacked, let alone prosecuted in that case.

I like these feel-good stories that restore my faith in humanity.

"I would imagine if he had hit and killed a child, the punishment would have been much more severe. Plus...there's probably not many sweet shops/playing children on the 60mph A5."

What if he was doing 60mph and hit a child *accidentally*? Punish or not? What if he was doing 61mph and hit a child accidentally? Punish or not? 70mph? 80mph? 90mph?

What if there is a 1% chance a driver will hit a kid on a particular road while doing 60mph. 99 drivers travel down this road safely, but 1 hits a kid. They all had the same chance, it's just that this guy had the accident, so why not punish the other 99?

What if there is a 2% chance a driver will hit a kid on a particular road if he's travelling 30mph over the limit, by speeding they increase the chance of not stopping in time. 49 drivers travel down this road speeding at 90mph without hitting a kid, and the next one hits a kid. But they were all speeding and all had the same chance of hitting the kid.

In my view you don't punish people for accidents you punish them for their wrong doing, he is as culpable as any other speeding motorist is in relation to the amount he's speeding. That he didn't run over a kid is pure chance.

If a person does 90mph and *does* hit a kid on that road, the penalty should be a 42 day ban because the crime is speeding, and a 42day ban is apparently the correct length of ban for doing 90mph on that road.

"But credit to him for owning up immediately and stepping down from his position immediately. If only all police officers in positions of senior responsibility would stepdown when they've been caught screwing up..."

No credit at all...

What if he hadn't been caught? He would have kept speeding to his office and then being an anti-speed demon at his desk.

Such hypocrisy.

It's like finding out Peter Tatchell is straight! (For the non-UK, he's on Wikipedia)

> Perhaps we should have a system like Finland

> where the level of the fine is proportional to the

> offender's income.

This idea comes up every few years.

Would you support the idea that the unemployed were given longer jail sentences, coz they've got got more time on their hands?

@AC - a bit of Googling shows you are right - you can get a ban without getting any points.

I wonder if anyone can explain how the totting up works in this case then? It doesn't make sense if you can do 90 in a 60, get a 42 day ban, get your licence back, do it again, ad infinitum.

As a poster above says, you might as well nail it and serve the short ban so that you don't get any points, thus avoiding a (generally longer) totting-up ban in the future.

I think you will find that a discretionary ban is an alternative to points. So, get banned for a period, dont get points.

The issue here is one of credibility, though he does seem to have avoided the hide behind the badge symptom and has admitted his guilt.

Ultimately, this case is of no real consequence, what is required is a proper and reasonable review of the road traffic act. The imposition of 24 hour solutions to 2 hour problems needs to be revised. For instance, there are not many children near schools during the holidays at 2AM, so why insist on a permanent 20 mph speed limit. Likewise with motorways, it is time to remove the nits, in the middle lane doing 50 and increase the speed limit, if you can't drive fast, don't use motorways. It would be really nice to start banning trucks and buses from motorways during the peak commuting periods.

So, drop the sanctimonious attitudes and try to be constructive. Though, it is nice to see the biter bit from time to time.

A good % of problems and disillusionment with today's UK is hypocrisy.

If someone spews forth about a law, then they should honestly believe it to be correct, not convenient for revenue.

It's not sufficient that a Chief Constable with strong opinions on how we behave is judged on the law, he should be judged according to his own opinions. His opinions dictate the direction of law enforcement. He shouldn't be sacked but he should have a life ban.

If Labour make laws about accepting dodgy donations then it's not simply 'an error of judgement' if they knowingly break the law, it's far worse.

Everytime these people are caught out, they should be convicted according to their soundbite convictions.

Maybe then we'd have less 'style' and more considered substance.

It's be especially good for ID cards and the associated soundbite promises.

The posters who on the whole seem to be anti law and order or anti copper (despite the fact that he put his hands up), may find their credibility is enhanced by actually using correct spelling and grammar.

Posting ill thought out bollocks just makes the case for the other side better, and you? You look like dick brains.

Your choice.

If you're an Authoritarian then you basically believe nobody should easily pass through life without good regular beatings (i.e. parking tickets, speeding fines, no you can't do that, get down from there, you naughty boy, ect, ect..) because if you were allowed to live your life without someone continuously poking their nose in (where it's not wanted) then things might be a little too relaxing and the freedom might be a bit too enjoyable. (and too much free thinking might cause you to rise above your station)

If you're on the other side then you don't agree with the concept of micro-managing people’s lives (for the greater good... oh really) and you prefer that people are simply allowed to get on with things as they see best and to learn from their own mistakes and to use their own intelligence to develop themselves to be thoroughly decent human beings.

Guess which side of the fence Hitler sat on! - no, he wasn't a libertarian, he had an extreme personality and he was an authoritarian - not a great combination we subsequently discover.

I lived outside of Atlanta, GA for a while.. so I was on the highway every day. When it's not rush our, -every- car, bar one or two, was doing at least 20 over the speed limit. Going to speed limit was downright dangerous because you'd run the risk of being rear-ended constantly. I'd be forced to go 20 over, and -still- be passed by about 40% of the cars, and I sure wouldn't be overtaking anyone at that speed.

> > Perhaps we should have a system like Finland

> > where the level of the fine is proportional to the

> > offender's income.

> This idea comes up every few years.

> Would you support the idea that the unemployed were given longer jail

> sentences, coz they've got got more time on their hands?

I support a system where the punishment relates to the individual. Pretending that a particular punishment (such as a standard fine) means the same to everyone is nonsense. For someone on a low income, a £1,000 fine would be a massive deterrent, but to a high income person it would be pocket change.

Unfortunately this government seems to believe in fines for everything - especially those traffic offences that have been decriminalised and put into the hands of councils. There is a benefit though - I can now drive down bus lanes and ignore a number of traffic rules, and all I have to do is settle the bill at the end of the month :-)

Why do you automatically assume all of the crashes you've seen in your many years of driving were all caused by speed? Obviously it's impossible to have an accident while you're sitting still (let's just be clear - a road traffic accident and not the other kind of accident- because let's face it; you're at least 61 so we can't rule-out the possibility of a stationary trouser accident at the traffic lights) so it's a fact that speed is a factor in every road traffic accident... But why must speed be the only cause? or the first cause? or the most significant cause... Personally I don't put the speed of the travelling cars at the top of the list of causes and I don’t think it deserves the attention it gets in this country. Especially when we're talking about the danger of any speed over 50mph anyway. Two cars hitting each other head-on at 50mph is a 100-hundred-mile-per-hour accident and you'd be lucky to survive. Likewise hitting a stationary object, pedestrian, motorcyclist, child, animal, ect, ect... is almost certainly going to involve some death.

As you explained to that anonymous coward above (not that I’m taking sides or anything!) you said you never speed you can't really comment on what I'm about to say so I speak freely and without fear and with experience... things don't start to get out of control in a typical family car until you've passed something like 110mph. When you're up at 130, 140 or 150 mph in a standard road-going car the car does not handle well and your reactions aren't really fast enough to be able to cope with anything unexpected. I've driven on many race tracks and the German autobahns and I know how speed feels. I have also passed the test with the IAM so I also know what it's like to drive at 29.5mph in a 30-limit with a pile of traffic sitting behind you itching to overtake.

So I don't think you make a valid point.

Speed in itself is not the issue. It is the inappropriate application of speed in the wrong place at the wrong time. Consider the situation of a country lane with a national speed-limit (i.e. 60mph on a single carriageway) Would it be appropriate to travel at 60mph at night in the rain on a twisty narrow country lane with which you are un familiar? No - of course it wouldn't!! Under those circumstances the driver is allowed to travel at 60mph if he or she believes it is safe to do so but anyone who knows how to drive would not be so foolish! Likewise, if you are travelling on a dry, deserted, well-illuminated 4-lane motorway at 3:30am is 70mph the best speed to travel at? I think not!

"Having been a professional driver for many years, I've seen the results of accidents where someone was speeding, and believe me, there really are more deaths in accidents involving speeders than accidents where nobody was speeding."

Oh yeah? If an 'accident' occurs as a result of high speeds it'll usually get a lot of publicity. Years ago (in the UK anyway) we got headlines like "Jag in high speed chase" - often referring to the indigenous perps affection for Jaguar cars - simply, they could outrun the police (but not out drive them!). These accidents,as a proportion of total traffic accidents, is small but attention grabbing.

Now, how about all those other accidents that occur through what we'll call 'careless driving', such as tailgating, running red lights, illegal U turns, inattention to the road conditions, shouting at kids, mobile phone, changing the tape/CD/Radio. For this latter one I know someone who, whilst attempting to change a cassette tape, lost control of the car and rolled it. Caught fire. They survived but not good.

Everyday I see people safely exceeding the speed limit but I never see anyone safely running a red light...

Interest: I ride a motorbike - in London.

For those who want to play along at home, the magistrate guidelines (Adult Bench Book) can be found at http://www.jsboard.co.uk/magistrates/adult_court/complete.pdf

(Page 169 of 381 for speeding). The magistrates were looking at 21-30mph above a 60mph limit, the guideline is 4-5 points OR disqualify for up to 42 days. Looks like they chose the latter. He'd have needed to be over 91mph to fall in the next band of 6 points OR 56 days. An offence specific ban does not wipe out any pre-existing points, only a totting ban (where someone is banned because they reach 12 or more points) does that.

The fine depends on income, so unless anyone knows what his take home pay is, we'll have to assume they went with the guidelines on this as well.

The BBC website doesn't have a 'Have your say on this article' - I wonder why? Either it's load or it's political correctness. Whichever way you look at it, it's censorship.......

There's no reason for someone who preaches like Meredydd Hughes to be forgiven the wrath of all the motorists who have also been caught.

Why?

>In the US the "just-us" system rarely sees these offenses and often ignores them when they do.

Not true. The cops are notoriously mechanical when it comes to giving out tickets. It doesn't matter who you are or what you're doing.

That said, we don't have silly speed limits like England. If you're stopped for speeding then it will be for "excessive speed" -- you're going too fast given the road, the conditions, the time of day and so on. None of this speed camera ticketing you for doing 36 in a 30 zone at 4am BS. Speed limits (at least in California) are also set by measuring the speeds that people actually travel at -- they assume that most people know what a safe speed is.

90 might have been a safe speed for this stretch of road. But its not a divided highway (dual carrageway) so the limits just got to be 60. Any faster than that and you'll be mowing down children and old ladies. (But, OTOH, you can drive the limit on a crowded road, scattering all before you, and its perfectly legal.)

This is a very simple question. We do not have to have mandatory speed limits. We could just go to advisory ones. This is what most people objecting to cameras and enforcement are really advocating. When they say they were unreasonably convicted for going at 50 on a safe clear 30mph stretch with good visibility and no houses, the implication is that you should be allowed to make your own judgment of what Highways think is a safe speed.

The other way is to have mandatory ones, which is what we do now. In that case, like all other laws, we have a duty to comply with them whatever we think of the particular circumstances. It does not matter whether YOU think the Axxx on this stretch should have a limit of 90mph. Fact is, its 50. Whether this is right or wrong is immaterial.

Now, if we have mandatory limits, there can be no objection to enforcing them, and what we need in the way of enforcement is more and more effective speed cameras. In particular, speed over a stretch is much better than spot speed monitoring.

The other underlying assumption of objectors is that the objective of speed regulation should be to allow the maximum possible safe speed over a given stretch. It should not be. Whether the road can safely be driven faster than the limit is completely immaterial. It is of no importance. It is not a bad thing either for you or society to drive 10 or 20 mph slower than the safe limit.

Just get control of your impatience, drive at the limits that are posted, and if you cannot or will not do this, get the hell of the road!

Hi

From what I can gather, your slate is cleaned after a ban.

An aquaintance was banned for drink-driving (the pr1ck), his previous 6 points had gone when he got his licence back.

43 days ban was perhaps a price worth paying for the copper to get his slate wiped clean.

Speed does not kill, innapropriate speed kills. I got done recently for doing 79MPH on a deserted M9, dry as a bone, perfect visability. IMHO thats just cash generation!

Nigel