Victoria Police officer defends decision to speed towards scene of accident on Hume Freeway
Does anyone know what's going on here? The officer was responding to a call with lights and sirens. He's got the Gold Licence that allows him to drive at unrestricted speeds, yet he's been charged for going too fast. (Note that the 'Gold Licence' referred to here is not the same as the 'Gold Licence' issued to the general population).
Did this guy just piss someone off?
Is the recorded speed a fact, or is it disputed? I couldn't see that referenced in the linked article.
Regardless, driving even at a much lower speed could still be considered as 'dangerous driving' and 'endangering life'. I suppose we just don't know all the details.
One of the reports I read said he pinged on a camera doing the claimed speed
But he isn't charged with speeding. The (alleged) speed is just a reference point for the charges.
Original Age article -
Policeman charged after driving 230km/h to reach injured officer
An internal police investigation later found Beecroft allegedly engaged in “urgent duty driving” for seven minutes on an 8.7-kilometre stretch of freeway, overtaking 77 vehicles.
During that time he allegedly reached a top speed of 230km/h and an average speed of 205km/h.
@Baysew: Those numbers tell an interesting story actually.
If his average speed was 205km/h down a 8.7km stretch of freeway, then maintaining that average speed means he's more or less cleared that 8.7km in about 2 and a half minutes (8.7km/(205km/h)). But he didn't clear it in 2.5 minutes. In fact, he was "urgent duty driving" for 7 minutes, i.e. over double that time.
Given that, for his average speed to be what it is (and handwaving a little bit as to how they're computing 'average speed' I guess), this means that the cop probably spent a lot of time close to his maximum speed, and also a lot of time driving at a speed much less than 200km/h, presumably as he was carefully maneuvering between the 77 cars on the freeway that he overtook.
Such driving certainly sounds reckless, if nothing else.
@whatwasherproblem: Math time!
100km/h = 1.66km/minute. That's an 'average' highway speed.
8.7km over 7 minutes = 1.24 km per minute. Multipled by 60 minutes = average speed of 74.5 km/h.
If you consider the momentary recorded peaks to this speed as triple the average, then that pulls the remaining average speed down even further. Likely under 65km/h for the bulk of the distance, presumably around the existing traffic.
handwaving a little bit as to how they're computing 'average speed'
Handwaved? Seems like they're losing grip with reality!
that'd better I thought he was driving at 231km that would be outrageous. 230km/hr is pretty standard for normal drivers….
Can you imagine him driving at that speed to help you?
Did they impound the police car for 30 days?
speeding at 45 km/h or more over the speed limit (or 145 kilometres per hour or more if the speed limit is 110 kilometres per hour)
I know it's only one of the criteria, but it's quite funny that link thinks doing 145 in a 110 zone is worse than doing 144 in a 100 zone.
Might be a licence with no speed limits, but his training should have taught him that too fast is dangerous.
Ultimately it’s not about the speed, but how dangerous it was in that situation. 200km/h on a long straight rural highway wth no traffic? Not much of a problem. 200km/h in urban areas? Way too fast to be safe for other road users not expecting such speed.
I think he pissed someone off.
I have driven at 180km/h and it gets very boring after 30 minutes. In Nevada there are stretches on some roads where they are straight for 10 to 15 minutes of driving and some have no speed limits, but it gets boring and you need to watch the road very carefully and look for houses or building ahead because if you can accident at that speed then you are gone in less than 60 seconds.
gone in less than 60 seconds.
Oh Eleanor
Well he definitely wasn't going down Dalton Road or High Street, otherwise he'd still be airborne.
Speed limits are based on the principle that the limit is its maximum safe speed possible with out incurring unnecessary danger in ideal weather and traffic conditions to every driver on the road, whether they be a V8 supercar driver or old 107yo Mertle.
That’s with the goal of keeping everyone safe
Having a golden license may give you leeway to break that safe limit, but it obviously has to be within reason otherwise the whole principle of maintaining safety for the public is out the window.
He may be trained to drive at higher speeds and have a more suitable car to do it, but that doesn’t give him the freedom to break that safety principle.
As Pegaxs mentioned. The speed he did would make a negligible difference in arrival time while exceedingly increasing the risk to the public and himself.
So of course they are not going to be happy.
That license is given to trained individuals who can make safe, rational and informed decisions on how to use it. He didn’t use it well.
He may be trained to drive at higher speeds and have a more suitable car to do it, but that doesn’t give him the freedom to break that safety principle.
Who said he didn't use it well? He's the one that's received the training and authority to make that judgement - not you or I.
Considering he didn't actually cause any accidents or harm to anyone, I'd argue the judgement actually was sound.
If his speed was 180km/h would that have been acceptable? What about 150km/h? 190km/h? At what speed do we draw the line?
We have a situation where someone who has the legal authority to reach unlimited speeds, has responded to an emergency at a speed they deemed necessary (i.e. doing their job) - they haven't caused any accidents or harm to anyone. Yet the argument being made is their judgement wasn't sound because hypothetically they could have caused an accident (despite the fact that they didn't).
Are we saying the training given to them is insufficient to allow them to make judgement? Are we saying there should be a cap on the speeds they are able to reach?
They were doing their job within the training and power provided to them. The fact is they didn't break any rules or cross any clear lines.
What if this person had pissed someone off - perhaps they spoke up about something in the workplace. Perhaps they know things they "shouldn't" know. What precedent does that set if you can do your job and have the book thrown at you? This person could have done any speed faster than the posted speed limit and we could be having the same conversation.
"Considering he didn't actually cause any accidents or harm to anyone, I'd argue the judgement actually was sound."
(survives playing a single game of Russian Roulette) "Well, no one got hurt. This game is obviously safe".
Not the same - this is someone who has been trained and it is part of their job respond to emergencies at high speeds based on their judgement.
No amount of skill, training or perception can assist someone in Russian Roulette. It's a game of chance. But you know this obviously, I don't think you actually need me to explain the differences here.
End of the day, why train them and give them the discretionary power to reach unlimited speeds when responding to emergencies - if they can then be charged for doing so?
@Harold Halfprice: It would appear that the driver's abilities to drive within the constraints of safety are in question.
@Harold Halfprice: I see. We'll ignore the way you stepped over the begging-the-question reasoning for now ("Well of COURSE he drove safely, there's WASN'T an accident!" relates exactly to my Russian Roulette point, and you know it) and move on to…
Your position is once they are trained, they are no long accountable for how they choose to act, and can't have lapses of judgement? 'Why bother trusting someone with a responsibility if you don't blindly accept they've acted responsibly later on?'
I think the wisest thing is to wait and let the courts decide this, on the evidence available.
To suggest it's a fallacy of the system or illogical to allow for the possibility of human error, a lapse of judgement or intentional wrongdoing is short sighted at best.
Your position is once they are trained, they are no long accountable for how they choose to act, and can't have lapses of judgement?
That isn't my position.
My position is, if they are trained and acted in accordance to their training and did not break any protocols, then they shouldn't be charged. With the evidence presented so far, there is nothing to suggest their was a lapse in judgment.
What speed would be considered safe in this instance? And if there is a safe speed, is it part of the training and procedures they are required to follow? If not, then they should be.
What is to stop this occurring again in the future, with someone else?
If a licensed electrician does electrical work in your house, and does everything above board and correctly. Everything is in compliance to Australian Standards - yet an issue surfaces, not because the electrician didn't follow regulations or due to his workmanship, but because the standard was incomplete, insufficient or incorrect - then it's not the electricians fault, it's the regulatory authority that is to be held accountable.
@Harold Halfprice: It feels like "Acted in accordance to their training and did not break any protocols" are some weasel words that hide a litany of sins.
Speed and safety have an inverse relationship (stopping distance, reaction time, physics). For the regular general public, we have an imposed number that 'we' agree is the right balance between 'avoiding accidents' and 'getting there on time'. We can't guarantee safety, but we can mitigate the risk.
(We, as everyone, have duties of care to drive safely, but there's a set number for speed in addition to that: 110 on a freeway, 40 in a school zone, etc)
Cops get some extra training and told that the speed limit numbers don't apply when doing their job in emergencies, but that doesn't absolve them of their duty of care. There's a safety difference between going 130kph and 230kph. The cop used his judgement and decided the latter was appropriate. Others have disagreed, and now we use the court system to decide how reasonable his position is.
Saying "well, no one got hurt so it was obviously safe" or "we need to change the training rules, it's about the training and not that officer's judgement", or "he was allowed to speed, so any amount of speeding is therefore permitted" just seem to be grasping at straws that someone, anyone, who isn't the cop has done something wrong?
Are you his brother or something? You're willing to admit we don't have the full picture on the situation, but 'of course he shouldn't have gone to court' and so on. Why are your assumptions about the underlying facts more meritorious than ours?
“If his speed was 180km/h would that have been acceptable? What about 150km/h? 190km/h? At what speed do we draw the line?”
I wasn’t there, I don’t know the road or traffic conditions.
But as i mentioned, speed laws are made off the principle of safety.
Laws have clear cut limits, principles don’t, so some one with sound impartial judgement and a better understanding of the situation should be left to decide where the line should have been drawn (exactly what’s happening).
“Are we saying the training given to them is insufficient to allow them to make judgement? Are we saying there should be a cap on the speeds they are able to reach?”
People are people… no one makes the right decision 100% of the time. Even the best trained people can make mistakes and errors in judgment, especially under pressure.
I don’t think there should be a cap, hell, i hope he gets off with a warning or just retraining (even though it may not be necessary) because he was just trying to do his job.
Unfortunately though, actions have consequences.
“ What precedent does that set if you can do your job and have the book thrown at you?”
Welcome to the life off a truck driver 😂
i think they base the speed limits on the lowest common denominator, that is, the oldest and unsafest cars maximum safe speeds. a lot of more modern cars can travel at higher speeds with safety, but they can't just make different speed limits that depend on what car you're driving, it would be a nightmare to work out the logistics and enforce all of it, though it could make the cops revenue raising easier.
I’m sure thats what it is based on as well as the lowest quality drivers.
I’m not saying the speed limit is the only safe speed, i was explaining what its based on: principles of safety.
That safety is worked out on the factors already mentioned:
Traffic
vehicles
People
Area build up
Etc
Even with the speed limit being based on the lowest common denominator of a driver and their vehicle, there is still going to be a line above that which some people can drive safely and yet another line at which no one can safely be in control of a vehicle.
Thats why this police officer is getting investigated, to see which threshold he passed.
That license is given to trained individuals who can make safe, rational and informed decisions on how to use it.
Not really. It's given exclusively to police officers for the purpose of pursuing the interests of the State. It has nothing to do with sound judgement or safety.
When I was on my Ps, I drove past a cop car in the opposite lane. They suddenly performed a U-turn with multiple cars travelling 80km/h behind them, drove over a concrete barrier, ran a red light, and sped up to pull me over.
Thank God they were allowed to do that otherwise I would've endangered lives by only having one P-plate displayed on my car. So lucky they were there to fine me $200 and keep the community safe.
Not really. It's given exclusively to police officers for the purpose of pursuing the interests of the State.
No one is perfect though and stupidity knows no limits. A uniform won’t stop a bad decision, although it should influence it for the better as an accountability thing.
I don't think you can train someone to "safely" do a U-turn in the middle of a busy road or run a red light. These activities are inherently dangerous no matter who's doing them.
If there really was a way to train police to avoid accidents even while driving recklessly, then why don't we impart this magical wisdom onto all drivers? Wouldn't that mean we could completely eliminate all road fatalities?
@SlavOz: Read what i said again…
Do you just like arguing for the sake of arguing or are you genuinely that oblivious?
And…FWIW
If we could train all drivers to the same higher standard needed to obtain that privilege and stop anyone that didn’t meet the criteria it would improve our road tolls…
Our licensing system is a joke, some people shouldn’t be allowed to push a trolley at the shop.
Leave Inspector Callahan alone please
2020-21: we had great fun watching NSW govt and NSW health throwing their nurses and healthcare workers under the bus in the midst of covid
2022: VicPol indicting one of its employees for doing their job.
new policy: VicPol is now limited to hiding in the alleyways catching cars driving at 51kmh. never mind the speeders on the highway. the police is limited to driving at speed limits now.
the next target: ambos who exceeded the speed limit while attending to a Cat 0 (heart attack /stroke) patient. Compliance to the law is the only single factor for safe patient care.
The police officer is not charged with speeding.
I don't think I'll express an opinion about this cop doing 200 on a public road in Victoria, given that I have done more than that.
I had a car engineered for it, appropriate high speed training and experience, a good road, an absence of other traffic, and a licence that allowed it and a circumstance where that licence made it legal - which I'm sure that cop felt applied to him in the circumstances he was in - and 200 did not feel like I was endangering life. I've done more than that on a public road in the NT where it was legal for anyone, and when that was the case there were remarkably few crashes as a result. Mature grownups, and would think a police officer with 16 years experience fits that description, understand what their limits are.
Except there are other people around. If a person in the left lane decided to overtake someone they could not tell that a maniac going double their speed would suddenly appear in the right lane that was just empty.
I think the overtaking 77 vehicles is a crucial factor. Big difference between 230kph on an empty road and 230kph past other traffic. It's like doing 110 down a street with parallel parking.
I don't know if this is certain, but it sounds like given the time taken to get to his destination, he slowed down when approaching traffic and sped up significantly when the road ahead was clear. Guess we'll find out when it's heard in court
I want the cop found guilty, so the police are forced to reconsider their consequences and aren't given a 'get out of jail free' ticket for breaking the law at any point.
BUT
I also want the cop found innocent since he was legally within the listed laws and justified actions, and shouldn't be prosecuted for actions that were legally acceptable, was trained & licenced for and part of their job.
Neither outcome will be of benefit to the community at large.
Agreed.
He's given training and legal authority to reach unlimited speeds based on their judgement. Fact of the matter is no accidents were actually caused, so the argument that the speed was unsafe is purely hypothetical.
Maybe it was unsafe - but that shouldn't result in punishment for this individual. That should result in an evaluation of the training provided and the powers afforded to officer. Improve the training, provide clearer guidelines, put a cap on the allowed speeds.
If you can punish someone for acting within their training and within the legal power afforded to them, then it sets a worrying precedent. You can essentially be punished at any time, arbitrarily. Speak out against corruption or injustices, and you risk having the book thrown at you.
I agree - I would've thought that it'd be classed as a breach of internal procedure and at worst, he gets internal disciplinary action rather than face criminal charges.
When I got my license it was legal to do 200ks on a public rd or faster if you wanted to.
Speed signs were a circle with a line through them, as fast as you like subject to rd conditions.
Got waves from cops going the other way at 120mph.
Where was this?
Nsw
Yeah, that’s bullshit. That is not what that sign meant at all. And there is no way you went past police cars doing 190+km/h and got just a wave, no matter how good the road conditions were.
That is where you are wrong
Back in the 70's our generation had road sense unlike the young numbnuts on the roads today.
https://images.app.goo.gl/p8aeK6izokaUv6e16
No, that's where you are wrong.
Is this the same generation that had 5 multiple choice questions and had to drive past the cop shop and get a copper to watch them drive up and down the street to get their license? Your generation is the definition of "Back of a Weet-Bix box" license having road users. These are the same Boomers that hook up their 4 tonne Taj Mahal caravans to their woefully under-equiped tow vehicles with little to no experience to go grey nomading at 40km/h below the limit.
And as for your better "road sense", the 70's was one of the worst times in Australian motoring history for road deaths. It was the peak of deaths from motor vehicle accidents with the road toll up around the 3000+ mark each year. Shit roads coupled with shit cars compounded with shit drivers made for some of the worst road accident statistics in our nations history.
Now, onto your road sign. This did not mean "do whatever speed you want to". There is no way, in NSW, you would drive past a copper while doing 190+km/h and they would just wave you on your way. Absolute bullshit. These signs were usually posted on shitty back country roads way out of anywhere and usually posted on dirt roads or roads that I would hesitate to even consider "sealed". They were never on roads like the M4.
If you want to read more on what this sign actually meant, then I suggest, instead of putting up a large selection of Goolge searched photos, you read about them.
Added to this is that there were very very few cars back in the 70's that could achieve those kinds of speeds, let alone do it safely and/or consistently. Follow this up with very few roads at that time that were capable of allowing cars get up to those sorts of speeds, and the fact that the "Derestricted" speed sign was only in rural areas and on crap roads, you were never doing 190+km/h on the roads that these signs were posted to.
Ergo, you're full of shit and part of one of the worst times in Australian motoring history for deaths from motor vehicle accidents due mostly to your under education and piss poor testing and practical assessments of your driving skills. Boomers are some of the worst road users with their knowledge of road rules still stuck on those same 5 questions they had to know way back in the 70's.
@pegaxs: As I said you are wrong, been driving 47 years with a clean license and no accidents. Towed trailers and vans all around Australia no issues.
Don't have to come to a forum to ask stupid questions about accidents or parking fines as I never have or get them.
@Stevek1960: You literally come from an era where to get your license, you had to answer 5 questions on a paper test and then go to the local cop shop and drive up the street in front of a copper as your practical driving test.
Today, kids have to sit a 100~ish questions knowledge test and do 120+ hours of learner driving experience before they can be left to drive on their own. I am 100% sure that these "numbnuts" are way better drivers than you ever were at their age.
And as I said…. you are wrong.
May be cop on the way to address one way road blocked due to road rage ? But OP said cop didn’t come at all.
The same people that cry ‘LaW aNd OrDeR’ are probably asking themselves ‘wHy HaS LaW & OrDER mAn bE ChArGeD’
All I can say is that it’s now before the courts where evidence will be presented and a ruling made. We don’t have any of the facts other than what has been reported so we have absolutely no idea whether he followed the operating procedures or not, or drove in a reckless manner or not
The same people that cry ‘LaW aNd OrDeR’ are probably asking themselves ‘wHy HaS LaW & OrDER mAn bE ChArGeD’
Are they not the same? This is ultimately about law and order.
We have to question why someone has been charged, if they are acting within the training provided to them and the legal powers afforded to them. It's their job to make the judgment, and they haven't actually caused an accident.
If you can charge and punish someone on an arbitrary basis such as this, then it sets a dangerous precedent.
Ultimately, I agree that this is for the courts to decide whether it was indeed unsafe and the judgment unsound. We don't have the facts nor the training to make that call. However, if the officer operated within their training and powers, then they should not be able to be punished - the outcome should be a review of the provided training, procedures and the extent of the powers afforded to these officers.
We have to question why someone has been charged, if they are acting within the training provided to them and the legal powers afforded to them. It's their job to make the judgment, and they haven't actually caused an accident.
If you can charge and punish someone on an arbitrary basis such as this, then it sets a dangerous precedent.
You don’t know any of that to actually be the case. You are making assumptions that the officer followed protocols. So in actual fact the second part of your above statement is mischievous in its intent as well
What’s worse is you make all those assumptions presented as facts and then hide behind the ‘before the courts line’.
But I see in some of your other comments you’ve pretty much made up your mind. So its quite disingenuous of you to make this loaded comment.
Chill out a bit dude, I haven't presented anything as fact.
I'm saying if they acted within their training and within the powers granted to them - then they shouldn't be able to be charged. The issue is then with the training and powers granted.
Of course, if they indeed broke protocol or deviated from training then most certainly they should be charged.
I'm just debating the other side of the argument, against people who are claiming it is indeed wreckless. No one has all the facts here and no one here decides whether he will or wont be charged. Doesn't mean we can't debate the topic at hand, what else is the point of the thread?
what else is the point of the thread?
In my view, this forum post is pointless.
No-one knows why the officer is charged. No-one knows the evidence that will be presented (both in prosecution and in defence).
The referenced ABC post purely states that a charge has been made.
@Harold Halfprice: You don’t get prosecuted unless there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. Even a penalty notice needs a prima facie standard.
There is a brief of evidence and the courts will decide. No ‘what ifs’ that are staged in such a way to defend or imply the accused’s innocence.
I'm just debating the other side of the argument, against people who are claiming it is indeed wreckless.
Why are you debating this with me when I said no such thing? Did my intro trigger you?
@Vote for Pedro: Because you brought up my other comments… in my initial reply I agreed with your statement.
in my initial reply I agreed with your statement.
Lol. No. In your initial reply to me you defended the heck out of him and then threw in a ‘let the courts decide’ to sound like you’re being reasonable and rational. You weren’t being neutral and I definitely don’t accept that you agreed with my entire proposition.
I guess you thought you’d educate my completely neutral ‘leave it to the court’s’ comment with your clearly ‘he’s innocent’ comments because I said it seems that you’ve already made up your mind (in a later reply). Talk about reverse engineering an argument.
Clutching at straws. Lol. I think I stand by my comment about people being triggered by the intro to my comments. The smarter ones stayed away.
ACL claims that Dan is getting the Nobel Price in Social Engineering saving our world from overpopulation……
lol, random much?
Looks like Christians are in the minority on this bbs?
What does their training teach them, and what are their SOP's? If he is within these, then it has to be a judgement call. What if he was chasing a mass murderer?
If only he had not gone past a speed (REVENUE) camera enroute this would not be even mentioned…..
Some pencil pusher in Vic Pol has come across this and thought great idea lets get the troops.
Testing out the flux capacitor he made during lockdown.
Don't you understand that every privilege comes with responsibility?
Could cite numerous examples, but the current social order doesn't seem to be across this at all, with Freedums etc…
Hey, somebody is hurt, better drive at a reckless speed and put everyone else in danger, to save this person.
Exactly, let’s go crazy to possibly help save one of our own. 200km/hr is absurd.
Also, ive done 200 + before, and even tho im a car guy, i found it pretty full on. Regardless if this bloke is highway patrol of 16 years, it sounds like he got emotional and floored it.
But then again i dont know the full details, it might have been the middle of the night on a totally empty 4 lane freeway with clear visibility, in which case, it probably wouldnt have been so bad.
In two minds about this one. The speed isn't actually all that excessive for a highway (assuming not a lot of traffic), though more than a few times cops will use any excuse to push the limit. Happy for whichever way the court decides on this one. The Gold License for them exists for a reason, the only question here is did the reason justify the speed.
He might have to prove that he had a good reason to drive at 200km/h. A reason other than "my friend was involved". What benefits did the situation have because he was arriving there a few minutes early? Were there other emergency services on site? If so, why do you need another police officer driving at 200km/h on the roads, risking another crash?
Just questions… I was not there. Just having a gold plate doesn't mean he can drive above speed limit without a reason. If he has a reason (he was needed at the scene and no one else was there, or closer), he might have to justify that.
He was the first and closest responder.
Presuming he didn’t know ‘how injured’ the other cop was, or what the other injury was. 1 minute could be a matter of life and death. Even if it’s to perform CPR, 1 minute is ages. If it happened to me, I sure hope they get here 1 minute quicker as long as it’s not reckless
1: This was shortly after that crackhead truckie pancaked those police on the eastern.
2: What dingus prosecutor decided it was a good idea to run with this one?
Did you know you can kill someone going 10kph in a car?
I would imagine the "unrestricted speed" that the gold license grants him would be more looking towards driving in suburban or highway roads that have restricted speed limits - 40/60/80 and 100km/hr. He is able to speed up on these areas without any restrictions in the line of duty
However that is not to say he can be using these privileges without any thought to the safety of the pedestrians or general traffic - think attempting to go 70kmph in a 40 kmph zone during school times
I feel it is the same scenario where he has been reported to be speeding (100kmph over) without any reasonable thought how he was endangering public safety ( + his partner next to him) and for really a very low time gain
Poor law enforcement fella. Next time there will be whinge that the Police Officer came so late to the accident or crime location and they would argue “I just follow the speed limit to get here” 😂
Not sure what the issue is. Just let the court make the judgment. Both have valid reasons. One thinks he was justified to travel at that speed given the urgency of the situation and the other not.
The only real question here is was he safe when he overtook the 77 cars. Speed alone does not make something unreasonably unsafe, we’ll need to see the footage.
The Hume freeway is a high quality road that he’d be very familiar with as a highway patrol officer. In other countries it would have no limit and is far higher quality than the no limit roads in the Northern Territory we had until the early 2000’s.
He holds a license that explicitly has no speed limit. It’s not a up to X over the posted limit or no faster than X. It’s unlimited. Why grant such a thing if you consider it unreasonable to travel that fast on the safest and most modern road in the state.
Further more he was responding to a genuine emergency and was the closest until to respond. He certainly had the right to use his gold license privileges to exceed the speed limit when responding.
I hope he wins the case because it sounds like he’s being singled out for something many officers would do (and I’d hope they would for me if I needed assistance).
230kmhr is nuts for a highway that has a speed limit of 100-110kmhr. He overtook 77 vehicles over a 9km period, so the highway wasn't empty
The speed limit is 110kmph which is also the fastest speed for any road in Victoria. If you’re going to allow a license with unlimited speed then the Hume highway would be one of safest places in the state to drive at this speed
Which would be fine if it was empty, but it wasn't
A driver isn't expecting someone going twice the speed you are. If anyone pulled out into the fast lane, even if they mirror checked, it's going to be a bad time.
My license used to have golden contacts! They never got read out.
After paying for a speeding fine on a proven faulty speeding camera they gave me a new license without gold contacts!
That police officer must have offended someone in a higher position or someone it should never have messed with. I know some public servants have done much worse than this but with the right immunities or looked after by some other public servants they have got away without a scratch. Australian government is just as corrupted as other countries it criticises.
While I don’t disagree with the general sentiment that the ‘in crowd’ gets away with a lot of things they do wrong, thats no excuse for others doing the wrong thing. We need to fight to ensure everyone is treated equally.
Note that my above comment is only in relation to your comment about people doing much worse and getting away with it and not related to this case. This is because we don’t know any of the facts.
Do you have any facts/evidence of “public servants have done much worse than this but with the right immunities or looked after by some other public servants they have got away without a scratch.”? If so, have you taken any action to report them to appropriate authorities with your evidence?
I made complaints, contacted all the relevant anti corruption authorities and about 10 Australian medias. None of them responded except the assistant of whom I complained against called and told me stop complaining and one of Ombudsman officer told me not even allowed to seek for legal opinions or there would be consequences. The corrupted officer continues to get promoted and the not for profit that has dirty deeds with the corrupted officer continues to expand its business.
I guess that’s exactly why we need a federal anti corruption body. One with actual powers.
Have you considered a protected disclosure?
@Vote for Pedro: I have looked into it but the protection I get is only restricted to making a public interest disclosure to the authorities and medias which I have already contacted. Exposing the corrupted officer and the not for profit organisation on social media will only lead me to jail time. Unfortunately I still don’t have the courage like the whistleblower who exposed the Australian soldier’s war crime in Afghanistan and is now waiting for the court’s judgement.
Yes, whistleblowers in Australia get penalised not rewarded or respected.
Imo….
If the cop was driving on the right shoulder at 200+ km/hr I think it’s probably okay.
But to travel at that speed in a lane passing cars that can use that lane to overtake is dangerous. As the cop and drivers will not have the time to react even with lights and sirens.
And if the cop was driving on the left shoulder it is even worse. (As cars sometimes go there on hearing sirens).
I have not read the article.
Policeman cleared of driving dangerously at 200km/h to help colleague
In her ruling, Campbell said there was insufficient evidence to convict Beecroft on the charge of dangerous driving and found he drove within the conditions of his gold class driving authority.
Hey just read in the paper today Police are looking into why a patrol car did not pull over that numpty in
the stolen car that hit a tree later on and killed the passenger…… they cannot win now ethical standards are investigating Oh boy damned if you do and damned if you dont…
No wonder no one wants to join the numpty police force
He was in fact recorded traveling "in excess" of 230kmph