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?
Where is the evidence?
Whose life did he endanger?
Who complained about what?
What is a safe speed and under what conditions for a Gold License holder?
Did the officer has lights flashing and siren howling?
These are all facts that must be brought before the court
A Victoria Police officer charged with endangering life after he drove faster than 200 kilometres per hour
Nobody is above the law.
+200km/h on public roads is nuts.
Unless you're a politician or diplomat or using a company car. I'm sure there's more examples of being above the law.
you forgot to mention a Rental Car
Or a stolen car.
Nobody is above the law.
His licence allows him unrestricted speeds.
Is that why he's getting changed with an offence?
His speed alone is the reason they're charging him. They can't charge him with offences related to the speed limit because his licence allows him unrestricted speeds. But they're throwing other charges such as dangerous driving etc at him. This is the bit that doesn't make sense to me.
@b0rnwithabeard: I understand what you're saying, but there's no suggestion that he has done anything else that could be classed as "unsafe" other than the speed itself.
He wasn't drifting around corners, burnouts or tailgating slower cars.
@bobbified: maybe not? I dunno, I guess “cop charged with speeding” is a snappier title.
Or my guess is that he’s probably someone the others at his station hate and so they are trying to find ANYTHING to ping on him
@bobbified: Seen too many coppers flick on siren to run a red light only to see them at the next set of lights sitting in traffic, so questioning whether the action is justifiable actually sounds like the checks and balances are working…
If you look at the case, his argument is that he thought fellow officers were at risk. Point 1 is whether the law agrees that the response was justifiable. Point 2 is that a gold license means he has completed training that has validated he possess skills to operate a vehicle at any speed - it doesnt mean he is safe nor a good driver. If possessing a license means you are good, go ask the OP posting about the driver that did a slow motion merge into his lane. The charge is action endangering life, not driving above the speed limit.
@FlyingMiffy: I was speaking with a cop at a party a few years back and he said one of the most embarrassing things about going lights and sirens to an incident, is that sometimes the urgency of the situation lessens, and all the cars attending get downgraded priority. Sometimes cars get it to allow faster response from cars outside their normal patrol area when the locals are already tied up. He said when than happens he tries to turn down a side street as to not look like an idiot after he has been working his way through numerous red lights. I'd suggest this is what happens to a lot of cops. You may still decide to attend, but you have to follow the road rules again. there are very strict regulations when it comes to when police are allowed to do those things, and it's mostly decided by Police headquarters (vki/vkc etc) unless you're attending to something you've witnessed near you.
@FlyingMiffy: BTW police and ambulances will sit in traffic with lights off if there's heavy traffic that they can't avoid. If the lights and sirens are left on the public can do dangerous things to get out of the way.
@bobbified: You don't know that.
That article only has quotes from the defence lawyer and nothing about what the prosecution actually used to justify a claim of dangerous driving. Presumably they have some evidence or they never would have got to court.
It's a bad article designed to get clicks.
You don't know that.
This article from The Age goes into a little more detail. He was the closest unit at the time and drove at an average speed of 205km/h with max being 230km/h. He passed 77 cars along the way.
It compares his speed to those of the 'later' responders, who reached speeds of between 141km/h and 166.9km/h.
@bobbified: Please just go read the articles about it. It goes into depth about how he drove faster than all other responders by quite a lot, discusses how many cars passed etc. I don't agree that the guy should be charged but there is evidence of it being unusual compared to other responders.
But if I was about to get murdered and someone called the cops I'd be wanting this guy to respond to my call!
@serpserpserp: I did see the details in other articles about how he drove faster than the other responders. It also says that he was the closest unit at the time so it's reasonable to think that there would've been a huge element of uncertainty of what to expect upon arrival. I would argue that the other responding units that were coming from further away may have driven less urgently after getting a situation report from the first officers on the scene.
He passed 77 cars. Does that make his driving 'reckless'? I'm not so sure. "Unusual" doesn't mean it's wrong. They've given him that licence to drive at unrestricted speeds. He was on the Hume Highway, which I understand to be one of the best roads in the country when it comes to its build and conditions. If there was ever an appropriate road for those speeds here in Australia, the Hume Hwy would be it. So if it's still reckless and dangerous to drive at speed on those types of roads, then I'd argue that they should not be issuing unrestricted speed licences at all.
@bobbified: Why the hell doesn't that make sense? Just because you have no speed cap doesn't simultaneously mean you can be unsafe. Speed and safety are not the same thing - although our crap and strict speeding laws could cause you to think differently, I can see that.
@Scantu: I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here in response to my comment.
I'm not arguing whether the speed he was travelling is safe or unsafe. I'm saying that they've issued him with an unrestricted licence and he was responding to an emergency on the Hume Hwy. This is one of the safest roads in the country. So if it is so wrong for him to drive at that speed on such a road, why the hell would they even issue such licences?
@bobbified: He passed 77 cars at an average of +95km/h. It’s not about the actual speed, but the difference between other traffic and the driver. Drivers on a freeway at around 100km/h are used to cars passing them at 120-130 and probably get the occasional one at 140. He has exceeded that by a lot which is cause for massive increase in risk.
@bobbified: What you're saying perfectly shows my point - you seem to be under the impression that a license to speed, licenses you to drive dangerously, because you equate speed with danger. When in reality - they are different things.
@bobbified: They shouldn't have it if they're going to ding people for doing their job. Maybe their unrestricted guide should be based on a percentage increase in km on the specific road being travelled on. Eg. Normal limit is 100km p/h, can go up to 50% higher so max speed is 150km p/hr. Seems ludicrous to me either way. I like the idea that he's doing everything he can to get there and I want him in my corner.
@Scantu: So do you think it was unsafe and why/why not? Obviously don't base your decision on the speed then.
@cookie2: Not for me to decide, for the court. If the way he drove had a high probability of causing harm that outweighed the advantage of driving in that dangerous manger, then it's unsafe and he should be punished. Speed is but one factor.
There is "unrestricted speeds" and there there is just blatant negligence and recklessness. He endangered the life of other road users that he deems less worthy than the life of his colleague.
To give you an idea, it was across a 9km stretch of road, at 150km/h, it would have taken 3 mins, 36 sec. At 200km/h, 2 mins, 42 sec. He saved less than 1 min that journey than if he had have slowed down to 150km/h. (At the speed limit of 110km/h, 4min 54 sec.)
At 150km/h, the car would have covered about 42m every second. At 200km/h, 56m every second. (At the speed limit, 31m/s)
If you take into consideration the average reaction time of someone seeing something and perceiving it as a hazard is about 0.5 of a second, and then getting their brain into gear to do something about it, another 0.5 sec. And then getting their body to do something about it, another 1~2 seconds. You are looking at about 84m for 150km/h and 112m for 200km/h of distance traveled just in reaction time. (About 62m at 110km/h)
From the moment the brake is pushed and the car stops, at 150km/h, it has a stopping distance of about 126m. For a car traveling at 200km/h, it's about 225m stopping distance. (About 62m for 110km/h)
All up, seeing a hazard, perceiving it to be a hazard, deciding on a course of action and braking, at 150km/h it would take about 210m to bring that police car to a stop. At 200km/h, it would take about 336m to stop. That is over the length of an AFL football field in extra stopping distance for a saving of 54 seconds over doing 150km/h and almost doubling the reaction time and stopping distance (At 110km/h, it is 130m total distance to get there 2min 12sec later)
I don't give a (fropanity) what colour license the copper has, what he did was reckless and put the greater public at an increased risk all to save less than 1 min.
I'm not arguing whether 230km/h is reckless or not. What I find weird is why they issue a licence with unrestricted speeds to these cops and then have them face such consequences when they put it to use.
@bobbified: I imagine the 'unrestricted speed' license is similar to the speed limits for other road users. The speed limit for me to drive on a stretch of road is signposted, but that is the maximum that I can drive at. I could still drive below that speed limit and be considered driving dangerously or endangering the life of others depending on multiple factors such as the road conditions, weather conditions, traffic conditions, my level of impairment, etc.
The police office allegedly drive within the speed limit that he is permitted to drive at (i.e. unlimited), but was considered to be driving dangerously and endangering the lives of others in the conditions that prevailed at the time. The court will decide.
license to have a gun as a police officer
point blank cap someone for no reason
go to jail
URR WHY THEY ISSUE A LICENSE THEN???
@bobbified: Having a license for something doesn't negate the responsibility of being responsible with it. A license is a right not an entitlement
@bobbified: OP just because it's "unrestricted speeds", doesn't mean you pump it to 280kms. They still have a duty (even if speeding) to drive in a manner that is not a danger to the public
I would argue that in many high-powered modern cars, doing 200kph would actually feel pretty easy. Adrenaline would've been kicking in when he felt that his friends were in trouble
If people stayed out of the bloody right hand lane on highways, he would've had relatively smooth sailing
Hell, I saw 200 on a 2003 V6 with standard brakes lol a newer V8 VF or Stinger would get there a lot smoother and safer
@spackbace: Not saying the car wouldn’t do it and do it with relevant ease/safely, but it’s not his car I’m worried about. It’s the other drivers not expecting a cop car from over 200m away catching up to them in a few seconds. By the time other road users hear or see the flashing lights and know what to do, the copper has already overtaken them.
At 200km/h, that cop car would be catching and passing cars at the same rate as the cars at the speed limit would be catching up to and passing “stationary objects”.
It was an absolute disaster just waiting to happen. He risked the lives of many many other road users at the cost of gaining just seconds over that distance. He could have killed himself (no great loss) or cost the lives of multiple other road users. At those sorts of speeds, I don’t care how “safe” the car is, it’s turning into a million pieces upon impact with anything.
From the moment the brake is pushed and the car stops, at 150km/h, it has a stopping distance of about 126m. For a car traveling at 200km/h, it's about 225m stopping distance. (About 62m for 110km/h)
Curious, what's that based on? Because I guarantee a Landcruiser would have a different stopping distance to a Stinger
@spackbace: Average car, average weight, dry flat road, average tyres. I’m not going to nut out a chart for every conceivable vehicle owned by VicPol
@spackbace: Sorry, I’m still just looking up the officers sleep cycles, how long he had been awake for, any caffeine intake, what the cars tyres were inflated to, how much gear he had in the car, what the relative humidity was and wind direction, camber of the road, road surface temperatures on the day, the cars cleanliness for wind friction, alternator load from equipment… should have an exact cross reference chart for you soon.
@pegaxs: Don't forget the position of the moon and the stars, any seismic activity, and how many bugs were squashed on the front of the car as that might affect the drag coefficient
@buckster: Force between the ground and tires also depends on gravity, so we would need to know the local gravitational acceleration at each point of the road that he was stopping on.
@pegaxs: Still waiting for the data for every vehicle owned by vicpol. What's the estimate for completion?
@spackbace: It generally based on worst performing heavy cars. Realistically a highway patrol car would have significantly shorter stopping distance than those numbers.
@spackbace: The difference between a Landcruiser and a Stinger stopping from 100km/h is about 2.6m. Even extrapolating that out to 200km/h is not going to make much difference to pegaxs' 226m estimate.
@Dogsrule: That's just not factual.
Braking distance varies tremendously between cars. With the biggest factor being speed, tyre condition, weight, brake size, suspension, road conditions and even driver skill.
@Kangal: Speed, driver skill and road conditions have nothing to do with the car, so those can be ruled out when comparing cars. Brake size also has nothing to do with a single emergency stop from 0-100km provided they are powerful enough to break the tyres traction.
That leaves weight, suspension design and tyre condition which you mentioned, and tyre size and type which you did not mention. Most importantly, you didn't mention that as vehicle weight increases, the
reaction force on the tyre when braking increases linearly, which causes the frictional force applied by the tyre to the road to increase almost linearly. Here are some surprising results:
@Dogsrule: I've seen plenty that suggest that is quite wrong. Many car shows do comparison brake tests and equivalent cars can have over a car length difference, so 4wd vs sportscar…
@bmerigan: I've had this conversation with many people before and the results tend to surprise:
Many car shows do comparison brake tests and equivalent cars can have over a car length difference.
You should think carefully about that - if equivalent cars can have such drastically different stopping distances, does that not imply that weight is far less significant than you believe?
An interesting tidbit - if you could rip half the weight out of the Stinger, it's stopping distance would only decrease by 13%. Why does the Stinger require 90-93% of the Landcruisers stopping distance? Tyre composition, tyre size and suspension design in that order.
@Dogsrule: That is completely false. Even from 100 stopping distances vary greatly, a top end sports car can stop in almost half the distance of a heavy passenger car. the best do around 31-35 metres(excluding reaction time).
@gromit: It's a lot more complex than you think:
Here's a hint that may expand your mind wrt weight and stopping distance - motorbikes take longer to stop than passenger cars.
Just because he can, doesn't mean he should
Sure, unrestricted speeds if justified
Cops are also issued with special permission to carry and use a gun. That doesn't mean they can just wave it around carelessly or shoot someone for jay-walking.
Even if a criminal charges at them with a weapon, cops are subject to investigation of whether use of deadly force was justified. Maybe they'll get away with it if the suspect had a bazooka and they shot him once in the chest to immobilise him. But if the suspect was only carrying a butter knife and they shot him 7 times in the face, that's different.
The rules are more of a spectrum rather than binary. It's not as simple as "you can drive at any speed, so let's drag race to the scene of a noise complaint".
Nobody is above the law.
Idk, the law has many loopholes. I 'see' it more & more lately.
Maybe VIC should learn from NSW ???
"Another 30 officers were charged with common assault, child sex offences, and malicious damage since October 2016" …
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-14/police-officers-charg…
Or VIC's cop is just … corrupted, idk
"Michelle and Liam also alleged the Acting Senior Sergeant actively discouraged them from making statements because it would impact a fellow police officer"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-14/child-survivor-of-fam…
Wow, may i know what car was he driving to hit 200km/h…
hardly a high speed for a car, just about any modern decent car is capable of that.
Wow. What. No way. My car hardly go beyond 110km due to all road speed limits. I will probably never find out.
@OhNoUShiz: don't think I have owned a car in the last 2 decades that couldn't do that. Even my Old Nissan Maxima I sold off a few years back was capable of it (though would never try in that).
It's not the top speed that is the biggest worry. No, it's stopping the car from such speeds.
He's allowed to exceed the speed limited where warranted. The question is, was more than 200kmh speed warranted. If not, that's what he'll get pinged on. ("Why didn't you just drive a much 'safer' 130kmh?")
I remember when a police car did a u-turn on the Eastern Freeway and caused a crash.
Commissioner said that rules don't apply, but they still have to drive safely. 200km/h is unsafe.. They abandon pursuits at 150km/h..
Username checks out
For Context
drove faster than 200 kilometres per hour
that's a bit too much over the limit.
What is omitted from the article is, how much time did the officer really save by doing 200km/h vs what is supposedly a safer speed. Maybe saved 60seconds in the overall journey, considering he can't be averaging 200km/h. Most likely 200km/h 1% of journey the other 99% at 80-100km/h.
He could have done 260km/h top speed and slowed down to over 200km/h when they caught him.
I was under the impression he was caught through his own police vehicles dash cam during a review? and not a speed camera or radar.
i don't think they are just allowed to speed whenever a suspect flees, they have to make sure that the use of speed is reasonable and won't unnecessarily endanger other lives.
they don't have as much leeway as American cops, unless you're antivax
Faster than 200km/h? Yeah no shit. If it wasn't an officer that had been struck I'm sure he wouldn't have gone that fast.
The stopping distance of +200km/h is 160m or close to the length of the MCG 171m.
Not if you hit a brick wall, then its insta-stop.
Except if its single brick thickness, then its 160.0216545869 mtrs.
definitely too fast but
why give them unlimited speed licence
https://afma.org.au/is-this-australias-fastest-police-car/
and a car that can go 300km/hr
in what situation would you allow 300km/hr? maybe on a race track? in the outback?
just silly
Most of those sort of cars are just for good press, nothing more
"selected for its incredible depth of ability"
yeah right
.
Chosen for its ability to accelerate rapidly, and for good handling, not for the top speed.
top speed is more of an indicator of performance at lower speeds than anything the car should actually need to do
eg if it can get to 300km/hr its probably highly capable around 150km/hr where highway driving is expected to occur
similarly, my old toyota echo could probably also do 150km/hr, but at around 90km/hr it would transform from a vehicle well suited to city driving into a rattley old shopping cart with a loose wheel
if police cars aren't capable to keep up with modified street cars, then you've got another problem on your hands
Aren't they in court, with lawyers and stuff, precisely to figure out if it was justified?
If he can successfully argue that it was fine and justified for him to be travelling so outrageously fast, then he's off scot-free. If instead the prosecution finds that this guy's driving was idiotic and he deserved to be hit with the charge (which he probably only got because he brazenly ate the police chief's donut that morning and wouldn't even apologise to his face for it, the prick), then I'm sure it'll be a slap on the wrist anyway.
Correct. I think we should postpone this forum post discussion until after there is a decision.
Yes, we wouldn't want to affect the judgement.
I do concur. Ozbargain court shall be adjourned.
@Ghost47: Who will pay my bus fare today?
For those who have not seen Gettin' Square: https://youtu.be/W4anxZR1Sgs
What? reason. Cant have that! He must be judged based on contents of the headline alone!
3rd gear on GSXR… :D
2nd on the 1k
A lot of people focussing on the 200km/h quoted, but "…he is accused of multiple offences, including dangerous driving…" and "…endangering life…".
The speed is only one consideration in assessing those charges.
It all seems to stem from the high speed only though. They're just throwing as many charges as they can at him to see which one sticks. That's why I reckon he's just pissed someone off! lol
Of course the speed is a point of reference, but similarly 80km/h could be considered "dangerous driving" in some circumstances.
That's true, but to be charged with 'dangerous driving' while under the speed limit, you'd have to be doing something quite stupid and dangerous. Actually, even if you're driving above the limit, most people would still just get a speeding ticket if they're driving 'normally'.
The negligent, dangerous and reckless driving type charges usually come after there's been a collision.
(Failing the roadside attitude test can also attract those charges! 😂)
they are can be tied together depending on density of traffic and their speed
Even in the US where I was sitting on 100mph (about 160kph) guys doing 120mph + went by and the enclosing speed for most people can be distracting.
even on track they dont allow fast bike riders to ride with slow or medium as the enclosing speeds is one thing but being spooked even in a straight line with a fast approaching corner can be nerve racking and distracting.
Be interesting to see what the 2x 20yr olds caught racing at 230 cop…
Two men have been charged after the Police Air Wing observed two vehicles allegedly racing at more than 230 kms per hour in an 80km per hour zone on Boundary Road in Truganina at 12:15am on March 13.
A 21-year old Caroline Springs man and 22-year-old Craigieburn man were charged as part of an investigation into an illegal hoon driving event.
The men’s vehicles, a black BMW M4 coupe valued at $80,000 and a black Mercedes Benz C63 sedan valued at $90,000, were seized on April 5.
The Caroline Springs man has had his driver’s licence suspended and has been charged with recklessly engaging in a speed trial, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, exceeding the speed limit, engaging in a race, driving in a dangerous manner, driving probationary prohibited vehicle and driving an unsafe vehicle.
He was bailed to appear at Sunshine Magistrates’ Court on 11 November.
The Craigieburn man has been charged with reckless conduct endangering persons, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, driving in a dangerous manner, committing an indictable offence while on bail, unlawfully engaging in a speed trial, exceeding the speed limit and learner driver without accompanying driver.
I love how the second one is also a learner driver, of all things.
also surprising a Craigieburn man out on bail
probably lost his licence and had to start all over again.
The men’s vehicles, a black BMW M4 coupe valued at $80,000 and a black Mercedes Benz C63 sedan valued at $90,000
Driving such high yield investment vehicles one has to wonder what their ozbargain usernames are?
their ozbargain names were beamer and merc
"Mr Beecroft is charged essentially with conduct endangering life given the speed at which he was travelling, but that speed is justified by him on the basis that he was travelling to a critical situation."