104mph police chief to keep his job

Rebecca Camber

April 30, 2004

| Submit Comments | Comments (26) | Previous | Next

SAFE: Steve Thomas

GREATER Manchester Police's traffic chief will keep his job after being caught speeding at 104 mph.

Assistant Chief Constable Steve Thomas was clocked by motorway police doing 34 miles over the limit on the M6 toll road near Birmingham.

But Steve Murphy, chairman of Greater Manchester Police Authority, said he stood by Mr Thomas.

"He hasn't been above the law," he said. "He has pleaded guilty and the court has sentenced him.

"I don't think there is any question of him being forced to step down from his job.

"He has taken his punishment and he is suffering because of his position already. Members of the public do not lose their jobs if they are caught speeding.

Sentence

"He has accepted that he does have a particular responsibility because of his position and he has apologised for that.

"He had no other convictions whatsoever and I think the sentence reflects that."

Mr Thomas appeared before North Staffordshire magistrates yesterday. He received six penalty points and was fined '450.

The former Metropolitan Police officer, who came to Manchester more than two years ago, said he regretted his "error of judgment" but told magistrates he thought his driving was safe.

He said: "On the day in question, the driving and road conditions were good, and I was part of a group of around 15 cars all doing around the same speed.

"I considered that my manner of driving was safe. However, exceeding the speed limit by this amount is unacceptable and I sincerely regret my error of judgment.

Accidents

"Excessive speed is a contributory factor in many road traffic incidents and it's everyone's duty to drive safely and at a reasonable speed at all times.

"I remain committed to reducing the number of serious road traffic accidents in Greater Manchester."

The father-of-six, who has been a police officer for almost 28 years, was caught on the jam-free stretch of motorway several months ago.

The case has angered anti-speeding campaigners and a spokesman for Brake said: "Driving at excessive speeds like this greatly increases the chance of a car crash. Someone in Mr Thomas' position, who has seen at first hand the consequences of speeding, should know better."

Lawyer Nick Freeman, of Nick Freeman and Co, said: "He's very lucky not to have been disqualified.

"Guidelines state anyone doing over 100mph should be disqualified for a period unless there are exceptional circumstances.

"That might include if you were a company sales rep and needed your car for work but I can't see that would be the case here. He is probably mostly office-based.

"I think the public will be angry that such a high-ranking police officer, whose force is very high profile in the use of speed cameras, has been caught doing such a high speed and not disqualified."

Should Mr Thomas have been sacked?

| Submit Comments | Comments (26) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

Mr SOSCS, Manchester (30/04/2004 at 12:26)

He should have been given a hefty fine and banned for at least a year, they say that the public don't loose their jobs for speeding but if they are caught at that speed then they are banned and as a result may loose their job. The only reason for not banning him is to save the mancheste r police paying thousands to chauffer the bloke around as a result of his arrogant disregard for the laws he enforces.

Jane Browne, Irlam Manchester (30/04/2004 at 12:31)

I got caught doing 33 mph in a 30 mph limit. I was going to be fined 75.00 and given 3 points on my licence. I did not want points (got a clean licence) so I was able to opt to go on a speed awareness course - I had to pay B#85.00 to do this and have a full day off work without pay. My salary is a mere drop in the ocean no doubt to the salary Mr Thomas has!!! one rule for them one rule for us springs to mind!!!

Katie - Manchester, Gorton (30/04/2004 at 12:43)

If that would have been anyone else they would have had an intant ban and fines and if they were travelling in a work car whilst doing work duties then they would have been sacked aswel, the police get away with anything!

Jan, Manchester (30/04/2004 at 13:27)

One rule for one........

Trex, Droylsden (30/04/2004 at 15:29)

I thought going over 100 mph was an automatic 12 month ban.

Now I know different I'll risk 6 points and B#450 fine.

The legal system in this country is an absolute joke.

tony royle, gorton (30/04/2004 at 15:37)

yes he should be sacked,after all he is the police traffic chief and should set a good example.
he should not be above the law.

Steve Eastwood, Lowton, Warrington (30/04/2004 at 16:01)

I feel again it's one law for one and another for everybody else.
If Mr Steve Thomas was just a member of the public he would have faced a fine and also a road ban.
The Magistrates are also sending out wrong signals to everyone by having these double standards

Richard Everard, Withington (30/04/2004 at 16:19)

Given the Assistant Chief Constable's mitigation that he was" one of 15 other cars doing over 100 mph". I wonder if any of the other drivers were pulled over & prosecuted ? If they were, it would be interesting to know their punishment & if their mitigation was that they were only keeping up with Manchester's Assistant Chief Constable. The man's a disgrace to the uniform he hides behind & should be sacked immediately. Also if the car he was driving comes with his salary, it should be taken off him before he is tempted to play "boy racer" again at 104 mph, endangering innocent road users & their families.

Mike, Audenshaw (30/04/2004 at 19:51)

"He had no other convictions whatsoever and I think the sentence reflects that."

what sort of a statement is that? I've got no convictions either but if I was speed at 104mph down the motorway I'm sure my sentence would reflect an entirely different outcome....one word for it; JOKE!

Peter Rafferty, Yarm (30/04/2004 at 21:03)

As a driver who has been banned for speeding twice, once for seven days for doing 100mph and once for 14 days for doing 108mph, while doing a job involving driving 1000 miles per week, I am not surprised at all the a Police officer geta away with it. They usually do. Especially if they are traffic police.

John, Stockport (01/05/2004 at 00:35)

The following has also been emailed to Greater Manchester Police:

All previous responses show no support for this individual, however whilst not condoning the situation I feel I must state that having also travelled on the M6 Toll, albeit only once, and that was earlier this month, it is very easy to speed. This is not a very heavily used stretch of motorway with good visability. I noted I was travelling at 95 mph and did not pass many vehicles over the 18 miles or so of the Toll road. I felt in control as visability was good and I was driving safely due to the light volume of traffic at 1500 hours on a Friday afternoon. I to was committing an offence, fortunately I did not get 'clocked', however if I did I would not be sacked by my employer. Why should this individual? Yes he should know better, but lets be fair we have all got away with something that others would not approve of. Lets hope he learns his lesson and leads by example in the future. After all we the motorists always feel persecuted - and although a police officer in his working capacity at the end of the day he is just another motorist when driving off duty. Everybody deserves a second chance - dont do it again, I will not be so sympathetic next time! Now lets look at the positive side of this case: the police have shown they are prepared to deal with thier own when they have committed an offence. After all this could have been swept under the carpet and we would have been none the wiser. My suggestion to this officer: you have got off lightly - therefore make a donation to a local charity say the Kirsty Appeal for Frances House Childrens Hospice by way of an apology to the public, and I am sure the Hospice would be far more appreciative of the donation than the courts would have been had they imposed a larger fine. How about it?

Matt, Melbourne Australia (01/05/2004 at 01:23)

For this poor bloke to be sacked you'd have to prove what he was doing was so dangerous that an accident or loss of life is all but inevitable. If this was the case, then someone would have died or been seriously injured.

As it stands, this bloke and a bunch of others have PROVED all the speed enforcement advocates are wrong by performing this task in absolute safety. If it was unsafe, basic survival instincts would dictate a decrease in speed.

Speed doesn't kill - if it did we'd all be dead.

Tim, Stockport (02/05/2004 at 15:29)

Nick Freeman is spot on and obviously he would be because he is one of the best traffic solicitors around. People do lose their jobs from speeding because it is normal to be banned when doing over 100mph so therefore it would be impossible to do any job that involved driving. The officer will surely be embarrassed but I am sure it will all blow over very soon and I am sure his officers will be out and about catching people doing just 5mph over the limit. Ah well at least it was only speeding and not hit and run like the previous officer that made the news and has also kept his job.

Mary, Manchester (03/05/2004 at 19:00)

Matt, your twisted logic implies that if a pedestrian or a cyclist (or another motorist for that matter)were hit by a vehicle travelling at 100mph, the injuries sustained would be much the same as they would be if they were hit by a vehicle travelling at 20mph. What totally irrational drivel. And you assert that: "If it was unsafe (to travel at speed), basic survival instincts would dictate a decrease in speed". But that is precisely the problem - ie the majority of motorists DON'T realise that they ARE endangering their own and other peoples lives when they drive at unsafe speeds, and that is why hundreds are killed and crippled with every week that passes. And that's just in the UK alone.

Rebecca, Sale (04/05/2004 at 18:19)

Either you've been brainwashed by groups like the pompous-sounding Association of British Drivers Matt or you are living in topsey-turvey land. Either way, you are spouting dangerous and irresposible garbage. Anyone with half a brain can fathom that the faster the speed the more likely the injuries are to be fatal or serious in the event of a collision, and the faster the speed the more likely it is that a collision will occur in the first place. And conversely, the slower the speed the less likely it is that a collision will occur, and in the event that it does, any injuries sustained are much more likely to be minor, or not occur at all. And John, many who have died or been permanently crippled felt, like yourself, "in control". It is a lottery, and one in fifty people will be either killed or crippled in road crashes, and the faster you drive the higher the chances.

Rebecca, Sale (05/05/2004 at 17:06)

I would just like to amend something I said in my previous posting: The faster you drive the higher the chances of killing yourself and/or killing one or more other, and in their case, "innocent" people. And likewise for permanently crippling yourself or others, or a combination of both (one or more killed and one or more crippled, that is). Such "permutations" happen all the time, every day of every week of every year. And this says nothing about the devastation and untold suffering caused to family members and friends of the victims, or those to blame, for that matter.

John, Stockport (06/05/2004 at 17:40)

Rebecca, you are correct accidents involving speed are more likely to result in casualties, however it is UNAPPROPRIATE use of speed that actually creates the problem. You totally missed my point there was very little traffic in the situation I refered to, whether and visability were good, as mentioned, however on the M60 on the same day and time the speed I did would be totally inappropriate. Grand Prix races often reach 200 mph, with very few casualtites, why? because the conditions are condusive to the speed being acheived. And lets face it, if you are honest, you probably speed everytime you drive your vehicle, (35 - 40mph in 30mph zone) Why? because YOU feel you are driving safely at the speed you are doing.

Rebecca, Sale (07/05/2004 at 16:20)

Are you advocating that speed limits be raised to 200mph then John? Grand Prix drivers are, by definition, the best drivers in the world, so your argument is completely spurious. By the way, I don't drive. I'm a cyclist. And even if I did, I would drive well within the speed limits which, I believe, are too high. And what on earth is "inappropriate speed" supposed to mean?

John, Stockport (07/05/2004 at 18:21)

Sorry Rebecca you totally missed the point! Never mind, the questions you have raised indicate your lack of knowledge on the subject matter - just goes to show NOBODY is perfect. By the way was that not you I saw cycling on the PAVEMENT - probably not!

Rebecca, Sale (10/05/2004 at 15:41)

Just exactly what is the point that I missed John? What IS the point you are trying to make? Are you suggesting that motorists are driving safely as long as they drive at a speed that they have decided is appropriate? Resorting to personal abuse does'nt do anything for your case. The vast majority of people who would like to cycle - for pleasure or commuting etc - say that the reason they don't is because of their fear of death or serious injury from fast-moving traffic. And just what ARE these questions you say I have raised that indicate my lack of knowledge on the subject?

Mark, Fallowfield (10/05/2004 at 19:19)

Once again we see people that are above the law, it seems that paople who work for the police, or manchester united can speed and endanger other peoples lives and get away with it.
You would think that people who work for the Police who are supposed to uphold the laws thay are there to enforce would at least know better and be seen to be keeping within the law. The speed limit on motorways is set for a reason, it isnt to slow drivers to annoy them.
He should have lost his licence, job and at least 3 months of his freedom because his driving at that speed could have caused other people to have lost a lot more than that.

Marcus, Fallowfield (13/05/2004 at 23:37)

Rebecca are you a 'trot' by any chance. It is a wide empty open piece of road, I have driven down that road at speeds of about 90mph and have been over-taken left, right and centre. Surely on that piece of road you are more of a danger if you choose to drive at 70. It is safer to have a whole road of people doing 100 than a mix of various different speeds as it is that which causes the accidents.

Rebecca, Sale (14/05/2004 at 15:45)

Yes Marcus, I agree with you that it's far safer to have people driving at a similar speed rather than different speeds, but where we part company is on the level of that speed. On motorways I would advocate a limit of 55mph, and I would advocate severe penalties for anyone exceeding that limit, or driving in a manner that endangers other drivers (and their passengers, if they have any). And if "trots" are people that care about others and despair at the carnage and the suffering and devastation that it brings, then I'm a trot. What are you? Daft as a doughnut, by the sounds of it!

John, Stockport (17/05/2004 at 19:27)

Marcus, Rebecca does not drive, as stated in a previous comment, but is quite happy to dictate speed limits for the rest of us!
She is a 'greeny', who uses a bicycle so as not to pollute the environment. You have probably seen her, after all they are all the same, cycle on the pavements, do not use lights in the dark, go through traffic lights on red, go the wrong way along one way systems - you know the type! Oh and bum a lift when they need to go further a field or the weather is not to good! Lets await her response, to which I do not intend replying to as you will have noticed she cannot grasp the points being made. Of she trots!
All the best to you all.

Rebecca, Sale (19/05/2004 at 19:26)

Ignoring your crass remarks John, you asserted in your post of May 6th (albeit a double assuption on your part in relation to me) that motorists drive at 35-40mph in a 30mph zone (ie residential and other built-up areas) because they feel they "are driving safely at the speed" they are doing. No doubt they do John, but that is precisely why your rationale is at fault. And that is precisely why thousands continue to be killed and crippled and otherwise seriously injured each year on roads with a 30mph limit - ie residential streets and town shopping centres etc. You implicitly implied that motorists who drive at such speeds in 30mph zones are driving "appropriately", but I suggest you think again! Oh yes, and best wishes Marcus! (what a jerk you are John!).

()

Report

News