Slashdot Mirror


British Spies To Be Allowed To Break Speed Limit

An anonymous reader writes "The Telegraph reports, 'Britain's spies are to be given a "licence to speed" for the first time, under changes to motoring laws. While James Bond would no doubt have scorned such niceties, officers in MI5 and MI6 are currently required to obey the rules of the road, even when national security is under threat. Now Robert Goodwill, the transport minister, intends to add the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service to the group of agencies with permission to break the speed limit.'"

165 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. Now we're in trouble... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... because we can be certain that intelligence agencies previously never broke the law.

    1. Re:Now we're in trouble... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, now they're licensed to kill, though with a motor vehicle rather than a Walther or Beretta..

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    2. Re:Now we're in trouble... by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As long as they have emergency lights on the vehicle it should be OK.

      Speeding without indication to other drivers would be to cause unnecessary danger, and it will of course cause someone to cut them off just because as well as some cops stopping them instead.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:Now we're in trouble... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2

      Thanks Bruce, I'll do that. Do you have Germany's address handy?

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    4. Re:Now we're in trouble... by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Thanks Bruce, I'll do that. Do you have Germany's address handy?

      It would seem an anonymous Bogan is trolling you...

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    5. Re:Now we're in trouble... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thanks Bruce, I'll do that. Do you have Germany's address handy?

      I dunno where it is, but I found its email address for you: germany@deutschland.de

        —Bruce

    6. Re:Now we're in trouble... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I guess you'd better tell the Germans they have got it wrong with the speed-unlimited
      sections of the Autobahnen

      That's nice dear. The difference is that autobahn is built for those speeds.

    7. Re:Now we're in trouble... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thanks Bruce, I'll do that. Do you have Germany's address handy?

      Yes its somewhere in Western Europe. One thing though - make sure you don't mention the war.

    8. Re:Now we're in trouble... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      It's not that different. you know. It's not like they have some magical coating that other countries don't have. The only difference is that they trust their drivers to be responsible and, guess what, it works!

      I've driven 200 km/h on unlimited sections that in no way looked or felt different from Belgian roads limited to 120.

    9. Re:Now we're in trouble... by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1, Funny

      I don't think it's a trust thing, I believe it's to do with cost and danger self regulation. A car crash at 250 km/h doesn't need an ambulance, only a cleaning service and a token policeman to take a few photos. Also, it's like a sped up evolution: Idiots disappear rather quickly and permanently.

      I for one, only pushed my car to its max once, got that urge out of my system and rarely exceeded 150 km/h after that.

    10. Re: Now we're in trouble... by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      What was the normal motorway speed at that time? While they may technically of had no speed limit, I wonder what the actual top speed was?

      Well an AC cobra doing 186 mph is said to have been one of the causes for the introduction of speed limits.

    11. Re:Now we're in trouble... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      well that and in Germany they enforce certain road regulations. like you must be in the right lane unless you are passing somebody.

      That is a rule in most US states too. but it isn't enforced.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    12. Re:Now we're in trouble... by isorox · · Score: 1

      As long as they have emergency lights on the vehicle it should be OK.

      Speeding without indication to other drivers would be to cause unnecessary danger, and it will of course cause someone to cut them off just because as well as some cops stopping them instead.

      As long as they have emergency lights on the vehicle it should be OK.

      Speeding without indication to other drivers would be to cause unnecessary danger, and it will of course cause someone to cut them off just because as well as some cops stopping them instead.

      Unmarked police cars often speed without lights on. At least they used to 15 years ago when there was a police presence on the motorway.

      The ones that cause danger are the cars doing 40mph on the motorways you have a stream of traffic trying to merge doing 60, they encounter an idiot going dangerously slow in the inside lane, and a wall of lorries overtaking said idiot at 56mph.

      Ui motorwys need a minimum speed, with the death penalty for those going slower.

    13. Re:Now we're in trouble... by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      doesn't mean they like the cops and fire service have a blank ticket to speed if you do it recklessly you can still get done for careless driving according to a fire service guy i talked to a few years go.

    14. Re:Now we're in trouble... by jalopezp · · Score: 1

      There are actually more reasons than are included in the summary. From TFA:

      Vehicles used to carry organs for transplant, bomb disposal units, mountain rescue teams and those engaged in “surveillance and covert operations” are among the groups likely to be given the freedom to speed.

      But I guess 'Organ Carriers to be given Permission to Speed' is much less of a headline. I do like the idea of speeding with a reason, but I don't know how viable that would be. How do you make sure every report is filed?

    15. Re:Now we're in trouble... by horza · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It depends how you crash. You can crash at 250kph and be fine as long as you don't hit any solid objects head on too early, ie pretty much only on the motorway, but yes your odds are not great. I've driven 250kph down the autobahn and it's quite comfortable if you have the right car. It's not at all dangerous in Germany as the drivers are so courteous. In residential areas, however, you never know when some idiot is going to step out between parked cars without looking.

      Speed limits are now so low that few people heed them any more. It's just a money-making machine, you just accept the fact and pay the additional road "tax". You could remove speed limits and things wouldn't really get any worse (driving fast is not the same as driving dangerously), much as removing the 11pm licensing law didn't plunge Britain into booze-ridden chaos. It doesn't make economic sense to do so though as commuters and school mums are high-income hostages you can bleed regularly to fill the coffers.

      Phillip.

    16. Re:Now we're in trouble... by rioki · · Score: 1

      The first email to Germany was sent to rotert@germany. You can try that, maybe it is still valid. But that will probably land in some CS department of the Karlsruhe University.

    17. Re:Now we're in trouble... by rioki · · Score: 1

      What war? Germany is a peace loving nation.

    18. Re:Now we're in trouble... by rioki · · Score: 2

      The trouble on the German Autobahn is not the speed, but the inhomogeneous traffic flow that results from the unlimited speed. For example on a three lane road the two left lanes the average driver goes around 150 km/h. A good number of drivers go around 130 km/h and there will always be a few that go or rather try to go a 180 km/h or above. The trouble comes when the car going something like 160 km/h is trying to pass the one going 130 km/h and a BMW comes along at 190 km/h. At low traffic density this can work quite easily, but once the traffic starts to moderately thicken, there is not much space for each driver to maneuver in a relaxed way. The result are you tend to severely slow down (150 -> 130) or speed up (150 -> 180) to make a safe maneuver. The entire thing can occasionally get quite stressful. Especially since there will always be a BMW and an Audi driver trying to go 200 in rush hour and severely failing; aggressively accelerating for 3 min to just have to slow down since the other drivers simply can not move out of the way, even if they want to.

      I think that the German government makes up for the "losses" with petroleum taxes.

    19. Re:Now we're in trouble... by tomtomtom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Serving members of the security services carry a warrant card. If they are speeding the police may well pull them over. Displaying the warrant card and explaining they are on a live op *may* get them let off, but there is no requirement for the police to treat them any differently to the general public. This changes that, and about time.

      Posting AC for obvious reasons.

      Utter BS. It's just people who enjoy being "above the law" wanting to be *more* above the law and feel important. Noone should be above the law. They are not an emergency service and they are not police. The only justification for speeding should be to get *to* an emergency situation as a first responder, ie paramedic or fire crew.

    20. Re: Now we're in trouble... by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      The main reason for speed limits was to reduce demand for petrol during the oil crisis.

    21. Re:Now we're in trouble... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That would be a lot easier to read if you used a few punctuation marks.

      It doesn't mean they, like the cops and fire service, have a blank ticket to speed. If you do it recklessly you can still get done for careless driving, according to a fire service guy I talked to a few years go.

      Now doesn't that look a hell of a lot less mentally handicapped, kid? It's certainly a hell of a lot easier to read. Honestly, if you can't be arsed to use capitalization or punctuation you shouldn't even post at all. I should not have to "figure it out" like a first grader just learning to read.

  2. contradiction? by bob_jenkins · · Score: 4, Funny

    If the Secret Intelligence Service tries to get away with speeding, they have to reveal who they are, then they aren't secret anymore. In fact anyone speeding might be revealing they're in the Secret Intelligence Service.

    1. Re:contradiction? by c0lo · · Score: 4, Funny

      If the Secret Intelligence Service tries to get away with speeding, they have to reveal who they are, then they aren't secret anymore. In fact anyone speeding might be revealing they're in the Secret Intelligence Service.

      Doh... spies nowadays.
      I was told the KGB spies, under no matter the circumstances, were trained and able to break the speed limits in secret.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:contradiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What do you expect from a government that is so behind the times that they think this is a relevant problem in today's society?

      At this rate, by 2054, they'll be legally able to make calls from their cell phones in moments of national emergency even if they are out of daytime minutes.

    3. Re:contradiction? by aviators99 · · Score: 1

      Doh... spies nowadays.
      I was told the KGB spies, under no matter the circumstances, were trained and able to break the speed limits in secret.

      In Soviet Russia, speed limit must break you!

    4. Re:contradiction? by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      If the Secret Intelligence Service tries to get away with speeding, they have to reveal who they are, then they aren't secret anymore. In fact anyone speeding might be revealing they're in the Secret Intelligence Service.

      don't worry this is a matter of national security .......Yes officer i could show you my license but then I'd have to kill you.

    5. Re:contradiction? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know you are joking, but here is a picture of a special Soviet driving license with the right to break the traffic code. Oh, and the car must not be searched.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    6. Re:contradiction? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      If the Secret Intelligence Service tries to get away with speeding, they have to reveal who they are, then they aren't secret anymore. In fact anyone speeding might be revealing they're in the Secret Intelligence Service.

      You missed the "intelligence" bit. Breaking speed limits is now _legal_ for them instead of illegal. If they are caught, they still get a speeding ticket and it gets paid, by the Secret Service if it was done on duty and by the agent if he had no excuse, so nobody knows that they are Secret Service. This isn't about not paying fines, it is about legality. Whether an agent is allowed legally to keep up with a speeding criminal or not.

    7. Re:contradiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I used to work there. One of the huge problems was when the London Congestion Charge zone was introduced, Ken Livingston (who was not a fan of the services) placed the zone edge 20ft away from the big green gates at Vauxhall Cross with the implication that the staff cars would have to be added to the LCC lists! this caused a lot of excitement because the pool cars (which were all completely fucked diesel estate cars in darkish but not memorable colours) were registered to some unknown cover company. If stopped, in most cases one wasn't allowed to declare or say "do you know who I work for?" otherwise it would be classified as a breach and put on the permanent staff record.

      In the end they moved the car pool a few streets away.

      I had a normal-looking-but-modified personal car and frequently drove it at high speed up and down the M3 and M4 between the offices and never had a DO-NOT-STOP notice (although one could request it). They preferred people to be a bit more quiet and non-noticeable and flagrant breaches would land you in uncomfortable discussions with Personnel. I never heard of anyone being stopped but the introduction of automated speed cameras probably has cost them dearly.

      I did get a bit pissed off when some arsehole landed a helicopter at one of the sites and it covered the front of my car with stone chips. You had to leave the keys in the car and always point the car outwards so that some muppet could move the cars around if a guest was arriving by heli, but if it was a chinook or a big sikorsky then the cars would be sand blasted.

      anon coward because... well. speak to mr snowden.

    8. Re: contradiction? by loufoque · · Score: 1

      What are those daytimes minutes you speak of? Is your country so behind the times that the amount of minutes you can speak with your cellphone isn't unlimited?

    9. Re:contradiction? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      What happens to the points on your licence? Get caught speeding 4 times, and you usually get banned from driving.

    10. Re:contradiction? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Bond? Mr. James Bond?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:contradiction? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      The MI6 building is outside the congestion charge zone, and always has been. The zone ends on the other side of the bridge in Westminster. All of the roads leading to it on the south side of the bridge are outside the congestion charge zone, and two of the three roads leading to Vauxhall bridge on the north side are outside the zone, so it is very easy to reach the building without entering the zone.

      Of course if they want to go spying within the congestion charge zone, they will have to pay the charge, but that is the same regardless of where their offices are located.

    12. Re:contradiction? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      What happens to the points on your licence? Get caught speeding 4 times, and you usually get banned from driving.

      If you are so secret that traffic police isn't supposed to know that you are secret, then they might be able to get you a second driving license. On the other hand, if you work undercover and the gang that you try to infiltrate knows you have been caught speeding four times, they might be wondering what's going on if you keep your license.

  3. Sirens? by BringsApples · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It compares the current list of public services that are allowed to speed (fire, police and ambulance) to the new list (Vehicles used to carry organs for transplant, bomb disposal units, mountain rescue teams and those engaged in “surveillance and covert operations”). But nowhere does it mention that they'll have a siren. If someone is driving really really fast where normally people aren't driving really really fast, and hits someone, killing one or more, I wonder how it'll play out on court.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    1. Re:Sirens? by Andy+Prough · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Your honor, the deceased motorist was clearly a terrorist."
      Judge - "Well, alright then. Dismissed! Anyone for a spot of tea?"

    2. Re:Sirens? by Megahard · · Score: 1

      So all you need is to carry one of these in your car

      http://www.amazon.com/Fred-Emergency-Meal-Transport/dp/B007M2OHEY/

      --
      I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
    3. Re:Sirens? by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Judge: Do you have any evidence for this allegation?
      Spy: Yes! We have lots of evidence, but you aren't cleared to see any of it. But trust us, we are absolutely certain the woman and her two children were actually a cell leader and two suicide bombers, and were about to attack the school they've been going to for 3 years.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re: Sirens? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      It's the Queen's realm, and the rest of the British just live there?

    5. Re:Sirens? by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everybody should be able to drive at whatever speed they are comfortable with...

      You're piloting a vehicle weighing a ton or more that's capable of causing destruction and potentially ending lives in a fraction of a second. You really have to take driving much more seriously than that.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    6. Re:Sirens? by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

      They don't need sirens, only lights. Police under certain circumstances also travel silent when approaching a situation, and use lights and caution to navigate through traffic.

    7. Re:Sirens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Germans have rules even on the \\\ sections. You may not undertake (pass on the right). It's not just a custom. It's a rule and it's my understanding you can actually get a ticket for that. It's also against the law to run out of gas on the Autobahn. I'm sure there are a lot of other rules on the Autobahn that you're ignoring just to beat your Libertarian drum. Face it. The German freeways don't work without rules, and people that actually follow them. When you see videos of people running at speed there, it's a thing of beauty. People actually get out of the way when you flash your headlights at them in the left lane. In the States, you've got all kinds of wankers driving 4-abreast and not passing, with 1/4 mile of clear road in front of them. You have to tailgate and honk to break of those stupid formations sometimes. Idiots.

    8. Re:Sirens? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Permission without responsibility.

      As much as I encourage erring on the cautious side as opposed to assumptions, no good has ever come from permission without responsibility.

      Some, of course, but overall we are still negative on balance. A siren would be the minimal responsibility, since others already have that requirement

      The survey was intentionally vague, that is a sure warning sign. Be wary.

      Sources said that 93 per cent of people who responded to the proposal backed the idea of extending speed limit exemptions to those involved in âoethe protection of life and limb or national securityâ.

    9. Re:Sirens? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      It compares the current list of public services that are allowed to speed (fire, police and ambulance) to the new list (Vehicles used to carry organs for transplant, bomb disposal units, mountain rescue teams and those engaged in “surveillance and covert operations”). But nowhere does it mention that they'll have a siren. If someone is driving really really fast where normally people aren't driving really really fast, and hits someone, killing one or more, I wonder how it'll play out on court.

      Barrister; Your Worship, you will note that my client is in possession of a licence to Kill and a license to speed. Clearly any evidence pertaining to matters of motivation for my client use of these licences is a matter of National Security. As you are aware you worship that under the law no offence has been commited and I would ask for a summary dismissal of all charges.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    10. Re: Sirens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dont sweat it, he's just a little buthurt his constitution is meaningless nowadays.

    11. Re:Sirens? by maharvey · · Score: 1

      Driving four abreast at the speed limit.

    12. Re:Sirens? by ACE209 · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...when you flash your headlights at them in the left lane.

      Which isn't allowed btw.
      But that's one of the rules which is often ignored.

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    13. Re:Sirens? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      No, not "Le Elite", the French are an exception. We were talking about Germans.

    14. Re:Sirens? by Imrik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference is the Germans actually obey that law.

    15. Re:Sirens? by shentino · · Score: 1

      How about this: You can drive as fast as you like, but you get the death penalty if you kill anyone.

    16. Re:Sirens? by pupsocket · · Score: 1

      Britain has significantly fewer fatalities per billion miles driven than Germany. This may partly result from the difficulty of finding a lane fast enough to kill. There was a point when New Jersey had the highest automobile insurance rates in the United States and the fewest deaths per billion car-miles, because everyone was stuck in bumper-car traffic.

    17. Re:Sirens? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Permission without responsibility.

      Where do you get that from? What is legal for them is driving at higher speed than the speed limit. What is still not legal is dangerous driving, causing damage to others, or injuring or killing other people. In case of an accident, they will be just as much at fault as before, except they won't get a speeding ticket.

      Just like an ambulance car is allowed to drive past a red traffic light: They don't have the right of way, and they are required to do this with all the necessary care to avoid accidents.

    18. Re:Sirens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yet Germany has a lower number of fatalities per billion kilometres than almost every country that does have speed limits everywhere. Britain is quite an exception that is likely due to local things other than the speed limit.

    19. Re:Sirens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have probably never driven on a German Autobahn. The biggest arseholes are those overtaking a lorry at 95 km/u without looking in the rear-view mirrors, often requiring an approaching motorist they did not see to break heavily in order to avoid a collision. These are typically the kind of people who complain about the 'dangers of a limitless Autobahn', while they fail to see it is their illegal an antisocial behaviour that is causing the danger.

    20. Re:Sirens? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      British motoring laws are shit. In civilized countries the temporary bright function is actually known as "flash to pass". In civilized states of civilized countries, it's illegal to clog the passing lane. My understanding is that the Bretons have no such law, though that's true of most countries, including the USA; only a few states have one, and I've never even heard of it being enforced, and regularly see cops pass people on the right instead of citing them. It must only be used for selective enforcement against youth and minorities.

      Hmm, all motoring laws are shit. Except for a few cold countries mostly full of white people. Even some of them get it spectacularly wrong.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Sirens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That only applied to undivided highways (in MA). On a highway with a physically divided median, it is legal to drive in all lanes between the minimum and maximum speed limit. It is ALSO legal to pass on the right, on a divided highway. The law you mention, and being illegal to pass on the right, apply to undivided highways (in MA).

      It's fairly common for people to sit in the center or left lane (three is more common than four here on the pike and interstates), even going 10 MPH slower than the maximum speed limit, necessitating the occasional pass on the right, especially when traffic as a whole flows faster in the right lane than the other two--and you can't do anything about it.

    22. Re: Sirens? by radio4fan · · Score: 2

      British citizens are citizens, not subjects. It says so right on the passport.

      In other British news, it's not foggy in London all the time, and no-one wears a bowler hat.

    23. Re:Sirens? by horza · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's legal to flash your headlights in Britain, except for purposes of 'intimidation' and 'alerting other motorists to police activity'. You also cannot clog the passing lane. Not only that you can get a fine for driving too slowly. Bretons are French people from the western region called "Brittany". Perhaps you mean the British? They are also one of the few countries where cars drive on the correct side of the road.

      Phillip.

    24. Re:Sirens? by jalopezp · · Score: 2

      Britain has significantly fewer fatalities per billion miles driven than Germany.

      This is only because Britain drives on the left. The one true side of the road.

    25. Re:Sirens? by coinreturn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the States, you've got all kinds of wankers driving 4-abreast and not passing, with 1/4 mile of clear road in front of them. You have to tailgate and honk to break of those stupid formations sometimes. Idiots.

      Even worse are the assholes who think you're not passing someone fast enough, tailgate you and honk, so they can rush up behind the guy in front of you and do the same thing, all the way to their destination.

    26. Re:Sirens? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Er, I meant Britons. Sorry. Brain fart.

      Oddly, the Germans created the car, I think they get to decide which side of the road cars drive on. And the Americans created their mass production, so we get to decide which side of the road most of them are driven on.

      I don't think there's a clear argument for which side of the road people should drive on, but if there is, it is that everything else is done on the right, probably because the right hand is primary in the majority of people. You need more dexterity for shifting than for steering, for example, so it makes more sense to sit on the left side of the car and shift with the right. If you're sitting there, you need to be sitting on the right side. And by the same token, since the left arm was the shield arm, that was the side on which you took your opponent when jousting. I've read around a bit on the subject of driving vs. walking, and in NZ they drive on the left and walk on the right. In England it's said they walk on the left, but there's a strict convention of standing on the right side of escalators coming out of the underground, which would better fit a walk-on-the-right model. It makes more sense to walk on the right since that's the arm you want to protect, and you'll do that with your left arm.

      Bottom line, if it matters, it makes slightly more sense to drive on the right side. The opposite of the way the brits do it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:Sirens? by rioki · · Score: 1

      Unless you count the 60 km/h limit on constructions zones, yes. In construction zones you have absolutely no compliance, they all drive at 80 km/h.

    28. Re:Sirens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unless you count the 60 km/h limit on constructions zones, yes. In construction zones you have absolutely no compliance, they all drive at 80 km/h.

      Construction zone speed limits are bullshit. Ostensibly the reason for the lower speed limit in a construction zone is for safety. Here in the states we used to have 55 mph speed limits and the speed limit in a construction zone was 45 mph. When the feds loosened the 55 mph speed limit some highways bumped up to 65 mph. But the construction zones went up to, to 55 mph. So all of a sudden it is safe to drive 55 mph in a construction zone? No, the real answer is that construction zone speed limits are bullshit and the workers deserve better.

    29. Re:Sirens? by rioki · · Score: 1

      For example congested motorways?

    30. Re:Sirens? by rioki · · Score: 1

      Speaking of Germany, in severe cases of excessive speed (not speeding since it was allowed) drivers are convicted of man slaughter. The rule goes you are allowed to drive as fast as the conditions allow. Since there was an accident with fatalities, chances are you exceeded the speed that the current conditions allowed. Although there is no death penalty in Germany, getting ten years in the slammer is nothing light.

    31. Re: Sirens? by rioki · · Score: 1

      no-one wears a bowler hat

      [citation needed]

    32. Re: Sirens? by radio4fan · · Score: 1

      no-one wears a bowler hat

      [citation needed]

      Ask, and you shall receive! ;-)

    33. Re:Sirens? by OrugTor · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. It varies by state. New Jersey has a "keep right except to pass" law, Arizona does not.

    34. Re:Sirens? by BringsApples · · Score: 1
      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    35. Re:Sirens? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed at how many people looked at my 'question' as if the spy would never be the one dead. Here, watch this. Both people are at fault there. Think about it from both angles. What if the spy died - would the man that pulled out be charged with killing an officer? If the guy and his kid died, could there be a clear indicator as to why the spy was speeding?

      And by the way, why the hell would spies need to drive so fast? In our world of high-tech communications, it seems wrong that an intelligence-gathering individual would need to actually be in such a hurry.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    36. Re:Sirens? by grunthos · · Score: 1

      That actually varies from one state to the next. In some states, the left lane is only allowed for passing. In others, the left lane may be driven in. In some states, cars may drive in the left lane, but large trucks may only use it to pass.

      In any case, I agree that people who hog the left lane and don't move over for faster traffic are indeed a safety hazard.

      --

      My son's 5th grade teacher actually assigned them "write a limerick about a planet". I'm not kidding.
    37. Re:Sirens? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      As someone who spent approximately half my driving life in the UK and the other half in the US (driving manuals), it makes not a blind bit of difference.

      In terms of sheer numbers, it's actually a lot closer than you might expect (an approximate 2:1 ratio) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic

    38. Re:Sirens? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Step one: You cut a hole in the Emergency Meal Transport

    39. Re:Sirens? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      You can't hang around when there's only 24 hours in a season.

    40. Re:Sirens? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Or by road distance covered, 90% right-hand! I'd say that's something of a landslide victory. Driving on the left side is bananas. And come to think of it, they drive on the right side in the places where bananas come from...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    41. Re:Sirens? by turgid · · Score: 1

      Bottom line, if it matters, it makes slightly more sense to drive on the right side. The opposite of the way the brits do it.

      I think you'll find that it is the British who are right on this point and it is Johnny Foreigner who is wrong.

    42. Re:Sirens? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      It would undoubtedly make sense to switch in many places. So don't expect it to happen soon.

      What's that joke again? Cars one week, trucks the next.

    43. Re:Sirens? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      You're wrong. The British Highway Code has a strict "keep left" rule (it is illegal to clog passing lanes) and the police recently announced that they were going to start enforcing this strictly because of the problem of useless idiots who drive in the middle lane of the motorway all the time.

      Flashing your headlights (or honking your horn) in the UK is supposed to be done to alert another driver who might not have seen you that you are there and is perfectly acceptable.

    44. Re: Sirens? by rioki · · Score: 1

      Ok if I see one single English man wearing a bowler hat, you are a liar! (also known as absolutes are never right)

  4. so now they can keep up with other traffic by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 5, Funny

    so now they can keep up with other traffic

    1. Re:so now they can keep up with other traffic by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You jest, but in Belgium we actually had a lawsuit a few weeks ago where police officers were accused of speeding through a red light while chasing gangsters after a robbery. They are legally allowed to go through red lights, but only after having stopped first to make sure it's safe to cross. The criminals, of course, tend to just keep going at the same speed.

      Fortunately for all of us, the judge applied some common sense and let them off the hook. Otherwise you could forget about police ever chasing a criminal again.

    2. Re:so now they can keep up with other traffic by tomtomtom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually I'd be quite happy if the police were banned from engaging in high-speed car chases. They just create more danger for everyone else on the road, encouraging those being chased to drive even more dangerously as well as the risk that the police cars themselves cause an accident. There are other ways of catching criminals which do not create such danger for the rest of us.

    3. Re:so now they can keep up with other traffic by ne0n · · Score: 1

      Fortunately for all of us, the judge applied some common sense and let them off the hook. Otherwise you could forget about police ever chasing a criminal again blindly through red lights, endangering legitimate motorists and bystanders through mindless but exhilarating disobedience of the law.

      FYFY. You're glad they drove dangerously and with no regard for public safety through a red light? You're part of the problem.

      --
      $ :(){ :|:& };:
  5. What about other people? by mark-t · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Sure, the spy may have a license to speed, but if he doesn't have to follow the speed limit, another driver on the same road is going to be correspondingly less able to anticipate how to react safely to another driver who may be cruising at over double the speed limit.

    What about construction zones? What about school zones?

    This kind of thing is so utterly likely to get completely innocent people killed that I expect to see it being discontinued within a week of implementation.

    1. Re:What about other people? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Sure, the spy may have a license to speed, but if he doesn't have to follow the speed limit, another driver on the same road is going to be correspondingly less able to anticipate how to react safely to another driver who may be cruising at over double the speed limit.

      And this is a good thing, citizen: the terrorists won't be able to anticipate it either.
      Don't you feel safer already?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:What about other people? by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Under the general concept of license to kill, it only immunizes a possessor from prosecution for manslaughter if such action was intentionally deemed as necessary for the agent to complete their mission. It does not offer the same level of protection from prosecution for killing someone who they did not have any prior intention of killing.

    3. Re:What about other people? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Well depends if it is with a siren or not.
      It works pretty well for emergency vehicles currently who do use sirens and lights.

      Kinda defeats the point of being an intelligence agent though.

    4. Re:What about other people? by gman003 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So in other words, it covers murder but not manslaughter?

    5. Re:What about other people? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      Sure, the spy may have a license to speed, but if he doesn't have to follow the speed limit, another driver on the same road is going to be correspondingly less able to anticipate how to react safely to another driver who may be cruising at over double the speed limit.

      What about construction zones? What about school zones?

      This kind of thing is so utterly likely to get completely innocent people killed that I expect to see it being discontinued within a week of implementation.

      Last I checked (in the US), most civilians don't follow the speed limit in construction or school zones. So I think this will play out just fine.

      In fact, I usually assume that anyone driving under the speed limit is either drunk or has warrants out on them.

    6. Re:What about other people? by Xest · · Score: 1

      In all honesty I don't think it'll make the slightest bit of difference.

      Really, the number of agents in the UK, and the number who are in a situation where they need to use their power to speed is so vanishingly small they'll be completely lost amongst the general public who speed.

      They're not common enough that the majority of the population will ever even see an MI5 or MI6 agent, let alone see one speeding.

    7. Re:What about other people? by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      I don't think you quite understand government mentality around espionage, 'national security', etc.

      Casualties are acceptable, if it gets the job done.

      And that mentality isn't necessarily wrong, given that you accept the premises they're working under.

      Imagine you know that if you don't make it to a place in the next 5 minutes that a man will gun down a room full of schoolchildren. In order to get there, you have to speed and in doing so greatly increase the risk of killing a single innocent pedestrian. Even if that happens, it is a better outcome than the children being gunned down.

      Now, that scenario is dramatically oversimplified. Decisions about national security concerns are however made on the same basis. The belief is that the loss of a small number of lives is worth it in order to prevent the loss of a greater number of lives or extreme suffering to a great number of people (one death is better than a million on the edge of starvation; even if no-one dies directly).

      I'm not saying I agree with them - I actually don't, because I don't believe that most things they refer to as 'national security' are in fact validly so - but the logic makes sense given that you accept the premises.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    8. Re:What about other people? by horza · · Score: 1

      What about construction zones? What about school zones? It's not the movie Speed where if the car goes below a certain speed it explodes. It's about well trained operatives driving as appropriate to the situation. The limits are so ridiculously low in the UK the population could drive 2x the speed limit without problem.

      If an MI5 agent is following a suspect, it seems a bit absurd that the suspect could get away because they were driving 35mph.

      Phillip.

    9. Re:What about other people? by Xest · · Score: 1

      I don't know about MI6 because it's kept under tighter wraps, but MI5 agents aren't that different to undercover police in the way they work and so forth.

      MI6 is external security, so their agents shouldn't really be operating in the UK anyway as they'd then be stepping into MI5's domain.

      So this will apply to agents more than any other as they're the ones in the field doing the undercover work that will have any kind of need for speeding, and those agents most definitely are employees of MI5. You can go to the MI5 website and have a look at the job posts themselves, or at least, you could a few years back, I'm assuming they're still there. Even the salaries were public, a rather pathetic £23k or so a year last time I looked.

    10. Re:What about other people? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      My point is that other vehicles with permission to speed or otherwise violate traffic regulations have sirens which alert other people of their presence or approach, and people will have additional time to accommodate the speeding vehicle.

  6. Moving surveillance by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had a house-mate once who was a (non-UK) law enforcement officer, and he talked about "moving surveillance" (i.e. trailing suspects in a car.) They'd typically have three cars in such an operation, so that they could take turns being close to the suspect without arousing suspicion.

    He said that according to the law, officers fully obeyed road laws during such an operation, but unofficially, it was impossible to do so. Once he got pulled over by a traffic cop, who, seeing his radio, maps etc. and badge, profusely apologized and sent him back on his way.

    I imagine that moving surveillance is what they are envisioning 'spies' using this power for, rather than using an Aston Martin to chase an assassin motorcyclist through a built-in-middle-ages town on market day.

    I do think it is better to recognize the reality of the situation, then you can put regulations and guidelines around what is and is not acceptable. You can't issue guidelines on how to handle a situation you pretend doesn't exist.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:Moving surveillance by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Since MI6 is supposed to be responsible for foreign intelligence and foreign operations, the justification for MI6 to be able to break speed limits seems rather poor.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Moving surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gosh you're clever, noticing that the GP clearly recognised that it also applies to MI5 yet completely ignoring the question he asked.

    3. Re:Moving surveillance by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 1

      ...using an Aston Martin to chase an assassin motorcyclist through a built-in-middle-ages town on market day.

      When will unlicenced use of a gyrocopter be permitted?

    4. Re:Moving surveillance by tomtomtom · · Score: 1

      Otherwise, chasing *alleged* "assassin" motorcyclist through town on market day is EXACTLY what this law will be used to get a free pass for.

      Remember Tony Blair's chauffeur driving him down the M4 bus lane? I can easily see this being abused for "politician or important official is late for a meeting" type situations too (in fact those will be the more visible cases).

    5. Re:Moving surveillance by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      As long as they steer clear of my carefully stacked pile of empty cardboard boxes, I'll be happy.

  7. Re:Predicting the Slashdot article 3 years from no by c0lo · · Score: 1

    "New study shows traffic accidents and speed related injuries have increased 50% since the law excusing government agents from the speed limit was enacted. GCHQ responded by saying the law is essential to thwart terrorist activities."

    Wrong. Statistics of traffic speed incidents will be classified to maintain the antiterrorist operational integrity.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  8. Not exactly... by MasseKid · · Score: 1

    Just because there isn't a current exemption from law for them, does not mean the law applies to them. When you are above the law, you do not need an exemption from laws that do not apply to you.

  9. Re:Stupid interlligence by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unlikely... they'd get stopped and pulled over just like anyone else. Under this law, however, I do not think they would be ticketed... after showing their credentials, presumably they would just be sent on their way. Failing to pull over and stop for a police car that is on your tail is also a crime... one that is entirely independent of speeding. If the officer did give them a speeding ticket, it would not have to be paid.(although the person would probably still have to make a report that they were given a ticket).

  10. Sweet by scott9693 · · Score: 2

    Yes, Officer I was speeding.
    Why was I speeding, well you see, I'm an agent of MI6.
    No I cannot give you credentials as I am currently on a covert op.
    Kindly let me go or I will have my superior contact your superior and have you demoted to foot patrol!

    1. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      If I tell you why I'm speeding, I'd have to kill you.

    2. Re:Sweet by mrbester · · Score: 1

      "An empty threat, sir. Why do you think I'm on traffic duty in the first place?"

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  11. Brits obey speed limits? by mendax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I last visited the UK drivers drove like maniacs on the motorway. Speed limits seemed to be universally ignored. 100 miles per hour seemed to be typical.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    1. Re:Brits obey speed limits? by 0123456 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When I last visited the UK drivers drove like maniacs on the motorway. Speed limits seemed to be universally ignored. 100 miles per hour seemed to be typical.

      And British motorways are among the safest roads on the planet, thereby demonstrating that speed limits have little to do with safety.

    2. Re:Brits obey speed limits? by bickerdyke · · Score: 5, Funny

      And all of them driving in the wrong lane!

      --
      bickerdyke
    3. Re:Brits obey speed limits? by stridebird · · Score: 1

      Speed limit is 70mph on motorways. I read somewhere, a few years ago mind, that the _average_ non-HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) speed was around 80mph. It's not a rule that is particularly vigorously enforced. Over 100mph may get more attention and generally results in loss of licence for a period if prosecuted.

    4. Re:Brits obey speed limits? by Xest · · Score: 3, Informative

      Few people genuinely obey the speed limit but 100mph is pushing it, I rarely ever see people go that speed on UK motorways and for good reason - you'll receive an instant ban from driving for doing so.

      Motorway speed limit is 70mph, speed cameras (fixed and in police vehicles) normally have a leeway of 10% + 2mph, so 79mph on a 70mph road before you get caught. If it's your first time getting caught you can in most places go on a speed awareness course and avoid points on your license if you were only speeding within an additional 5mph on top. Speedometers almost always overestimate by a few mph at that speed, so when people are going 80mph on their speedometers the chances are they're under the actual limit that speed cameras are calibrated to catch them at. Some will push it up to 85mph if they've never been caught before and risk a mere course if they did get caught on the off-chance (but frankly from what I've seen even at 85mph as long as the conditions are good and the road is clear the cops wont pull you anyway). A few people push it up to 90mph and chance it, and at that speed the cops will pull you, but 100mph is uncommon, you'll see it maybe what, once per hundred miles on a motorway if that? Most people just aren't willing to risk the chance of an instant ban from driving to go that fast.

    5. Re:Brits obey speed limits? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      And British motorways are among the safest roads on the planet, thereby demonstrating that speed limits have little to do with safety.

      It has more to do with the reality that on the M25, you are glad if you can go 50mph. You don't need speed limits if you have traffic jams.

    6. Re:Brits obey speed limits? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Speed limit is 70mph on motorways. I read somewhere, a few years ago mind, that the _average_ non-HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) speed was around 80mph. It's not a rule that is particularly vigorously enforced. Over 100mph may get more attention and generally results in loss of licence for a period if prosecuted.

      A few years ago, fuel was a lot cheaper. Lots of people are now going at lower speed than 10 years ago. There are also certain areas where driving 71mph _can_ and driving 80mph _will_ get you a speeding ticket, so if you are visiting the UK and don't know where these areas are, maybe you should slow down.

    7. Re:Brits obey speed limits? by anss123 · · Score: 1

      * Cars are loud, especially when going fast. People generally don't appreciate the sound of a freight train constantly driving through the middle of their living room.

      I think many folks don't realize this in particular. In my perfect dream state there would be noise limits along with speed limits.

    8. Re:Brits obey speed limits? by GauteL · · Score: 2

      "You don't need speed limits if you have traffic jams."

      Actually, you may need speed limits, not for safety but for reducing the traffic jam. Traffic jams are caused by sudden stops on the motorway and the fact that acceleration is not instant. This causes a shock wave propagating backwards throughout the motorway becoming much worse as it travels backwards.

      They've found that if they can manage to reduce the speed of traffic at peak hours everyone gets into London quicker. It's much better everyone travels at 40mph to begin with as this makes it unlikely you'll suddenly have to drop to 0mph, which will cause tailbacks behind you.

    9. Re:Brits obey speed limits? by bob_super · · Score: 1

      That's fine if they really all do it.

      The problem is when someone crosses the channel (either way), obeys the signs and pays attention, until they stop at the local bar/pub/restaurant, have a few, and get back in their car thinking they're used to be buzzed, without realized they still need to flip the world.

  12. I can see it now by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

    Some dumb shit in the MI5 who does nothing but read Iranian Porn all day gets to drive like a maniac all they way back to their stupid hole in Brentwood. Because he needs that level of Freedom to protect the Queen. Assholes.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:I can see it now by Xest · · Score: 1

      If they're just lumping them into the same category as police etc. then they wont be able to speed just because they want to get home faster. They still have to be able to provide justification.

      IIRC even ambulance drivers aren't actually even supposed to speed unnecessarily and possibly even without police permission so it may well be the same for the security services (which will also avoid the embarrassment of a cop pulling a spy over). This is why you often see ambulances only going 70mph even with their blue lights and siren flashing away.

      I agree I'm concerned about the scope for abuse, but a lot of cops and ambulance drivers have been prosecuted for abusing the privilege, I don't see why spies would be any different and I'm not sure they'd even want the attention.

  13. Backwards Logic... by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

    How many people die in traffic accidents compared to terrorist attacks?

    1. Re:Backwards Logic... by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Informative

      How many people die in traffic accidents compared to terrorist attacks?

      If I remember correctly, far more people have been killed by police cars driving at high speed than by terrorists. I was almost hit by one myself some years ago while walking along a country road.

    2. Re:Backwards Logic... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      ...and how do you know those traffic accidents weren't terrorist attacks?

      We are here for your protection citizen, now shuffle along...

  14. Re:Stupid interlligence by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unlikely... they'd get stopped and pulled over just like anyone else.

    Pulled over for speeding? In the UK? Since when?

    There were hardly any traffic cops remaining on the roads when I left the UK some years ago. Instead, they'll get a photo in the mail, and will presumably write back to say that actually they were a spy on important National Security business, and the police will just forget about it.

  15. Actually James Bond isn't allowed to speed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    GoldenEye (1995)
    Q: Now, this I'm particularly proud of - behind the headlights, stinger missiles!
    James Bond: Excellent, just the thing for unwinding after a rough day at the office.
    Q: Need I remind you, 007, that you have a license to kill, not to break the traffic laws.

    I think there was also some admonishment in View to a Kill after the Paris driving.

  16. So ... by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

    So is this why James Bond is never speeding in the movies?

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
  17. Re:Stupid interlligence by Fluffeh · · Score: 4

    Wouldn't it take longer to be pulled over, explain that you are in the secret service. Wait for the officer to stop laughing, then PROVE that you are in the secret service, then get back on the road?

    I mean if something is "National Security" type stuff - where apparently seconds matter, it's so important that you can put your countrymen in the line of danger by whizzing past them at dizzying speeds, surely an interuption of at least five minutes (at the utter least) is going to be much much worse than simply doing the speed limit in the first place....

    Oh, snap, I forgot I shouldn't have brought my logic and common sense into this conversation....

    *sips coffee*

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  18. Wait - what about torchwood and UNIT by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

    I was lied to by BBC america - Captain Jack and team definitly broke the speed limit many times!

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  19. Judge: Do you have any evidence for this allegati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Judge: Do you have any evidence for this allegation?

    1. Of course they are guilty. If they weren't, they wouldn't be suspects, would they?
    2. Why would you ask such a question? Are you one of them?

  20. Re: British Spies To Be Allowed To Speed. by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    So they don't get off for corporate espionage too?

  21. Re:On the Contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...And anyone pulled over for speeding should just say that they're an intelligence officer and exempt from the speeding laws but that they can't identify themselves due to national security.

  22. Re:Stupid interlligence by yamum · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it take longer to be pulled over, explain that you are in the secret service. Wait for the officer to stop laughing, then PROVE that you are in the secret service, then get back on the road?

    Solution: IdentiEeze

  23. Should be given a card... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    ...which would get you into the houses of parliament even if the name says G Fawkes and you have a barrel of gunpowder under your arm.

  24. They've already been doing it anyway by jregel · · Score: 1

    A couple of decades ago there was a special forces unit, 14 Intelligence Company, who did undercover operations, primarily in Northern Ireland. I've read a couple of books about it (this is a good one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Operators-Inside-Intelligence-Company/dp/0099728710) and they all mention how operatives were given training in advanced driving.

    In one instance, they were pulled over by police during training, but when they provided a code word they were allowed to continue.

    So I guess they've always been doing this, but now it's just been formalised.

    1. Re:They've already been doing it anyway by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      A couple of decades ago there was a special forces unit, 14 Intelligence Company, who did undercover operations, primarily in Northern Ireland. I've read a couple of books about it (this is a good one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Operators-Inside-Intelligence-Company/dp/0099728710) and they all mention how operatives were given training in advanced driving.

      In one instance, they were pulled over by police during training, but when they provided a code word they were allowed to continue.

      So I guess they've always been doing this, but now it's just been formalised.

      Special services officer: I can prove I'm secret services - I'll tell you the code word its "Guinness"
      Police constable Paddy: very good sir - be on your way
      Police constable Mick: wait a minute - how do we know that this is the secret word?
      Police constable Paddy: good point mick - hey wait fella, how do we know that's the secret wordPolice constable Paddy: Special services officer: its nice to see you guys are so smart. I'll tell you what Paddy. I'll tell Mick the secret word then you can check with him
      Police constable Paddy: ah, that's a fine idea.
      Special services officer whispers to Mick
      Special services officer: OK check with him Paddy
      Police constable Paddy: Mick; Would the secret word be "Guinness"?
      Police constable Mick: That it would Mick, that it would.
      Police constable Paddy to Special services officer: OK sir, everything's fine you can be on your way now.
      Special services officer: Thanks, it's always a pleasure to work with the boys in blue.

    2. Re:They've already been doing it anyway by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      You don't happen to know what that code word is, do you?

    3. Re:They've already been doing it anyway by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure they have always been doing this. Also that they have "no stop" plates, and high performance cars, cars that are armoured and probably have strange buttons you shouldn't' press unless you know exactly what they do... I suspect they don't bother with blue lights / sirens unless they particularly want to pretend to be police, in which case they probably can do that too.

      All allegedly, of course.

      Bigger question is why formalise it now ? Maybe Snowden has material to embarrass the UK govt by showing that MIx are (not) licensed to break traffic laws (but always did) - but is that the best he's got on the UK, surely not ?

  25. Spy Hunter by gijoel · · Score: 1

    They're not only allowed to speed, but they can now legally deploy oil slicks, and smoke exhausts against other motorists. But only if they're playing the theme to Peter Gunn really loudly.

  26. Re:Don't be silly !! by JustOK · · Score: 1

    more than that doggie in the window.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  27. Bill Murray & cigarette case by wakaranai · · Score: 1

    If you're Bill Murray, all you need is a cigarette case

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP-u6XWclKQ

  28. We're all saved by drginge · · Score: 1

    Before:
    Spook says: Oh no, I'd better not speed to disarm the nuclear weapon and save the world in case I get a ticket in the mail in 2 weeks time!!!. Oh no, IT'S TOO LATE!

    Now:
    Spook says: Fear not, I shall go 35mph in a 30 zone and SAVE THE WORLD!

    The fact is that the Police cannot speed whenever they please, they have to be on a recorded "emergency" incident, and unless the records support the need for the "blues and twos" then the driver will very much get a ticket. So how is this going to work with a spy? Are they going to write down the top secret terrorist incident they were speeding to in order to get away with a £30 ticket? I think not.

    Alternatively, if they are caught by one of the very very few remaining police with the power to pull over a vehicle (rather than simply being flashed by a robo-enforcement scamera) how are they going to answer the plod when he asks "Whats all this about then?" Are they going to say "sorry, you can't give me a ticket but I can't tell you why you can't give me a ticket?"

    Waste-of-time legislation....in fact I can't believe I wasted my time typing this.....

    1. Re:We're all saved by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Find me a court anywhere in the world that would uphold a speeding ticket against someone acting in an official State capacity to save hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives being extinguished.

  29. Same trauma, more drama by pupsocket · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is the crowd I grew up with, so I may be the unkowning carrier of disinformation, but here is my read:

    All drove very fast. They did get ticketed frequently stateside, but the personnel office had resources. Justifications were welded onto all damage.

    A small number drove mad fast because they couldn't pull out of some high-danger mentality even after the helicopter lift. They flouted the law like city kids who are "in the system", since they felt doomed anyway. You can see that kind of driving around the exits for military bases, where soldiers drive ninety to work because that is their permanent risk profile.

    But most were just trying to feel the thrill, to act like the real thing. They had race-car training and cop evasion training and could surprize you when they decided to treat some ordinary sight as a threat. But they suffered that ordinary human pathetic weakness for emergency powers and a starring role.

    Of course, the British are pioneering. Wait for the feedback effect, when someone challenges the phony backstory for a traffic death, and a file is opened on this new strain of domestic saboteur.

    1. Re: Same trauma, more drama by loufoque · · Score: 1

      90 km/h isn't that fast.

    2. Re: Same trauma, more drama by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      It is when the vehicle is a 42 ton lorry.

      Plus you've obviously ignored that this is happening in the UK, where we still use mph for speed.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    3. Re: Same trauma, more drama by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      There are bicycles that have gone more than twice as fast as 90 km/h.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re: Same trauma, more drama by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      There are bicycles that have gone more than twice as fast as 90 km/h.

      None that weren't downhill or drafting off of a motor vehicle of some sort. Except for absolute highest speed. That was done on a "rolling road", effectively a very large treadmill, and he was towed up to 100 mph before he even started pedaling. It's the fastest anyone has gone on a bicycle, but not completely under the riders power. 83 MPH (133.78Km/h) is the current fastest on level ground. Most cars can't even do 180 MPH

    5. Re: Same trauma, more drama by chihowa · · Score: 1

      The inability (or lazy unwillingness) to translate commonly used units into familiar units reflects most poorly on you.

      My biggest beef is saying "soldiers drive ninety to work" on an internationally populated website without specifying units at all!

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    6. Re: Same trauma, more drama by loufoque · · Score: 2

      The post I replied to said that secret agents were driving at 90, implying it was very fast and dangerous. He very probably meant 90 mph, but didn't specify it. I said that 90 km/h isn't that fast, to show that not using units can lead to confusion.
      I don't even understand why I need to explain this for you.

    7. Re: Same trauma, more drama by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Probably because in the post I was replying to you claimed, "my post was to criticize the use of archaic units on an international website".

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    8. Re: Same trauma, more drama by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Still 56 MPH, while is on the faster for a Semi-Truck, but still on American highways we have Semi-Tucks going 60-80mph this is like 128km/h

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re: Same trauma, more drama by dfsmith · · Score: 1

      As a physicist, I assumed "fast" was 0.90c, and the lack of a decimal point was a typo. (c=1. B-)

    10. Re: Same trauma, more drama by pupsocket · · Score: 1

      Sorry. I considered installing the dual-unit spedometer into the wording but thought it might seem punctilious and condescending.

  30. Re:New Jersey by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    New Jersey is one of the states where that is the law and, oddly enough, it is enforced pretty regularly.

    Finally we find a way in which NJ is superior to CA. Not enough to make me move, though :)

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  31. Re:Stupid interlligence by Grantbridge · · Score: 1

    If you are on a urgent mission, you wouldn't be pulled over by the police. You would dial 999 and talk to the police operator and tell them you are being followed by a police car, where you are, and that you are on urgent national security business. The police dispatcher would then confirm this with GCHQ/MI5/MI6 and contact the police car. You'd probably be then instructed to let the police car overtake you, and it would then go ahead of you with big flashing lights to help clear your path.

  32. Re:New Jersey by rioki · · Score: 1

    In Texas the law is on the books but nobody, including the police follows it. Trying to follow it is a safety hazard.

  33. Give bicycles to the MI6 by h00manist · · Score: 1

    The traffic doesn't care what speed your car or special privileges allow you to drive. You go the same speed as everyone else.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  34. Re:New Jersey by hubie · · Score: 1

    A cop in Maryland tried to enforce it and it made national news.

  35. But.. what about Dr. Evil? by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

    What about the rights of the lonely arch villan? What about him/her/it? Surely you don't expect us to follow the speed limits when MI-5 and the like are trailing us. Oh damn, there goes my cover again..

  36. Re:Stupid interlligence by bob_super · · Score: 1

    Lots of politically connected people are going to become spies.

    On the other hand, I am looking forward to a list of infractions, complete with names, addresses and this-is-a-spy reasons for dismissal, to be released soon on wikileaks.

  37. Hello Officer by danknight48 · · Score: 1

    "You cant arrest me, i am spy and work for MI6.
    Now, upload my picture on the net and lets tell the whole world."

    Cant wait to see how this will work.

  38. Blanket Response by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    But Terrorists...

    Terrorists don't have emergency lights...

    etc...

    1. Re:Blanket Response by DanielOom · · Score: 1

      But then terrorists have no license to break the speed limit or even to explode bombs, for that matter .

      MI5 and MI6 vehicles should be painted orange and marked SECRET in big letters. otherwise the other drivers won't recognise them as such and start speeding too.

  39. Re:Don't be silly !! by Rideak · · Score: 1

    I'll sell it to ya for $50.

  40. 0065? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

    Are they 0065?