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.'"

48 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 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

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

  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 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.

    4. 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
  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 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!
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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."
    6. Re:Sirens? by Imrik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference is the Germans actually obey that law.

    7. 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.'"
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

  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.

  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 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.

  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.
  7. 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).

  8. 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.

  9. 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 bickerdyke · · Score: 5, Funny

      And all of them driving in the wrong lane!

      --
      bickerdyke
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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!
  13. 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?

  14. 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 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

    2. 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.