Top speed

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldie:
Speeding, raceing, Dangerous Driving I'm really not sure that it matters, surly excessive speeds constitutes Dangerous Driving

---

Indeed it does, and what the speed limit was isn't a factor. I've seen just as many cases of excessive speed within the speed limit as without.

FWIW I don't regard my 152mph max as excessive as there were no other road users about, the road and weather conditions were perfect and the section of motorway I did it on doesn't have any junctions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldie:
everbody[who has passed the relevant test,is licenced and insured] has the right to use the public highways.

---

What? Even if they have tunnel vision or cataracts?

Steve,
If you can read a vehical number plate at 25 yds or what ever it is now ,tunnel vision, cateracts or even just one eyed thats all the law calls for.
152 on a PUBLIC HIGHWAY whatever the conditions is illegal which everway you put it.as I stated before, personaly I have nothing against high speed as long as it's carried out in the right place ie the race track/private road,and yes I have also seen idiots at 25mph and slower but when they make mistakes it's not usually catastrophic and they don't normally take 7 other people with them.
I realise that this is [A] emotional [b]irrelevant,[c] below the belt, but I wonder if you would argue so strongly in favour of excessive speed if it was your 2 and 4 yr old's killed by that
#@*x?%$ Idiot.
Sorry for any offence caused there is non intended but we ,along with thousands of other people had to put up with the aftermath of his so called "accident"
oldie

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldie:
Steve,
If you can read a vehical number plate at 25 yds or what ever it is now ,tunnel vision, cateracts or even just one eyed thats all the law calls for.
152 on a PUBLIC HIGHWAY whatever the conditions is illegal which everway you put it.

---

No it's not. I've done similar speeds on a public highway and it wasn't illegal.

Your post about what's "acceptable" for eyesight versus the illegality of speeding is typical of the sort of blinkers (or tunnel vision) a certain element of the population has.

It's dangerous driving that's dangerous. If someone is driving at a dangerous speed then that's dangerous driving - doesn't matter what the speed limit is or how much over or under it they're travelling.

If someone is driving with badly impaired vision then that's also exceptionally dangerous although apparently as far as you're concerned less of an issue than someone speeding on an empty, dry road...

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldie:
I realise that this is [A] emotional b. irrelevant,[c] below the belt, but I wonder if you would argue so strongly in favour of excessive speed

---

Your reading skills must be up there with your punctuation if you can find me arguing in favour of excessive speed.

So once more for the hard of thinking - excessive speed is by it's very definition dangerous and does not in any way relate to speed limits. I've seen many, many examples of excessive speed take place within the posted speed limits.

Steve,
So 152mph isn't excessive
oldie.

Quote:-

152 on a PUBLIC HIGHWAY whatever the conditions is illegal which everway you put it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No it's not. I've done similar speeds on a public highway and it wasn't illegal.
________________________________________________________________

Steve,

perhaps you would like to inform us as to when 152 on a public highway is "sensible" and "legal".

Regards


NB

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldie:
So 152mph isn't excessive

---

IMHO not under the circumstances under which I did it.

If it wasn't illegal what would your view be?

What about 100mph where it's not illegal?

What about 85mph where it's not illegal?

What about 70mph where it's not illegal but foggy?

Or what about 30mph past a school where it's not illegal but there are lots of kids wandering about?

Or what about driving at 40mph in a 60mph limit while affected by tunnel vision?

Or driving at 20mph in a 30mph limit with vision blurred by cataracts?

Which of those are "excessive"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by NB:
perhaps you would like to inform us as to when 152 on a public highway is "sensible" and "legal".

---

I'm not about to make a case for sensible (considering I'd probably have been jailed if caught - onlike the doddering old fool with the tunnel vision who killed a cyclist and didn't even bother to stop), however when I lived in Germany it wasn't illegal.

I was also in the IOM with my sports bike last year but I doubt I ever exceeded 140mph.

Quote:-

FWIW I don't regard my 152mph max as excessive as there were no other road users about, the road and weather conditions were perfect and the section of motorway I did it on doesn't have any junctions.
________________________________________________________________

I got caught doing 120 in my Capri under similar conditions and the courts considered the spead "highly excessive" and my actions "very dangerous"!

Regards


NB

quote:

---

Originally posted by NB:
I got caught doing 120 in my Capri under similar conditions and the courts considered the spead "highly excessive" and my actions "very dangerous"!

---

I've driven a Capri - they should have locked you up and thrown away the key...

Also remember that the magistrates are folks like Mick Parry!

quote:

---

Speeding, raceing, Dangerous Driving I'm really not sure that it matters, surly excessive speeds constitutes Dangerous Driving

---

Excessive speed constitutes excessive speed and it's wrong. Dangerous driving is indeed a bigger problem where there is excessive speed but as statistics show excessive speed to be a relatively minor factor in the overall figures, the focus should be predominately on dangerous driving and other factors. This thread isn't seeking to condone the speeds claimed and I don't think that anyone here is defending excessive speed, but what has to be looked at is sensibly regarded as excessive. Doing 50 or 60 on Rashers clear dual carriageway through a marsh doesn't sound excessive to me, but if someone has whacked a 40mph limit on it, is 50mph now excessive or might the limit be ludicrous or abritrary? Increasingly in this country, the latter is turning out to be the case.

quote:

---

If people wish to use excessive speeds use a race track

---

This proves the point. Excessive speed is as inappropriate, stupid and wrong on a race track or a private road as it is on a public road. We don't have a litany of deaths on race tracks because although people are driving at a high speed, they are competent, attentive and they are driving according to the conditions and their ability.

quote:

---

If you can read a vehical number plate at 25 yds or what ever it is now ,tunnel vision, cateracts or even just one eyed thats all the law calls for.

---

Surely this is the attitude that causes the problem. As long as you read a number plate 20 or 50 years ago, then it doesn't matter how dithery or blind you are now you're within the law and free to mow down whoever you wish. The speed cameras surely aren't going to get you. Yet a clear headed, attentive 30 year old with 20/20 doing 45mph through Rasher's marsh is going to get done and get bundled up with speeders, racers and dangerous drivers.

quote:

---

I have also seen idiots at 25mph and slower but when they make mistakes it's not usually catastrophic

---

If the mistakes that these idiots are making are not catastrophic and most accidents are due to factors other than speeding, who is killing all the people on our roads?

quote:

---

Sorry for any offence caused there is non intended but we ,along with thousands of other people had to put up with the aftermath of his so called "accident"

---

As I remarked earlier

quote:

---

If speed does turn out to be the sole cause of this accident, surely the inconvenience, misery or family grief, though massive, is no greater or worse than in the overwhelming majority of accidents which occur at, or well under the applicable speed limit and are due to amongst others, external events, road conditions, driver impairment, poor driving skills, poor judgement, inattention and deliberately reckless behaviour.

---

Quote:-

I've driven a Capri - they should have locked you up and thrown away the key...
_______________________________________________________________

Steve they almost did! (and perhaps shopuld have done!)

Quote:-

I've driven a Capri - they should have locked you up and thrown away the key...
_______________________________________________________________

Steve they almost did! (and perhaps should have done!)

Steve

I think the basic problem here is that none of us are arguing that speed is dangerous per se but it seems to be a little pointless saying that you can drive safely at 150mph. Maybe you can but in this country the courts disagree with you. But say that you were right and that there are a few people who can drive at those speeds in appropriate situations. Firstly how do they tell from one second to the next what is appropriate, road conditions can change very quickly especially with other traffic around, even on motorways? Secondly how do you stop those who can't drive safely at those speeds trying to emulate heros such as yourself? How do the courts and the police differentiate especially after an accident?

Tom

p.s. I take it the picture of you on Ben y Hon was taken after you drove up with permission of the landowner or don't access laws apply to you either?

'oldie' seems very exercised about the recent accident near Brighton which may be attributable to excessive speed and stupidity. Why not be equally upset by the accident last weekend on the A14 where a car hit a truck in a layby. The parents were killed, the two very young children seriously injured. No boy-racers driving BMWs 5 up at 'high' speed.

The great majority of road casualties are as a consequence of inattentiveness rather than inappropriate speed. And it's getting worse.

To put speed into perspective any accident is potentially fatal, it all depends how hard you stop and whether your head hits something. Speed limits are arbitrary and say nothing about how safe you'll be when you act stupidly. It depends how sold the scenery you hit is.

FWIW the fastest I've driven is 132 in the speed trap, 137 on the data logger or 141mph calculated from the gear ratio, engine revs and tyre size. Not on the public road. Gurston Down (aptly) near Salisbury last August. We're doing it all again this coming weekend if anybody cares to come along and say hello and see cars doing 0-130 in less than 8 seconds. Faster than F1 as the saying goes.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
The great majority of road casualties are as a consequence of inattentiveness rather than inappropriate speed. And it's getting worse.
Paul

---

That's what I've been reading. However it doesn't let speed off the hook. Try suqeezing a car between two immovable objects that present you with a gap about 6" wider than the car at 10-15mph. Easy. Now do it at 30. Now try it at 60. Some of us may be lucky enough to have the judgement and reactions to pull this off time after time. The rest of us are mere mortals, and we bleed - although those who believe that are in a minority.

Great thread. Lots of good stuff, even more utter nonsense and some really good rants.

Cheers

Harry

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Firstly how do they tell from one second to the next what is appropriate, road conditions can change very quickly especially with other traffic around, even on motorways?

---

There was no other cars and, as I don't have cataracts or tunnel vision, I could see for a long way along the straight (which was miles long). I backed off long before I caught up with any other vehicles.

quote:

---

p.s. I take it the picture of you on Ben y Hon was taken after you drove up with permission of the landowner or don't access laws apply to you either?

---

The chap I was with knows the gamekeeper and we were there with his knowledge. I'm not sure it was communicated to the landowner, but that was good enough for me.

I suspect I know a good bit more about vehiclular (and non-vehicular) access laws than yourself as well, because my group does a lot of research on rights of way and we're one of the holders of the database pertaining to vehicular access rights in Scotland. The whole issue of access in Scotland is a very complicated one, which is one of the reasons I've switched more to mountain biking (which in Scotland is effectively viewed the same as being on foot) these days, as even the places it's legal to ride a motorbike off-road can cause considerable conflict.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HTK:
That's what I've been reading. However it doesn't let speed off the hook. Try suqeezing a car between two immovable objects that present you with a gap about 6" wider than the car at 10-15mph. Easy. Now do it at 30. Now try it at 60.

---

And what factor is speeding in that example?

What difference would it make if the speed limit were 20mph or 70mph?

None of course - it'd be dangerous whether speeding was a factor or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G:
There was no other cars and, as I don't have cataracts or tunnel vision, I could see for a long way along the straight (which was miles long). I backed off long before I caught up with any other vehicles.

---

Fair enough but how do you know when there's oil on the road, about to hit a puncture inducing nail or suicidal pheasant or blackbird?

quote:

---

The chap I was with knows the gamekeeper and we were there with his knowledge. I'm not sure it was communicated to the landowner, but that was good enough for me.

---

That's good enough for me as well but it's amazing how many people do ignore the signs etc

quote:

---

I suspect I know a good bit more about vehiclular (and non-vehicular) access laws than yourself,

---

I'm sure you do, I only ever walk in, through and out.

You seemed to have missed the main thrust of my post.

quote:

---

Firstly how do they tell from one second to the next what is appropriate, road conditions can change very quickly especially with other traffic around, even on motorways? Secondly how do you stop those who can't drive safely at those speeds trying to emulate heros such as yourself? How do the courts and the police differentiate especially after an accident?

---

As you say speed in it self isn't dangerous, bad driving is but how do you regulate for it?

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Fair enough but how do you know when there's oil on the road, about to hit a puncture inducing nail or suicidal pheasant or blackbird?

---

I'd ridden the section at a more sedate speed (more to double check for speed traps than anything else) just beforehand. As for the pheasant or blackbird - I've driven for a lot of miles and not hit one so far so the odds weren't very high (plus the bike is very stable at those speeds so I doubt it would have taken me off).

I'm far, far more likely to get taken out by an old fool with cataracts when I'm cycling in town...

Having said that the only incident of bad/dangerous road use I saw on the way to work this morning was by a cyclist.

quote:

---

Firstly how do they tell from one second to the next what is appropriate, road conditions can change very quickly especially with other traffic around, even on motorways?

---

Driving according to the conditions and traffic is essential and doesn't in any way relate to the speed limit. There are lots of people out there who drive to the speed limit no matter what the conditions.

quote:

---

How do the courts and the police differentiate especially after an accident?

---

If I was involved in an accident driving at an unsafe speed then I'd expect to be charged with dangerous driving.

I don't think it's fair however for someone speeding who hasn't been in an accident (or in any way close to doing so) to be jailed for a couple of years when a half-blind old fool with tunnel vision kills a cyclist then can't even be bothered to stop gets off without jail time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
As you say speed in it self isn't dangerous, bad driving is but how do you regulate for it?

---

By targetting unsafe driving instead of just speeding to the exclusion of all else.

quote:

---

Try suqeezing a car between two immovable objects that present you with a gap about 6" wider than the car at 10-15mph. Easy. Now do it at 30. Now try it at 60.

---

Good example which proves the point about appropriate speed. IMO 15mph would be excessive speed in that situation; 5-10 would be appropriate. Any faster than that, be it 30 or 60, is definitely inappropriate and excessive for that situation. Yet I know of a few stretches of road which have just such bollards in place and they are in 30mph zones. The bollards are scratched, dinged and covered in flecks of paint because certain drivers haven't judged the situation but just driven at excessive/inappropriate speed within the speed limit, where most accidents happen. Speed limits weren't carried down the mountain on stone tablets; they need reviewed up in some circumstances and down in others, as per your example. And the reviewing body should be prepared, where necessary to kill the camera trusts golden geese.

What about a 60 feet gap or a clear 3 lane motorway? Do you agree that the safe speed could be greatly increased and that the chances of blood loss are greatly reduced?

A 2" gap, 2mph perhaps.

The situation determines what speed is excessive. Use judgement and and drive accordingly.

quote:

---

speed in it self isn't dangerous, bad driving is but how do you regulate for it?

---

You don't regulate, you flood the roads with marked and unmarked police cars, linked to camera operators. Dangerous driving or inappropriate speed isn't difficult to spot and once spotted should be rewarded with a fine and a mandatory training order. We need education and retesting at regular intervals.

Paul
sorry regarding the delay in responding
Yes you are quite correct in your assumption I was very"exercised" upset call it what you wish regarding the recent accident just as I was with the one in Hove with 3 young girls being killed and the couple of accidents along the sea front involving the death of two more young people,all involving losing control at speeds above the national limits albeitin some cases with some other factors involved. Its bad enough when a miserable old sod like me dies in a car accident but when young people under twenty and two under four years old die ,well thats more than just tragic, I may be irrational and have let my emotions get in the way but I find it incredulous that some on this thread have "bragged" openly of traveling at well over 100mph and then tried to justify it what ever the reasons given its against the law just as it's illegal to drink 10 pints of beer and drive and some people[ not here]try to justify that, both activitys if they have to carried out should be done either on the track or on private facilities.As I have already stated before I have no problems with speed,just inappropriate speed.
I don't know,but I have no doupts in my mind that all those involved in these accidents thought that they too were capable of driving and controlling their Vehicals at highspeeds
sadly it would seem that they were wrong.
Sorry butI have no more to say on this matter as it is just going round and round with thoses concerned believing they have differant rights to us lesser mortals, and also I do not wish to start sounding like another Mick
oldie.

quote:

---

I have no problems with speed,just inappropriate speed

---

Well then you, Paul, the Police Federation, the ABD, the most comprehensive and recent statistics and I are completely in agreement. Sorted