10 weeks in jail for 172 mph in a porsche!!!
Discussion
pikey said:
sleep envy said:
what's the threshold before you get sent down?
Solicitor friend who works with this stuff daily says the guidelines of "throwing the book at you" start at 110 (ie. below that, 'no', above that, 'possible'). Don't know if there's a mandatory figure though
Disclaimer:
Allegedly.
hornetrider said:
foggy said:
Using laws of motion, stopping distance alone from 172mile/h assuming an average decel of 1.0g (typical value for good performance tyres on a your average dry road surface, potentially 1.1 or 1.2 on a test track) is 301m.
Highway code says a reaction time of 0.68s IIRC so that's another 52m, more likely reaction time is a 1 second from seeing something to applying braking so that would be an 77m, so total distance would be the order of 350 to 380m assuming the driver hit the brakes hard enough to achieve full decel, (which most people generally don't, hence brake assist systems being fitted to cars). 500m is pessimistic, but not entirely unrealistic.
I'm not sure, but I think your post is a load of nonsense Highway code says a reaction time of 0.68s IIRC so that's another 52m, more likely reaction time is a 1 second from seeing something to applying braking so that would be an 77m, so total distance would be the order of 350 to 380m assuming the driver hit the brakes hard enough to achieve full decel, (which most people generally don't, hence brake assist systems being fitted to cars). 500m is pessimistic, but not entirely unrealistic.
What have Newtons Laws of Motion got to do with the braking force achieved by a car? How can you "assume" average deceleration of 1G? It will be different for different cars.
The deciding factor is the width and compound of tire coupled with the braking force achieved by the Porsche brakes surely?
Treat the car as a blob, ignore all the rotating mechanics and assume the brakes will be more than strong enough to overcome the friction at the tyre/pavement contact patch (disc brakes on a Porsche - no problem) so you can ignore them as well. Then estimate a friction and therefore acceleration value to calculate the distance over which the change in speed will occur. Simple really...
Decel achieved will depend on the tyre as you say, road surface and surface condition (wet, dry etc.) From experience of doing the odd brake test in the past, may be a few thousand or so in all sorts of vehicles, the friction/decel values are typical of what you can expect, on road it is usally less than on a test track because of a build-up of road grime and the surfaces are often worn rather than being refreshed to meet a certain spec. For normal modern passenger car tyres typical decel on a dry surface is 1g or so, may be a little higher, performace cars may manage 1.2 or 1.3 on the test track. It can vary quite a lot for different vehicles and tyre types, trucks manage only about 0.6 or 0.7g, and less than that in the wet.
hornetrider said:
Also, "assuming the driver hit the brakes hard enough to achieve full decel, (which most people generally don't, hence brake assist systems being fitted to cars)" seems also irrelevant to me.
If you need to stop in an emergency, you stamp on the brakes as hard as you can and let ABS sort it out.
I'm not condoning 172mph by the way.
Yep, that's what you'd hope people would do, but generally they don't, hence manufacturers are fitting brake assist to cars to boost the braking to max when they sense an emergency brake application. A full bore brake application is quite a violent affair that people aren't used to in normal driving and they seem to back off to what feels more comfortable after an initial spike. With ABS pulsing feel on the pedal people sometimes think the brakes are broken as well and back off...If you need to stop in an emergency, you stamp on the brakes as hard as you can and let ABS sort it out.
I'm not condoning 172mph by the way.
172 is a nutty speed and you'd kill someone if you had any sort of contact. Those killed would be entirely innocent.
The fact he 'borrowed' the car without the owners knowledge means he was probably uninsured too. He also had a passenger...
If you choose to travel at huge speeds, you must take the penalty that goes with it.
The law (or more the judiciary) is an ass. The kiddie fiddler who was just 'told off' of a string of offences and a long list of other people who've simply walked free or had low sentences is madness in comparison.
Just seen what must be one of the greatest (and by that I mean shit... really shit) journalism pieces on News24... they said "in order to give you an example of what it would be like to drive at those speeds, we drove the same piece of road at around 60mph" <cue in car clip of man driving slowly down a road> then they said "however, look just what happens when we run it 3 times too fast" <cue speeded up clip of man driving slowly down a road>
Bit of BBC gold right there.
Bit of BBC gold right there.
touching cloth said:
Just seen what must be one of the greatest (and by that I mean shit... really shit) journalism pieces on News24... they said "in order to give you an example of what it would be like to drive at those speeds, we drove the same piece of road at around 60mph" <cue in car clip of man driving slowly down a road> then they said "however, look just what happens when we run it 3 times too fast" <cue speeded up clip of man driving slowly down a road>
Bit of BBC gold right there.
Tell me it was played through a two-head VCR!Bit of BBC gold right there.
touching cloth said:
Just seen what must be one of the greatest (and by that I mean shit... really shit) journalism pieces on News24... they said "in order to give you an example of what it would be like to drive at those speeds, we drove the same piece of road at around 60mph" <cue in car clip of man driving slowly down a road> then they said "however, look just what happens when we run it 3 times too fast" <cue speeded up clip of man driving slowly down a road>
Bit of BBC gold right there.
bunch of tBit of BBC gold right there.
ts and yet people lap it up and believe it's unbiased reporting
sleep envy said:
touching cloth said:
Just seen what must be one of the greatest (and by that I mean shit... really shit) journalism pieces on News24... they said "in order to give you an example of what it would be like to drive at those speeds, we drove the same piece of road at around 60mph" <cue in car clip of man driving slowly down a road> then they said "however, look just what happens when we run it 3 times too fast" <cue speeded up clip of man driving slowly down a road>
Bit of BBC gold right there.
bunch of tBit of BBC gold right there.
ts and yet people lap it up and believe it's unbiased reportingJust the type of sanctimony which accompanies any 'MP in weed shocker' cack, reported by a rump of ex student dope fiends of the classical variety.
Cars = speed = evil = you must be castrated.
I wonder what time the army will take over? I wish they'd get a move on, this democracy lark is patently hopeless.
Found it hope the link works.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/uk/video/121...
About 50 secs in or so is when the magic happens
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/uk/video/121...
About 50 secs in or so is when the magic happens
touching cloth said:
Found it hope the link works.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/uk/video/121...
About 50 secs in or so is when the magic happens
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/uk/video/121...
About 50 secs in or so is when the magic happens
Excellent. I notice that they have also figured out that if you point the camera out of the side window and not straight ahead it looks even faster.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff