High Court in favour of 159mph Pc
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sh
Does this new ruling mean that proven experience of driving at high speed makes speeding illegal.
I have to say that I am confused now as to where we stand. If he wasn't a PC then no amount of driving qualifications would have saved him from the law having been caught at 159mph.
I don't know the full circumstances but to me this does stink.
If police driving qualifications are so good why do they kill so many pedestrians every year?
Does this new ruling mean that proven experience of driving at high speed makes speeding illegal.
I have to say that I am confused now as to where we stand. If he wasn't a PC then no amount of driving qualifications would have saved him from the law having been caught at 159mph.
I don't know the full circumstances but to me this does stink.
If police driving qualifications are so good why do they kill so many pedestrians every year?
Horse_Apple said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sh
If he wasn't a PC then no amount of driving qualifications would have saved him from the law having been caught at 159mph.
If he wasn't a PC then no amount of driving qualifications would have saved him from the law having been caught at 159mph.
No amount of training can help a driver driving at 159mph. The tyre might blow out, and that is much more dangerous at 159mph than it is at 65mph. Likewise, braking disctances are MUCH longer, for think and actual braking. And in circumstances when someone pulls out of a side road in front of you, yes, you wouldn't have anywhere to go, but the chances of avoiding the accident, or reducing the severity are profundly different at the lower and road legal speed.
Simply being above the limit doesn't automatically make you dangerous. But 159mph does, in any car. Anyone who has driven at a high speed will know what 159mph feels like, or what even 130mph or 140mph feels like.
Hopefully the District Judge will now determine that the Officer's experience does need to be considered. But then he will still be found guilty on the facts...
Simply being above the limit doesn't automatically make you dangerous. But 159mph does, in any car. Anyone who has driven at a high speed will know what 159mph feels like, or what even 130mph or 140mph feels like.
Hopefully the District Judge will now determine that the Officer's experience does need to be considered. But then he will still be found guilty on the facts...
RichBurley said:
Simply being above the limit doesn't automatically make you dangerous. But 159mph does, in any car. Anyone who has driven at a high speed will know what 159mph feels like, or what even 130mph or 140mph feels like.
159mph, that's pedestrian.
At what point did it become dangerous then? 110mph? 125mph? 158mph?
Circumstances dear boy (BTW - I'm not saying it isn't dangerous, but x mph won't always be dangerous, and if it is, try to argue backwards to the point of "safety" and you'll find it comes down to a risk assesment, based on multiple factors.
tigger1 said:
RichBurley said:
Simply being above the limit doesn't automatically make you dangerous. But 159mph does, in any car. Anyone who has driven at a high speed will know what 159mph feels like, or what even 130mph or 140mph feels like.
159mph, that's pedestrian.
At what point did it become dangerous then? 110mph? 125mph? 158mph?
Dunno, don't care, but AFAIAC, 159mph is "dangerous". That's all that counts.
RichBurley said:
tigger1 said:
RichBurley said:
Simply being above the limit doesn't automatically make you dangerous. But 159mph does, in any car. Anyone who has driven at a high speed will know what 159mph feels like, or what even 130mph or 140mph feels like.
159mph, that's pedestrian.
At what point did it become dangerous then? 110mph? 125mph? 158mph?
Dunno, don't care, but AFAIAC, 159mph is "dangerous". That's all that counts.
Why is it though?? I can't see why!! It all depends on where it is and the conditions. IN the wet yes it would be but early morning, clear day straight bit of motorway, why not.
Paddy
paddy27 said:
RichBurley said:
tigger1 said:
RichBurley said:
Simply being above the limit doesn't automatically make you dangerous. But 159mph does, in any car. Anyone who has driven at a high speed will know what 159mph feels like, or what even 130mph or 140mph feels like.
159mph, that's pedestrian.
At what point did it become dangerous then? 110mph? 125mph? 158mph?
Dunno, don't care, but AFAIAC, 159mph is "dangerous". That's all that counts.
Why is it though?? I can't see why!! It all depends on where it is and the conditions. IN the wet yes it would be but early morning, clear day straight bit of motorway, why not.
Paddy
Agreed. It's plain simplistic to say a particular velocity is "dangerous".
RichBurley said:
tigger1 said:
RichBurley said:
Simply being above the limit doesn't automatically make you dangerous. But 159mph does, in any car. Anyone who has driven at a high speed will know what 159mph feels like, or what even 130mph or 140mph feels like.
159mph, that's pedestrian.
At what point did it become dangerous then? 110mph? 125mph? 158mph?
Dunno, don't care, but AFAIAC, 159mph is "dangerous". That's all that counts.
Ok, that's a good argument, I take it all back.
What a load of bollards
paddy27 said:
You can 70mph is dangerous as well. Its fine if the conditions allow but drive doing it when the roads are covered in ice and slippery as hell, but people do because it is the law they think they are safe.
Paddy
Paddy
Agreed. 70mph can be dangerous, too. Fortunately, the chap who thinks 159mph is not necessarily dangerous is not a Judge (I think). Tigger1 - have you ever driven 159mph or more? If so, then did it feel safe to you? AFAIAC, it's a no brainer that 159mph is dangerous.
lostusernamedamn said:
paddy27 said:
RichBurley said:
tigger1 said:
RichBurley said:
Simply being above the limit doesn't automatically make you dangerous. But 159mph does, in any car. Anyone who has driven at a high speed will know what 159mph feels like, or what even 130mph or 140mph feels like.
159mph, that's pedestrian.
At what point did it become dangerous then? 110mph? 125mph? 158mph?
Dunno, don't care, but AFAIAC, 159mph is "dangerous". That's all that counts.
Why is it though?? I can't see why!! It all depends on where it is and the conditions. IN the wet yes it would be but early morning, clear day straight bit of motorway, why not.
Paddy
Agreed. It's plain simplistic to say a particular velocity is "dangerous".
No it isn't. Is 200mph in a car safe? No it isn't. Simple to deduce, no need to argue over that one; it's NOT safe. Is 80mph dangerous? Now, that's a trickier one. 159mph is a dangerous speed to drive at.
lostusernamedamn said:
paddy27 said:
RichBurley said:
tigger1 said:
RichBurley said:
Simply being above the limit doesn't automatically make you dangerous. But 159mph does, in any car. Anyone who has driven at a high speed will know what 159mph feels like, or what even 130mph or 140mph feels like.
159mph, that's pedestrian.
At what point did it become dangerous then? 110mph? 125mph? 158mph?
Dunno, don't care, but AFAIAC, 159mph is "dangerous". That's all that counts.
Why is it though?? I can't see why!! It all depends on where it is and the conditions. IN the wet yes it would be but early morning, clear day straight bit of motorway, why not.
Paddy
Agreed. It's plain simplistic to say a particular velocity is "dangerous".
-1.
159 is "more dangerous" than 120. For exactly the reasons described. in the original post. Longer braking distances, perceived driving skill compared to actual driving skill, other road users, condition of our roads, condition of car doing 159mph. Just having a road rocket doesn't mean you should use it on our roads.
I don't want anyone to do 159mph on the motorway because there is an increased likelihood IMO that I'm going to be stuck in a traffic jam waiting for the remains of an accident to be swept up because someone decided to test his/her bravado by caning it on what he/she thought was an empty motorway but wasn't!
Leave 159mph to the track. Do 200mph+ or whatever on the track when it's a controlled environment, not on the road.
It's perfectly safe to travel that fast so long as the conditions are right and the car and driver are up to the job, correct tyres etc.
Heck, planes fly a lot faster but we don't see them dropping out of the sky very often. So clearly speed isn't the real issue, preparation and risk limitation are the true issues.
Boosted.
Heck, planes fly a lot faster but we don't see them dropping out of the sky very often. So clearly speed isn't the real issue, preparation and risk limitation are the true issues.
Boosted.
paddy27 said:
Why is it though?? I can't see why!! It all depends on where it is and the conditions. IN the wet yes it would be but early morning, clear day straight bit of motorway, why not.
Paddy
Paddy
Paddy,
RichBurley already answered this in the part that you chose not to quote:
RichBurley said:
The tyre might blow out, and that is much more dangerous at 159mph than it is at 65mph. Likewise, braking disctances are MUCH longer, for think and actual braking. And in circumstances when someone pulls out of a side road in front of you, yes, you wouldn't have anywhere to go, but the chances of avoiding the accident, or reducing the severity are profundly different at the lower and road legal speed.
Fact is, you never know what can go wrong. A deer might run onto the road or you there might be a larger rock on the road that may cause you to evade it at high speed - or you might be too quick to even see it in time. At lower speeds, you significantly reduce the risk that something may happen if one of these events occur.
Also, what will a driver at 159mph do when a car coming from the opposite direction comes onto his side of the road? Sure, that's not his fault, but at a lower speed, chances are the potential accident could have been avoided if the speed was lower.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff