140mph convoy on M74
Discussion
Todd Bonzalez said:
Haven't the police got better things to do? If the road was quiet and they weren't being daft, honestly who cares. Ridiculous.
totally agree. Reading some of the news outlet wording you would think they murdered someone.
You get muppets all day on their phone writting story books hardly looking at the road.
Strudul said:
Gavia said:
Strudul said:
If you can't use your mirrors and don't have the ability to not pull out in front of someone, you shouldn't really be on the road at all and the process to get / keep a licence should be adapted accordingly.
On a road where the limit is 70mph, you might be expecting traffic to be approaching around that speed and maybe at an extreme at 100mph. To be more than double the limit makes your approach very difficult to gauge and certainly one that even the most observant of drivers would struggle with. Both drivers could be considered outliers on a normal driving distribution curve and so the one doing the bigger speed is equally as retarded at best.
Timmy45 said:
It must just be the case that the laws of physics operate differently in France, Germany and Poland where they have higher speed limits without cars continuously experiencing blowouts, catching fire or randomly careering off the road.....
Have you seen the KSI rate in Germany compared to the U.K.?stevesingo said:
La Liga said:
Risky behaviour doesn't always result in a bad outcome, it just increases the probability of it occurring. The purpose of road traffic legislation is to reduce risks to reduce bad outcomes.
True, but the application of legislation is very broad and set for one set of circumstances. 70mph is entirely appropriate in some circumstances. The thing is the spectrum of contributing risk factors is huge and not all are applicable at any given time. That is why we get such a debate.stevesingo said:
La Liga said:
The purpose of a prosecution would be to reduce future risky behaviour by the drivers and also send a prohibitive message to others not to engage in such behaviour.
Providing they care to learn the lesson.Would a prosecution be in the public interest? 4 cars travel at high speed and no harm has occurred. Surely the public interest would imply that this behaviour proves that they will do it again in less safe conditions and increase the risk of harm to the public.
The Police have now put this incident in the public domain and made a big deal of it. It is now in the Police' interest to do something as they have highlighted that this has happened. If there was a complaint from the public I would say yes, this is in the public interest.
I expect most members of the public (remember outside of PH!) would likely support action being taken at those speeds.
The Selfish Gene said:
La Liga said:
Odd point given the respective time / distances travelled at >70 vs 140.
statistics old boy - there are many fewer people having accidents at 140 than there are under 70.What we're talking about is relative (statistics, old boy) risk i.e. does the average mile at 140 present more risk than the average mile >70?
That's the fundamental basis of progressively harsher punishments relative to the speed.
Timmy45 said:
It must just be the case that the laws of physics operate differently in France, Germany and Poland where they have higher speed limits without cars continuously experiencing blowouts, catching fire or randomly careering off the road.
They don't operate differently, which is perhaps why they relatively have more road deaths. Integroo said:
Speeding always results in increased risk.
I don't disagree with that. I also understand the point made by La liga and others that punitive measures can potentially act as a deterrent for others.Laws need to exist regarding speeding, and they need to be sensibly enforced.
My point was only that I am very doubtful of the benefit to society in pursuing further in this instance (not that I don't understand the reasons for doing so), and I objected the implication the individuals had committed a moral offence, but I don't think either of those points is currently under debate.
So I won't switch topics just to keep arguing.
Durzel said:
stevesingo said:
This debate is interesting.
On one side we have the anti-speeding brigade who, when faced with evidence that you can travel at high speed on a UK road without coming to harm, exploding, causing the death of anything but flies, are challenged in their paradigm and are coming out fighting.
On the other side we have the pragmatic self thinkers who look for reasons to justify their support of the actions of the convoy 4 based on the assumption that said four drivers are capable of not coming to harm or harming others based as they should be capable of assessing the risk.
Sadly, the latter are not thinking about to what extent Dunning Kruger applies to the convoy 4, or even themselves.
The former, are the reason this country is vastly over regulated with the ability to self determine being removed in all walks of life. Put the decision in the hands of the person who is undertaking the action and they will think harder about that action.
Why does it have to be binary?On one side we have the anti-speeding brigade who, when faced with evidence that you can travel at high speed on a UK road without coming to harm, exploding, causing the death of anything but flies, are challenged in their paradigm and are coming out fighting.
On the other side we have the pragmatic self thinkers who look for reasons to justify their support of the actions of the convoy 4 based on the assumption that said four drivers are capable of not coming to harm or harming others based as they should be capable of assessing the risk.
Sadly, the latter are not thinking about to what extent Dunning Kruger applies to the convoy 4, or even themselves.
The former, are the reason this country is vastly over regulated with the ability to self determine being removed in all walks of life. Put the decision in the hands of the person who is undertaking the action and they will think harder about that action.
I'm not anti-speeding, but I think doing 140mph on the public road in convoy is selfish and in most circumstances reckless.
If it's ok for these guys to do 140mph, then by definition it has to be ok for everyone to do it - because their licenses are just the same, they pay proportionally the same amount of tax, etc. Would you support that?
I don't want everyone thinking its ok - or that there is unlikely to be ramifications because the Police "are catching real criminals" - to do 140mph+ on the motorway because for every capable driver in a capable car all it takes is someone slightly less capable - but just as selfish - to crash, or cause a crash, and create carnage, to innocent people who were just unlucky enough to be on the same road.
Time and time again when this comes up the people who are all for this kind of behaviour dismiss or otherwise disregard the fact that everyone else in the road is ill equipped to deal with people moving around near them at those kinds of speeds. They're not trained for it, they're not expected to deal with it. Legally they aren't supposed to have to deal with it. Like it or not the public road has to be regulated for the majority not the minority, and the majority include the lowest common denominator of poor to average drivers in poor to average cars, who nevertheless have a full licence and entitlement to occupy the same road as you.
Cue the arguments about unrestricted autobahns which cover the whole of Germany and how that model must surely mean it works everywhere else.
Why at that moment in time was it selfish to do 140mph? You even qualify it as "in most circumstances reckless".
You ask if it is OK for these drivers to do 140mph? Is that a moral question, a legal question or a question of safety?
It only means "by definition everyone should do it", if you take a binary view. I do not.
I simply pointed out the divergent viewpoints of the debaters.
Prof Prolapse said:
Integroo said:
Speeding always results in increased risk.
I don't disagree with that. I also understand the point made by La liga and others that punitive measures can potentially act as a deterrent for others.Laws need to exist regarding speeding, and they need to be sensibly enforced.
My point was only that I am very doubtful of the benefit to society in pursuing further in this instance (not that I don't understand the reasons for doing so), and I objected the implication the individuals had committed a moral offence, but I don't think either of those points is currently under debate.
So I won't switch topics just to keep arguing.
Most of them are atleast a decade to 5 decades too old!
La Liga said:
They don't operate differently, which is perhaps why they relatively have more road deaths.
You might want to have a browse of this thread, quite interesting reading. It's far from definitive that motorway speed limits have any genuine impact in reducing motorway fatalities once you consider other factors at play. https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=25...
Timmy45 said:
La Liga said:
They don't operate differently, which is perhaps why they relatively have more road deaths.
You might want to have a browse of this thread, quite interesting reading. It's far from definitive that motorway speed limits have any genuine impact in reducing motorway fatalities once you consider other factors at play. https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=25...
Coming back to my experiences of driving at fast speeds (from when I was in the police) is how much mentally harder and tiring it is to do for sustained periods. Humans are naturally lazy and will avoid effortful activities. That's my main argument against driving really fast. Anyone who has done any advanced driving will know what I mean.
stevesingo said:
I guess it has to be binary because you just made it binary.
You were the one coming out swinging characterising the "anti-speeding brigade" as ignorant of the fact that you can speed on the road "without coming to harm, exploding, causing the death of anything but flies". Your words. It's clear what you're intimating here, and what side you're coming down on, simply from the pejoratives you use. Your characterising people with negative opinions about this particular case as being part of an "anti-speeding brigade". How is that not binary? You either think it's ok or you're part of the anti-speeding brigade? It's reductive reasoning and a sign of a weak argument, really.
My contention is that you can look upon this event of 4 people doing 140mph odd on the public road negatively without it meaning anything more than that. Plenty of people, including those that routinely speed - not egregiously so, would find this behaviour unacceptable.
stevesingo said:
Why at that moment in time was it selfish to do 140mph? You even qualify it as "in most circumstances reckless".
It's selfish because other people were on the road, and could join it - being a public road. It is, as stated, "in most circumstances reckless" because it was 12:15 on a Sunday, not e.g. 4am or something where you'd reasonably only expect to see occasional lorries and the odd car. Note: This wouldn't stop it being potentially dangerous.stevesingo said:
You ask if it is OK for these drivers to do 140mph? Is that a moral question, a legal question or a question of safety?
All three. It's morally not right to do it (it's selfish, it subjects others to unreasonable and unwanted demands on their attention and capabilities), legally it's obviously not right according to current laws. Safety? Well if they only killed themselves I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.Edited by Durzel on Tuesday 7th August 16:18
Strudul said:
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
Can you please find me a single post in this thread by anyone at all that has stated or even suggested that 'rules are rules?'
Integroo said:
We have rules for a reason. They should be followed.
Point proven....
La Liga said:
Timmy45 said:
La Liga said:
They don't operate differently, which is perhaps why they relatively have more road deaths.
You might want to have a browse of this thread, quite interesting reading. It's far from definitive that motorway speed limits have any genuine impact in reducing motorway fatalities once you consider other factors at play. https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=25...
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
.....Deer wanders out?...
Indeed. There seem to be far more than usual deer wandering around at dusk this summer - and a lot more dead deer on or beside the road.My wife thinks it's probably because their food and water supply has been disrupted by the hot dry summer so the deer have to travel much more than usual, therefore more have to cross roads.
Yesterday at dusk I was travelling along the B1063 between Stradishall and Clare.
A car came charging up behind and sat up my backside 'pushing' me to go faster.
He had several chances to overtake on straights but didn't. I ignored him and continued at 10-20mph below the limit rather than most people's preferred 10mph above the limit.
A few minutes later a group of deer darted out of some roadside bushes; if I had been going much faster I would have ploughed into them and the car behind would have gone into the back of me.
Gavia said:
Strudul said:
How much of a retard do you have to be to pull out in front of an approaching car that you can't gauge the speed of? Is it that difficult to just play it safe and not pull out? Do people approach blind corners and just go flat out because they don't know what speed would actually be appropriate?
Plenty of people pull out in front of me on the motorway when I’m about to overtake them. It is an everyday occurrence. Are you suggesting people should just stay put just in case? The point is that if I expect cars to be moving at a certain speed then the one doing significantly more than a normal speed. Both drivers could be considered outliers on a normal driving distribution curve and so the one doing the bigger speed is equally as retarded at best.
Am I suggesting people should err on the side of caution? Definitely.
If you're crossing a 30mph road and see a car travelling towards you at a hectic rate of knots, do you cross anyway because they should only be doing 30, or do you wait just in case?
If you see a car at a junction, do you ignore it, or prepare for the possibility it may pull out?
Do you slow down for blind corners, or just expect there won't be an unseen obstacle and carry on at the speed limit?
Do you take overtake opportunities that are safe if the conditions stay perfect, or do you account for a speeding oncoming vehicle round the corner and the vehicle you are about to overtake trying to floor it and prevent the pass?
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
Strudul said:
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
Can you please find me a single post in this thread by anyone at all that has stated or even suggested that 'rules are rules?'
Integroo said:
We have rules for a reason. They should be followed.
Point proven....
Timmy45 said:
La Liga said:
Timmy45 said:
La Liga said:
They don't operate differently, which is perhaps why they relatively have more road deaths.
You might want to have a browse of this thread, quite interesting reading. It's far from definitive that motorway speed limits have any genuine impact in reducing motorway fatalities once you consider other factors at play. https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=25...
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
Strudul said:
I gave you exactly what you asked for...
Yes you did, and just to check - that single post by a single individual is the basis for your summation that we're all rule-Nazis who can't comprehend anything other than regulation and law?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff