Death Race 2000? How many points Streetcop?
Discussion
Anyone remember the film Death Race 2000, where competitors got points for running down pedestrians?
Well the other day I was reminded of it when I was driving through my local town. We have a dual carriageway that goes from one side of town to the other like a mini by-pass. On my way home I was coming up a slight rise towards a pedestrian crossing (pelican). The lights were on red but as I was about 300 metres away the amber light started to flash and then it went to green. So I'm continuing through at 30 MPH (the road's limit) when suddenly as I'm about 50 metres away, three blokes just stroll across! They didn't stop, look, listen, radio for clearance, put an advert in the local paper or anything; just strolled across! I thought, "I wonder how many points I get for three in one strike?"
But seriously, this happens a lot at this particular pelican crossing; and I've even seen the drivers of police cars witness it and do nothing! Which is frustrating, because if a driver kills one of these prats, who is it that is put under question suspected of causing death by whatever type of driving the police decide to label it at the time?
Direct questions to Streetcop:
1) What would YOU do if you witnessed such reckless pedestrians?
2) Why do many police officers ignore such dangerous walking?
3) Is there actually a law that can be used to punish such behaviour?
4) How many penalty points and what fixed penalty fines can pedestrians collect for failing to comply with 'traffic' signals?
5) What would have happened if I had been closer to the crossing when these idiots decided to ignore the lights and cross, and I had to brake hard causing someone to smash into the back of me - and of course the pedestrians had vanished? How would be at fault?
6) Suppose I (or anyone else) had actually hit them and wiped them out! How does the driver prove (if no other witnesses are present) that the lights were green?
Shouldn't there be really stiff penalties employed to deter pedestrians from this kind of reckless behaviour? And if there are, why aren't they used more frequently? You don't often read in the local paper next to the reports of drunk drivers, reckless drivers etc, of the reckless pedestrian fined £200 for ingnoring a red light on a pelican crossing!
And while I'm on the subject (sorry if this comes over as a rant), many of these speed limit fanatics, particularly in relation to the 30 MPH limit in built up areas cite children as one of the reasons for keeping speed down. But, shouldn't the parents of children under a certain age (and I'm a parent of three) be held responsible for letting young children run amok unsupervised when they cause (or even become the victims of) road accidents?
Well the other day I was reminded of it when I was driving through my local town. We have a dual carriageway that goes from one side of town to the other like a mini by-pass. On my way home I was coming up a slight rise towards a pedestrian crossing (pelican). The lights were on red but as I was about 300 metres away the amber light started to flash and then it went to green. So I'm continuing through at 30 MPH (the road's limit) when suddenly as I'm about 50 metres away, three blokes just stroll across! They didn't stop, look, listen, radio for clearance, put an advert in the local paper or anything; just strolled across! I thought, "I wonder how many points I get for three in one strike?"
But seriously, this happens a lot at this particular pelican crossing; and I've even seen the drivers of police cars witness it and do nothing! Which is frustrating, because if a driver kills one of these prats, who is it that is put under question suspected of causing death by whatever type of driving the police decide to label it at the time?
Direct questions to Streetcop:
1) What would YOU do if you witnessed such reckless pedestrians?
2) Why do many police officers ignore such dangerous walking?
3) Is there actually a law that can be used to punish such behaviour?
4) How many penalty points and what fixed penalty fines can pedestrians collect for failing to comply with 'traffic' signals?
5) What would have happened if I had been closer to the crossing when these idiots decided to ignore the lights and cross, and I had to brake hard causing someone to smash into the back of me - and of course the pedestrians had vanished? How would be at fault?
6) Suppose I (or anyone else) had actually hit them and wiped them out! How does the driver prove (if no other witnesses are present) that the lights were green?
Shouldn't there be really stiff penalties employed to deter pedestrians from this kind of reckless behaviour? And if there are, why aren't they used more frequently? You don't often read in the local paper next to the reports of drunk drivers, reckless drivers etc, of the reckless pedestrian fined £200 for ingnoring a red light on a pelican crossing!
And while I'm on the subject (sorry if this comes over as a rant), many of these speed limit fanatics, particularly in relation to the 30 MPH limit in built up areas cite children as one of the reasons for keeping speed down. But, shouldn't the parents of children under a certain age (and I'm a parent of three) be held responsible for letting young children run amok unsupervised when they cause (or even become the victims of) road accidents?
Sorry, but intentional suicidal pedestrians usually get a hint of the throttle, a deliberate aim and a pair of vacant "Foggy" eyes. Why play chicken with a ton of metal, they always jump out of the way looking stupid in the end.
If you are stupid enoug to play chicken, don't come running to me when you get your legs broken.
Pedestrians, know your place
If you are stupid enoug to play chicken, don't come running to me when you get your legs broken.
Pedestrians, know your placeinstructor said:
Direct questions to Streetcop:
1) What would YOU do if you witnessed such reckless pedestrians?
2) Why do many police officers ignore such dangerous walking?
3) Is there actually a law that can be used to punish such behaviour?
4) How many penalty points and what fixed penalty fines can pedestrians collect for failing to comply with 'traffic' signals?
5) What would have happened if I had been closer to the crossing when these idiots decided to ignore the lights and cross, and I had to brake hard causing someone to smash into the back of me - and of course the pedestrians had vanished? How would be at fault?
6) Suppose I (or anyone else) had actually hit them and wiped them out! How does the driver prove (if no other witnesses are present) that the lights were green?
Good evening Tim, hope you're well mate..
Right then, to answer your questions:
1) I tend to bark at such pedestrians with stuff like "Watch where you're going" "Use the crossing" etc..just because I hate to be blinkered.
2) No real offence of Jay walking in the UK to deal with such miscreants
3) See number 2
4) The new fixed penalty tickets for people such as wasting police time, etc..would only be good for the offence of Drunk and Disorderly dealing with such pedestrians. £80 fine to avoid going to court.
5) The driver of the vehilce behind you would be at fault..ie 'You should always be able to stop on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear' etcetc (You know that already anyway)
6) You can't prove it without other witnesses. Doesn't mean that you wont be believed though...forensics at the scene might back your story up.
instructor said:
But, shouldn't the parents of children under a certain age (and I'm a parent of three) be held responsible for letting young children run amok unsupervised when they cause (or even become the victims of) road accidents?
Absolutely...my wife is a police child protection officer and the stories of 'out of sight, out of mind' that she tells me are almost unbelievable, such is the attitude of some parents..
Take care,
Street
Streetcop said:
5) The driver of the vehilce behind you would be at fault..ie 'You should always be able to stop on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear' etcetc (You know that already anyway)
6) You can't prove it without other witnesses. Doesn't mean that you wont be believed though...forensics at the scene might back your story up.
One problem with this... Ok I'm one of a few, a small percentge of the population this applies to, but, I can stop a car in a much shorter distance that many people (I can hold brakes on the verge of locking to a point that it can outsmart ABS, even in the wet), just because I am used to and well practiced at the technique and it is second nature, I do it automatically, and also purely because I am well practiced, my reflexes are far faster than the average driver, so, even if someone is at a legal and otherwise safe distance behind me, there is still a great possibility that when I emergency stop, the car behind could plough into the back of me. I know that the folowing car is still technically at fault, but that's not really fair on them. And in the scenario described, neither me or the driver behind me were the actual cause of the accident.
I can stop a car in a shorter distance than your average driver and not make skidmarks at all... so how else can forensics prove what happened?
Yes btw, I am well... you too I hope?
Oh another question! LOL Advice really... A friend of mine was in a queue of traffic on an A road (60 MPH) in N.Wales, doing 40 MPH. The car he was driving had fairly swift acceleration. He was frustrated at being held up and at a safe, convenient moment he pulled out and overtook the car in front and slotted in behind the one in front of that. Unfortunatley as he did so he simultaneously passed a talivan that had been momentarily out of view, and in that moment owing to the rapid acceleration of the car, he instantaneously and momentarily hit 82 MPH... he knows this because he now has an NIP! Does he have any defence?
>> Edited by instructor on Tuesday 3rd August 23:52
instructor said:
I know that the folowing car is still technically at fault, but that's not really fair on them.
Still their fault Tim..nothing is fair in love, war and 'who's to blame for an accident'..
instructor said:..position of glass or other such matter on the road perhaps, location of casualty etc..there are numerous ways to determine positions of people prior to, during and after collisions.
I can stop a car in a shorter distance than your average driver and not make skidmarks at all... so how else can forensics prove what happened?
instructor said:
Oh another question! LOL Advice really... A friend of mine was in a queue of traffic on an A road (60 MPH) in N.Wales, doing 40 MPH. The car he was driving had fairly swift acceleration. He was frustrated at being held up and at a safe, convenient moment he pulled out and overtook the car in front and slotted in behind the one in front of that. Unfortunatley as he did so he simultaneously passed a talivan that had been momentarily out of view, and in that moment owing to the rapid acceleration of the car, he instantaneously and momentarily hit 82 MPH... he knows this because he now has an NIP! Does he have any defence?
No defence really...All he could try to say is that he overtook the vehicle due to it's slow speed, but once in the manoever the other vehicle increased it's speed and the 82mph was a result of attempting to complete the manoever. (Braking or pulling back wasn't an option due to another following vehicle)..It's a thin chance,but better than nothing....I think he's onto a loser thought, I'm afraid..
Street
Streetcop said:
Still their fault Tim..nothing is fair in love, war and 'who's to blame for an accident'..
It's all very unfair isn't it?
Tell me this Gareth (Von Heptonstall?? No offence meant but is that for real?) Can a statement someone makes in this forum be used to to prosecute them for a motoring offence? i.e. If someone was to say they had done 180 MPH on an 'A' road somewhere in the UK but not being specific about where and when, is that sufficient to prosecute? LOL
Tim
instructor said:
Tell me this Gareth (Von Heptonstall?? No offence meant but is that for real?)
None taken Tim..No it's not for real..but is a psydonym for my Panzer Style road policing
instructor said:
Can a statement someone makes in this forum be used to to prosecute them for a motoring offence? i.e. If someone was to say they had done 180 MPH on an 'A' road somewhere in the UK but not being specific about where and when, is that sufficient to prosecute? LOL
Tim
No...no chance of detection or prosecution...Although I wouldn't advice anyone is too accurate about times, dates, registration numbers etc on forums. I personally tend to change such things so that the true identity of the story remains secret, yet remains fairly true to events, when telling tales of woe..
Street
Streetcop said:
Tell me this Gareth (Von Heptonstall?? No offence meant but is that for real?)
None taken Tim..No it's not for real..but is a psydonym for my Panzer Style road policing
instructor said:
Can a statement someone makes in this forum be used to to prosecute them for a motoring offence? i.e. If someone was to say they had done 180 MPH on an 'A' road somewhere in the UK but not being specific about where and when, is that sufficient to prosecute? LOL
Tim
No...no chance of detection or prosecution...Although I wouldn't advice anyone is too accurate about times, dates, registration numbers etc on forums.
Street
Now pay attention TripleS, and others of like mind (if any):
Telling a straight story with too much accurate detail is perhaps not always a good idea. Careful now!
Best wishes to me and everyone else,
Dave.
Streetcop said:
No...no chance of detection or prosecution...Although I wouldn't advice anyone is too accurate about times, dates, registration numbers etc on forums. I personally tend to change such things so that the true identity of the story remains secret, yet remains fairly true to events, when telling tales of woe..
Street
Oh good! Just that further to the story about my friend and his 82 MPH overtaking speed and him having no defence... I was recently road testing a 'sports car' that has a substantial power-to-weight ratio (c.600 BHP/Ton) and when overtaking another car on a minor road, accelerating from about 50 MPH, it hit 145 MPH before the overtaking manouver was complete! I was thinking of the implications of that, seeing as my mate apparently has no defence for 82 in a 60 limit despite he was only doing more than 60 for a matter of seconds.
pdV6 said:
6) You can't prove it without other witnesses. Doesn't mean that you wont be believed though...forensics at the scene might back your story up.
Just wondering how the forensic team might be able to determine which light bulb was illuminated at an indeterminate time?
I've explained that earlier, haven't I?
Street
instructor said:
No...no chance of detection or prosecution...Although I wouldn't advice anyone is too accurate about times, dates, registration numbers etc on forums. I personally tend to change such things so that the true identity of the story remains secret, yet remains fairly true to events, when telling tales of woe..
Street
Oh good! Just that further to the story about my friend and his 82 MPH overtaking speed and him having no defence... I was recently road testing a 'sports car' that has a substantial power-to-weight ratio (c.600 BHP/Ton) and when overtaking another car on a minor road, accelerating from about 50 MPH, it hit 145 MPH before the overtaking manouver was complete! I was thinking of the implications of that, seeing as my mate apparently has no defence for 82 in a 60 limit despite he was only doing more than 60 for a matter of seconds.
You are of course having a laugh?? even on very fast bikes I have never needed to go that fast to overtake someone - unless it was "back then", eg times I don't consider I was properly PH-sane.
C
hertsbiker said:
You are of course having a laugh?? even on very fast bikes I have never needed to go that fast to overtake someone - unless it was "back then", eg times I don't consider I was properly PH-sane.
C
No I'm not having a laugh, this is a very fast car, I can't say what it is unfortunately, but it has nearly as much torque/ton as it has bhp/ton. It's part of a project I'm involved in to produce a new road car with mega performance (it will be some time coming yet but it is going to happen - major investment behind it). The main objective being to produce a production sports car (supercar if you like) with superior acceleration to big bikes. The car I was in would beat all standard production bikes to 100 MPH, perhaps the only road-bike that would compare favourably being Crescent's Special version of the Suzuki GSX-R 1000 (unless there's something faster I don't know about yet). I'm talking mid to low 5's to reach 100 MPH and 150 in less than 10's from standing.
So it wasn't a case of 'having' to go that fast to get past, it just got there so bloody quick! LOL
BliarOut said:
600BHP/tonne, that's not much in bike terms. You would need to gain another 25% to reach the std trim of an R1. Doesn't sound particularly plausible so far.
Sorry, I think you have that a bit wrong! That would be 750 BHP/Ton! The Crescent Suzuki GXS-R I mentioned, a superlight tuned special regarded as the most powerful road bike has 685 BHP/Ton with a 70 kg rider on it (no point in quoting power-to-weight with no rider on is it?), a stock R1 has nowhere near that kind of power-to-weight ratio. The car I'm talking about weighs under 950 kgs with a driver on board and actually has near 650 bhp to be more accurate, plus about 580 ft/lbs of torque. The motor pulls all the way from low revs and keeps going right through the range with no let up.
All irrelevant though because this is the development stage, we are determined to make this car quick enough to waste any road bike in a straight line. The Crescent Suzuki does 0 - 100 in 5.4 (EVO mag Dec 2003), we already have a car that does that; the standard GXS-R takes just over 6 secs and is still the fastest of stock road bikes... and in most informed biker's opinions, it takes a very skilled rider to get that kind of time out of a bike without flipping it over backwards.
And by the way, McLaren's F1 GTR version of their road car was independantly recorded as doing 0 - 100 MPH in 5.9 seconds with only 600 BHP/Ton, so I think we are in the right area!
instructor said:
All irrelevant though because this is the development stage, we are determined to make this car quick enough to waste any road bike in a straight line.
instructor
Interesting project this.
Advantage of cars = better traction
Advantage of bikes=power/weight ratio
The point that the poster was trying to express ( and Streetcop ) is that standard off the shelf bikes absolutely p1ss on any standard road car in a straight line. eg Had a beemer 3 litre diesel had a go at me recently, and that is quite a fast car by road standards (0-60=7.2 top speed=150) and I p1ssed all over it on my 5 year old 'blade which is slow by modern bikes.Dont forget to compare the price of a Gixxer to an F1.....slight difference I think you'll agree. At the end of the day it is possible to build a car that will waste a std bike but it aint gonna be standard....not by a long way. Simple law of physics....traction vs power/weight ratio
instructor said:
Sorry, I think you have that a bit wrong! That would be 750 BHP/Ton! The Crescent Suzuki GXS-R I mentioned, a superlight tuned special regarded as the most powerful road bike has 685 BHP/Ton with a 70 kg rider on it (no point in quoting power-to-weight with no rider on is it?), a stock R1 has nowhere near that kind of power-to-weight ratio
Sorry mate....think you've got that bit wrong.
The latest ( 2004 ) bikes all put out around 170+bhp.
They weigh around 170kg, so adding a 70kg rider=240kg; hence a power/weight of over 700bhp/tonne, unless you're talking power at the rear wheel, the fig would then be around 625bhp/tonne.
Latest R1 is actually 180BHP and 172KG. In machine terms, that's over 1000BHP/Tonne 
(I'm not going to do maths after last nights effort)
I have never heard of performance figures for anything quoted with a variable(rider/driver) included in the equation.
Bikes and cars each have their strengths and will be better in certain areas, but these are off fthe shelf machines with full warranties and total reliability. Pound for pound, you will never get better performance.
As for getting off the line, sports bikes are relatively simple to launch if you have a delicate clutch hand.
(I'm not going to do maths after last nights effort) I have never heard of performance figures for anything quoted with a variable(rider/driver) included in the equation.
Bikes and cars each have their strengths and will be better in certain areas, but these are off fthe shelf machines with full warranties and total reliability. Pound for pound, you will never get better performance.
As for getting off the line, sports bikes are relatively simple to launch if you have a delicate clutch hand.
and in any case it's all irrelevant.
Bikes bring mega acceleration to the masses 'cos they are affordable.
We aint gonna see your car on the road now are we.
The McLaren F1 costs almost £700,000 and the Enzo Ferrari is mega bucks as well. I have never seen either on the road ( I know Jay Kay has one though ).
Who can afford these mega cars? certainly not Joe Public, so your car is gonna have a very niche market. FFS even something like a Lotus Elise is not cheap and bikes eat them for breakfast!! A guy at work has just bought a second hand BMW M3 convertible for £37000; it produces 350bhp....
BMW
Bikes bring mega acceleration to the masses 'cos they are affordable.
We aint gonna see your car on the road now are we.
The McLaren F1 costs almost £700,000 and the Enzo Ferrari is mega bucks as well. I have never seen either on the road ( I know Jay Kay has one though ).
Who can afford these mega cars? certainly not Joe Public, so your car is gonna have a very niche market.
FFS even something like a Lotus Elise is not cheap and bikes eat them for breakfast!! A guy at work has just bought a second hand BMW M3 convertible for £37000; it produces 350bhp.... BMWGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff