Jury says 145mph is NOT always dangerous.
Discussion
BBC said:
The jury took an hour to find Mr Tyre not guilty of dangerous driving.
This illustrates what the general public think of the speeding issue, and perhaps hints at a widespread understanding of appropriate speed limits.
BBC said:
He will appear before magistrates at a later date to face a charge of speeding.
Methinks though the Magistrates will try to punish him for the (non)'dangerous driving' through the speeding charge.
Never realised it could do 180mph though, must try that sometime 
Mr E said:
Miss Rees said: "The officer kept his siren off to make sure he recorded an accurate reading of the speed.
Or, if you were cynical, so as not to alert the driver and therefore gain the higest score.
If this police vehicle had it's siren linked to the VASCAR it'll be the only one I've ever heard of!
Absolutely bloody fabulous! 
Surely many of the BiB think this too, if they're being honest?
A certain Vmaxer & co-entrant were recently flagged at a similar rate of progress recently and whilst the sight of rapidly flashing blue lights always sets the bowels in motion, the thought of being done for, at such an unfeasible hour with no other traffic around, despite hammering forth, did seem a tad harsh.
Now, whether it was simply a case of fortunate observation and quick-wittedness resulting in rapid retardation that outsmarted the in-car camera or, more likely a case of pure luck and masonic commonsense, I wouldn't know but apparently, all that transpired was a 'naughty boy(s), waggety-wag of the finger' censure from BiB passenger officer No.2 as the T5 pulled alongside...
Alas, I suspect that if any precedents are established, then the prescence of any other motorists in the vaccinity at all could render revalid the possibility of dangerous driving, even though it isn't.
Surely many of the BiB think this too, if they're being honest?
A certain Vmaxer & co-entrant were recently flagged at a similar rate of progress recently and whilst the sight of rapidly flashing blue lights always sets the bowels in motion, the thought of being done for, at such an unfeasible hour with no other traffic around, despite hammering forth, did seem a tad harsh.
Now, whether it was simply a case of fortunate observation and quick-wittedness resulting in rapid retardation that outsmarted the in-car camera or, more likely a case of pure luck and masonic commonsense, I wouldn't know but apparently, all that transpired was a 'naughty boy(s), waggety-wag of the finger' censure from BiB passenger officer No.2 as the T5 pulled alongside...
Alas, I suspect that if any precedents are established, then the prescence of any other motorists in the vaccinity at all could render revalid the possibility of dangerous driving, even though it isn't.
I would like to know why the dangerous driving was prosecuted, i.e was there anything other than the speed? Heavier traffic perhaps? It seems strange to me that they ran with it in the first place.
I pulled a bloke over some years back, driving his Chimeara on the M27 at circa 130mph at 0300. (I was in a 24V Senator). We had a little chat, we agreed it would be better for him if he kept it under the ton for the most part. Off he went with his advice (no ticket/prosecution at all) allowing his colour to slowly get back to normal!
I don't think I'll ever be a Traffic Inspector!
I pulled a bloke over some years back, driving his Chimeara on the M27 at circa 130mph at 0300. (I was in a 24V Senator). We had a little chat, we agreed it would be better for him if he kept it under the ton for the most part. Off he went with his advice (no ticket/prosecution at all) allowing his colour to slowly get back to normal!
I don't think I'll ever be a Traffic Inspector!
xxplod said:
I would like to know why the dangerous driving was prosecuted, i.e was there anything other than the speed? Heavier traffic perhaps? It seems strange to me that they ran with it in the first place.
I pulled a bloke over some years back, driving his Chimeara on the M27 at circa 130mph at 0300. (I was in a 24V Senator). We had a little chat, we agreed it would be better for him if he kept it under the ton for the most part. Off he went with his advice (no ticket/prosecution at all) allowing his colour to slowly get back to normal!
I don't think I'll ever be a Traffic Inspector!
And not being funny but I bet you he kept his speed down in future and was more careful and considerate as a result. Plus extra respect points for the police for taking a human view on it.
xxplod said:
I would like to know why the dangerous driving was prosecuted, i.e was there anything other than the speed? Heavier traffic perhaps? It seems strange to me that they ran with it in the first place.
I pulled a bloke over some years back, driving his Chimeara on the M27 at circa 130mph at 0300. (I was in a 24V Senator). We had a little chat, we agreed it would be better for him if he kept it under the ton for the most part. Off he went with his advice (no ticket/prosecution at all) allowing his colour to slowly get back to normal!
I don't think I'll ever be a Traffic Inspector!
No you wont. But youll always have the absolute respect of the drivers you treat in this fashion.
XXplod, I salute you.
I would hate to be in the opposite carriageway if anyone had a blow out at any speed, particularly an artic, which seems to be the vehicle most likely to 'jack-knife' into opposing traffic in the event of a blow out.
Remember, at really high speed the inertia will tend to keep you 'on-side' and going straight on, if you get my meaning.
Many years ago I had a right-front blow-out (a real blow-out with a loud bang) on the A74 in a Lotus-Cortina at about 85. It was really no problem to hold until the speed dropped below about 40, then it pulled strongly to the right. The big mistake would have been to have braked at the higher speed. At well over 100 the same probably applies.
One question: should we train drivers how to respond in such situations and if so, how? Could we use a simulator as they do to reproduce 'situations' when training pilots and make this a part of the test?
Worse than a blow out is probably a structural failure or a transmission failure/seize-up, but these are, fortunately, very rare.
Remember, at really high speed the inertia will tend to keep you 'on-side' and going straight on, if you get my meaning.
Many years ago I had a right-front blow-out (a real blow-out with a loud bang) on the A74 in a Lotus-Cortina at about 85. It was really no problem to hold until the speed dropped below about 40, then it pulled strongly to the right. The big mistake would have been to have braked at the higher speed. At well over 100 the same probably applies.
One question: should we train drivers how to respond in such situations and if so, how? Could we use a simulator as they do to reproduce 'situations' when training pilots and make this a part of the test?
Worse than a blow out is probably a structural failure or a transmission failure/seize-up, but these are, fortunately, very rare.
i would say the chances of being in the opposite carriageway at the exact moment that someone had a blowout at 145mph going the other way and ended up on your side of the road would be approximately 680,745,962,895 : 1 against...
and even then you have a 3 : 1 chance it won't be in your lane.
It's not something i am going to lose sleep over.
and even then you have a 3 : 1 chance it won't be in your lane.
It's not something i am going to lose sleep over.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff