173mph on the M25
Discussion
If only we could all afford Nick Freeman Mr Harrison's solicotor. www.gps-systems.co.uk/news_in_the_clear_173mph_porshe_driver.asp
Fidgits said:
He was later charged with speeding, dangerous driving and having no insurance
I'm sorry, 173 and no insurance... its people like him that give the goverment amunition for motorway speed cameras...
Hold on - all charges against him were dropped, no doubt including the insurance issue.
Why does it give ammunition for speed cameras - did he have an accident or do any damage?
I'm confused.
Are people seriously suggesting that someone who drives at 173 on the motorway is of no danger to the public?
I thought people on here were arguing for sensible speed limits and police enforcement using sensible judgement what is safe in the current conditions. Yet here you are suggesting that it is good that someone who was a danger to the public got off on a technicality.
Would you feel different if he was only charged with dangerous driving or reckless driving? Because that is what he was doing. There seems to be a dogmatic view that some one getting off a speeding charge is good no matter what the circumstances.
I must distance my self from this cause if that is the way it is going.
>> Edited by Munta on Friday 29th April 12:30
Are people seriously suggesting that someone who drives at 173 on the motorway is of no danger to the public?
I thought people on here were arguing for sensible speed limits and police enforcement using sensible judgement what is safe in the current conditions. Yet here you are suggesting that it is good that someone who was a danger to the public got off on a technicality.
Would you feel different if he was only charged with dangerous driving or reckless driving? Because that is what he was doing. There seems to be a dogmatic view that some one getting off a speeding charge is good no matter what the circumstances.
I must distance my self from this cause if that is the way it is going.
>> Edited by Munta on Friday 29th April 12:30
I won't get in to a debate on whether 173 mph is dangerous. Police Officers regularly drive at speeds in excess of 150mph, and it is not considered dangerous in the circumstances.
What amazes me is that he got off the way he did. For any prosecution for Dangerous Driving, No Insurance plus the speeding there has to be a properly planned interview. For a Dangerous, I'd be looking to make an appointment for the driver to attend the Police Station for a taped interview. Now I don't know what the Officer in Case did to build the prosecution case, but if it was a scribbled line in a note book, that is pretty poor Policework. I expect a higher standard from my probationers dealing with a routine RTA file.
What amazes me is that he got off the way he did. For any prosecution for Dangerous Driving, No Insurance plus the speeding there has to be a properly planned interview. For a Dangerous, I'd be looking to make an appointment for the driver to attend the Police Station for a taped interview. Now I don't know what the Officer in Case did to build the prosecution case, but if it was a scribbled line in a note book, that is pretty poor Policework. I expect a higher standard from my probationers dealing with a routine RTA file.
xxplod said:But BiB have the benefit of a highly visible cars, advanced pursuit training and blues and twos. This was some idiot who decided to have a burn out on the most congested motorway in the country.
I won't get in to a debate on whether 173 mph is dangerous. Police Officers regularly drive at speeds in excess of 150mph, and it is not considered dangerous in the circumstances.
Munta said:
I'm confused.
Are people seriously suggesting that someone who drives at 173 on the motorway is of no danger to the public?
This is an everyday.......no, an every minute occurrence in Germany; there must be a massacre there every minute!
Munta said:
I thought people on here were arguing for sensible speed limits and police enforcement using sensible judgement what is safe in the current conditions. Yet here you are suggesting that it is good that someone who was a danger to the public got off on a technicality.
To be fair, we don't know what the conditions were. I would not mind this if the motorway was totally deserted.
A fact: his stopping distance at 173mph (extrapolated from highway code) would be 508 metres.
It’s more likely that his 911 would stop in 304 metres (1 G stop). What is the problem if he knows for sure the stretch of road in front of him, for at least that distance, is completely clear?
I'm thinking for him to reach that speed, there surely couldn't have been much - if any traffic - around. I'm not condoning that speed as it is clearly in excess of the legal limit (and therefore a crime in its own right!)
However, why do people automatically jump to the conclusion that it is reckless to drive at those speeds - granted 173 is making this argument harder to work - but the specific car was designed to cope with those speeds safely.
My point is that speed has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is reckless or not - I believe it doesn't come into the eqaution at all... (I'll explain...)
Driving only becomes dangerous and reckless when attributes such as drivers skills, the vehicle being driven, the surrounding environment are contributing to this.
Infact, when someone mentioned above that police cars regularly drive in excess of 150mph - the response was that it was not dangerous due to the fact that the vehicle had been modified (i.e. it was visible) and that the driver was more than capable or driving at that speed...
Surely these factors therefore apply to this driver - infact, if the vehicle was in good condition (eliminating tyre blow outs etc) and if the roads were clear (i understand this being a problem as it was the M25 - although i'm sure he could have seen far ahead of himself for danger) and if he was a highly competant driver - then I ask, where is the danger over and above that used by those upholding the law...
Apologies for the length of the posting.
However, why do people automatically jump to the conclusion that it is reckless to drive at those speeds - granted 173 is making this argument harder to work - but the specific car was designed to cope with those speeds safely.
My point is that speed has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is reckless or not - I believe it doesn't come into the eqaution at all... (I'll explain...)
Driving only becomes dangerous and reckless when attributes such as drivers skills, the vehicle being driven, the surrounding environment are contributing to this.
Infact, when someone mentioned above that police cars regularly drive in excess of 150mph - the response was that it was not dangerous due to the fact that the vehicle had been modified (i.e. it was visible) and that the driver was more than capable or driving at that speed...
Surely these factors therefore apply to this driver - infact, if the vehicle was in good condition (eliminating tyre blow outs etc) and if the roads were clear (i understand this being a problem as it was the M25 - although i'm sure he could have seen far ahead of himself for danger) and if he was a highly competant driver - then I ask, where is the danger over and above that used by those upholding the law...
Apologies for the length of the posting.
Fidgits said:
He was later charged with speeding, dangerous driving and having no insurance
I'm sorry, 173 and no insurance... its people like him that give the goverment amunition for motorway speed cameras...
The insurance charge was dropped because he had insurance.
He was charged as such because he didnt produce within seven days.
But he wasnt driving anyway so how would he have known to produce ;-p
xxplod said:
I won't get in to a debate on whether 173 mph is dangerous. Police Officers regularly drive at speeds in excess of 150mph, and it is not considered dangerous in the circumstances.
I think what may more accurately reflect the Police position is:
Police Officers regularly drive at speeds in excess of 150mph, when the danger is calculated and considered justified in the circumstances.
I'm pretty sure the senior officer responsible for policy in these circumstances won't be thinking that he/she isn't in charge of a situation that "is not considered dangerous". At least that wouldn't be an advisable position to be in.
Having never driven a 911 Turbo (or even a 911) before, I'm willing to bet that at that speed it doesn't feel much different from driving a Mondeo at 100mph tbh.
Some cars are quite capable of safely driving at such speeds, and as we don't know enough to comment on the driver's ability, I'd err on the side of caution and suggest that hes probably capable of handling it.
So, to conclude, I have no problems with people driving that fast, provided its done safely and responsibly - and the news article infers nothing about that.
Some cars are quite capable of safely driving at such speeds, and as we don't know enough to comment on the driver's ability, I'd err on the side of caution and suggest that hes probably capable of handling it.
So, to conclude, I have no problems with people driving that fast, provided its done safely and responsibly - and the news article infers nothing about that.
parrot of doom said:
Having never driven a 911 Turbo (or even a 911) before, I'm willing to bet that at that speed it doesn't feel much different from driving a Mondeo at 100mph tbh.
Isn't that part of the point - he doesn't feel he is going fast and so doesn't compensate for the speed that he is going
parrot of doom said:A more accurate statement would be to err on the side of caution and say he couldn't handle it.
Some cars are quite capable of safely driving at such speeds, and as we don't know enough to comment on the driver's ability, I'd err on the side of caution and suggest that hes probably capable of handling it.
parrot of doom said:Agin this is the problem. Everyone on here has asked for the police to enforce speed limits through their own judgement on what is a safe speed for the conditions. Yet we have the case where a BiB has done so and given evidence to the fact but you are all cheering that the guy got off on a technicality.
So, to conclude, I have no problems with people driving that fast, provided its done safely and responsibly - and the news article infers nothing about that.
Do you want the police to enforce speeds or do you want cameras to enforce them. If a camera had caught him, he wouldn't have got off. And I hate to say it but in this case, I would rather he was caught by a camera than let off by a technicality.
parrot of doom said:
Having never driven a 911 Turbo (or even a 911) before, I'm willing to bet that at that speed it doesn't feel much different from driving a Mondeo at 100mph tbh.
In the previous newspaper article on this chap's speeding exploits, they had a photo' of the offending vehicle - it was a 993tt. I'm lucky enough to have one of these, and have touched greater speeds on empty, sun-kissed sections of motorway in France. I can confirm that even at such speeds it feels rock-solid stable and not at all alarming - far safer than my student-period Astra at 90 mph!
Just a few points from someone who has driven one of these cars far quicker than 173mph, many times.
In answer to POD's first comment I can confirm the handling of the 911 turbo all the way around to 195mph is exemplary. I would also suggest that the 911 turbo at 170 is significantly safer than some modded vectra at 150.
As far as braking is concerned the car can brake from 192mph to 0 in less than 400 yards as many PHers will have witnessed at VMAX. The breaking from 173 as in the court case, to zero should be easily achievable in dry conditions within 320 metres.
I'd also like to reaffirm that these vehicles are regularly driven quicker than 173mph in Germany when the traffic and road conditions allow.
DAZ
>> Edited by dazren on Friday 29th April 14:48
In answer to POD's first comment I can confirm the handling of the 911 turbo all the way around to 195mph is exemplary. I would also suggest that the 911 turbo at 170 is significantly safer than some modded vectra at 150.
As far as braking is concerned the car can brake from 192mph to 0 in less than 400 yards as many PHers will have witnessed at VMAX. The breaking from 173 as in the court case, to zero should be easily achievable in dry conditions within 320 metres.
I'd also like to reaffirm that these vehicles are regularly driven quicker than 173mph in Germany when the traffic and road conditions allow.
DAZ
>> Edited by dazren on Friday 29th April 14:48
nel said:
Having never driven a 911 Turbo (or even a 911) before, I'm willing to bet that at that speed it doesn't feel much different from driving a Mondeo at 100mph tbh.
In the previous newspaper article on this chap's speeding exploits, they had a photo' of the offending vehicle - it was a 993tt. I'm lucky enough to have one of these, and have touched greater speeds on empty, sun-kissed sections of motorway in France. I can confirm that even at such speeds it feels rock-solid stable and not at all alarming - far safer than my student-period Astra at 90 mph!
I wonder what it would be like when you get that twitch when a dog runs accross the road in front of you.
Quite a bit different from "rock solid" perhaps.
Munta said:
xxplod said:
I won't get in to a debate on whether 173 mph is dangerous. Police Officers regularly drive at speeds in excess of 150mph, and it is not considered dangerous in the circumstances.
But BiB have the benefit of a highly visible cars, advanced pursuit training and blues and twos. This was some idiot who decided to have a burn out on the most congested motorway in the country.
Why must he be an idiot? do you know him? for all you know, the motorway was clear, conditions good, ample visability etc, he could be race trained and he was certainly driving a race bred car with superb capabilities. You don't know the facts so I suggest you zip it, nothing personal mate, just can't stand people jumping the gun or going off half cocked.
If I was driving the same sort of car in good conditions at the same sort of speed on a race track you wouldn't call me an idiot, well not unless you are a very brave man, so If I now do the same on the M25 when I feel that it is safe to do it, that makes me a law breaker and thats it. If the police can drive at 150/175 and not be considered as dangerous drivers then someone with the same or simular training/experience must logically be considered as "safe" as police officers.
If driving at 175 mph is so dangerous then nobody should be able to travel at that speed anywhere.
>> Edited by Racing Rod on Friday 29th April 14:52
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff