Driver who hit 146mph one of six caught in Norfolk....
Discussion
Driver who hit 146mph one of six caught in Norfolk at over 100mph.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-4824...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-4824...
2Btoo said:
I trust that Sgt C.Harris (!) will also post about the massive accidents, injury and death directly caused by these people's inexcusable recklessness.
No?
Didn't think so.
Perhaps Sgt C.Harris prevented these people from causing any massive accidents, injuries and deaths due to their inexcusable recklessness, by pulling them over? No?
Didn't think so.
Did you think of that?
No?
Didn't think so.
With the lack of marked patrols plus modern cars being so insulated and stable at high speeds I don’t find this particularly shocking. On the Autobahn my S3 feels completely happy to cruise at 120 indicated and Vmax at 170 (remapped with limiter delete) and that is hardly an exotic car. I’d expect truly fast cars to be going much quicker.
100 is NOT fast, yes it isn’t legal or clever to do it in the U.K. but the reaction of the Police officer and the Twitter comments are comical.
100 is NOT fast, yes it isn’t legal or clever to do it in the U.K. but the reaction of the Police officer and the Twitter comments are comical.
oceanview said:
Judging by most of the crashes that happen on the motorways, most seemed to be caused by tailgating/careless/distracted driving.
But, hey, I am sure they were either at or around the limit so that's just fine.
Norfolk has no motorways. The article refers to the A47, which is a dual carriageway. And the stretch of A47 that they were caught on is frequently used by tractors and bicycles too. Anticipating what other traffic is going to do when you’re closing with a speed differential of c. 130mph sounds challenging...But, hey, I am sure they were either at or around the limit so that's just fine.
4rephill said:
Perhaps Sgt C.Harris prevented these people from causing any massive accidents, injuries and deaths due to their inexcusable recklessness, by pulling them over?
Did you think of that?
No?
Didn't think so.
Perhaps he did - you make a good point. Did you think of that?
No?
Didn't think so.
Although it's probably reasonable to assume that the number of people speeding on the day that Sgt C.Harris was on patrol was not significantly higher or lower than on any other day. In which case then did all those speeders who weren't apprehended on all the other days cause massive accidents, injuries and deaths because Sgt C.Harris wasn't there to save them?
No?
Didn't think so.
MrTrilby said:
oceanview said:
Judging by most of the crashes that happen on the motorways, most seemed to be caused by tailgating/careless/distracted driving.
But, hey, I am sure they were either at or around the limit so that's just fine.
Norfolk has no motorways. The article refers to the A47, which is a dual carriageway. And the stretch of A47 that they were caught on is frequently used by tractors and bicycles too. Anticipating what other traffic is going to do when you’re closing with a speed differential of c. 130mph sounds challenging...But, hey, I am sure they were either at or around the limit so that's just fine.
TX.
2Btoo said:
Perhaps he did - you make a good point.
Although it's probably reasonable to assume that the number of people speeding on the day that Sgt C.Harris was on patrol was not significantly higher or lower than on any other day. In which case then did all those speeders who weren't apprehended on all the other days cause massive accidents, injuries and deaths because Sgt C.Harris wasn't there to save them?
No?
Didn't think so.
I'm not sure what evidence you base your 'probably reasonable to assume' statement on, but this speed check took place on a Saturday afternoon. Saturday afternoon traffic does differ from weekday traffic.Although it's probably reasonable to assume that the number of people speeding on the day that Sgt C.Harris was on patrol was not significantly higher or lower than on any other day. In which case then did all those speeders who weren't apprehended on all the other days cause massive accidents, injuries and deaths because Sgt C.Harris wasn't there to save them?
No?
Didn't think so.
But hey, maybe Sgt Harris ought to wait until someone does get it wrong, then do something about it.
Certainly it won't come as a surprise to a driver that travelling at 146mph that's he's breaking the law, so the driver has made the decision and accepted his fate.
2Btoo said:
I trust that Sgt C.Harris (!) will also post about the massive accidents, injury and death directly caused by these people's inexcusable recklessness.
No?
Didn't think so.
Yes, we should wait until somebody gets killed before doing something to try and stop it happening.....No?
Didn't think so.
2Btoo said:
4rephill said:
Perhaps Sgt C.Harris prevented these people from causing any massive accidents, injuries and deaths due to their inexcusable recklessness, by pulling them over?
Did you think of that?
No?
Didn't think so.
Perhaps he did - you make a good point. Did you think of that?
No?
Didn't think so.
Although it's probably reasonable to assume that the number of people speeding on the day that Sgt C.Harris was on patrol was not significantly higher or lower than on any other day. In which case then did all those speeders who weren't apprehended on all the other days cause massive accidents, injuries and deaths because Sgt C.Harris wasn't there to save them?
No?
Didn't think so.
the tribester said:
I'm not sure what evidence you base your 'probably reasonable to assume' statement on, but this speed check took place on a Saturday afternoon. Saturday afternoon traffic does differ from weekday traffic.
Saturday afternoon traffic may differ from traffic at other times (and let's not forget that it may be slower), but probably not significantly from traffic on other Saturday afternoons. How many Saturdays have passed since Sgt C.Harris was last there? Probably a few, which means that there have probably been quite a few people doing this sort of speed without being apprehended. Did they cause massive accidents? I don't know, but have cause to doubt it. Piginapoke said:
If you are saying that 146mph on a dual carriageway is in any way acceptable, you need to have a proper look at yourself
I'm keen that this discussion shouldn't descend into personal insults, merely that both sides of the argument should be heard. Thanks for your comment all the same. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire...
151mph is a year ban and a fine.
Remember when people thought you'd go to jail at 100+
151mph is a year ban and a fine.
Remember when people thought you'd go to jail at 100+
Pica-Pica said:
Just remember 140 mph has four times the braking distance of 70mph. At 140 mph, that is a hell of a lot of kinetic energy to lose.
Not that I am having a personal go at you but that sounds like an unsubstantiated fact, I would suggest that the car the speed is being done in has the greatest affect on the braking distance.If I can coax my old Opel Manta up to 100 then I expect it to take a longer distance to stop, if I do the same in the E55amg then I would find it hard to measure any extra distance to say,from 70 to zero.
The merc will stop from 150 in a shorter distance than most cooking grade stuff will stop from 50.
2Btoo said:
the tribester said:
I'm not sure what evidence you base your 'probably reasonable to assume' statement on, but this speed check took place on a Saturday afternoon. Saturday afternoon traffic does differ from weekday traffic.
Saturday afternoon traffic may differ from traffic at other times (and let's not forget that it may be slower), but probably not significantly from traffic on other Saturday afternoons. How many Saturdays have passed since Sgt C.Harris was last there? Probably a few, which means that there have probably been quite a few people doing this sort of speed without being apprehended. Did they cause massive accidents? I don't know, but have cause to doubt it. Piginapoke said:
If you are saying that 146mph on a dual carriageway is in any way acceptable, you need to have a proper look at yourself
I'm keen that this discussion shouldn't descend into personal insults, merely that both sides of the argument should be heard. Thanks for your comment all the same. Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff