Most of us like car / bike speed (where we sensibly can) BUT
Discussion
They've caught a guy near Norwich very recently doing 92 in a 30. This fella in his 2005 M3 E46 has been piling around the city and outskirts for a long time and has been reported a lot for mad speeds in the city centre and just outside.
Fast forward, he was 62 mph over the city limit when they caught him. So, this is a fairly awkward question as i am no angel whatsoever, indeed 20, 30, 40 and 50 limits are the only ones i actually keep to in all honesty, i am more than happy to stretch my legs, so to speak, in 60 and 70s.
Question. WHAT in your view is the correct punishment? I ask because for me that bloke may as well have a gun, virtually, driving at that speed in a city. I'd ban him for 10 years and seize the car, which a couple friends have said is way too mercenary. Others agree with me.
Ok it's a bit harsh in some ways but in the name of God what IS he thinking? The fact he's been doing similar for months makes me want him on a bicycle for a very long time.
Your views?
Fast forward, he was 62 mph over the city limit when they caught him. So, this is a fairly awkward question as i am no angel whatsoever, indeed 20, 30, 40 and 50 limits are the only ones i actually keep to in all honesty, i am more than happy to stretch my legs, so to speak, in 60 and 70s.
Question. WHAT in your view is the correct punishment? I ask because for me that bloke may as well have a gun, virtually, driving at that speed in a city. I'd ban him for 10 years and seize the car, which a couple friends have said is way too mercenary. Others agree with me.
Ok it's a bit harsh in some ways but in the name of God what IS he thinking? The fact he's been doing similar for months makes me want him on a bicycle for a very long time.
Your views?
The fact that he's been "doing so for months" presumably without killing anyone, demonstrates that driving fast isn't as dangerous as you seem to believe.
I sped in all areas for at least the first 10 years, I was known by the local police, caught perhaps 30 times, let off on the vast majority of them but totted up 9 points.
I never had a single crash
So personally I'd go for 6 points and a fine
Because if we ban those who don't crash, what do we do, to those that do ?
I sped in all areas for at least the first 10 years, I was known by the local police, caught perhaps 30 times, let off on the vast majority of them but totted up 9 points.
I never had a single crash
So personally I'd go for 6 points and a fine
Because if we ban those who don't crash, what do we do, to those that do ?
KTMsm said:
The fact that he's been "doing so for months" presumably without killing anyone, demonstrates that driving fast isn't as dangerous as you seem to believe.
I sped in all areas for at least the first 10 years, I was known by the local police, caught perhaps 30 times, let off on the vast majority of them but totted up 9 points.
I never had a single crash
So personally I'd go for 6 points and a fine
Because if we ban those who don't crash, what do we do, to those that do ?
OMG. You ban people driving stupidly, it doesn't matter whether they actually crash or not, you utter fool.I sped in all areas for at least the first 10 years, I was known by the local police, caught perhaps 30 times, let off on the vast majority of them but totted up 9 points.
I never had a single crash
So personally I'd go for 6 points and a fine
Because if we ban those who don't crash, what do we do, to those that do ?
What an idiotic response. So if i do 110 mph in Great Yarmouth (40 limit) tomorrow when we go, that's ok as long as i don't actually crash? Wake up and get real. LEARN the difference between crashing (often just bad luck) and driving like a moron.
You were incredibly fortunate and with the slightest bit of bad luck you and probably some/many other innocent person/people would be simply a statistic/s.
You've admitted you drove like a knob regularly so the law of averages says you were simply the very, very rare example of someone doing stupid speeds in cities all the time but not crashing or killing anyone. Unless you are talking 35 or 40 in a 30, stopping distances are massively increased once you get past 40 mph, amazingly so once you are 30 mph over the limit. Cities have children and old people crossing, cities have OTHER drivers pulling out not expecting a bell end to be doing 55 mph or even 92 in a 30 limit.
Sorry to say this, but people like you are the very reason we have so many people killed on the roads, people like you doing insane speeds and never learning their lesson. 30 times caught speeding and you still didn't learn? You should have been banned a long time ago clearly, to educate you. Because every time you were let off as you claim (doubtful nearly 30 times with our modern traffic police) you thought it was ok to carry on speeding seriously all the time. If you were known to the Norwich police they would have had you off the road after 4 speedings. Norfolk traffic police do not suffer stupid driving well.
People like you are the reason our country is littered with speed humps and cameras and 20 mph limits.
Are you as unaware and inconsiderate now, or did you finally mature and grow up?
BroadsRS6 said:
KTMsm said:
The fact that he's been "doing so for months" presumably without killing anyone, demonstrates that driving fast isn't as dangerous as you seem to believe.
I sped in all areas for at least the first 10 years, I was known by the local police, caught perhaps 30 times, let off on the vast majority of them but totted up 9 points.
I never had a single crash
So personally I'd go for 6 points and a fine
Because if we ban those who don't crash, what do we do, to those that do ?
OMG. You ban people driving stupidly, it doesn't matter whether they actually crash or not, you utter fool.I sped in all areas for at least the first 10 years, I was known by the local police, caught perhaps 30 times, let off on the vast majority of them but totted up 9 points.
I never had a single crash
So personally I'd go for 6 points and a fine
Because if we ban those who don't crash, what do we do, to those that do ?
What an idiotic response. So if i do 110 mph in Great Yarmouth (40 limit) tomorrow when we go, that's ok as long as i don't actually crash? Wake up and get real. LEARN the difference between crashing (often just bad luck) and driving like a moron.
You were incredibly fortunate and with the slightest bit of bad luck you and probably some/many other innocent person/people would be simply a statistic/s.
You've admitted you drove like a knob regularly so the law of averages says you were simply the very, very rare example of someone doing stupid speeds in cities all the time but not crashing or killing anyone. Unless you are talking 35 or 40 in a 30, stopping distances are massively increased once you get past 40 mph, amazingly so once you are 30 mph over the limit. Cities have children and old people crossing, cities have OTHER drivers pulling out not expecting a bell end to be doing 55 mph or even 92 in a 30 limit.
Sorry to say this, but people like you are the very reason we have so many people killed on the roads, people like you doing insane speeds and never learning their lesson. 30 times caught speeding and you still didn't learn? You should have been banned a long time ago clearly, to educate you. Because every time you were let off as you claim (doubtful nearly 30 times with our modern traffic police) you thought it was ok to carry on speeding seriously all the time. If you were known to the Norwich police they would have had you off the road after 4 speedings. Norfolk traffic police do not suffer stupid driving well.
People like you are the reason our country is littered with speed humps and cameras and 20 mph limits.
Are you as unaware and inconsiderate now, or did you finally mature and grow up?
KTMsm said:
The fact that he's been "doing so for months" presumably without killing anyone, demonstrates that driving fast isn't as dangerous as you seem to believe.
I sped in all areas for at least the first 10 years, I was known by the local police, caught perhaps 30 times, let off on the vast majority of them but totted up 9 points.
I never had a single crash
So personally I'd go for 6 points and a fine
Because if we ban those who don't crash, what do we do, to those that do ?
Surely this is a joke post? If not then you sound like a total *****I sped in all areas for at least the first 10 years, I was known by the local police, caught perhaps 30 times, let off on the vast majority of them but totted up 9 points.
I never had a single crash
So personally I'd go for 6 points and a fine
Because if we ban those who don't crash, what do we do, to those that do ?
OP I agree with you. Five year ban minimum and five figure fine but I doubt he’ll get more than 2 years and a few hundred.
Crashes don’t happen because of bad luck. That’s not a reason. They usually happen because of bad driving.
The question is reasonable. If someone speeds for 50 years and doesn’t crash why should they be treated more harshly by the law than someone who doesn’t speed but crashes once a year?
The question is reasonable. If someone speeds for 50 years and doesn’t crash why should they be treated more harshly by the law than someone who doesn’t speed but crashes once a year?
BroadsRS6 said:
Question. WHAT in your view is the correct punishment?
Your views?
Without knowing full details I wouldn’t dictate a punishment based purely on exceeding a posted limit.Your views?
For example In my opinion 50mph past the post office in a town centre during the day could be much more serious than 90mph exiting a 30 limit heading home in the small hours.
With more info I might either be in the ban him for life camp or the points & fine for being a bit stupid.
BroadsRS6 said:
They've caught a guy near Norwich very recently doing 92 in a 30. This fella in his 2005 M3 E46 has been piling around the city and outskirts for a long time and has been reported a lot for mad speeds in the city centre and just outside.
Fast forward, he was 62 mph over the city limit when they caught him. So, this is a fairly awkward question as i am no angel whatsoever, indeed 20, 30, 40 and 50 limits are the only ones i actually keep to in all honesty, i am more than happy to stretch my legs, so to speak, in 60 and 70s.
Question. WHAT in your view is the correct punishment? I ask because for me that bloke may as well have a gun, virtually, driving at that speed in a city. I'd ban him for 10 years and seize the car, which a couple friends have said is way too mercenary. Others agree with me.
Ok it's a bit harsh in some ways but in the name of God what IS he thinking? The fact he's been doing similar for months makes me want him on a bicycle for a very long time.
Your views?
My view? Fast forward, he was 62 mph over the city limit when they caught him. So, this is a fairly awkward question as i am no angel whatsoever, indeed 20, 30, 40 and 50 limits are the only ones i actually keep to in all honesty, i am more than happy to stretch my legs, so to speak, in 60 and 70s.
Question. WHAT in your view is the correct punishment? I ask because for me that bloke may as well have a gun, virtually, driving at that speed in a city. I'd ban him for 10 years and seize the car, which a couple friends have said is way too mercenary. Others agree with me.
Ok it's a bit harsh in some ways but in the name of God what IS he thinking? The fact he's been doing similar for months makes me want him on a bicycle for a very long time.
Your views?
:You have obviously started this thread to get replies that match your opinion, and get an internet pat on the back.
As demonstrated by your response to the first reply that doesn't match your own view, you're intent on being abusive, argumentative, and want to go off on a rant to anyone who doesn't think the same way as you.
Of course, that's just my view - I'm sure yours will differ completely (and you will be fully prepared to argue about it - Possibly with some abusive comments thrown in for good measure!
)BroadsRS6 said:
OMG. You ban people driving stupidly, it doesn't matter whether they actually crash or not, you utter fool.
What an idiotic response. So if i do 110 mph in Great Yarmouth (40 limit) tomorrow when we go, that's ok as long as i don't actually crash? Wake up and get real. LEARN the difference between crashing (often just bad luck) and driving like a moron.
You were incredibly fortunate and with the slightest bit of bad luck you and probably some/many other innocent person/people would be simply a statistic/s.
You've admitted you drove like a knob regularly so the law of averages says you were simply the very, very rare example of someone doing stupid speeds in cities all the time but not crashing or killing anyone. Unless you are talking 35 or 40 in a 30, stopping distances are massively increased once you get past 40 mph, amazingly so once you are 30 mph over the limit. Cities have children and old people crossing, cities have OTHER drivers pulling out not expecting a bell end to be doing 55 mph or even 92 in a 30 limit.
Sorry to say this, but people like you are the very reason we have so many people killed on the roads, people like you doing insane speeds and never learning their lesson. 30 times caught speeding and you still didn't learn? You should have been banned a long time ago clearly, to educate you. Because every time you were let off as you claim (doubtful nearly 30 times with our modern traffic police) you thought it was ok to carry on speeding seriously all the time. If you were known to the Norwich police they would have had you off the road after 4 speedings. Norfolk traffic police do not suffer stupid driving well.
People like you are the reason our country is littered with speed humps and cameras and 20 mph limits.
Are you as unaware and inconsiderate now, or did you finally mature and grow up?
So to be clear you're perfectly fine with people crashing and injuring / killing people as long as they do so within the speed limitWhat an idiotic response. So if i do 110 mph in Great Yarmouth (40 limit) tomorrow when we go, that's ok as long as i don't actually crash? Wake up and get real. LEARN the difference between crashing (often just bad luck) and driving like a moron.
You were incredibly fortunate and with the slightest bit of bad luck you and probably some/many other innocent person/people would be simply a statistic/s.
You've admitted you drove like a knob regularly so the law of averages says you were simply the very, very rare example of someone doing stupid speeds in cities all the time but not crashing or killing anyone. Unless you are talking 35 or 40 in a 30, stopping distances are massively increased once you get past 40 mph, amazingly so once you are 30 mph over the limit. Cities have children and old people crossing, cities have OTHER drivers pulling out not expecting a bell end to be doing 55 mph or even 92 in a 30 limit.
Sorry to say this, but people like you are the very reason we have so many people killed on the roads, people like you doing insane speeds and never learning their lesson. 30 times caught speeding and you still didn't learn? You should have been banned a long time ago clearly, to educate you. Because every time you were let off as you claim (doubtful nearly 30 times with our modern traffic police) you thought it was ok to carry on speeding seriously all the time. If you were known to the Norwich police they would have had you off the road after 4 speedings. Norfolk traffic police do not suffer stupid driving well.
People like you are the reason our country is littered with speed humps and cameras and 20 mph limits.
Are you as unaware and inconsiderate now, or did you finally mature and grow up?
But exceeding the limit and harming no one is totally unacceptable
Oh except above 50 limits when speeding is perfectly fine according to your OP
That's an interesting point of view
Personally I think we should judge people for the consequences of their actions not what might happen
BroadsRS6 said:
KTMsm said:
The fact that he's been "doing so for months" presumably without killing anyone, demonstrates that driving fast isn't as dangerous as you seem to believe.
I sped in all areas for at least the first 10 years, I was known by the local police, caught perhaps 30 times, let off on the vast majority of them but totted up 9 points.
I never had a single crash
So personally I'd go for 6 points and a fine
Because if we ban those who don't crash, what do we do, to those that do ?
OMG. You ban people driving stupidly, it doesn't matter whether they actually crash or not, you utter fool.I sped in all areas for at least the first 10 years, I was known by the local police, caught perhaps 30 times, let off on the vast majority of them but totted up 9 points.
I never had a single crash
So personally I'd go for 6 points and a fine
Because if we ban those who don't crash, what do we do, to those that do ?
What an idiotic response. So if i do 110 mph in Great Yarmouth (40 limit) tomorrow when we go, that's ok as long as i don't actually crash? Wake up and get real. LEARN the difference between crashing (often just bad luck) and driving like a moron.
You were incredibly fortunate and with the slightest bit of bad luck you and probably some/many other innocent person/people would be simply a statistic/s.
You've admitted you drove like a knob regularly so the law of averages says you were simply the very, very rare example of someone doing stupid speeds in cities all the time but not crashing or killing anyone. Unless you are talking 35 or 40 in a 30, stopping distances are massively increased once you get past 40 mph, amazingly so once you are 30 mph over the limit. Cities have children and old people crossing, cities have OTHER drivers pulling out not expecting a bell end to be doing 55 mph or even 92 in a 30 limit.
Sorry to say this, but people like you are the very reason we have so many people killed on the roads, people like you doing insane speeds and never learning their lesson. 30 times caught speeding and you still didn't learn? You should have been banned a long time ago clearly, to educate you. Because every time you were let off as you claim (doubtful nearly 30 times with our modern traffic police) you thought it was ok to carry on speeding seriously all the time. If you were known to the Norwich police they would have had you off the road after 4 speedings. Norfolk traffic police do not suffer stupid driving well.
People like you are the reason our country is littered with speed humps and cameras and 20 mph limits.
Are you as unaware and inconsiderate now, or did you finally mature and grow up?
Why are some people so rude and abusive to an unknown person on the internet just because they have a different opinion of something?
Would they talk to someone like that if they were face to face?
OP, if you are unable to have a reasoned debate, be polite and listen to other peoples views, why did you start the thread? (Although I think 4Rephill has already answered that question.)
KTMsm said:
Personally I think we should judge people for the consequences of their actions not what might happen
I think it's better to try to prevent the incident with consequences happening in the first place by promoting positive behaviours.If you do something stupid & a collision happens, that isn't because of bad luck.
If you do something stupid & you get away with it then that is because of good fortune.
The fact it didn't have negative consequences doesn't make it any less stupid or undesirable a behaviour.
So in short, it's the undesirable actions/behaviours that require attention, whatever the outcome.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th July 10:18
mike-v2tmf said:
OK , I'll bite.............so if 25%of accidents are caused by drunk drivers........then 75% are caused by sober drivers...? So should anyone caught driving while sober be banned/fined ? 
Drunk driving is undesirable, deal with the drunk drivers on that basis.Sober driving is desirable, but the other stupid things that they did to result in accidents isn't. Deal with them for those stupid things (because the sobriety was not the cause).
vonhosen said:
Drunk driving is undesirable, deal with the drunk drivers on that basis.
Sober driving is desirable, but the other stupid things that they did to result in accidents isn't. Deal with them for those stupid things (because the sobriety was not the cause).
I agree with this. You see idiotic driving of various types at all speeds. Aggressive driving, inconsiderate driving, incompetent driving.Sober driving is desirable, but the other stupid things that they did to result in accidents isn't. Deal with them for those stupid things (because the sobriety was not the cause).
There are guidelines for conviction/sentencing that will be applied to this case.
Is the OP looking for the thread to drift into debate about sentencing/penalties or speed limits?
I personally have no desire to drive fast on public roads, I might speed in 30 or 40 zones at times, but that is a selfish thing as I know the roads and accept the likely penalties and risks.
What I find astonishing is how modern people drive fast only in a straight line, they never anticipate corner exits, never drive quickly round a roundabout, never do anything remotely throttle wise until their car is dead straight then the drag race away from you.
I drive a low powered car and the amount of times I exit a roundabout quickly, pull to overtake and some dozy Mum rods her Zafira in super diesel mode up to 80 in no time, undertakes and then gets annoyed when I flash!
What I find astonishing is how modern people drive fast only in a straight line, they never anticipate corner exits, never drive quickly round a roundabout, never do anything remotely throttle wise until their car is dead straight then the drag race away from you.
I drive a low powered car and the amount of times I exit a roundabout quickly, pull to overtake and some dozy Mum rods her Zafira in super diesel mode up to 80 in no time, undertakes and then gets annoyed when I flash!
KTMsm said:
The fact that he's been "doing so for months" presumably without killing anyone, demonstrates that driving fast isn't as dangerous as you seem to believe.
It doesn't demonstrate that at all. People do all kinds of things that are dangerous, and get away without suffering the undesirable consequences. Someone might play Russian Roulette and get away with it. You cannot use that to say "it's not as dangerous as you believe". That's just bad science, and a lack of understanding of statistics, probability, physics, and no doubt many other factors. Of course, we don't know what the OP believes, so it may do. The OP may believe that every time you drive fast, you kill someone, in which case driving fast isn't as dangerous as he believes.
So we cannot use what the OP has said to make the assertion you have.
vonhosen said:
KTMsm said:
Personally I think we should judge people for the consequences of their actions not what might happen
I think it's better to try to prevent the incident with consequences happening in the first place by promoting positive behaviours.If you do something stupid & a collision happens, that isn't because of bad luck.
If you do something stupid & you get away with it then that is because of good fortune.
The fact it didn't have negative consequences doesn't make it any less stupid or undesirable a behaviour.
So in short, it's the undesirable actions/behaviours that require attention, whatever the outcome.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th July 10:18
Durability drivers constantly lodge official dangerous driving reports against handling test drivers.
Durabilty drivers crash at least 10 times as often, often badly.
The outcome here shows that the apparently crazy driving isn`t where the health and safety people should focus their attentions. The outcome proves which is the less desirable behaviour.
My point is that sometimes it`s not the obviously stupid driving that`s actually stupid. Who makes the call on that? Some clueless "reasonable and competent driver", a judge that wasn`t even there? Give me an alert driver speeding and powersliding rather than an inattentive/tired driver any day.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff