Motoring journalist banned for speeding
Discussion
Jasandjules said:
And that is his risk. Do we punish people for risking their own lives these days? If so my parachuting and Scuba diving will see me jailed, let alone driving.
One of the things about driving fast at night is that you can see other cars more easily. I also suspect that he knew this road quite well to be going at that speed with only headlights to light the way.
Tell me. How many oncoming sky divers do you meet up there? How fast is the typical scuba crash...6-7mph? One of the things about driving fast at night is that you can see other cars more easily. I also suspect that he knew this road quite well to be going at that speed with only headlights to light the way.
The fact is it's a massive own goal. What better arguement for the anti speed police, racing driver and 127mph on a public road. It's clear that most on here understand knowing the road and having a good deal of skill does make you highly competent but still doesn't save you in the eyes if the law. Stating this doesn't make anyone less of an enthusiast, saying it does is a ridiculous statement.
The cold facts are he got a ban and it's cramped his lifestyle.
Drumroll said:
Sorry, can't agree with most of what is being posted here. The fact that this guy is a "racing driver" is totally irrelevant. Driving on a race track and driving on a road are two very different things. Also what none of those who are supporting this idiot have mentioned is that he had been on the road for most of the day.
What really annoys me is when some people say the speed was excessive and it was. they are immediately jumped on for being a supporter of BRAKE. do they not see that comments like "it's only 127" plays straight into BRAKE's hands.
To those people who think 127 is OK for them. Please explain to the rest of us, why you think your driving is so much better and when can we join? When we are 17 and just passed our test? when we are 70 with poor eyesight? When we have done a couple of track days?
Mind you look at this speed king http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-ea... Bet he would be allowed in your 127MPH club.
The fact that you have posted that link shows you have no understanding of the issue at all, and indeed you should be on the BRAKE forums and not here.What really annoys me is when some people say the speed was excessive and it was. they are immediately jumped on for being a supporter of BRAKE. do they not see that comments like "it's only 127" plays straight into BRAKE's hands.
To those people who think 127 is OK for them. Please explain to the rest of us, why you think your driving is so much better and when can we join? When we are 17 and just passed our test? when we are 70 with poor eyesight? When we have done a couple of track days?
Mind you look at this speed king http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-ea... Bet he would be allowed in your 127MPH club.
You are of course 100% wrong that the driver in your link would be in my 'club'. In my world he would have been banned for life anyway - if had a licence at the time then the state has colluded in the deaths of those girls, and so has any insurance company that provided cover to him with his record.
What the driver who is the subject of the thread did was illegal but was absolutely not dangerous.
heebeegeetee said:
What the driver who is the subject of the thread did was illegal but was absolutely not dangerous.
No increased risk at travelling at 127mph at night on that road....no increased risk at all? Debris on the road, animals, damp patches etc, other road users doing the same speed....all get harder to avoid at silly speeds..if you say that 127 is not dangerous then would say, 170 be safe also? Where does it stop?
andysgriff said:
No increased risk at travelling at 127mph at night on that road....no increased risk at all?
Debris on the road, animals, damp patches etc, other road users doing the same speed....all get harder to avoid at silly speeds..if you say that 127 is not dangerous then would say, 170 be safe also? Where does it stop?
You increase risk when you get out of bed, but so what? If you want to stop "increased risk" then lets just have a blanket speed limit of 20 mph and be done with it.Debris on the road, animals, damp patches etc, other road users doing the same speed....all get harder to avoid at silly speeds..if you say that 127 is not dangerous then would say, 170 be safe also? Where does it stop?
At 127 mph that Porsche will be completely stable and completely and comfortably within its design parameters. It really isn't a big deal doing 127 in a car that does it comfortably and very easily, especially with an experienced driver at the wheel.
That act of that driver doing that speed was not dangerous. We can talk about laws and limits all we like but that act was not dangerous.
heebeegeetee said:
You increase risk when you get out of bed, but so what? If you want to stop "increased risk" then lets just have a blanket speed limit of 20 mph and be done with it.
At 127 mph that Porsche will be completely stable and completely and comfortably within its design parameters. It really isn't a big deal doing 127 in a car that does it comfortably and very easily, especially with an experienced driver at the wheel.
That act of that driver doing that speed was not dangerous. We can talk about laws and limits all we like but that act was not dangerous.
I usually agree with you, but here I won't. Even if he is a good driver and the car is stable at that speed, you only have to have one factor crop up unexpectedly, like a pheasant in the road for example, and some poor sod has to pick bits of his corpse out of the scenery. Or even worse, his out-of-control car hits someone else.At 127 mph that Porsche will be completely stable and completely and comfortably within its design parameters. It really isn't a big deal doing 127 in a car that does it comfortably and very easily, especially with an experienced driver at the wheel.
That act of that driver doing that speed was not dangerous. We can talk about laws and limits all we like but that act was not dangerous.
So 127mph on a public road = idiot.
www.wreckedexotics.com/articles/017.shtml
Granted a few mouth breathers amongst that lot but when you hit a tree at 130 its not pretty.
Granted a few mouth breathers amongst that lot but when you hit a tree at 130 its not pretty.
Edited by andysgriff on Sunday 30th November 09:51
Edited by andysgriff on Sunday 30th November 09:54
Those "driving Gods" (who are probably also PH company directors with 24 Ferraris) attempting to justify driving at 127mph on a public road, as if it were no different to driving at 33mph in a 30mph limit, are simply giving the idiots at BRAKE, and similar campaigners, great ammunition.
It's absolutely unjustifiable in every way. I don't care how skilled a driver someone claims to be.
And those claiming "he only risks his own life", great, are you going to volunteer to scrape the body parts off the road then?
And I'm no "old fart" either - I'm 22 and I drive more than 40,000 miles a year, a lot of that for my job.
Quite unbelievable actually.
It's absolutely unjustifiable in every way. I don't care how skilled a driver someone claims to be.
And those claiming "he only risks his own life", great, are you going to volunteer to scrape the body parts off the road then?
And I'm no "old fart" either - I'm 22 and I drive more than 40,000 miles a year, a lot of that for my job.
Quite unbelievable actually.
zarjaz1991 said:
Those "driving Gods" (who are probably also PH company directors with 24 Ferraris) attempting to justify driving at 127mph on a public road, as if it were no different to driving at 33mph in a 30mph limit, are simply giving the idiots at BRAKE, and similar campaigners, great ammunition.
I think you are right.zarjaz1991 said:
attempting to justify driving at 127mph on a public road, as if it were no different to driving at 33mph in a 30mph limit,
But THIS^^^ is precisely the point. By focusing simply on an arbitrary "number" that is the vehicles velocity, it completely ignores the more important factors that are characterising the "risk" at the point in time.For a modern high performance car, absolute speed is, these days almost irrelevant. Even a cooking diesel family car will sit at 120mph all day, without issue, and is designed, developed and tested to do so. A more sporting car, like say a 911, will sit at 160mph all day. The only difference is the absolute value of the number used to describe that velocity.
I personally see many more cases of people "speeding" (ie exceeding some arbitrary absolute velocity) in 30mph zones where it increases their (and the peoples around them) risk significantly more than someone doing 127mph on an empty road late at night.
Of course, it's easy to say "but what if something happens, like you have to swerve around a pheasant", well at 127mph, you are not going to swerve around it, you're just going to hit it and kill it. Exactly the same as 99.9999% of drivers will do when travelling at the arbitrary legal limit for that road (70mph).
And, despite what you see on films, having say a blow out at 127mph does not automatically cause the car to roll 5 times and explode. Modern low profile, and often run flat, tyres fail very gracefully. I've had a tyre fail at just under 190mph and had no issues.
So, the Velocity / Risk equation MUST include the training, skills and experience of the person driving the car. It cannot be viewed in isolation. Except, the Law does not make that distinction. As long as you have passed a basic competence test (and that could have been years ago) all drivers are viewed as equal in the black and white eyes of the law, which is frankly, a ridiculous situation.
Here's an example similarity:
I have a snooker table, with just 2 balls placed on it, a white ball at one end of the table, and a red one down towards the other end. You are invited to try to pot the red. If you do, i will give you £1M. If you miss, you owe me £1M.
Two people come up to play; Joe Blogs, an investment account manager from Bromsgrove, and Steve Davis, 6 times world snooker champion.
Now, tell me what has happened to the risk/reward situation for each of those people. The situation is unchanged, but the overall level of risk is enormously different for each player.
What you almost certainly wouldn't do, is treat each of them in the same way and with the same arbitrary limitations.............
Back in the old days, when we had real police officers "upholding" the law, they could apply a "Human filter" a grayscale softening (or hardening) of the mandated law to suit each particular situation. These days, with machine justice we have lost that capability, and it simply becomes a case of 70.0000000000 mph = legal, 70.0000000000001 = illegal. You are either "speeding" or you are "not speeding", and you pass from legality to illegality as you cross that arbitrary value and the law treats you in the same fashion.
torres del paine said:
So much hysteria.
It seems so. Anyone would think the guy had made a public statement trying to defend himself when in reality it appears he simply accepted the punishment.I've learnt it's pointless arguing on the internet about speed and use of, the reason for which is clear in this thread: there's an obvious gulf between what some posters/drivers are comfortable with - and I've absolutely no doubt safe at - and others who wouldn't consider exceeding or in some cases reaching the posted limit, and clearly have little experience of a performance car because of that.
Ultimately I suppose that's why the limits are there: to protect the type of driver who just isn't comfortable or biologically equipped to operate beyond them, or evaluate the risk of a of specific scenario.
Max_Torque said:
But THIS^^^ is precisely the point. By focusing simply on an arbitrary "number" that is the vehicles velocity, it completely ignores the more important factors that are characterising the "risk" at the point in time.
<snip>
Back in the old days, when we had real police officers "upholding" the law, they could apply a "Human filter" a grayscale softening (or hardening) of the mandated law to suit each particular situation. These days, with machine justice we have lost that capability, and it simply becomes a case of 70.0000000000 mph = legal, 70.0000000000001 = illegal. You are either "speeding" or you are "not speeding", and you pass from legality to illegality as you cross that arbitrary value and the law treats you in the same fashion.
I think, even "back in the old days", a real police officer upholding the law and applying a human filter, would still have taken someone to court for doing 127mph on a public road. If they didn't, then they were not fit to be a police officer.<snip>
Back in the old days, when we had real police officers "upholding" the law, they could apply a "Human filter" a grayscale softening (or hardening) of the mandated law to suit each particular situation. These days, with machine justice we have lost that capability, and it simply becomes a case of 70.0000000000 mph = legal, 70.0000000000001 = illegal. You are either "speeding" or you are "not speeding", and you pass from legality to illegality as you cross that arbitrary value and the law treats you in the same fashion.
mwstewart said:
It seems so. Anyone would think the guy had made a public statement trying to defend himself when in reality it appears he simply accepted the punishment.
I've learnt it's pointless arguing on the internet about speed and use of, the reason for which is clear in this thread: there's an obvious gulf between what some posters/drivers are comfortable with - and I've absolutely no doubt safe at - and others who wouldn't consider exceeding or in some cases reaching the posted limit, and clearly have little experience of a performance car because of that.
Ultimately I suppose that's why the limits are there: to protect the type of driver who just isn't comfortable or biologically equipped to operate beyond them, or evaluate the risk of a of specific scenario.
It's not as black and white as that.I've learnt it's pointless arguing on the internet about speed and use of, the reason for which is clear in this thread: there's an obvious gulf between what some posters/drivers are comfortable with - and I've absolutely no doubt safe at - and others who wouldn't consider exceeding or in some cases reaching the posted limit, and clearly have little experience of a performance car because of that.
Ultimately I suppose that's why the limits are there: to protect the type of driver who just isn't comfortable or biologically equipped to operate beyond them, or evaluate the risk of a of specific scenario.
I'm perfectly capable of driving "safely" (allowing for the fact that I don't believe it's a good idea at all from a safety perspective) at 127mph. However, I don't for a moment believe it's acceptable or "safe" on a public road. It's not about the speed per se, it's about the many, many unknowns and variables that can crop up, which would be difficult if not impossible to counteract at such speeds.
There's also the question of "need". There is absolutely no justification other than personal pleasure, and I wouldn't be prepared to put people's lives and health at risk for my own personal pleasure. Yes I love driving at high speeds, but speeds as high as that belong on a racetrack. That's not me being a "Brake apologist" either, I'm the last person to be that.
People with high performance cars deciding for themselves that they are "skilled drivers" and thus ought to be exempt from the laws the rest of us obey, fills me with utter terror frankly.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff