147mph on motorway
Discussion
Faz50 said:
How is doing 147 on the motorway any different in law than drink driving or using a mobile phone? All offences can lead to death given the correct circs. It doesn’t matter that nothing serious happened, it’s about the risk of something happening.
Each offence has its own tariff and I expect the police to catch offenders.
In this case the officer was put in a dangerous position by the offender, much like a drink driver who won’t stop or the oblivious person using a phone at the wheel.
I'm sorry, but you will really have to explain that to me in joined up writing. But before you do, let me ask you to consider this: if this driver was as dangerous as you seem to suggest purely by benefit of his speed, are you happy to put your family on an aircraft cruising at 650 MPH 5 miles above the planet's surface happy in the knowledge that your lives are completely dependent on the technician who serviced that aircraft? Because in terms of risk or perceived danger, I'll take my Audi at 150 on the motorway any day of the week.Each offence has its own tariff and I expect the police to catch offenders.
In this case the officer was put in a dangerous position by the offender, much like a drink driver who won’t stop or the oblivious person using a phone at the wheel.
J
Greendubber said:
I think people are getting hung up on a poor choice of words.
Exactly this, which is why it would have been better to say nothing at all.To say it was sheer luck that he didn't cause a collision while doing exactly the same thing himself is always going to attract critisism.
jith said:
Faz50 said:
How is doing 147 on the motorway any different in law than drink driving or using a mobile phone? All offences can lead to death given the correct circs. It doesn’t matter that nothing serious happened, it’s about the risk of something happening.
Each offence has its own tariff and I expect the police to catch offenders.
In this case the officer was put in a dangerous position by the offender, much like a drink driver who won’t stop or the oblivious person using a phone at the wheel.
I'm sorry, but you will really have to explain that to me in joined up writing. But before you do, let me ask you to consider this: if this driver was as dangerous as you seem to suggest purely by benefit of his speed, are you happy to put your family on an aircraft cruising at 650 MPH 5 miles above the planet's surface happy in the knowledge that your lives are completely dependent on the technician who serviced that aircraft? Because in terms of risk or perceived danger, I'll take my Audi at 150 on the motorway any day of the week.Each offence has its own tariff and I expect the police to catch offenders.
In this case the officer was put in a dangerous position by the offender, much like a drink driver who won’t stop or the oblivious person using a phone at the wheel.
J
Statistically for each mile travelled the odds are better for the flyer, that's without increasing the driving risks by doing 150mph.
jith said:
Faz50 said:
How is doing 147 on the motorway any different in law than drink driving or using a mobile phone? All offences can lead to death given the correct circs. It doesn’t matter that nothing serious happened, it’s about the risk of something happening.
Each offence has its own tariff and I expect the police to catch offenders.
In this case the officer was put in a dangerous position by the offender, much like a drink driver who won’t stop or the oblivious person using a phone at the wheel.
I'm sorry, but you will really have to explain that to me in joined up writing. But before you do, let me ask you to consider this: if this driver was as dangerous as you seem to suggest purely by benefit of his speed, are you happy to put your family on an aircraft cruising at 650 MPH 5 miles above the planet's surface happy in the knowledge that your lives are completely dependent on the technician who serviced that aircraft? Because in terms of risk or perceived danger, I'll take my Audi at 150 on the motorway any day of the week.Each offence has its own tariff and I expect the police to catch offenders.
In this case the officer was put in a dangerous position by the offender, much like a drink driver who won’t stop or the oblivious person using a phone at the wheel.
J
The biggest problem with all this "I can go 150mph safely" nonsense is that it is the things that are outwith your control that is dangerous. Would you rather try to avoid some debris falling off the back of a lorry at 70mph or 150mph? What about a dozy driver changing lanes? You are travelling at 67 metres per second. You have much, much less time to react.
Integroo said:
jith said:
Faz50 said:
How is doing 147 on the motorway any different in law than drink driving or using a mobile phone? All offences can lead to death given the correct circs. It doesn’t matter that nothing serious happened, it’s about the risk of something happening.
Each offence has its own tariff and I expect the police to catch offenders.
In this case the officer was put in a dangerous position by the offender, much like a drink driver who won’t stop or the oblivious person using a phone at the wheel.
I'm sorry, but you will really have to explain that to me in joined up writing. But before you do, let me ask you to consider this: if this driver was as dangerous as you seem to suggest purely by benefit of his speed, are you happy to put your family on an aircraft cruising at 650 MPH 5 miles above the planet's surface happy in the knowledge that your lives are completely dependent on the technician who serviced that aircraft? Because in terms of risk or perceived danger, I'll take my Audi at 150 on the motorway any day of the week.Each offence has its own tariff and I expect the police to catch offenders.
In this case the officer was put in a dangerous position by the offender, much like a drink driver who won’t stop or the oblivious person using a phone at the wheel.
J
The biggest problem with all this "I can go 150mph safely" nonsense is that it is the things that are outwith your control that is dangerous. Would you rather try to avoid some debris falling off the back of a lorry at 70mph or 150mph? What about a dozy driver changing lanes? You are travelling at 67 metres per second. You have much, much less time to react.
What we have to expect of drivers when considering whether their actions amount to dangerous actions, are not all the fanciful extreme things that could have potentially happened, but what, from the actual circumstances present at the time, could reasonably have been expected to actually happen & what did the driver do to reasonably mitigate them or not. It is essentially a risk management test that when failed results in danger.
Speed limits don't define the crossover from safe to dangerous. Undoubtedly risk tends to increase as speeds increase, but the point at which that becomes dangerous is because of the likelihood of a collision due to the driver's actions or inaction relative to the attendant circumstances.
Whenever an incident like this happens it seems to be inevitable that we see public comments from a police officer in the media, comments which are inevitably patronising and carry a degree of self congratulation.
I really think that the police would be better served, as has been suggested in this thread, by refraining from comment.
My personal reaction is invariably to think that despite repeated break-ins into the pharmacies I worked at and owned over a period of forty years, and with ever increasing degrees of security, the police never caught any of the people responsible. That's a forty year period of ineffectual policing.
It's no wonder that people have little time for the police and the sort of smug officiousness that PC Foster exhibited
I really think that the police would be better served, as has been suggested in this thread, by refraining from comment.
My personal reaction is invariably to think that despite repeated break-ins into the pharmacies I worked at and owned over a period of forty years, and with ever increasing degrees of security, the police never caught any of the people responsible. That's a forty year period of ineffectual policing.
It's no wonder that people have little time for the police and the sort of smug officiousness that PC Foster exhibited
I've done 135mph+ on busier unrestricted sections of the autobahn. Require allot of concentration at those speeds really looking far ahead and cautious of vehicles to the right of you. Very few cars going for it in the left lane was a surprise.
With regards to the clip traffic seemed relatively light, dry roads(video is quite dull?) so not seeing dangerous driving here. If he was braking heavily and weaving in and out of the middle lane then i'm sure the outcome would have been worse.
Quite a hefty ban IMHO could have perhaps come in lighter if a lawyer was used.
With regards to the clip traffic seemed relatively light, dry roads(video is quite dull?) so not seeing dangerous driving here. If he was braking heavily and weaving in and out of the middle lane then i'm sure the outcome would have been worse.
Quite a hefty ban IMHO could have perhaps come in lighter if a lawyer was used.
jith said:
I'm sorry, but you will really have to explain that to me in joined up writing. But before you do, let me ask you to consider this: if this driver was as dangerous as you seem to suggest purely by benefit of his speed, are you happy to put your family on an aircraft cruising at 650 MPH 5 miles above the planet's surface happy in the knowledge that your lives are completely dependent on the technician who serviced that aircraft? Because in terms of risk or perceived danger, I'll take my Audi at 150 on the motorway any day of the week.
J
This has got nothing to do with aircraft. And let me know which motorway you’ll be doing 150 on and I’ll steer clear of the danger of you doing 150 on a public road. J
I’m amazed people are still getting wound-up over a generic police statement (that probably wasn’t written by the PC).
Do you really think the mass majority of driving public who use cars merely to get from A to B care at all about the statement?
There are some very simplistic assessments of risk, too. Is it better to have two cars at 150 for 5 miles or one car at 150 for 50 miles, for example? A temporary increase of short term risk can prevent longer-term and greater total risk.
Do you really think the mass majority of driving public who use cars merely to get from A to B care at all about the statement?
There are some very simplistic assessments of risk, too. Is it better to have two cars at 150 for 5 miles or one car at 150 for 50 miles, for example? A temporary increase of short term risk can prevent longer-term and greater total risk.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 23 January 12:58
jith said:
I'm sorry, but you will really have to explain that to me in joined up writing. But before you do, let me ask you to consider this: if this driver was as dangerous as you seem to suggest purely by benefit of his speed, are you happy to put your family on an aircraft cruising at 650 MPH 5 miles above the planet's surface happy in the knowledge that your lives are completely dependent on the technician who serviced that aircraft? Because in terms of risk or perceived danger, I'll take my Audi at 150 on the motorway any day of the week.
J
”Because in terms of risk”. J
I think you’ve demonstrated quite the lack of understanding of risk if you think the risk of harm is lower driving 150 (or just driving at any speed, lawful or not), presents less risk than flying in a commercial aircraft.
You probably perceive it because the element of control you have over the car vs the plane.
La Liga said:
There are some very simplistic assessments of risk, too. Is it better to have two cars at 150 for 5 miles or one car at 150 for 50 miles, for example? A temporary increase of short term risk can prevent longer-term and greater total risk.
Someone does have a brain! Edited by La Liga on Tuesday 23 January 12:58
La Liga said:
There are some very simplistic assessments of risk, too. Is it better to have two cars at 150 for 5 miles or one car at 150 for 50 miles, for example? A temporary increase of short term risk can prevent longer-term and greater total risk.
Don't collect your belongings or say goodbye to anyone. Get out.
Coming on here with well reasoned and thought out posts.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Someone did 147 on a M-way.
Nobody died and there wasn't an accident.
The video starts with the speeding S4 in the outside lane and an empty middle lane.
Seems a non-event like quite a few of the dashcam recordings uploaded to that thread.
That 147 looked safer than some of the antagonistic, confrontational, lack of awareness stupidity some dashcam warriors get themselves intentionally involved in in built areas where there are pedestrians and no central reservation.
Nobody died and there wasn't an accident.
The video starts with the speeding S4 in the outside lane and an empty middle lane.
Seems a non-event like quite a few of the dashcam recordings uploaded to that thread.
That 147 looked safer than some of the antagonistic, confrontational, lack of awareness stupidity some dashcam warriors get themselves intentionally involved in in built areas where there are pedestrians and no central reservation.
La Liga said:
Is it better to have two cars at 150 for 5 miles or one car at 150 for 50 miles, for example?
That's a misdirection though, at least in the context of this thread (one of the points being why the pursuing vehicle didn't light up at lower speeds). A more realistic choice would be two cars at 120 for 30/60 seconds (1/2 miles) or two cars at 150 for 30/60 seconds (1.25/2.5 miles).
(besides which, there can't be many (any?) 50 mile stretches of UK motorway on which one could hold a sustained 150. That's pretty hard to do on the motorways we must not mention in the country whose name we dare not speak).
Greg66 said:
La Liga said:
Is it better to have two cars at 150 for 5 miles or one car at 150 for 50 miles, for example?
That's a misdirection though, at least in the context of this thread (one of the points being why the pursuing vehicle didn't light up at lower speeds). A more realistic choice would be two cars at 120 for 30/60 seconds (1/2 miles) or two cars at 150 for 30/60 seconds (1.25/2.5 miles).
(besides which, there can't be many (any?) 50 mile stretches of UK motorway on which one could hold a sustained 150. That's pretty hard to do on the motorways we must not mention in the country whose name we dare not speak).
Whether than be sustained excessive speed at the time for X distance, or repeated driver behaviour in future drives due to not being challenged / prosecuted.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff