147mph on motorway

[vsonix]

Breadvan72 said:

vsonix said:

Breadvan72 said:

Not everyone checks mirrors and not everyone correctly judges the speed of a vehicle approaching from behind, especially as most drivers aren't expecting traffic to be closing at over twice the speed limit.

Then they shouldn't be driving on the motorway. Or even AT ALL.
My driving teacher must have been a rare gem, he taught me "no matter what the posted limit is, and no matter how fast you are travelling in relation to it, you should always perform a shoulder check when changing lanes as there may very well be someone a lot quicker coming up behind you, emergency services or merely another car in more of a hurry than you"

What people should do and what they do do are not always the same things. Do you drive everywhere assuming that all other drivers have been perfectly taught and have perfect skills? The reality is that many drivers have poor skills. Some cars have crap brakes and worn tyres. Defensive driving takes account of this. Pressing on regardless and expecting everyone else to be a road God in a perfectly honed wondermachine isn't a good idea.

Not at all. Same driving instructor also taught me "assume everyone else on the road is a total idiot about to do something unpredictable and stupid when you least expect it". He was quite an interesting chap. He didn't really like cars at all, he was into canoes and cycling. His reason for being a driving instructor "I'm not one of those instructors that teaches people to pass a test, I teach them to be good drivers. At least I know that if I have taught people properly the roads are safer for me to use as a cyclist".

Can't help thinking that if more instructors were like that the roads would be a much nicer place to be.

[Red 4]

The question re; prosecution for the offence of Dangerous Driving is a good one.

What if the driver was involved in a fatal/ serious injury collision ?

Same behaviour, same speeds, different outcome.

There is no offence of "Causing Death/ Serious Injury by Speeding".

Edited by Red 4 on Tuesday 23 January 13:42

[DT398]

The speed argument relating to aircraft is a bit misleading. Yes it’s safer typically to fly and you do go MUCH faster which is great and the people in control have a lot more training than the typical car driver, so all good. The frequency of accidents is thankfully much lower than that on the roads but the consequences are obviously more severe usually.

Ironically one of the more recent losses due to pilot error (AF 447) was as a result of flying too slowly more or less.

[cb31]

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? A temporary increase of short term risk can prevent longer-term and greater total risk.

Edited by La Liga on Tuesday 23 January 12:58

I think part of the problem is that people perceive that the police driver partly encouraged the speeding. As people have mentioned 100mph is too fast for our motorways so he could have stopped him at that point and reduced the danger and risk to everybody.

If I had to guess the policeman was enjoying it and wanted audi man to get as high a speed as possible, only when his 330d started to hit the limiter at 155mph did he decide to call a halt to proceedings. To then pontificate about how dangerous it was is a bit off in my opinion.

And no I am not condoning audi man in the slightest.

[carinaman]

Red 4 said:

There is no offence of "Causing Death/ Serious Injury by Speeding".

Is the MP for Basingstoke still Maria Miller? How about a private Members' Bill to give the public the protection such a statute would provide and is so badly needed?

[Paul Dishman]

carinaman said:

Red 4 said:

There is no offence of "Causing Death/ Serious Injury by Speeding".

Is the MP for Basingstoke still Maria Miller? How about a private Members' Bill to give the public the protection such a statute would provide and is so badly needed?

It's not "so badly needed". Are you a member of Brake?

[carinaman]

Paul Dishman said:

carinaman said:

Red 4 said:

There is no offence of "Causing Death/ Serious Injury by Speeding".

Is the MP for Basingstoke still Maria Miller? How about a private Members' Bill to give the public the protection such a statute would provide and is so badly needed?

It's not "so badly needed". Are you a member of Brake?

No just sarcastic.

Plus the MP for Basingstoke has been in a bit of bother in relation to her expenses if I remember correctly, but I'm sure that wouldn't in anyway invalidate any private Members' Bill she may wish to bring or voting on other legislation.

[vonhosen]

Red 4 said:

The question re; prosecution for the offence of Dangerous Driving is a good one.

What if the driver was involved in a fatal/ serious injury collision ?

Same behaviour, same speeds, different outcome.

There is no offence of "Causing Death/ Serious Injury by Speeding".

Whether he's involved in a fatality doesn't have a bearing on whether the driving was demonstrably dangerous in law or not. The driving without any death would have had to satisfy the offence of dangerous driving on it's own, the death is just an extra that allows it to then become the other offence of death by dangerous driving. The standard assessment of the actions when driving is the same for both offences.

[anonymous-user]

cb31 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? 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

I think part of the problem is that people perceive that the police driver partly encouraged the speeding. As people have mentioned 100mph is too fast for our motorways so he could have stopped him at that point and reduced the danger and risk to everybody.

If I had to guess the policeman was enjoying it and wanted audi man to get as high a speed as possible, only when his 330d started to hit the limiter at 155mph did he decide to call a halt to proceedings. To then pontificate about how dangerous it was is a bit off in my opinion.

And no I am not condoning audi man in the slightest.

I'm not sure how he was gathering evidence, but that could be relevant to the length of time following.

Secondly, it'd be much better to gather some information on the vehicle i.e. run the VRM through the Police National Computer before putting in a stop. See how many are in the vehicle etc.

If it's a car that's just been used in an armed robbery, for example, then it's probably unsuitable for an unmarked traffic vehicle to stop it.

[SeeFive]

cb31 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? A temporary increase of short term risk can prevent longer-term and greater total risk.

Edited by La Liga on Tuesday 23 January 12:58

I think part of the problem is that people perceive that the police driver partly encouraged the speeding. As people have mentioned 100mph is too fast for our motorways so he could have stopped him at that point and reduced the danger and risk to everybody.

If I had to guess the policeman was enjoying it and wanted audi man to get as high a speed as possible, only when his 330d started to hit the limiter at 155mph did he decide to call a halt to proceedings. To then pontificate about how dangerous it was is a bit off in my opinion.

And no I am not condoning audi man in the slightest.

Yup. Just flick the blues on immediately and you have one car reducing rapidly from a lot less than 150mph over a distance of far less than 5 miles, and a very short period of risk - and probably a lower max speed nick too.

Ah... hold on a mo though... “need to record the (increasing?) speed over a duration”. “Yes, of course you did officer...”

[anonymous-user]

SeeFive said:

Yup. Just flick the blues on immediately and you have one car reducing rapidly from a lot less than 150mph over a distance of far less than 5 miles, and a very short period of risk - and probably a lower max speed nick too.

Ah... hold on a mo though... “need to record the (increasing?) speed over a duration”. “Yes, of course you did officer...”

As above, it's prudent to potentially gather a bit more information on what you're dealing with.

[Red 4]

vonhosen said:

Red 4 said:

The question re; prosecution for the offence of Dangerous Driving is a good one.

What if the driver was involved in a fatal/ serious injury collision ?

Same behaviour, same speeds, different outcome.

There is no offence of "Causing Death/ Serious Injury by Speeding".

Whether he's involved in a fatality doesn't have a bearing on whether the driving was demonstrably dangerous in law or not. The driving without any death would have had to satisfy the offence of dangerous driving on it's own, the death is just an extra that allows it to then become the other offence of death by dangerous driving. The standard assessment of the actions when driving is the same for both offences.

So you're saying if the driver caused a fatal at those speeds then he'd just be charged with speeding ....

Erm. OK then.

[carinaman]

La Liga said:

SeeFive said:

Yup. Just flick the blues on immediately and you have one car reducing rapidly from a lot less than 150mph over a distance of far less than 5 miles, and a very short period of risk - and probably a lower max speed nick too.

Ah... hold on a mo though... “need to record the (increasing?) speed over a duration”. “Yes, of course you did officer...”

As above, it's prudent to potentially gather a bit more information on what you're dealing with.

They needed to do a Risk Assessment and pay due regard to the Human Rights of the other people on that stretch of road?

Risk Assessments can be prudent?

[SeeFive]

La Liga said:

s above, it's prudent to potentially gather a bit more information on what you're dealing with.

If the offender was “dangerously” pointing a loaded gun at someone, would you wait for the potential offence to be increased?

The policy needs review IMO if officers truly beleive there is high risk under certain circumstances. And those closing speeds combined with actual speed over ground and MLMs bumbling along highlights a bit of a risk to me to continue it over a prolonged set of passes without trying to reduce the risk / speeds involved with a set of blues.

[cb31]

La Liga said:

s above, it's prudent to potentially gather a bit more information on what you're dealing with.

How coincidental that he potentially gathered the necessary information just as his 330d ran out of puff. Sorry but I don't believe it for a second.

[Paul Dishman]

carinaman said:

Paul Dishman said:

carinaman said:

Red 4 said:

There is no offence of "Causing Death/ Serious Injury by Speeding".

Is the MP for Basingstoke still Maria Miller? How about a private Members' Bill to give the public the protection such a statute would provide and is so badly needed?

It's not "so badly needed". Are you a member of Brake?

No just sarcastic.

Plus the MP for Basingstoke has been in a bit of bother in relation to her expenses if I remember correctly, but I'm sure that wouldn't in anyway invalidate any private Members' Bill she may wish to bring or voting on other legislation.

Ah, ok. Missed that, makes sense now

[SeeFive]

cb31 said:

La Liga said:

s above, it's prudent to potentially gather a bit more information on what you're dealing with.

How coincidental that he potentially gathered the necessary information just as his 330d ran out of puff. Sorry but I don't believe it for a second.

The main risk assessment from the officer on the day and some on here seems to be the risk of losing a very high speed nick, rather than the safety of all on that stretch of road.

[anonymous-user]

SeeFive said:

If the offender was “dangerously” pointing a loaded gun at someone, would you wait for the potential offence to be increased?

How is that a relevant comparison?

It's advantageous to gather further information on the vehicle prior to putting a stop in. This includes checking the vehicle out on the PNC to ensure it is suitable for a stop.

Basic officer safety and the sort of procedure that contributes to us to having unarmed officers.

SeeFive said:

The policy needs review IMO if officers truly beleive there is high risk under certain circumstances. And those closing speeds combined with actual speed over ground and MLMs bumbling along highlights a bit of a risk to me to continue it over a prolonged set of passes without trying to reduce the risk / speeds involved with a set of blues.

Why? Has the policy resulted in lots of bad outcomes?

[carinaman]

SeeFive said:

cb31 said:

La Liga said:

s above, it's prudent to potentially gather a bit more information on what you're dealing with.

How coincidental that he potentially gathered the necessary information just as his 330d ran out of puff. Sorry but I don't believe it for a second.

The main risk assessment from the officer on the day and some on here seems to be the risk of losing a very high speed nick, rather than the safety of all on that stretch of road.

Loss of a collar and some sensational footage that they can then use in the media to help further the Speed Kills agenda?

I got no more of an impression of speed from that footage of the S4 driver doing 147 than that Devon and Cornwall police social media champion posting footage of what a similar speed looks like from an X5 racing to a break in at a scrapyard that wasn't.

[vonhosen]

Red 4 said:

vonhosen said:

Red 4 said:

The question re; prosecution for the offence of Dangerous Driving is a good one.

What if the driver was involved in a fatal/ serious injury collision ?

Same behaviour, same speeds, different outcome.

There is no offence of "Causing Death/ Serious Injury by Speeding".

Whether he's involved in a fatality doesn't have a bearing on whether the driving was demonstrably dangerous in law or not. The driving without any death would have had to satisfy the offence of dangerous driving on it's own, the death is just an extra that allows it to then become the other offence of death by dangerous driving. The standard assessment of the actions when driving is the same for both offences.

So you're saying if the driver caused a fatal at those speeds then he'd just be charged with speeding ....

Erm. OK then.

I'm saying a fatality has no bearing on the decision as to whether driving was dangerous or not. For it to amount to dangerous driving the same driving would have to had amounted to dangerous driving if there had been fatality.

If the driver was involved in a fatality at those speeds the fact it was a fatality makes no difference to the driving assessment, it only makes a difference to the eventual charge.

The standard test for dangerous driving in death by dangerous driving is exactly the same standard test for the stand alone offence of dangerous driving, the death does not alter the actions that the driver committed to.
The test for dangerous driving looks at the driving not the outcome, the outcome is considered when it comes to what charge after that or for sentencing.

If there isn't sufficient evidence for dangerous driving it doesn't matter if there is a death, there can't be a charge of death by dangerous because the outcome changed.