147mph on motorway
Discussion
vsonix said:
Absolutely. Could be emergency services, could be a cortege of diplomats being rushed from A to B or could just be an angry rep in an Audi in a hurry to get home to wifey. Not checking, double checking then a shoulder check for good measure before you pull out to overtake is how serious accidents happen.
I agree about the lifesaver check, but a cortege of diplomats? That's tickled me 
Seriously though, the lifesaver check can only be done so many times, and if a motorway has even a gentle curve, a car travelling at around two and a half miles per minute can take even the most aware driver by surprise.
I'm intrigued by all the posts that dissect all of the possibilities to the far end of a fart.
Cop sees car travelling at ridiculous speed.
Cop is fully aware that powerful cars are often associated with guns and violent criminals and commences a pursuit within training, force guidelines, his judgement and maybe authorisation from his control room while the car checks are being done because he doesn't want to even try to stop a car full of armed robbers on his own.
While miles are passing quickly check comes back that it's just Mr Twunt, no markers, warrants or whatever.
Cop picks gaps/traffic to make safe stop without panicking Mr Twunt, who could still potentially be driving an unreported stolen car and decide he's going to make off, and turns on blue lights and sirens in the hope he'll just pull over gradually.
Car stops.
Job done.
I don't like all that sanctimonious holier than thou social media stuff though.
Cop sees car travelling at ridiculous speed.
Cop is fully aware that powerful cars are often associated with guns and violent criminals and commences a pursuit within training, force guidelines, his judgement and maybe authorisation from his control room while the car checks are being done because he doesn't want to even try to stop a car full of armed robbers on his own.
While miles are passing quickly check comes back that it's just Mr Twunt, no markers, warrants or whatever.
Cop picks gaps/traffic to make safe stop without panicking Mr Twunt, who could still potentially be driving an unreported stolen car and decide he's going to make off, and turns on blue lights and sirens in the hope he'll just pull over gradually.
Car stops.
Job done.
I don't like all that sanctimonious holier than thou social media stuff though.
OK von - I'll try and spell it out.
In your opinion speed isn't dangerous.
In your opinion (if I'd understood you correctly) 147 MPH isn't dangerous.
It's speeding.
In your opinion 147 MPH involving a collision could be Dangerous Drving.
My point is that without the speed it probably wouldn't be Dangerous Driving.
Consider a Sec 3 instead.
Ergo it's the speed that makes the differnce.
Ergo it's the speed that makes it dangerous.
Same actions, different speed, different offence.
In your opinion speed isn't dangerous.
In your opinion (if I'd understood you correctly) 147 MPH isn't dangerous.
It's speeding.
In your opinion 147 MPH involving a collision could be Dangerous Drving.
My point is that without the speed it probably wouldn't be Dangerous Driving.
Consider a Sec 3 instead.
Ergo it's the speed that makes the differnce.
Ergo it's the speed that makes it dangerous.
Same actions, different speed, different offence.
Red 4 said:
OK von - I'll try and spell it out.
Great, but I fear you're still struggling.Red 4 said:
In your opinion speed isn't dangerous.
In isolation no, it's dependent on circumstances.That's why speeds below the speed limit can be dangerous & speeds above the speed limit might not be (in law), because it's the circumstances that speeds are performed in that matter.
Red 4 said:
In your opinion (if I'd understood you correctly) 147 MPH isn't dangerous.
It's speeding.
It can be, but it doesn't have to be, the surrounding circumstances dictate.It's speeding.
Red 4 said:
In your opinion 147 MPH involving a collision could be Dangerous Drving.
Again it can be but it doesn't have to be. Circumstances will decide on a case by case basis.Red 4 said:
My point is that without the speed it probably wouldn't be Dangerous Driving.
Consider a Sec 3 instead.
You can change any number of factors & leave the speed alone & it can result in it no longer being dangerous driving.Consider a Sec 3 instead.
It's everything considered, it's not about one factor, speed is just one factor.
Red 4 said:
Ergo it's the speed that makes the differnce.
It's one factor, it doesn't make a difference on it's own, it's the relationship with other factors that will dictate.Red 4 said:
Ergo it's the speed that makes it dangerous.
It's one factor, it doesn't make it dangerous on it's own.Red 4 said:
Same actions, different speed, different offence.
Same speed, different actions can make a difference.It's not about one factor in isolation.
As I feared!
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 23 January 20:15
Red 4 said:
OK von - I'll try and spell it out.
In your opinion speed isn't dangerous.
In your opinion (if I'd understood you correctly) 147 MPH isn't dangerous.
It's speeding.
I'm not jumping to Vons defence here but I think what you are trying to do is just bend his words to try and fit your argument.In your opinion speed isn't dangerous.
In your opinion (if I'd understood you correctly) 147 MPH isn't dangerous.
It's speeding.
He is correct in that speed itself is not necessarily a reason to go for a DD charge.
Red 4 said:
In your opinion 147 MPH involving a collision could be Dangerous Drving.
We're getting there it could be.Red 4 said:
My point is that without the speed it probably wouldn't be Dangerous Driving.
Consider a Sec 3 instead.
Ergo it's the speed that makes the differnce.
Ergo it's the speed that makes it dangerous.
Same actions, different speed, different offence.
Probably? So it could be dangerous driving then?Consider a Sec 3 instead.
Ergo it's the speed that makes the differnce.
Ergo it's the speed that makes it dangerous.
Same actions, different speed, different offence.
For example, speed, which is particularly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic conditions could be dangerous driving. Likewise driving a vehicle knowing it has a dangerous defect or is poorly maintained or is dangerously loaded can be dangerous driving with no mention of speed.
It's not necessarily speed that makes the difference for a due care or dangerous charge it is the circumstances (which I'm sure is what Von has already stated numerous times).
cmaguire said:
It may be beyond belief in the world you inhabit but apparently there are people that don't suffer as you do.
The whole thing was a non-event, somebody broke the Law and was caught, end of story.
Whilst I would prefer an empty lane next to me if doing 155, the fact vehicles are there doesn't automatically mean they will behave like headless chickens.
And as to the people saying the fact that the driver of the Audi didn't see the unmarked car behind in some way indicates his lack of competence, I wonder how many of those have ever been near 150mph. He may well have seen the unmarked car, but ultimately the unmarked was another vehicle travelling quickly perhaps 500m+ behind and his attention was likely focussed in the direction he was travelling. Someone travelling at the speed of the Audi is only realistically going to slow down for a vehicle behind if they know or believe it to be (possibly) Police. Blue lights on earlier and I suspect he would have slowed down earlier.
i am one of those that remarked on him not seeing the unmarked car. my last 3 pulls when i have been in a hurry (i have been pulled several other times in that timescale by marked vehicles, i spend a lot of time on near empty roads at stupid o clock) have been by unmarked cars. all three times i was doing north of 90 (90 what you may ask) when they initially clocked me. none of those occasions resulted in anything more than a friendly chat. the fact you react by slowing down in a controlled manner shows that you are being observant by noticing them in the first place and have a bit of respect by doing so. this is only my rationale but it seems to work.The whole thing was a non-event, somebody broke the Law and was caught, end of story.
Whilst I would prefer an empty lane next to me if doing 155, the fact vehicles are there doesn't automatically mean they will behave like headless chickens.
And as to the people saying the fact that the driver of the Audi didn't see the unmarked car behind in some way indicates his lack of competence, I wonder how many of those have ever been near 150mph. He may well have seen the unmarked car, but ultimately the unmarked was another vehicle travelling quickly perhaps 500m+ behind and his attention was likely focussed in the direction he was travelling. Someone travelling at the speed of the Audi is only realistically going to slow down for a vehicle behind if they know or believe it to be (possibly) Police. Blue lights on earlier and I suspect he would have slowed down earlier.
i have spent a lot of time at over 150 ,99.9% of it on bikes both in the uk and mainland europe. paying attention keeps you alive and out of jail. two glances in the mirror is enough to tell you if someone is on a similar warp speed trajectory and i personally don't take the risk it is someone looking for a bit of fun , i always err on the side it is someone that has the potential to make my day a lot less fun if they wish to do so.
vonhosen said:
Same speed, different actions can make a difference.
It's not about one factor in isolation.
It can be.It's not about one factor in isolation.
30 MPH limit. Car rear ends another at 30 MPH. Slight injury. Careless driving.
30 MPH limit. Car rear ends another at 70 MPH. Serious injury. Dangerous driving.
Same actions. Only the speed is different.
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Same speed, different actions can make a difference.
It's not about one factor in isolation.
It can be.It's not about one factor in isolation.
30 MPH limit. Car rear ends another at 30 MPH. Slight injury. Careless driving.
30 MPH limit. Car rear ends another at 70 MPH. Serious injury. Dangerous driving.
Same actions. Only the speed is different.
Otherwise 70 MPH would always be dangerous irrespective of the speed limit, road type, weather conditions etc etc.
Change any other part as well & the result changes.
ie
30 MPH limit. Car that was rear ended by the driver doing 70 MPH was doing 69MPH at the time it happened. No injury. Police didn't even get called.
You also have an overly simplistic view of the relationship/cross over between careless & dangerous driving.
You need a lot to move from careless to dangerous.
vonhosen said:
You're still applying the 70 MPH to the circumstances to determine offence.
Yes. Because speed alone can determine the difference between dangerous and careless - unlike what you said.
If this guy killed someone within the speed limit due to a momentary lapse that would be death by careless.
If he was doing 147 MPH - a deliberate, grossly excessive speed - that would be death by dangerous.
It's not rocket science.
Same actions. Only the speed is different. Different offence.
Edited by Red 4 on Tuesday 23 January 22:12
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
You're still applying the 70 MPH to the circumstances to determine offence.
Yes. Because speed alone can be a factor when determining the difference between dangerous and careless - unlike what you said.
If this guy killed someone within the speed limit due to a momentary lapse there's a possibilty it would be death by careless.
If he was doing 147 MPH - a deliberate, grossly excessive speed - that would be a death by dangerous.
It's not rocket science.
Same actions. Only the speed is different. Different offence.
I've been saying all along you can change any factor & it changes the result (speed is one factor), but in determining whether it's dangerous or not all the factors need to be looked at together, not one factor.
Sure 147MPH can be dangerous, depending on the circumstances.
147MPH can also not amount to dangerous driving, also depending on the circumstances.
Red 4 said:
No.
You said speed doesn't make a difference on its own.
It does.
Speed is never considered on it's own, it's always relative to the circumstances.You said speed doesn't make a difference on its own.
It does.
It's not speed in isolation that's dangerous, it's the circumstances that speed is being done in that makes it dangerous.
Appropriately managing all the variables & their changing relationship is the goal (it's a dynamic relationship).
Fail to do that & it can get dangerous. But you're never looking at one factor, it's all in a state of flux.
Righto.
I'll spell it out again.
You say speeding at 147 MPH is not dangerous.
This guy has been convicted of speeding.
If this guy killed someone he would be charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.
Simply due to the speed of 147 MPH.
That is enough.
On its own.
The only thing that has changed is that someone died.
That is all.
Von - catch you soon dude.
It's been a pleasure.
I'll spell it out again.
You say speeding at 147 MPH is not dangerous.
This guy has been convicted of speeding.
If this guy killed someone he would be charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.
Simply due to the speed of 147 MPH.
That is enough.
On its own.
The only thing that has changed is that someone died.
That is all.
Von - catch you soon dude.
It's been a pleasure.
Red 4 said:
Righto.
I'll spell it out again.
You mean you'll repeat yourself?I'll spell it out again.
Expect the answers to be the same.
Red 4 said:
You say speeding at 147 MPH is not dangerous.
No, it can be or it might not be. Circumstances will dictate because the number is not looked at on it's own.Red 4 said:
This guy has been convicted of speeding.
He has.Red 4 said:
If this guy killed someone he would be charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.
Simply due to the speed of 147 MPH.
No, it will depend on the circumstances.Simply due to the speed of 147 MPH.
We are back to the example of the plane crashing into him & the pilot dying.
Red 4 said:
That is enough.
On its own.
No it's not, see above.On its own.
And death does not make the driving dangerous (or even a collision), the driving in the circumstances does.
Red 4 said:
The only thing that has changed is that someone died.
See above.Red 4 said:
That is all.
Please God.Red 4 said:
Von - catch you soon dude.
It's been a pleasure.
It's been a pleasure.
- How old were the offenders tyres.
- How skilled/how much training did the offenders have.
- How old was he, how fit was he a s how well hydrated was he.
- what was his state of mind on that day that caused him to drive at this speed.
- Is this a regular occurrence.
Take it on the track. I don't want to share roads with people who point to autobahns that makes it ok.
It isn't. At that speed it should be a lifetime ban.
- How skilled/how much training did the offenders have.
- How old was he, how fit was he a s how well hydrated was he.
- what was his state of mind on that day that caused him to drive at this speed.
- Is this a regular occurrence.
Take it on the track. I don't want to share roads with people who point to autobahns that makes it ok.
It isn't. At that speed it should be a lifetime ban.
cmaguire said:
In your previous example there was fault on the part of the driver overtaking at 70mph that pulled into the path of the driver doing the 147mph.
If we assume this occurred on a straight section of road then I (no surprise to you I expect) I would place most of the blame on the overtaking driver for not looking properly before changing lane (I always look twice in fairly quick succession or once for a longer period when changing lanes in order to see if there is a vehicle behind but also to judge its speed).
The 147mph driver is obviously also culpable.
By the same token would you put "most of the blame" on a homeowner for not having a sufficiently sturdy roof on their garage if a burglar falls through it? If we assume this occurred on a straight section of road then I (no surprise to you I expect) I would place most of the blame on the overtaking driver for not looking properly before changing lane (I always look twice in fairly quick succession or once for a longer period when changing lanes in order to see if there is a vehicle behind but also to judge its speed).
The 147mph driver is obviously also culpable.
The guy doing 147mph is grossly exceeding the speed limit. The guy overtaking at 70 is performing a legal manoeuvre at a legal speed. He has not been trained to deal with disparities of speed of that margin.
That's not to say there is no blame on his part, but to my mind someone going more than twice the speed you are is almost entirely responsible for the actions of others who are not trained for, unfamiliar with and never routinely exposed to such huge speed differentials.
I like driving fast as much as the next man, but I don't do it in such a way where I'm essentially relying on the random reactions of others to an extreme event. I tend to think that is careless even if no accident occurs, in much the same way that being "slightly over the limit but managed to get home without incident" is still drink driving.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff