147mph on motorway
Discussion
Durzel said:
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.
CooperS said:
Durzel said:
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.
a.lex said:
cmaguire said:
You're effectively making excuses for your own incompetence
I think you're confusing competence with extraordinary ability. I'd be surprised if you thought your own legendary driving ability was merely "competent"...We're always being told that a car is like a loaded gun. They would be revoking certificates hand over fist if gun owners had the same sloppy attitude as so many drivers do.
cmaguire said:
a.lex said:
cmaguire said:
You're effectively making excuses for your own incompetence
I think you're confusing competence with extraordinary ability. I'd be surprised if you thought your own legendary driving ability was merely "competent"...We're always being told that a car is like a loaded gun. They would be revoking certificates hand over fist if gun owners had the same sloppy attitude as so many drivers do.
We expect the person to take reasonable care in looking & we expect him to deal with what can be reasonably expected, not to be able to assess or deal with the extreme behaviours of others. We expect those people to be behaving reasonably too, rather than at extremes. The more extreme or unexpected your actions the more you place yourself outside what is acceptable. If you carry high speeds you have to be able to alter that speed where required to deal with what can be reasonably expected to happen, or the reasonable actions of others based on their reasonable expectations of your behaviour.
I can still remember my BSM instructor (Mike Beer ironically) teaching me to look twice before making a manoeuvre over 30 years ago. I already had my full bike licence so I didn't need to be told, but he was doing his job.
If everybody made the observations they were taught to make before their test then there would be far fewer incidents. At some point a lot of drivers have made a conscious decision not to bother. That is incompetence borne out of lazyness.
If everybody made the observations they were taught to make before their test then there would be far fewer incidents. At some point a lot of drivers have made a conscious decision not to bother. That is incompetence borne out of lazyness.
cmaguire said:
So what kind of person does change lanes without looking properly?
We're always being told that a car is like a loaded gun. They would be revoking certificates hand over fist if gun owners had the same sloppy attitude as so many drivers do.
With respect I think you seriously underestimate the closing speed of someone travelling at +77mph relative to you. We're always being told that a car is like a loaded gun. They would be revoking certificates hand over fist if gun owners had the same sloppy attitude as so many drivers do.
Expecting your average driver - who is licensed to drive based on a reasonable set of conditions - to handle that is myopic. Some drivers will, particularly ones who enjoy driving & drive fast themselves, most - almost all - who drive as a means to an end to get from A to B will react unpredictably and inconsistently.
Therein lies the problem in doing 147mph on the public road really. Unless it is completely deserted the danger may well not be anything to do with your ability or your car's capabilities, it's the random factor of people who are utterly unprepared for you travelling at such speeds. You can't blame these people when your actions introduce them to scenarios they've never been trained for and rarely experience.
Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 24th January 10:34
There is just no excuse for not looking properly though, at any speed.
As somebody else has pointed out, a closing speed of 120mph can easily exist on a single carriageway road with traffic travelling in opposite directions, and therefore overtaking in those circumstances requires appropriate observation.
Or, the A1 springs to mind, dual carriageway 70s where side junctions exist and stationary vehicles look to enter a road with vehicles moving in excess of 70mph.
The speed differential argument is a distraction unless Malcolm Campbell is involved.
As somebody else has pointed out, a closing speed of 120mph can easily exist on a single carriageway road with traffic travelling in opposite directions, and therefore overtaking in those circumstances requires appropriate observation.
Or, the A1 springs to mind, dual carriageway 70s where side junctions exist and stationary vehicles look to enter a road with vehicles moving in excess of 70mph.
The speed differential argument is a distraction unless Malcolm Campbell is involved.
cmaguire said:
If everybody made the observations they were taught to make before their test then there would be far fewer incidents.
Obviously that is completely self evident. However, it doesn't mean a driver pulling into the path of a car travelling at 147 mph when they are doing 70mph is anything other than marginally at fault. They are entirely different circumstances.Bert
BertBert said:
cmaguire said:
If everybody made the observations they were taught to make before their test then there would be far fewer incidents.
Obviously that is completely self evident. However, it doesn't mean a driver pulling into the path of a car travelling at 147 mph when they are doing 70mph is anything other than marginally at fault. They are entirely different circumstances.Bert
cmaguire said:
BertBert said:
cmaguire said:
If everybody made the observations they were taught to make before their test then there would be far fewer incidents.
Obviously that is completely self evident. However, it doesn't mean a driver pulling into the path of a car travelling at 147 mph when they are doing 70mph is anything other than marginally at fault. They are entirely different circumstances.Bert
vonhosen said:
You're missing the point I'm trying to make.
I understand that 150 MPH on a deserted motorway at 2am with a driving God behind the wheel who is driving perfectly may not be charged as Dangerous Driving.
150 MPH on the M6 at rush hour would be charged as Dangerous.
It's when you factor in a death that things suddenly change.
Exactly the same actions and behaviour that were not regarded as dangerous right up to that point are now deemed dangerous ......
The cause of the accident is undoubtedly speed but that wasn't dangerous until something happened .....
In the real world - if you kill someone - you will be charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving if you were travelling at 150 MPH.
Simply due to the speed.
It's also the inconsistency between areas.
This guy got away with a Dangerous Driving conviction in Hampshire.
If he did the same thing in North Wales it may have been a different result.
It's the same piece of legislation.
It's not applied consistently throughout England and Wales.
It's applied differently in Scotland. The wording of the legislation the same.
Edit for speeling.
Edited by Red 4 on Wednesday 24th January 11:25
vonhosen said:
Looked at through a windscrreen in the direction you are facing & your eyes point ,rather than in curved small mirrors that distort perspective & are nowhere near as reliable with field depth assessments.
You're making excuses.We both know that with regular glances in the side mirrors and as importantly the rear view (which doesn't distort in the same way) where possible, then other vehicles only get the chance to surprise you when they are going at high speed in urban environments.
cmaguire said:
Red 4 said:
Do you think it's reasonable for a driver travelling at 70 MPH, moving from L2 to L3 to overtake a slower vehicle, to anticipate a vehicle approaching at 147 MPH ?
I think it is reasonable for a driver changing lanes to make suitable checks to ensure it is safe to do so.So although they are unlikely to anticipate there being a vehicle approaching at 147mph, they should make sure there isn't before they move.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Looked at through a windscrreen in the direction you are facing & your eyes point ,rather than in curved small mirrors that distort perspective & are nowhere near as reliable with field depth assessments.
You're making excuses.We both know that with regular glances in the side mirrors and as importantly the rear view (which doesn't distort in the same way) where possible, then other vehicles only get the chance to surprise you when they are going at high speed in urban environments.
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
You're missing the point I'm trying to make.
I understand that 150 MPH on a deserted motoway at 2am with a driving God behind the wheel who is driving perfectly may not be charged as Dangerous Driving.
150 MPH on the M6 at rush hour would be charged as Dangerous.
It's when you factor in a death that things suddenly change.
Exactly the same actions and behaviour that were not regarded as dangerous right up to that point now are deemed dangerous ......
The cause of the accident is undoubtedly speed but that wasn't dangerous until something happened .....
Again, think of the plane crash landing into the car (a point you have repeatedly not addressed).
It's that if the collision has occurred, when the driving is looked at there is far more likely to be a deficiency in it., because in all likelihood if they were doing things correctly (despite having attained high speeds) a collision would not have occurred.
If it resulted in the collision/death the dangerous charge is more likely because the driving is rather more likely have to not been carried out without the safe assessments/choices & alterations where necessary, it's not a given as you contest though, the speed is still looked at in context with the rest of the driving conditions/choices, it doesn't become dangerous because of the death, it becomes dangerous because the driver was no longer driving in manner that they could deal with what could be reasonably expected to happen. If they were able to deal with what could have reasonably been expected to happen & there is a collision/death it doesn't suddenly become dangerous driving (as per the plane example which the driver couldn't reasonably expect to happen or cater for whatever his chosen speed) It doesn't become dangerous merely because a collision/death has occurred.
Try another tack
One vehicle doing 147mph no collision happens.
One vehicle doing 147mph collision happens.
Why was there a collision in one and not the other?
What was different?
Red 4 said:
In the real world, if you kill someone, you will be charged with Death by Dangerous if you were travelling at 150 MPH.
Simply due to the speed.
It's also the inconsistency between areas.
This guy got away with a Dangerous Driving conviction in Hampshire.
If he did the same thing in North Wales it may have been a different result.
It's the same laws & appeal courts in England & Wales. The upper courts hand down the same edit to the lower courts on the considerations. Speed is not in itself dangerous. It's speed relative to circumstances.Simply due to the speed.
It's also the inconsistency between areas.
This guy got away with a Dangerous Driving conviction in Hampshire.
If he did the same thing in North Wales it may have been a different result.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerou...
That is how the English courts look at the dangerous driving element irrespective of whether there is a death or not. Speed in relation to the circumstances.
Scotland is a slightly different case because they appear to interpret danger slightly differently to English courts. They appear to take a rather more specious (IMHO) view of danger, in that they lend rather more weight to the potentiality of what threats may have been present in relation to chosen speeds, where as the English & Welsh courts appear to rather more look at what actual threats were visibly present & the speed choice relative to them. But death doesn't change the Scottish view either, they are already taking that view in relation to danger before any collisions etc.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 24th January 12:14
cmaguire said:
There is just no excuse for not looking properly though, at any speed.
As somebody else has pointed out, a closing speed of 120mph can easily exist on a single carriageway road with traffic travelling in opposite directions, and therefore overtaking in those circumstances requires appropriate observation.
Or, the A1 springs to mind, dual carriageway 70s where side junctions exist and stationary vehicles look to enter a road with vehicles moving in excess of 70mph.
The speed differential argument is a distraction unless Malcolm Campbell is involved.
Did I mention not looking , checking and indicating before performing the manoeuvre..... No I didn'tAs somebody else has pointed out, a closing speed of 120mph can easily exist on a single carriageway road with traffic travelling in opposite directions, and therefore overtaking in those circumstances requires appropriate observation.
Or, the A1 springs to mind, dual carriageway 70s where side junctions exist and stationary vehicles look to enter a road with vehicles moving in excess of 70mph.
The speed differential argument is a distraction unless Malcolm Campbell is involved.
Also speed differential is exactly what this is about. The law and the training governs to enable driver to drive up to 70mph if on a motorway. There is no consideration or training to deal with those feckwits who travel 100mph and above.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff