140mph convoy on M74
Discussion
The Surveyor said:
The Selfish Gene said:
...
Hence why I questioned the word silly in that context.
....
Taking risks where you are in control of the variables and outcomes is one thing, taking risks where the outcomes are completely out of your hands is 'silly', in this context. Those 4 had no way of knowing if the McPlod were waiting for them around the next corner or the next car they passed was an unmarked car, they had no control over whether they were caught or not. That's not heroic or 'living', that's just gambling with your licence and freedom, that's just silly... in that context.Hence why I questioned the word silly in that context.
....
So the only real fck up would be passing an unmarked - and they deemed it unlikely or reduced the risk again by only doing the speeds on a clear road and slowed down when other cars were up ahead.
I don't know, I wasn't there.
Still nothing about this is silly. It's a risk assessment which they won fairly and squarely . Unfortunately now the news are all over it making it an unfair competition.
The Selfish Gene said:
I said grown ups can make a decision, in this case it was a victimless crime and frankly considering how much the police aren't doing, they should just accept they lost out on this one, and maybe try a bit harder on crime that has a victim. Such as the burglary that they did nothing about, or the shooting or the stolen vehicles.
It's just sour grapes. They didn't get the team that were efficiently travelling from A to B. Nobody got hurt. Nothing happened except some arbitrary out of date number was broken.
load of old s
t in my opinion.
What in that post can't be applied to the pre-described chav?It's just sour grapes. They didn't get the team that were efficiently travelling from A to B. Nobody got hurt. Nothing happened except some arbitrary out of date number was broken.
load of old s
t in my opinion.The Selfish Gene said:
So the only real fck up would be passing an unmarked - and they deemed it unlikely or reduced the risk again by only doing the speeds on a clear road and slowed down when other cars were up ahead.
I don't know, I wasn't there.
Still nothing about this is silly. It's a risk assessment which they won fairly and squarely . Unfortunately now the news are all over it making it an unfair competition.
I'm unsure why you keep telling us you weren't there, yet they were making sensible decisions as they went.I don't know, I wasn't there.
Still nothing about this is silly. It's a risk assessment which they won fairly and squarely . Unfortunately now the news are all over it making it an unfair competition.
Your last line is also telling. You don't 'win' risk assessments. You don't judge the risk assessment based on whether someone dies or not.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 7th August 15:15
one thing is for sure - I hope the don't st the bed and turn themselves in.
As it'll make no difference.
They'd have to come and knock on my door - and then I'd assume my plates had been cloned.
Innocent until proven guilty (I know it's old fashioned concept when it comes to speeding)
t the bed and turn themselves in. As it'll make no difference.
They'd have to come and knock on my door - and then I'd assume my plates had been cloned.
Innocent until proven guilty (I know it's old fashioned concept when it comes to speeding)
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
The Selfish Gene said:
I said grown ups can make a decision, in this case it was a victimless crime and frankly considering how much the police aren't doing, they should just accept they lost out on this one, and maybe try a bit harder on crime that has a victim. Such as the burglary that they did nothing about, or the shooting or the stolen vehicles.
It's just sour grapes. They didn't get the team that were efficiently travelling from A to B. Nobody got hurt. Nothing happened except some arbitrary out of date number was broken.
load of old st in my opinion.
What in that post can't be applied to the pre-described chav?It's just sour grapes. They didn't get the team that were efficiently travelling from A to B. Nobody got hurt. Nothing happened except some arbitrary out of date number was broken.
load of old s
t in my opinion.That must be a dull life?
Have you ever broken a law? Go on, live a little......................
Prof Prolapse said:
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
All crimes are victimless until there's a victim 
Unless there's not a victim, in which case it stays victimless. Wordplay is fun isn't it? The fact of the matter is though, regardless of police idioms, there's no moral imperative at work here. It's the classic "malum prohibitum" rather than "malum in se", argument.
I accept the act must be illegal as society needs boundaries and laws to function, but you can kiss the fattest part of my arse if you're going to take a moral highground on this. They hurt no one, and society is highly unlikely to benefit from their prosecution.
The purpose of a prosecution would be to reduce future risky behaviour by the drivers and also send a prohibitive message to others not to engage in such behaviour.
Whether there was much more risk from these drivers is unknown. What I do know is that driving safety at 140 for sustained periods is hard work given the observations and conscious assessments that should continuously be undertaken. A convoy adds to this mental load.
The Selfish Gene said:
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
All crimes are victimless until there's a victim
well yeah, that's kind nail on the head.Unless we are in some terrifying minority report type situation.
Let's stop everyone from doing or thinking anything just in case there is a victim maybe, at some point in the future.
You do know there are many many more victims under 70mph than there are at 140 right?
The Selfish Gene said:
No idea what you're talking about ? It appears to be you want everyone following ze rules without question.
That must be a dull life?
Have you ever broken a law? Go on, live a little......................
Has literally no relevance to anything I've said.......That must be a dull life?
Have you ever broken a law? Go on, live a little......................
I've noted that you're one of those people who do SS impressions when discussing rules.
The Selfish Gene said:
Why is 140 silly? Why is it 'dicking around'? Is 139 silly ? 138? Where is your personal line? 71?
Does that change with the fact the cars are a higher spec? or what if the drivers were trained?
Maybe they were racing drivers?
Pastor Maldonado, Romain Grosjean, Max Verstappen and Adrian Sutil. What could possibly go wrong?Does that change with the fact the cars are a higher spec? or what if the drivers were trained?
Maybe they were racing drivers?
The Selfish Gene said:
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
I'll use that defence next time I hurtle past a school zone during pickup time, but don't hit anyone.
well that would be silly now wouldn't it speed in appropriate places is not dangerous, not bad in any way and no amount of do-goodery will change that.
The sort of person that probably had a big drama about this high speed action is the same sort of idiot that does 40mph past schools oblivious. They have no skill or interest - and thus are much more dangerous than the person doing 140mph on an open, clear road.
Speed does not kill, incompetence and apathy do.
Dynamic Space Wizard said:
The Selfish Gene said:
Why is 140 silly? Why is it 'dicking around'? Is 139 silly ? 138? Where is your personal line? 71?
Does that change with the fact the cars are a higher spec? or what if the drivers were trained?
Maybe they were racing drivers?
Pastor Maldonado, Romain Grosjean, Max Verstappen and Adrian Sutil. What could possibly go wrong?Does that change with the fact the cars are a higher spec? or what if the drivers were trained?
Maybe they were racing drivers?
The Selfish Gene said:
one thing is for sure - I hope the don't st the bed and turn themselves in.
As it'll make no difference.
They'd have to come and knock on my door - and then I'd assume my plates had been cloned.
Innocent until proven guilty (I know it's old fashioned concept when it comes to speeding)
Then you'd get done for PCOJ. Congratst the bed and turn themselves in. As it'll make no difference.
They'd have to come and knock on my door - and then I'd assume my plates had been cloned.
Innocent until proven guilty (I know it's old fashioned concept when it comes to speeding)
This debate is interesting.
On one side we have the anti-speeding brigade who, when faced with evidence that you can travel at high speed on a UK road without coming to harm, exploding, causing the death of anything but flies, are challenged in their paradigm and are coming out fighting.
On the other side we have the pragmatic self thinkers who look for reasons to justify their support of the actions of the convoy 4 based on the assumption that said four drivers are capable of not coming to harm or harming others based as they should be capable of assessing the risk.
Sadly, the latter are not thinking about to what extent Dunning Kruger applies to the convoy 4, or even themselves.
The former, are the reason this country is vastly over regulated with the ability to self determine being removed in all walks of life. Put the decision in the hands of the person who is undertaking the action and they will think harder about that action.
On one side we have the anti-speeding brigade who, when faced with evidence that you can travel at high speed on a UK road without coming to harm, exploding, causing the death of anything but flies, are challenged in their paradigm and are coming out fighting.
On the other side we have the pragmatic self thinkers who look for reasons to justify their support of the actions of the convoy 4 based on the assumption that said four drivers are capable of not coming to harm or harming others based as they should be capable of assessing the risk.
Sadly, the latter are not thinking about to what extent Dunning Kruger applies to the convoy 4, or even themselves.
The former, are the reason this country is vastly over regulated with the ability to self determine being removed in all walks of life. Put the decision in the hands of the person who is undertaking the action and they will think harder about that action.
The Selfish Gene said:
.
Speed does not kill, incompetence and apathy do.
I'd go so far as to suggest that it is often a contributing factor though. To the 'killing' bit obviously. I mean you can be incompetent and even apathetic, but still survive an accident, but once excessive speed comes into play, well I'd suggest it will probably make a difference to the outcome.Speed does not kill, incompetence and apathy do.
I love how everyone can jump to conclusions and defend them without knowing any facts
these drivers could have been
trained race drivers
under the influence
be wanted for other crimes and this is being used as a cover story by police
be 21 year olds who havent driven anything faster than a Corsa but rich daddy's hired cars for them
and possibly the cars could be stolen - if it was your car would you not want the police to know where it went?
No idea if the drivers saw the police and deliberately didn't stop? Why didn't they stop if they did?
Loads of questions with no answers but those that jump to their defence are making a helluva lot of assumptions!
these drivers could have been
trained race drivers
under the influence
be wanted for other crimes and this is being used as a cover story by police
be 21 year olds who havent driven anything faster than a Corsa but rich daddy's hired cars for them
and possibly the cars could be stolen - if it was your car would you not want the police to know where it went?
No idea if the drivers saw the police and deliberately didn't stop? Why didn't they stop if they did?
Loads of questions with no answers but those that jump to their defence are making a helluva lot of assumptions!
The Selfish Gene said:
what's the chav in the Fiesta got to do with me? His might be, his might not be. He'll get nicked or get dead.
I didn't say there shouldn't be speed limits. (well not on this thread).
I said grown ups can make a decision, in this case it was a victimless crime and frankly considering how much the police aren't doing, they should just accept they lost out on this one, and maybe try a bit harder on crime that has a victim. Such as the burglary that they did nothing about, or the shooting or the stolen vehicles.
It's just sour grapes. They didn't get the team that were efficiently travelling from A to B. Nobody got hurt. Nothing happened except some arbitrary out of date number was broken.
load of old st in my opinion.
He might “bet dead” by wiping you out at the same time. I didn't say there shouldn't be speed limits. (well not on this thread).
I said grown ups can make a decision, in this case it was a victimless crime and frankly considering how much the police aren't doing, they should just accept they lost out on this one, and maybe try a bit harder on crime that has a victim. Such as the burglary that they did nothing about, or the shooting or the stolen vehicles.
It's just sour grapes. They didn't get the team that were efficiently travelling from A to B. Nobody got hurt. Nothing happened except some arbitrary out of date number was broken.
load of old s
t in my opinion.We’ve had this before today where you seem to think people whomcrash can only injure / kill themselves. Why do you think that?
As for the subject of the thread it seems pretty stupid to do twice the speed limit on a road that’s well known to be well policed, as the local police have nothing else to do.
At some point this will catch up with them.
The victimless part makes no sense to me as an argument as that would sugggest I can drive at twice the drink drive limit and as long as I don’t kill
Anyone then it’s fine. I can do 60 past a school in a 30 limit at kicking out time and as long as I don’t hit anyone all’s good. Whilst we all like to think we’re amazing drivers the reality is that we’re rarely as good as we think we are and rules are there for the benefit of society as a whole. Those rules can’t simply be ignored because nobody got hurt.
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
TartanPaint said:
Have you driven this section of M74? I just wonder, because if you're picturing a potholed, patched up M25 and wondering how anyone can safely do 140mph on a British motorway, you might not have a clear picture of the situation. The section of motorway in question is superior to most Autobahn. It's a quiet, 3-lane billiard table with views for miles.
Which is why those deer love to walk on it 
I'm confident it could be safe to drive on, but I'm going to need a little more convincing then 'the cars are capable and the drivers were probably sensible.......' which seems to appease others.
I'm just saying I'm not surprised by the news. Doing 70mph on many a section of dual carriageway is far riskier than doing 70mph on the M74. Nobody is unhappy with us doing 70mph all day long on many A roads, so when presented with the improved margin of safety offered by such a fine motorway, it seems logical that you can add a bit more speed to raise the safety risk back to the level we were all perfectly happy with on the A road.
Most roads will never present the opportunity to safely do 140mph. I think what most people who are opposing your viewpoint might be trying to say is that the section of road in question is absolutely one which does, from time to time, present the opportunity. The locals will, I imagine, be shrugging nonchalantly at this news.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff