140mph convoy on M74
Discussion
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
The Selfish Gene said:
You do know there are many many more victims under 70mph than there are at 140 right?
I understand there's been no victims when driving at 350mph. Edit: In the above post you seem to have explained why your own comparison is pointless?
there was no victim
I wonder how many people died with people doing less than 70 on the same day?
pretty sure nobody was doing 350 on the same day.
I'm just curious why 70 is the watershed...........why not 50 or 180............it was set arbitrarily and now everyone MUST comply.
There is literally no good reason for it.
anyway, whatever, someone called the fuzz, and now the thread will not compute, because we must not think for ourselves.
it's been fun! I'm off to ride my motorbike home at an appropriate speed for the conditions.
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
I can't spot anywhere where I've suggested that 70mph is a speed at which risks are overcome, not that breaking the speed limit is morally indefensible.
I think my analogy is spot on.
Falling doesn't kill you - stopping does.
Speed doesn't kill you - the sudden lack of speed does
Smoking doesn't kill you - 'insert associated medical condition here' does.
They're all largely meaningless. When someone takes a tumble from a high-rise balcony I don't remember many headlines to the effect of 'man stops to death.'
Yes, the falling didn't kill him but I feel it may have had something to do with it.
I think you heavily implied both, and if you don't think at 70mph and under things become safer, than I have no idea what point you're making. Obviously if it makes no difference to safety then you have no argument beyond we should all mindlessly accept and follow laws, and ignore that civil disobedience is core to any progressive society (but obviously not in this instance). I think my analogy is spot on.
Falling doesn't kill you - stopping does.
Speed doesn't kill you - the sudden lack of speed does
Smoking doesn't kill you - 'insert associated medical condition here' does.
They're all largely meaningless. When someone takes a tumble from a high-rise balcony I don't remember many headlines to the effect of 'man stops to death.'
Yes, the falling didn't kill him but I feel it may have had something to do with it.
Falling always results in gravity. Smoking always results in harm (although the amount does vary greatly). Does driving over the limit always result in harm? No. But it is likely to increase the risk and consequences of an accident? Yes, but so are many other factors, that we can't so easily legislate and quantify.
Does that mean we need speed limits? Yes. Does it mean not following them should result in moral condemnation? No.
That's all I'm saying.
The Selfish Gene said:
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
The Selfish Gene said:
You do know there are many many more victims under 70mph than there are at 140 right?
I understand there's been no victims when driving at 350mph. Edit: In the above post you seem to have explained why your own comparison is pointless?
there was no victim
I wonder how many people died with people doing less than 70 on the same day?
pretty sure nobody was doing 350 on the same day.
I'm just curious why 70 is the watershed...........why not 50 or 180............it was set arbitrarily and now everyone MUST comply.
There is literally no good reason for it.
anyway, whatever, someone called the fuzz, and now the thread will not compute, because we must not think for ourselves.
it's been fun! I'm off to ride my motorbike home at an appropriate speed for the conditions.
Edited by nonsequitur on Tuesday 7th August 15:36
Edited by nonsequitur on Tuesday 7th August 15:44
Prof Prolapse said:
I think you heavily implied both, and if you don't think at 70mph and under things become safer, than I have no idea what point you're making. Obviously if it makes no difference to safety then you have no argument beyond we should all mindlessly accept and follow laws, and ignore that civil disobedience is core to any progressive society (but obviously not in this instance).
Falling always results in gravity. Smoking always results in harm (although the amount does vary greatly). Does driving over the limit always result in harm? No. But it is likely to increase the risk and consequences of an accident? Yes, but so are many other factors, that we can't so easily legislate and quantify.
Does that mean we need speed limits? Yes. Does it mean not following them should result in moral condemnation? No.
That's all I'm saying.
Speeding always results in increased risk. Falling always results in gravity. Smoking always results in harm (although the amount does vary greatly). Does driving over the limit always result in harm? No. But it is likely to increase the risk and consequences of an accident? Yes, but so are many other factors, that we can't so easily legislate and quantify.
Does that mean we need speed limits? Yes. Does it mean not following them should result in moral condemnation? No.
That's all I'm saying.
stevesingo said:
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.
Why does it have to be binary?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.
I'm not anti-speeding, but I think doing 140mph on the public road in convoy is selfish and in most circumstances reckless.
If it's ok for these guys to do 140mph, then by definition it has to be ok for everyone to do it - because their licenses are just the same, they pay proportionally the same amount of tax, etc. Would you support that?
I don't want everyone thinking its ok - or that there is unlikely to be ramifications because the Police "are catching real criminals" - to do 140mph+ on the motorway because for every capable driver in a capable car all it takes is someone slightly less capable - but just as selfish - to crash, or cause a crash, and create carnage, to innocent people who were just unlucky enough to be on the same road.
Time and time again when this comes up the people who are all for this kind of behaviour dismiss or otherwise disregard the fact that everyone else in the road is ill equipped to deal with people moving around near them at those kinds of speeds. They're not trained for it, they're not expected to deal with it. Legally they aren't supposed to have to deal with it. Like it or not the public road has to be regulated for the majority not the minority, and the majority include the lowest common denominator of poor to average drivers in poor to average cars, who nevertheless have a full licence and entitlement to occupy the same road as you.
Cue the arguments about unrestricted autobahns which cover the whole of Germany and how that model must surely mean it works everywhere else.
Vipers said:
Correct, but on a public road is not appropriate.
And yet in Germany it would be considered by a much higher proportion of appropriate and/or socially acceptable.It's really interesting reading people's spanning opinions though. I can't personally fathom how people just accept 'rules are rules'. I'd love to know if the speed limit on motorways was reduced to 30mph, in order to ensure there are no deaths to people, animals and flowers, would be OK because 'rules are rules?
If that is interpreted as facetious, then what is appropriate?
From my point of view, I own cars ranging from a Smart car, to a Clio, to an RS6, to a Performante. My Clio could probably knock on the door of 140mph with the wind behind it. I know it would feel quite on edge, and I'd certainly be worried about stopping in a hurry. In the RS6 I can get up to speed quickly, and stop quickly. It feels rock solid at high speeds and is incomparable to the Clio; it's like a different mode of transport. I'd therefore, as conceited as it comes across, declare if you don't have experience of driving one of the cars mentioned driving at 140mph, you can't pass judgement on it being silly/dangerous/inappropriate... that's before we even get on to the aspects such as weather conditions, level of traffic and quality of road.
La Liga said:
Risky behaviour doesn't always result in a bad outcome, it just increases the probability of it occurring. The purpose of road traffic legislation is to reduce risks to reduce bad outcomes.
True, but the application of legislation is very broad and set for one set of circumstances. 70mph is entirely appropriate in some circumstances. The thing is the spectrum of contributing risk factors is huge and not all are applicable at any given time. That is why we get such a debate.La Liga said:
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.
Providing they care to learn the lesson.Would a prosecution be in the public interest? 4 cars travel at high speed and no harm has occurred. Surely the public interest would imply that this behaviour proves that they will do it again in less safe conditions and increase the risk of harm to the public.
The Police have now put this incident in the public domain and made a big deal of it. It is now in the Police' interest to do something as they have highlighted that this has happened. If there was a complaint from the public I would say yes, this is in the public interest.
Durzel said:
Time and time again when this comes up the people who are all for this kind of behaviour dismiss or otherwise disregard the fact that everyone else in the road is ill equipped to deal with people moving around near them at those kinds of speeds. They're not trained for it, they're not expected to deal with it. Legally they aren't supposed to have to deal with it. Like it or not the public road has to be regulated for the majority not the minority, and the majority include the lowest common denominator of poor to average drivers in poor to average cars, who nevertheless have a full licence and entitlement to occupy the same road as you.
If you can't use your mirrors and don't have the ability to not pull out in front of someone, you shouldn't really be on the road at all and the process to get / keep a licence should be adapted accordingly.hondansx said:
It's really interesting reading people's spanning opinions though. I can't personally fathom how people just accept 'rules are rules'. I'd love to know if the speed limit on motorways was reduced to 30mph, in order to ensure there are no deaths to people, animals and flowers, would be OK because 'rules are rules?
Can you please find me a single post in this thread by anyone at all that has stated or even suggested that 'rules are rules?'Or even anyone who has suggested they don't break the speed limit?
I ask because if you think doing 140mph on a public road is unacceptable you must be a slavish rule follower who never breaks the speed limit. That's your odd summation.
hondansx said:
And yet in Germany it would be considered by a much higher proportion of appropriate and/or socially acceptable.
It's really interesting reading people's spanning opinions though. I can't personally fathom how people just accept 'rules are rules'. I'd love to know if the speed limit on motorways was reduced to 30mph, in order to ensure there are no deaths to people, animals and flowers, would be OK because 'rules are rules?
If that is interpreted as facetious, then what is appropriate?
From my point of view, I own cars ranging from a Smart car, to a Clio, to an RS6, to a Performante. My Clio could probably knock on the door of 140mph with the wind behind it. I know it would feel quite on edge, and I'd certainly be worried about stopping in a hurry. In the RS6 I can get up to speed quickly, and stop quickly. It feels rock solid at high speeds and is incomparable to the Clio; it's like a different mode of transport. I'd therefore, as conceited as it comes across, declare if you don't have experience of driving one of the cars mentioned driving at 140mph, you can't pass judgement on it being silly/dangerous/inappropriate... that's before we even get on to the aspects such as weather conditions, level of traffic and quality of road.
It took only one post to get to comparisons to Germany who, despite pub opinion, don't have unrestricted speed limits everywhere.It's really interesting reading people's spanning opinions though. I can't personally fathom how people just accept 'rules are rules'. I'd love to know if the speed limit on motorways was reduced to 30mph, in order to ensure there are no deaths to people, animals and flowers, would be OK because 'rules are rules?
If that is interpreted as facetious, then what is appropriate?
From my point of view, I own cars ranging from a Smart car, to a Clio, to an RS6, to a Performante. My Clio could probably knock on the door of 140mph with the wind behind it. I know it would feel quite on edge, and I'd certainly be worried about stopping in a hurry. In the RS6 I can get up to speed quickly, and stop quickly. It feels rock solid at high speeds and is incomparable to the Clio; it's like a different mode of transport. I'd therefore, as conceited as it comes across, declare if you don't have experience of driving one of the cars mentioned driving at 140mph, you can't pass judgement on it being silly/dangerous/inappropriate... that's before we even get on to the aspects such as weather conditions, level of traffic and quality of road.
What you drive and how capable you are or think you are is irrelevant. This is the problem, you (the royal "you") think because you have a capable car and you're a capable driver that this gives you the right to basically drive as fast as you like, whenever you like.
Speed limits are not intended to stymie you. They exist to cater to the majority of people. They are set at levels that are deemed to be proportionate to the majority of drivers, the majority of vehicles, etc. Think about how often people on the road react unpredictably to unusual situations, now add some (or a lot in this case) of extra speed to that equation... doesn't spell a good outcome, does it.
Certainly there are roads with speed limits that ought to be higher, no argument about that. I'm not suggesting that everyone should abide every speed limit, just as most people wouldn't say that you are a child killer if you go over 70. I know that's a popular argument to make, along with ad hominems, because it's easier to think in binary than it is to consider the just-as-equal rights of others who share the road with you, but hey ho.
People doing 140mph on the public road shouldn't be celebrated in my opinion simply because it's not something that should be encouraged as a rule. I wouldn't be happy seeing everyone think they can do it, simply because everyone isn't capable of doing it, and would crash and take out someone who was just minding their own business. Ipso facto - if it's not safe for everyone to do it, it shouldn't be considered ok for some to do it.
Strudul said:
If you can't use your mirrors and don't have the ability to not pull out in front of someone, you shouldn't really be on the road at all and the process to get / keep a licence should be adapted accordingly.
On a road where the limit is 70mph, you might be expecting traffic to be approaching around that speed and maybe at an extreme at 100mph. To be more than double the limit makes your approach very difficult to gauge and certainly one that even the most observant of drivers would struggle with. Strudul said:
If you can't use your mirrors and don't have the ability to not pull out in front of someone, you shouldn't really be on the road at all and the process to get / keep a licence should be adapted accordingly.
Yeah ok, people on the motorway should totally expect people to be closing on them at 70mph as if they were stood still.I'm of the opinion that generally doing those speeds is daft when others are around. I've driven at daft speeds in the past, but only ever when there is nobody in the middle lane (so if someone from the inside pulls out, there's that buffer in place, as it were). I wouldn't do it again unless the road was totally empty to be honest.
Each to their own, I don't think it's especially dangerous on a clear road, but the law is the law, and by doing 140mph or so, you run the risk of being punished for it. There are no excuses really.
Each to their own, I don't think it's especially dangerous on a clear road, but the law is the law, and by doing 140mph or so, you run the risk of being punished for it. There are no excuses really.
Strudul said:
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
Can you please find me a single post in this thread by anyone at all that has stated or even suggested that 'rules are rules?'
Integroo said:
We have rules for a reason. They should be followed.
Gavia said:
Strudul said:
If you can't use your mirrors and don't have the ability to not pull out in front of someone, you shouldn't really be on the road at all and the process to get / keep a licence should be adapted accordingly.
On a road where the limit is 70mph, you might be expecting traffic to be approaching around that speed and maybe at an extreme at 100mph. To be more than double the limit makes your approach very difficult to gauge and certainly one that even the most observant of drivers would struggle with. DanielSan said:
Todd Bonzalez said:
Haven't the police got better things to do? If the road was quiet and they weren't being daft, honestly who cares. Ridiculous.
An accountant somewhere will think it’s worth spending the money to investigate and charge them with all the court costs etc to get the money from the fine.... At least that’s how some of them have seemed to work in past jobs I’ve had
Strudul said:
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
Deer wanders out?
Fallen branch?
Big pothole?
Tire blowout?
Blocked drain and a bit of standing water?
Before the inevitable, all comparisons to the autobahn are irrelevant - our motorways ain't the autobahn.
Because the above can never happen on the autobahn? Are deer and trees banned in Germany? Does it not rain over there? Are their tyres indestructible? Fallen branch?
Big pothole?
Tire blowout?
Blocked drain and a bit of standing water?
Before the inevitable, all comparisons to the autobahn are irrelevant - our motorways ain't the autobahn.
I'm not aware of any on the M74.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff