Guy jailed for 102mph on the motorway

[donkmeister]

macushla said:

Nearly 50% over the maximumspeed limit available is getting close to far below and the risk of damage / injury is pretty obvious if you crash.

Damage and injury occur during collisions at any speed.
I saw someone crash at 90+ on the M25 (because he was on the phone), he walked away without even ending his phonecall. More recently I saw a pile up at 60mph on the M25, I only saw one occupant walking around after. I saw a crash at 40mph on a residential road (mine!) where a passenger broke their leg, and someone else was runover and killed outside my house by a car doing under 30 (fortunately I didn't see that).
Speeding... So dangerous.

[Graveworm]

donkmeister said:

Damage and injury occur during collisions at any speed.
I saw someone crash at 90+ on the M25 (because he was on the phone), he walked away without even ending his phonecall. More recently I saw a pile up at 60mph on the M25, I only saw one occupant walking around after. I saw a crash at 40mph on a residential road (mine!) where a passenger broke their leg, and someone else was runover and killed outside my house by a car doing under 30 (fortunately I didn't see that).
Speeding... So dangerous.

Yes and not seriously if you are rear ended then the faster you are going the better. Many /most accidents happen turning right so the faster you are going the less time you are exposed to danger.

[macushla]

donkmeister said:

Damage and injury occur during collisions at any speed.
I saw someone crash at 90+ on the M25 (because he was on the phone), he walked away without even ending his phonecall. More recently I saw a pile up at 60mph on the M25, I only saw one occupant walking around after. I saw a crash at 40mph on a residential road (mine!) where a passenger broke their leg, and someone else was runover and killed outside my house by a car doing under 30 (fortunately I didn't see that).
Speeding... So dangerous.

Well done on completely missing the point. If the law requires “and injury or damage” then it’s obviously going to get that irrespective of speed. Your points just add to that fact.

I love that you’ve decided that I dislike speed. However, once again you need to refresh your understanding of how dangerous is defined. I’ve been corrected by that doesn’t alter the fact that it’s dedined by what a competent and careful driver would think and whether you fall well below those standards.

I guarantee you’d be calling me dangerous if I drove past your house 50%+ above the limit *


* this is the bit where you announce you live on an autobahn and sit there with signs demanding people go faster.

[donkmeister]

macushla said:

donkmeister said:

Damage and injury occur during collisions at any speed.
I saw someone crash at 90+ on the M25 (because he was on the phone), he walked away without even ending his phonecall. More recently I saw a pile up at 60mph on the M25, I only saw one occupant walking around after. I saw a crash at 40mph on a residential road (mine!) where a passenger broke their leg, and someone else was runover and killed outside my house by a car doing under 30 (fortunately I didn't see that).
Speeding... So dangerous.

Well done on completely missing the point. If the law requires “and injury or damage” then it’s obviously going to get that irrespective of speed. Your points just add to that fact.

I love that you’ve decided that I dislike speed. However, once again you need to refresh your understanding of how dangerous is defined. I’ve been corrected by that doesn’t alter the fact that it’s dedined by what a competent and careful driver would think and whether you fall well below those standards.

I guarantee you’d be calling me dangerous if I drove past your house 50%+ above the limit *


* this is the bit where you announce you live on an autobahn and sit there with signs demanding people go faster.

I would indeed! Personally I think it's knobbish to speed in residential areas full-stop and I honestly never do (I even engage the speed limiter).
However I do not subscribe to the view that speeding on a motorway is dangerous in itself. That is where we disagree.
The 70 mph limit in the UK is an arbitrary anachronism, and by most accounts the 120kph limit in the Republic is equally absurd.
The point I was making is that of the (fortunately) few accidents I have witnessed, the most injurious have occurred at legal speeds, by people driving dangerously (in both cases by not paying sufficient attention). Driving dangerously is not the same thing as speeding.

[macushla]

donkmeister said:

I would indeed! Personally I think it's knobbish to speed in residential areas full-stop and I honestly never do (I even engage the speed limiter).
However I do not subscribe to the view that speeding on a motorway is dangerous in itself. That is where we disagree.
The 70 mph limit in the UK is an arbitrary anachronism, and by most accounts the 120kph limit in the Republic is equally absurd.
The point I was making is that of the (fortunately) few accidents I have witnessed, the most injurious have occurred at legal speeds, by people driving dangerously (in both cases by not paying sufficient attention). Driving dangerously is not the same thing as speeding.

I’m not saying it’s dangerous as in there is imminent danger to everyone the moment I speed. What I’m saying is that under the definition of dangerous in law, then it’s clear to see how it’s fairly clear that it meets the definition. The definition requires injury or damage to be likely. Walk away from a big smash with no injuries doesn’t matter, as there’s plenty of damage and vice versa.

I sit at 90 on the motorway whenever it’s freeflowing and will happily drive over 100 when I feel like it. I’m not anti-speeding, I’m just part matic enough to know I’m likely to be screwed if I’m caught.

[Willy Nilly]

macushla said:

I guarantee you’d be calling me dangerous if I drove past your house 50%+ above the limit *

I live on the main drag through the village. There is a bus stop outside my house. It's a 30 limit which is sensible, but I don't want it lowered, nor do I want it particularly enforced.

I really couldn't care less how fast people drive past my house, it has no effect on my life at all. Most people most of the time are there or there abouts around the speed limit. Some are a bit over, in the small hours plenty of people do really bat on, but it doesn't matter.

On the village Facebook page people have said the following:

Someone wanted people to slow down because the mother duck waked her duckling across the road and some got run over "by a speeding driver"

Someone was complaining about the speed of farm tractors, turns out a tractor met something wide and long, probably a bus and one of them probably but not definately the tractor mounted the curb to pass, but it was tractors speeding.

Some old codger who must live a few doors down from met was moaning about the speed of the traffic because he couldn't get off his drive. I cycle to and from work 3 times a day and have been doing so for 17 years and don't have an issue and the odd time I do have to wait, it's traffic density, not speeding.

The bin lorries were speeding.

Someone didn't give way on one of the mini round abouts. Guess what? Speeding.

Someone was driving along an NSL B road and got overtaken. I suspect they were driving rather slowly. She had to "slam on her brakes". The overtaker was speeding and we should all slow down. No mention of not driving so slowly that people feel the urge to overtake you. Someone else contributed to the thread and said the road should be 30. He's clearly senile.

It's always speeding. Never poor anticipation, or poor planning, or not paying attention. Always, always speeding. That's what 25 years of Speed Kills does for you. The country is being strangled by low speed limits and traffic calming to appease these morons.

[macushla]

Willy Nilly said:

I live on the main drag through the village. There is a bus stop outside my house. It's a 30 limit which is sensible, but I don't want it lowered, nor do I want it particularly enforced.

I really couldn't care less how fast people drive past my house, it has no effect on my life at all. Most people most of the time are there or there abouts around the speed limit. Some are a bit over, in the small hours plenty of people do really bat on, but it doesn't matter.

On the village Facebook page people have said the following:

Someone wanted people to slow down because the mother duck waked her duckling across the road and some got run over "by a speeding driver"

Someone was complaining about the speed of farm tractors, turns out a tractor met something wide and long, probably a bus and one of them probably but not definately the tractor mounted the curb to pass, but it was tractors speeding.

Some old codger who must live a few doors down from met was moaning about the speed of the traffic because he couldn't get off his drive. I cycle to and from work 3 times a day and have been doing so for 17 years and don't have an issue and the odd time I do have to wait, it's traffic density, not speeding.

The bin lorries were speeding.

Someone didn't give way on one of the mini round abouts. Guess what? Speeding.

Someone was driving along an NSL B road and got overtaken. I suspect they were driving rather slowly. She had to "slam on her brakes". The overtaker was speeding and we should all slow down. No mention of not driving so slowly that people feel the urge to overtake you. Someone else contributed to the thread and said the road should be 30. He's clearly senile.

It's always speeding. Never poor anticipation, or poor planning, or not paying attention. Always, always speeding. That's what 25 years of Speed Kills does for you. The country is being strangled by low speed limits and traffic calming to appease these morons.

I live in a village too with a 30 limit, either side of it used to be NSL, but has inexplicably been reduced to 50 and 40 respectively. On the run up there o the 50 people floor it and go past a good 1/2 mile of the village at an inappropriately fast speed. The same applies on people entering the village from the now 40 limit, who make no attempt to slow down. However, built up areas have always (certainly as long as the decades that I’ve been driving) been 30 and should remain so.

It’s fine though, I mean it’s not like we had a young girl knocked nearly a hundred yards down the road by a driver doing 50+ who then legged it. She’s just about come out of her coma now and has months of rehab ahead of her to deal with the multiple breaks and punctured lungs.

Opinions vary, but I see excessive speeding in built up areas as ridiculous, do 35 no problem, but 40+ and it’s a bit silly. Your opinion would change if you saw an accident like I’ve described and would change dramatically if it was your child, or a friend’s child who suffered what I’ve described, for info I have no connection to the girl,who was hit, but it was coming.

You may just continue with your view, but the reality is that nothing will change to appease you, speed limits only ever go down and enforcement becomes ever more rigourous, so we just have to live with it.

[havoc]

macushla said:

I’m not saying it’s dangerous as in there is imminent danger to everyone the moment I speed. What I’m saying is that under the definition of dangerous in law, then it’s clear to see how it’s fairly clear that it meets the definition. The definition requires injury or damage to be likely. Walk away from a big smash with no injuries doesn’t matter, as there’s plenty of damage and vice versa.

Utter nonsense.

I've driven on an autobahn at 2x the UK legal limit multiple times. Focuses the mind somewhat, but DOES put into perspective how straightforward 100mph is, even when there's other traffic around. I've exceed the ton more times than I can remember. Usually when there's very few others around, but on occasion there have been, and often I've not been the fastest on the road.

Silly? Possibly. Germans don't think so, and they tend to be the logical ones in Europe.

Dangerous. No. Emphatically not, in and of itself.
IMHO notably less so than driving AT the limit with a phone clamped to your ear (because you'll probably be paying a lot more attention to what's much further in front of you), or AT the limit 6ft from the bumper of the car in front (for equally obvious reasons regarding potential severity of accidents). Neither of those are considered dangerous per se under UK law, interestingly enough...


This is just another step in the pet war that some in power have against the freedom that the private car gives to individuals.

[Alias218]

macushla said:

Willy Nilly said:

I live on the main drag through the village. There is a bus stop outside my house. It's a 30 limit which is sensible, but I don't want it lowered, nor do I want it particularly enforced.

I really couldn't care less how fast people drive past my house, it has no effect on my life at all. Most people most of the time are there or there abouts around the speed limit. Some are a bit over, in the small hours plenty of people do really bat on, but it doesn't matter.

On the village Facebook page people have said the following:

Someone wanted people to slow down because the mother duck waked her duckling across the road and some got run over "by a speeding driver"

Someone was complaining about the speed of farm tractors, turns out a tractor met something wide and long, probably a bus and one of them probably but not definately the tractor mounted the curb to pass, but it was tractors speeding.

Some old codger who must live a few doors down from met was moaning about the speed of the traffic because he couldn't get off his drive. I cycle to and from work 3 times a day and have been doing so for 17 years and don't have an issue and the odd time I do have to wait, it's traffic density, not speeding.

The bin lorries were speeding.

Someone didn't give way on one of the mini round abouts. Guess what? Speeding.

Someone was driving along an NSL B road and got overtaken. I suspect they were driving rather slowly. She had to "slam on her brakes". The overtaker was speeding and we should all slow down. No mention of not driving so slowly that people feel the urge to overtake you. Someone else contributed to the thread and said the road should be 30. He's clearly senile.

It's always speeding. Never poor anticipation, or poor planning, or not paying attention. Always, always speeding. That's what 25 years of Speed Kills does for you. The country is being strangled by low speed limits and traffic calming to appease these morons.

I live in a village too with a 30 limit, either side of it used to be NSL, but has inexplicably been reduced to 50 and 40 respectively. On the run up there o the 50 people floor it and go past a good 1/2 mile of the village at an inappropriately fast speed. The same applies on people entering the village from the now 40 limit, who make no attempt to slow down. However, built up areas have always (certainly as long as the decades that I’ve been driving) been 30 and should remain so.

It’s fine though, I mean it’s not like we had a young girl knocked nearly a hundred yards down the road by a driver doing 50+ who then legged it. She’s just about come out of her coma now and has months of rehab ahead of her to deal with the multiple breaks and punctured lungs.

Opinions vary, but I see excessive speeding in built up areas as ridiculous, do 35 no problem, but 40+ and it’s a bit silly. Your opinion would change if you saw an accident like I’ve described and would change dramatically if it was your child, or a friend’s child who suffered what I’ve described, for info I have no connection to the girl,who was hit, but it was coming.

You may just continue with your view, but the reality is that nothing will change to appease you, speed limits only ever go down and enforcement becomes ever more rigourous, so we just have to live with it.

I don't think the point he was making was that he thinks certain speed limits are draconian or not fit for purpose, particularly after documented accidents as you say, but more the fact that as soon as someone sees someone driving in a manner they disagree with they have a knee jerk and decry speeding as the culprit regardless of the actual speed attained or of the particulars of the situation.

There is a certain demographic that feels it is their given right to aportion blame as they see fit because they themselves like to dawdle/are incompetent/can not see beyond their noses. Case in point being the old gent trying to reverse off his drive. Likely less an issue of speeding and more of his ailing reactions/eyesight. Is it his fault? Nope. Speeding. I believe that was the point being made by Willy Nilly.

And I can whole-heartedly sympathise with overtaking dawdlers on NSL roads. There are few things more frustrating than someone who brakes at every bend and at every oncoming vehicle, yet still can't take themselves beyond 35mph. It isn't a matter of getting somewhere faster, its a matter of having a clear line of sight ahead where you aren't being morse-coded to death with brake lights, of being able to drive without having to consciously anticipated what the person in front might do next because their own incompetence makes them unpredictable. I would much rather carry out a safe overtaking manoeuvre and put that person behind me, than sit for miles having my patience worn down to a nub. It is then that rash decisions are made.

[Graveworm]

havoc said:

Utter nonsense.

I've driven on an autobahn at 2x the UK legal limit multiple times. Focuses the mind somewhat, but DOES put into perspective how straightforward 100mph is, even when there's other traffic around. I've exceed the ton more times than I can remember. Usually when there's very few others around, but on occasion there have been, and often I've not been the fastest on the road.

Silly? Possibly. Germans don't think so, and they tend to be the logical ones in Europe.

Dangerous. No. Emphatically not, in and of itself.
IMHO notably less so than driving AT the limit with a phone clamped to your ear (because you'll probably be paying a lot more attention to what's much further in front of you), or AT the limit 6ft from the bumper of the car in front (for equally obvious reasons regarding potential severity of accidents). Neither of those are considered dangerous per se under UK law, interestingly enough...


This is just another step in the pet war that some in power have against the freedom that the private car gives to individuals.

Not to mention that within the British Isles you can plod along at a ton plus quite legally on a rural road which is, despite all the "Danger magnet" factors, pretty much as safe as the equivalent NSL roads here.

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 21st January 22:08

[LarsG]

havoc said:

macushla said:

I’m not saying it’s dangerous as in there is imminent danger to everyone the moment I speed. What I’m saying is that under the definition of dangerous in law, then it’s clear to see how it’s fairly clear that it meets the definition. The definition requires injury or damage to be likely. Walk away from a big smash with no injuries doesn’t matter, as there’s plenty of damage and vice versa.

Utter nonsense.

I've driven on an autobahn at 2x the UK legal limit multiple times. Focuses the mind somewhat, but DOES put into perspective how straightforward 100mph is, even when there's other traffic around. I've exceed the ton more times than I can remember. Usually when there's very few others around, but on occasion there have been, and often I've not been the fastest on the road.

Silly? Possibly. Germans don't think so, and they tend to be the logical ones in Europe.

Dangerous. No. Emphatically not, in and of itself.
IMHO notably less so than driving AT the limit with a phone clamped to your ear (because you'll probably be paying a lot more attention to what's much further in front of you), or AT the limit 6ft from the bumper of the car in front (for equally obvious reasons regarding potential severity of accidents). Neither of those are considered dangerous per se under UK law, interestingly enough...


This is just another step in the pet war that some in power have against the freedom that the private car gives to individuals.

I lived in Germany for quite a few years, most German drivers know what indicators are for and have good lane discipline. However, when an accident happens it usually involves lots of cars. In 2009 there was a pile up in excess of 250 cars.

Stopping distance at 100mph on a flat stretch of road in favourable dry conditions is 220m. Add rain and a downward slope, 350m. Where in the world can you keep that kind of distance from the car in front?

In fact this year while visiting relatives in the Hanover area there were speed restrictions of 130kmh on all the motorways I used.

Incidentally, I think last year they had the least number of road deaths 3,214 but a bumper year of accidents 2.6 million. Cars must be getting safer.

Edited by LarsG on Monday 21st January 22:11

[Graveworm]

LarsG said:

Stopping distance at 100mph on a flat stretch of road in favourable dry conditions is 220m. Add rain and a downward slope, 350m. Where in the world can you keep that kind of distance from the car in front?

The 2 second rule is regardless of speed so thats near as makes no difference 90m.
As for a favourable stopping distance, the braking distance for my 2 tonne car is just short of 87m. Highway code thinking distance is an ambitious 33m 1 second is just under 45 and Brake's it might happen whilst you are tuning the radio is 67m. All of this is without driver aids, that are well within their working zone at 100mph so reaction times are theoretically almost out of the equation. Whatever way you look at it a favourable stopping distance, should be much less than 220m.

[macushla]

havoc said:

Utter nonsense.

I've driven on an autobahn at 2x the UK legal limit multiple times. Focuses the mind somewhat, but DOES put into perspective hhow straightforward 100mph is, even when there's other traffic around. I've exceed the ton more times than I can remember. Usually when there's very few others around, but on occasion there have been, and often I've not been the fastest on the road.

Silly? Possibly. Germans don't think so, and they tend to be the logical ones in Europe.

Dangerous. No. Emphatically not, in and of itself.
IMHO notably less so than driving AT the limit with a phone clamped to your ear (because you'll probably be paying a lot more attention to what's much further in front of you), or AT the limit 6ft from the bumper of the car in front (for equally obvious reasons regarding potential severity of accidents). Neither of those are considered dangerous per se under UK law, interestingly enough...


This is just another step in the pet war that some in power have against the freedom that the private car gives to individuals.

It’s legal to do whatever speed you like on some roads in Germany, but god help you if you’re caught exceeeding the speed limit on a limited road. If you think our penalties are severe then you haven’t seen anything.

However, referencing another countries laws are tenuous at best. In those countries the drivers are expecting the speeds you’re mentioning, but that won’t be the case in countries where there is a limit that’s being exceeded by 50%

As I’ve seen before you and others have an opinion, but I’ll bet that few of you are as good at driving as you think you are.

Graveworm said:

Not to mention that within the British Isles you can plod along at a ton plus quite legally on a rural road which is, despite all the "Danger magnet" factors, pretty much as safe as the equivalent NSL roads here.

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 21st January 22:08

See above. The Isle of Man is brutal enforcing speed limits in the 30s and other restricted roads. They’re also not very keen on those who do crash on the derestricted roads where speed was a factor and the book is often thrown very hard at them.

I speed a lot, pretty much all the time, but I don’t get upset if I’m caught. It’s rare that I am, I think I got an SAC a few years ago and that was the first time since 1997 that I’ve been caught. My point is that despite people bleating, the rules will only get stricter, the enforcement more draconian and automated amd we just have to live with it, rather than get all upset. If another country wants to enforce a new law then that’s their prerogative and there’s f all we can do about it.

[Jag_luvver]

havoc said:

macushla said:

I’m not saying it’s dangerous as in there is imminent danger to everyone the moment I speed. What I’m saying is that under the definition of dangerous in law, then it’s clear to see how it’s fairly clear that it meets the definition. The definition requires injury or damage to be likely. Walk away from a big smash with no injuries doesn’t matter, as there’s plenty of damage and vice versa.

Utter nonsense.

I've driven on an autobahn at 2x the UK legal limit multiple times. Focuses the mind somewhat, but DOES put into perspective how straightforward 100mph is, even when there's other traffic around. I've exceed the ton more times than I can remember. Usually when there's very few others around, but on occasion there have been, and often I've not been the fastest on the road.

Silly? Possibly. Germans don't think so, and they tend to be the logical ones in Europe.

Dangerous. No. Emphatically not, in and of itself.
IMHO notably less so than driving AT the limit with a phone clamped to your ear (because you'll probably be paying a lot more attention to what's much further in front of you), or AT the limit 6ft from the bumper of the car in front (for equally obvious reasons regarding potential severity of accidents). Neither of those are considered dangerous per se under UK law, interestingly enough...


This is just another step in the pet war that some in power have against the freedom that the private car gives to individuals.

I'm not trying to take the 'speed kills' angle, but I do feel that what is an ostensibly sensible-sounding post from havoc could use a little context, given that there is a potential logical loop of 'it's safe to do 100mph on a motorway because doing 140mph is ok' could escalate to justify doing a car's top speed because it's 'not much more dangerous than a slightly slower safe speed'. That context is:
- doubling speed roughly increases stopping distances by a factor of 4 (for a given vehicle and road conditions);
- slowing from 100 mph to 70 mph requires comparable levels of energy dissipation as slowing from 70 mph to 0 mph;
- speed doesn't kill (the victorians thought that), but rate of change of speed does (i.e. sudden changes in speed from hitting something that's moving slower than you).

One implication of the second point is that rear-ending another vehicle on the motorway at 100mph (assuming they're doing 70mph) involves dissipating an equivalent amount of energy to crashing into that same vehicle when it's stationary and you're doing 70 mph.

Provided everyone's happy bumbling along at a similar speed, all's good.

Edited by Jag_luvver on Monday 21st January 23:05

[RSbandit]

Irish myself but UK based...was aware of these changes and yes they do seem draconian jail for 102mph seems way excessive. Had a speed awareness course myself in 2015 ( mobile unit clocked me at 82mph in a 70). The standout point for me from the course was the survival chances of someone being knocked down at 30/40 mph, 90% survive at 30 while only 10% survive at 40...makes you understand why speed limits in urban areas are what they are. A % above a limit would be more sensible to implement more severe penalties, a 50 in a 30 is alot more serious than a 90 in a 70 imo.

[macushla]

RSbandit said:

Irish myself but UK based...was aware of these changes and yes they do seem draconian jail for 102mph seems way excessive. Had a speed awareness course myself in 2015 ( mobile unit clocked me at 82mph in a 70). The standout point for me from the course was the survival chances of someone being knocked down at 30/40 mph, 90% survive at 30 while only 10% survive at 40...makes you understand why speed limits in urban areas are what they are. A % above a limit would be more sensible to implement more severe penalties, a 50 in a 30 is alot more serious than a 90 in a 70 imo.

That’s pretty much how it works currently.

[The Surveyor]

Is this guy really going to serve 2 months inside for 102mph, or did he get a suspended jail sentence?

[irish boy]

The Surveyor said:

Is this guy really going to serve 2 months inside for 102mph, or did he get a suspended jail sentence?

It isn't suspended, depends how the appeal goes.

[vonhosen]

The Surveyor said:

Is this guy really going to serve 2 months inside for 102mph, or did he get a suspended jail sentence?

If he did it wasn't because it was 102, it's because 102 in the circumstances was regarded as dangerous driving.
You can't get jail for 102, you can for dangerous driving.

[Willy Nilly]

vonhosen said:

The Surveyor said:

Is this guy really going to serve 2 months inside for 102mph, or did he get a suspended jail sentence?

If he did it wasn't because it was 102, it's because 102 in the circumstances was regarded as dangerous driving.
You can't get jail for 102, you can for dangerous driving.

So he is going to jail for dangerous driving even though his driving might not have been dangerous, just classed as dangerous because it is over a certain threshold?