Before the introduction of the 70 mph limit, Desmond "Dizzy" Addicott admitted to doing in excess of 200 mph on the M1.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
3 months working nights in a city casualty detartment.
|
£1 and a contract with McLaren when Alonso goes.
V
|
|
|
"city casualty department"
Where the majority of clients will be fight participants and drunks (often combined). Motoring-related casualties will largely be pedestrians (also frequently drunk, hence the lack of spatial perception). There will also be a fair proportion of unfortunates who have hurt themselves at home, in an unfathomable variety of ways.
People caught driving at 100mph over the limit on a motorway will be conspicuously absent...
|
Where the majority of clients will be fight participants and drunks (often combined).
Spot-on. In big cities you also get the odd stab victim. From experience working in a casualty dept, most car accident "victims" going through casuality tend to be trying it on in order to make a claim and have absolutely nothing wrong with them (maybe a couple of cuts or bruises). The big casualties are usually motorcyclists, having been hit side-on at low speed by a car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
and has to vote labour next month
I'd rather take the custodial sentence option.
|
|
£60 fine (which is waived) and the offer of a job as a Police driver to 'test' their cars....
|
|
ron dennis might be interested in new drivers
|
Ten weeks jail, no mention of fine or ban yet...
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7009923.stm
|
And a prolific joyrider in our area has just walked out of court with 200 hours community service after being caught driving at 120 mph in a stolen Mondeo, and asking for 30 similar offences to be taken into account.
There is no justice in this country.
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
|
|
Ten weeks jail
>>
Plus a three year ban and then take an extended test.
Info from ITV News.
|
Two months to set an example and serve 10 days.
(based on the man who chopped down a scamera)
|
He got 10 weeks - no idea what the fine was.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7009923.stm
|
the speed he did was exceptionally fast for a public road and pretty dangerous, so he deserves some form of decent penalty
however, there are numerous worse offences than that and most right minded people would like them to get a worse penalty (e.g. street robbers who mug the elderly and/or burglars who target the elderly...the victims of which sometimes die).....but the trouble is they don't
so it would seem a dangerous blast in a car gets hammered and other crimes do not...why?
this post is in no way condoning the excessive speed this man did, but suggesting there are worse crimes that don't get prioritised properly when sentenced.
|
Remember "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime " but soft on criminals.
madf
|
|
you forgot "tough on motorists as they are an easy option"
|
|
You would have to know a lot about the road, the driver and the individual car before you could say for sure that the admittedly eye-watering speed of 172mph was actually dangerous. Otherwise I agree pretty much with everything Westpig has said here.
|
|
Who fancies trying for 173 mph? ;-)
|
Who fancies trying for 173 mph? ;-)
In my Focus? I should be so lucky!
--
L\'escargot.
|
Even a steep hill won't really help.
The terminal velocity of a human body in free fall is only about 120mph, and some pilots have survived fortunate landings in haystacks, trees, steep ploughed fields, etc.
|
Re. Lud's earlier point about how we can't really form a view on whether this was dangerous without knowing more about 1) driver, 2) vehicle and 3) road, I would comment as follows:
1) Bit of a plank when it comes to matters of judgement, it would seem, although the employer would have done better to keep the keys somewhere less accessible!
2) Probably as capable of travelling safely at warp factor 9 as anything would be, given the uprating the turbo models get.
3) The speed is rather less defensible on an A-road, which is more likely to have side turnings, roundabouts and so on, than it would be on a motorway. People simply do not expect other traffic to be approaching them at that sort of speed and are therefore likely to pull out, thinking that they've got lots of room, when in fact they haven't.
However, the thing that really got my goat about this was the remarks made by the spokesbeing for RoSPA, as quoted in the Telegraph report. You could practically hear the jowls wobbling in self-righteous indignation...
|
|
I've tried it in the Almera, unfortunately it tops out at about 110mph (allegedly). I'm sure going downhill with a tail-wind i'd squeeze the extra 63mph out of it.... it'd be worth it when the prize is a 10 week all-inclusive holiday! ;-)
|
Many years ago my brother had a hire car from work and we went to visit family in South Wales (I pointed out even then it was hired for business etc. but he assured me okay).
Anyway at J36 on the M4 he decided to see how fast he could go. Going towards Swansea direction he got over 100mph indicated, might have been 110mph. Stupid and I told him then. But he'd have not got muh more out of the Sierra. Try that today and you're looking at a ban!
As for 172mph on an A road, although probably dual carriage way... he got away very lightly.
|
Going a bit off topic, I wonder where do owners of Lambo, Ferrari, Aston and Porsche actually "test" their cars?
Do they use motorways at night or hire private tracks for a day?
|
There are straightish lengths of A road, single or dual carriageway, without side turnings and with good visibility for long enough to do that speed safely if the car and its tyres are up to it.
Chances are however that this person didn't get it all right. Got caught anyway... :o}
|
|
10 Weeks! I thought he should have got longer perhaps 4 months???
|
Being an A-road, the A420 has side-road and cross-road junctions, plenty of them. It runs through a thoroughly rural area, so slow-moving farm vehicles are highly likely to be on it or crossing it. Can you imagine arriving at a cross-roads and seeing something approaching at 170 mph? You'd have a millisecond to decide what to do, and so would the speeding driver. Even the few dual-carriageway sections of the road have junctions, and the rest of it from Oxford to Swindon is not dual and, IIRC, has 50 mph limits and cameras. Most accidents happen at junctions. I hate those limits, but in many places higher speeds are difficult if you're being sensible.
I'm no angel as far as speeding is concerned, but that was lunacy. I agree with comments above about the need for heavier punishments for more serious misdemeanours, but this one deserved to have a heavier book thrown at it.
|
I've tried it in the Almera unfortunately it tops out at about 110mph
Marty McFly tried it once in a DeLorean, but when he got to 88mph, he ended up in 1955 ;o)
|
|
Absolute lunacy and very dangerous, deserving of a harsher sentence, but I can't help a wry smile and a 'way to go, dude!'
|
He could have tried the old routine of 'testing the car out' i'm sure its worked before!
I bet a lot of us have done some things in cars?! we'd rather not admit to i for one have so i can't knock the chap.
Pity the current powers are not so good at catching the bugglas and muggas and other assorted ne'er do wells that really need curbing
|
hee hee hee hee hee hee!
Nice one Dave!
JH
|
I've tried it in the Almera unfortunately it tops out at about 110mph (allegedly).
I've had a Ford Ka going at 115mph on the clock on a flat well surfaced motorway with no other traffic about. But that was when the engine was newish, and it now struggles to top 95. Subtract at least 5mph to get the real speeds.
|
Just been reading the following article about the 172mph speeder:
news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1285441,00.h...l
Two things caught my attention:
1 - "A spokesman for Thames Valley Police said the Porsche was travelling at 77 metres per second and needed over 500 metres in which to stop...." - "....Police said Brady managed to stop the car in 681 metres, though it was wobbling due to the heavy braking."
2 - "Meanwhile, drivers who do not own up to speeding are to face double penalty points on their licence."
Regarding point 1, how accurate are the figures for the stopping distance? If an average saloon car could do 172, how long would it need to stop compared to the porsche? Its interesting because 500 metres is a long way and puts some perspective on just how dangerous that sort of speed can be. For the record - I've got no problem with people going over the limit when apropriate, but 172mph is something a bit different!
Regarding point 2 - What happened to our free and just country?
post merged into current discussion about the same matter - PU
|
"drivers who do not own up to speeding are to face double penalty points"
Thus confirming the long-held belief by some (yet vigorously denied by the authorities) that if you have the temerity to challenge the system, you will simply be found guilty and given a larger penalty. Unless you're famous, of course...
|
|
If the Porsche was travelling at a speed equivalent to the take-off speed of a Boeing 737 then I'd imagine it too would have some downforce, if only to stop it going too light and uncontrollable.
|
This document
www.tfd.chalmers.se/~lelo/rvad/reports/rva2002_gr0...f
suggests that there is actually lift, except for one variant with a very small negative front lift coefficent (see table 4).
Perhaps it's not such a large effect?
Is the sitting down a feature of the suspension?, like the spoiler that comes out at a certain speed?
Number_Cruncher
|
The "breach of freedom and justice" requiring the owner to name the driver has been around for all but 20 yrs (Road Traffic Act 1988), even that may re enact earlier provisions. The penalty has been increased to deter the growing avoidance industry.
And speed traps have always existed - coppers with radar used to catch them like flies on the A658 by Leeds airport c1970.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
