159mph copper 'not dangerous' BBC report

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
blassberg said:
I think its on topic - the guy was done for dangerous driving.

I understand what your saying, but it would be grossly unfair to comment on something where we do not know the true facts.

My observation about stopping within the distance you can see to be safe is actually a catch all type statement, and 'used' to lead to a lot of prosections when motorists were regularly prosecuted for being involved in an accident.

Shude makes a slightly flawed arguement about not prosecuting anyone for 'just' speeding'. What about if someone swerves to avoid the speeding motorist? It's safe to speed unless you have an accident!!! No sorry, I disagree. I am no saint and like the majority of us, I have broken numerous speed limits, but I have always made a concious decision to break the law, if I get caught then I should accept the consequences.

Quite a lot of people are upset about this Policeman getting away with this motoring incident and say 'one rule for them, and another for the rest of us!' I think that is being silly....

We have just had a driver walk free from court after killing a child. This driver lost control of their car, slid across the road, across a grass embankment and into a car park where he then collided with the child. The judge ORDERED the jury to find the driver not guilty as the prosectution had failed to prove that the driving fell below the standard of the average driver (Not an exact quote) This driver was not a Police Officer, but have you noticed how nobody is screaming one rule for them and one rule for us??? Clearly I do not know the full circumstances of the case, just like I do not know the circumstances of the Police Officers case, but people are being found not guilty of crimes every day of the week.

Regards,
John
 
glojo said:
I am no saint and like the majority of us, I have broken numerous speed limits, but I have always made a concious decision to break the law, if I get caught then I should accept the consequences.
My argument is 100% correct because retrospectively we can see that nothing happened. It *could* have happened, but didn't. Think about it! :)

If speeding is against the law then it's against the law, no exceptions. Just like carrying a knife, even if you have never cut anything with it you *could* have and therefore should accept the consequences. Hmm.

One of my Father's friends was cautioned by the police for "intent to speed". That's right folks, not actually speeding but looking like he was going to. What a waste of time!
 
Shude you arguement about speed not being a crime per se is flawed.
By travelling at an inappropriate speed you are increasing the potential consequences of any collision, and you also might be increasing the probability of an accident occurring in the first place.

I do not need a dead employee before the HSE will take me to court for flouting safety regulations. I might run an accident free workplace, but a visit by the HSE inspector will result in my prosecution if I fail to observe the statutory regulations. The crime is exposing your employees to a risk, wether an accident happens or not. the same is true of speed limits.

People who complain about speed limits fail to understand that safety is more important than time. It is better to arrive late in this world than early in the next!
 
The fact nevertheless is that speeding is against the law.

This policeman and magistrate have undermined the law on speeding by (a) the policeman putting forward a spurious excuse (that he wouldn't entertain from anyone else) and (b) the magistrate accepting it. The policeman, remember, is a traffic cop - he regularly stops people asking them which racing driver they think they are and instigating a process which costs the offending individual a lot of money. The Magistrate, remember, is the one that hands out the fine along with expressions of wonderment at the offenders irresponsibility.

It is wrong that a policeman can carry out an "irresponsible" act and be fully excused just because he's a policeman when anyone, anyone, else would be banned for years and possibly go to prison (if they looked a bit oiky).

Whether speeding per se is dangerous is frankly irrelevant.

I'm not bitter by the way.
 
996jimbo said:
The fact nevertheless is that speeding is against the law.

It is wrong that a policeman can carry out an "irresponsible" act and be fully excused just because he's a policeman when anyone, anyone, else would be banned for years and possibly go to prison (if they looked a bit oiky).

:D :D The 'fact' is we don't know the facts. I am sure that one day newspapers will print the truth, but it will probably not be within my lifetime? Regarding this case, I have read that magistrates dismissed the case, then in other papers it was a judge? I have read the policeman was on duty, then in other papers, he casually walked into the Police Station whilst off duty and took this car out!! All 'facts'!!

I will NOT defend the alleged driving but I am merely saying there is just far to much spin and journalistic licence over this whole case.

shude said:
ne of my Father's friends was cautioned by the police for "intent to speed". That's right folks, not actually speeding but looking like he was going to. What a waste of time!
No one forced your Father's friend to accept the caution ;) How on earth does someone 'look' like they are going to break the speed limit?

Maff look's like butter would not melt in his mouth, he is the absolute picture of innocence, but give him the keys..... say to a CL65AMG, and watch him go.

On the other hand white cap man in his souped up Vauxhall Nova looks like he is going to flout every driving law ever thought of :)

shude said:
My argument is 100% correct because retrospectively we can see that nothing happened. It *could* have happened, but didn't. Think about it!
Of course it is Shude, but Apial gets my vote.

Cautioned for 'Intending to speed' That's a good one :D

Regards,
John
 
Apial said:
By travelling at an inappropriate speed you are increasing the potential consequences of any collision, and you also might be increasing the probability of an accident occurring in the first place.
That's well put. What does dangerous mean? Does it mean risky?

If risk = (or is proportional to) Probability x Impact

and if Impact (meaning effect rather than necessarily hitting something) increases with speed (Iwould say)

and if (although I'm not convinced on an empty road per se) (but I am round town) it increases the probability as speed increases

then higher speeds are more risky and that means dangerous.

sh!t I'm gonna regret having this read back to me in court.
 
I would say imact is proportional to the kinetic energy of the vehicle.

Kinetic Energy= 1/2 mass x velocity squared.

Thus travelling at twice the maximum speed limit on a motorway (140mph) means that your car has 4 times as much energy stored in it as when it was travelling at 70mph.

Travelling at 159mph has 5.15 times as much energy and less than half the time to react.

Now can anyone tell me the stopping distance at 159mph for a car fitted with lots of extra safety equipment? Well I calculate around about 1200 feet assuming a dry road and new tyres
 
Last edited:
Maff said:
Just as well none of us here have cars with engines bigger than 1.0l then :p
The policeman said his car was "provocative" or something!
glojo said:
No one forced your Father's friend to accept the caution ;) How on earth does someone 'look' like they are going to break the speed limit?
He was taking his westfield for a blast around some country lanes and although not breaking the speed limit he was taking some corners quite quickly.

Once the policeman was happy that he was a gentleman in his 60s and not a teenager he wagged his finger at him, gave him the pointless caution and was on his way.
glojo said:
Cautioned for 'Intending to speed' That's a good one :D
It is a classic.
 
Me'thinks the media blew up the story a bit... but on a side note, IMHO, the next logic step would be to become a cop ... and drive a patrol car... when caught speeding, one can just quote this case....
 
Shude said:
He was taking his westfield for a blast around some country lanes and although not breaking the speed limit he was taking some corners quite quickly.

I once got pulled over for "looking like I was going a bit fast round a roundabout" by 2 bobbies in a transit van!
 
mergli said:
I once got pulled over for "looking like I was going a bit fast round a roundabout" by 2 bobbies in a transit van!

Years ago I got stopped in Kingston for "following a suspicious route" !! :D
 
Shude said:
Once the policeman was happy that he was a gentleman in his 60s and not a teenager he wagged his finger at him, gave him the pointless caution and was on his way.

It is a classic.

Hi Shude,
Many apologies for taking so long to reply (problems with my rueter thingie)

I misunderstood your use of the word 'caution' I presumed (quite wrongly) that your Fathers friend received an official Police Caution for 'looking like' he was going to break the speed limit. After your second post I now realise the driver was stopped by the officer and merely advised about his driving! Most reasonable folks accept that you do not have to break the speed limit to be actually driving too fast for the prevailing conditions. I seem to remember someone driving too fast in icy conditions and rolling their pride and joy, I'm sure no speed limit was broken, but the car certainly was! :)

It always amazes me how silly some people can be when they get behind the wheel, the country lanes are a prime example, it is madness to drive at the national speed limit, but if someone gets stopped they cry their eyes out because they were not 'speeding' Unbelieveable! :)

Have a nice day,
John
 
blassberg said:
I'm interested in people's opinions of WHAT IS DANGEROUS about driving a car on an empty road within the design limit of the vehicle, regardless of the speed limit.

If a car can do 159, and assuming it's design meets regulatory criteria, what is dangerous about it?

Can a McLaren F1 car safely drive at 159 on an empty road?

are Autobahns safer than Motorways?

I'm not looking for answers on irresponsibility or the benefits of speed limits - totally different subjects.

Please don't assume that I think it is safe ;)

The big problem is that whilst the vehicle is designed to travel at mega speeds, the person driving it is not. Our maximum design speed is about 25mph for a short distance so therefore our brain can only work at those speeds so if you are in a vehicle that can travel at over 6 times our maximum design speed, our reaction times in relation to distance covered is appalling, no matter how well trained we are. Just my 2 pennuf
 
just read about an american caught doing 217 on a jet engined bike in the US. He was fined $10,000.
 
blassberg said:
just read about an american caught doing 217 on a jet engined bike in the US. He was fined $10,000.

I want to know what they used to catch him.... :rolleyes:
 
mergli said:
I want to know what they used to catch him.... :rolleyes:
Maybe he handed himself in to get the 'kudos'? Bear in mind he was travelling 69mph under top speed....and could maybe afford the $10k after buying a bike for 130k (dollars or pounds cant remember but either way its a lot)
 
blassberg said:
Maybe he handed himself in to get the 'kudos'? Bear in mind he was travelling 69mph under top speed....and could maybe afford the $10k after buying a bike for 130k (dollars or pounds cant remember but either way its a lot)


Me'thinks they just waited for him to refuel :p He must do that quite often if he wants to keep going at those speeds :p
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom