Busted in France

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Speeding on the autoroutes is fun.

I've managed to see 145mph on a deserted 3 mile long straight bit.

It would be rude not too. To the holier than thou, you're missing out on one of lifes pleasures.
 
It is not being holier than thou.
I accept that on a deserted road at night you aren't endangering anyone else other than yourselves. However the OP did not specify an empty road.
I haven't seen 145mph anywhere [only 120mph on an autobahn where it was unrestricted and where the rest were travelling at around 90mph.
It is your car, your money and your life. Please feel free to do as you please without endangering anyone else.
 
It seems nothing polarises a debate on a car forum more than the topic of speeding, ironically, as I assume we're here because we like driving. It usually ends up very heated, but it is such a subjective matter, based either on opinion or variable law. The reason I say this is because I've been driving in Europe the last few weeks, and when I came back from Germany last week, I drove through four countries in one day. Each have their own laws and speed limits, and I had the same car and driving capabilities. If I drove in France at the speeds I did in Germany, I would be classed as a moron (mind you, being English there can help), yet I would be using the same capabilities which are acceptable elsewhere. So yes, I'd be breaking the law in France, but on a similar and connected stretch of road!

I can never understand why smoking is safer than eating a sandwich behind the wheel, but the fact that is illegal makes a mockery of some driving laws.
 
it seems to be a British speciality, since it's very rare to see Germans, Dutch or Belgians behaving in such an obnoxious way, whereas the British have now acquired a very bad reputation.

If it wasn't for us Brits, the whole of France would be covered in autobahns, so they should be thankful that we grace them with our presence from time to time.

You are actually allowed to break the speed limit in France. As long as you are in reverse....
 
If it wasn't for us Brits, the whole of France would be covered in autobahns, so they should be thankful that we grace them with our presence from time to time.

Its a shame we didn't let the Germans have the place come to think of it :rolleyes::doh:

You are actually allowed to break the speed limit in France. As long as you are in reverse....

Challenge:eek:
 
I had to read the last two posts twice incase l had misread them. Sadly not. Has it come to suggesting the Nazi party should be in power in mainland Europe to fuel our need for speed?
 
I had to read the last two posts twice incase l had misread them. Sadly not. Has it come to suggesting the Nazi party should be in power in mainland Europe to fuel our need for speed?

If you're referring to my post, I'm afraid you have mis-read it.

I'm suggesting that the French should be thankful that Brits pass through from time to time.
 
The "calculated risk" comment was outrageous, what "calculations" were these and based on what data and scientific knowledge and principles? That, for the benefit of our speeder was a rhetorical question.


Simmer!

We all take a calculated risk every time we use a public road. We weigh the risk of road travel against the desire or requirement to take the journey.

Speed limits exist because there's no simpler way of controlling road behaviour, they give a nice simple method to say "you're an idiot" in court. They are set at an arbitrary number which most people can control a vehicle at and so the differential in speed between commercial traffic and cars isn't too big to be too risky.

71mph is illegal in the UK, but is it any less safe than 69, or more risky than 72?

As long as we accept that (a) you'll have a bigger crash at a higher speed and (b) you are breaking the law, if someone chooses to be an illlegal speed demon and kill all the kiddies and kittens and be sent to the special hell for those who commit numerical crimes then leave them to it.

161mph by the way, that's what my C320 will do, making it 1 mph faster than my Volvo was. Not bad but I've done 180 in an Audi :) No one died in discovering any of these facts
 
Simmer!

We all take a calculated risk every time we use a public road. We weigh the risk of road travel against the desire or requirement to take the journey.

Indeed and I suggest strongly to the "safety holier than thou" merchants that if they fear the 1mph speed limit breacher reaper, they are better off seeking alternative modes of transport other than the car. The prospect of someone doing 80mph or whatever simply is too much from them to handle, they have trains for people like that. After all, they cannot control the speeds and actions of others, so if they cannot accept the risk of automotive transport, they need to seek other means.

Speed limits exist because there's no simpler way of controlling road behaviour, they give a nice simple method to say "you're an idiot" in court. They are set at an arbitrary number which most people can control a vehicle at and so the differential in speed between commercial traffic and cars isn't too big to be too risky.

71mph is illegal in the UK, but is it any less safe than 69, or more risky than 72?

Quite, its also a good revenue maker. You can apparently do 150mph in germany and they deem it safe, france deem 80 safe, we 70. Who is right, I don't really care to be honest, I will make my choices and live with them. If someone else makes the wrong choice and as a consequence I am killed, too bad. Using the highways comes with an element of risk as you are at the mercy of other road users. Don't like that risk, don't use the high ways, simple.

I don't like the risk of flying, so I do not do it. I don't accept the risks of sky diving, so I don't do it, I don't whinge about other people doing it. One of those planes that crash could fly and crash into me, do you see me whinging about planes. No. Others on this forum need to calm it too.

As long as we accept that (a) you'll have a bigger crash at a higher speed and (b) you are breaking the law, if someone chooses to be an illlegal speed demon and kill all the kiddies and kittens and be sent to the special hell for those who commit numerical crimes then leave them to it.

161mph by the way, that's what my C320 will do, making it 1 mph faster than my Volvo was. Not bad but I've done 180 in an Audi :) No one died in discovering any of these facts

A crash at 70 is going to kill, whats the difference if it happens at 120mph?

The human body is not designed to go over the speed it propels itself, by that logic we should never travel faster than we can run, which for me is not very fast.

Good work on the 180 bit. When I had the BMW, because it was so tall, 140mph was REALLY scary. Still, it was a riot.

I think the C320cdi must have some legs on my car, it struggles above 145mph, it gets very limp. 155mph on the A8 nr Munich was a real challange, but keeping that M3 in sight and catching it again, happy times. :ban:
 
I had to read the last two posts twice incase l had misread them. Sadly not. Has it come to suggesting the Nazi party should be in power in mainland Europe to fuel our need for speed?

Any party will do;)
 
Good work on the 180 bit. When I had the BMW, because it was so tall, 140mph was REALLY scary. Still, it was a riot.

I think the C320cdi must have some legs on my car, it struggles above 145mph, it gets very limp. 155mph on the A8 nr Munich was a real challange, but keeping that M3 in sight and catching it again, happy times. :ban:


180 in the Audi was GPS verified, and there was more to go but we ran out of road. The other thing I remember about that car was using about 1/2 tank of fuel in 50 miles on some country roads. And a full tank of nitrous...

161 in the C320CDI was on the speedo, so I'm guessing it was nearer 155. I'm not going to have the chance to try that again for a while as I'm stuck in the UK for a while and the amount of road it needs to get to that speed is longer than any track I can think of.

Maybe we should organise our own Vmax day sometime? And if I can actually keep mine out of the bodyshop for a few weeks it might get that remap...
 
Maybe we should organise our own Vmax day sometime? And if I can actually keep mine out of the bodyshop for a few weeks it might get that remap...

Is there not that fighting torque event? I'd love to say lets meet at Northampton services M1 at 5am, but that would be condoning law breaking, unless a few forum members are up for an early AM KFC?

I sometimes think the same re my car, I got one side painted because someone scraped her whilst she was parked up, a week later a little scrote pulled into her as I was overtaking.
 
Is there not that fighting torque event? I'd love to say lets meet at Northampton services M1 at 5am, but that would be condoning law breaking, unless a few forum members are up for an early AM KFC?

I sometimes think the same re my car, I got one side painted because someone scraped her whilst she was parked up, a week later a little scrote pulled into her as I was overtaking.

Anyone know how much it would cost to hire brunters or elvington?
 
Is there not that fighting torque event? I'd love to say lets meet at Northampton services M1 at 5am, but that would be condoning law breaking, unless a few forum members are up for an early AM KFC?

I sometimes think the same re my car, I got one side painted because someone scraped her whilst she was parked up, a week later a little scrote pulled into her as I was overtaking.

Anyone know how much it would cost to hire brunters or elvington?
 
Simmer!

We all take a calculated risk every time we use a public road. We weigh the risk of road travel against the desire or requirement to take the journey.

Speed limits exist because there's no simpler way of controlling road behaviour, they give a nice simple method to say "you're an idiot" in court. They are set at an arbitrary number which most people can control a vehicle at and so the differential in speed between commercial traffic and cars isn't too big to be too risky. They exist as do all other laws to try to maintain a balance because some people are clearly of the opinion that they can behave as they please, remember the riots recently?

71mph is illegal in the UK, but is it any less safe than 69, or more risky than 72?

That is a totally fatuous comparison and not relevant to the points made.

As long as we accept that (a) you'll have a bigger crash at a higher speed and (b) you are breaking the law, if someone chooses to be an illlegal speed demon and kill all the kiddies and kittens and be sent to the special hell for those who commit numerical crimes then leave them to it. Having a car is not a right but it does carry reponsibility, are you seriously suggesting that it does not matter what you or anyone else does and we should all be free to do as we please?

161mph by the way, that's what my C320 will do, making it 1 mph faster than my Volvo was. Not bad but I've done 180 in an Audi :) No one died in discovering any of these facts

Just because your car is capable of reaching 160mph etc does not mean you are capable. If it helps your macho ego trip to denigrate others in this way so be it. I have never at any point suggested that we should all stick hard and fast to the limits. Yes you are correct that the limits are set so that the lowest common denominator should be able to cope but driver training in the UK is poor and traffic density is increasing. For the majority of people within the nornal ranges in terms of eyesight and reactions then clearly the current limits are low but take that "average" person when they are tired, stressed etc and human performance drops off but we are very poor at noticing that and applying self regulation.
 
Just because your car is capable of reaching 160mph etc does not mean you are capable. If it helps your macho ego trip to denigrate others in this way so be it. I have never at any point suggested that we should all stick hard and fast to the limits. Yes you are correct that the limits are set so that the lowest common denominator should be able to cope but driver training in the UK is poor and traffic density is increasing. For the majority of people within the nornal ranges in terms of eyesight and reactions then clearly the current limits are low but take that "average" person when they are tired, stressed etc and human performance drops off but we are very poor at noticing that and applying self regulation.

I think Tim, and what I have tried to say is people should be able to make their own minds up as to what is safe and what is not safe. I'll flip it round, when does 71mph become safe, and when does 69mph become totally unsafe. Perhaps when its sunny and clear, and when it snows and is foggy. If people cannot make their minds up, let nature make up its mind for them.

Driving is a risk, you can minimize your own risk by driving at your own limits. For example their are roads up here with a 60mph speed limit, some of which you would not dream of driving at 60 unless you wanted to die that day.

However, you cannot account for the actions of others. I therefore accept completely that I could be killed or seriously injured whenever I venture out into the roads. You should be able to look at your drivers seat and say, I could die in that (and look at the dash board and think, that may be the last thing I see) and it may not be my fault and accept that as a "risk". If you cannot, do not drive or travel on the roads. I've very nearly been killed twice by the actions of others in cars (both times not even sat in the drivers side) and never thought anything of it. Its just life.

There are some dodgy pubs, areas etc. You can go to them, but if you do go, you must accept there is a chance you'll get a bottle on your head. If you can't accept that, you cannot go.

You cannot legislate against life and what just might happen.
 
Whilst that is all broadly true there is still the point that driving on public roads involves others,we all have a responsibility to other people as well as to ourselves.

Risk is not linear, clearly 70mph and 71mph in the same circumstances are the same risk as near as makes no difference . It is the people who think 100mph or more on busy motorways is perfectly acceptable because it is just "their risk" or the cretins I regularly see driving at 60mph plus over the New Forest who need to be controlled.

Should we let everyone decide on what they believe is safe in everything in life? Of course not as there are people for whom rational judgement seems to not exist so we have laws to try to make them comply. As you rightly say there are limits on roads where judgment and experience tell you that the limit is too high and vice versa.

I made this latter point previously but you cannot just arbitrarily decide to flout a law because you think you know better. Just imagine if 90% of the traffic drove at the limit plus 50% all of the time.

I do not like a lot of regulation, detest being told what to do but that is a price we pay for living in a society that without it would quickly erode even further. Ther is no easy answer but some of the posts in this thread do nothing but give the anti-motoring lobby more ammunition to fire back at us.
 
Last edited:
Whilst that is all broadly true there is still the point that dricing on public roads involves other,we all have a responsibility to other people as well as to ourselves.

You make that decision all the time when you drive. Overtaking is a prime example, you overtake when its clear to do so. 99999/100000 times this will go to plan, however, the person you overtake make swerve at hit you for no apparent reason. You've taken the steps to make sure the maneuver is safe, but you've still been in a collision. This is my very own experience of two weeks ago.

I took steps to make sure I was not endangering myself and others, signaled in good time, made my move when it was clear, car well positioned and suitably lit for the time of the day.

My point is what, well, you cannot control the actions of others. I think the rioting in London also proves that point, you can minimize your risk to others stupidity but you cannot eradicate it.

Risk is not linear, clearly 70mph and 71mph in the same circumstances are the same risk as makes no difference . It is the people who think 100mph or more on busy motorways is perfectly acceptable because it is just "their risk" or the cretins I regularly see driving at 60mph plus over the New Forest who need to be controlled.

So if 70 and 71 pose the same risk, why limit. You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere and come up with an arbitrary figure. That figure is higher in Germany, higher in France, Spain, Italy, etc. Are we perhaps being over cautious. I posed the question about crashing at 70mph and 120mph. Both speeds if a complete collision with a barrier will result in instant death, so what is the difference if once car is doing 70 and the other 120. If they both crash, they both die...

Regarding the new forest, if you find it so dangerous to drive there, why drive there? Have you taken steps to contact your local police force, your local MP to raise the issue of excessive speed? Have you tried to do ANYTHING about it other than raise it here. I can think of an area in Helensburgh where double parking causes a major hazard, so I take a different route when there is an event on. Others just complain about it. I've contacted the local MP and police about the issue. Nothing has been done, but no one can say I didn't try.

I'll give you a different analogy. I took the train to work once this winter (which to me is thoroughly unpleasant, I detest doing it), I knew the roads would not be gritted and I could probably try and make it, the odds of someone else getting it wrong that day would pose too great a risk to my safety and well being-i.e. the chances of being in a collision were too high for my liking. I took the train and reduced my risk. If other people want to crash into each other and kill each other, let them was my thought process, I'll take a side seat...

Once the roads were cleared, I drove, at a much more sedate pace than I would in the summer. And I still hit black ice, but I knew there was a chance of that and drove slower to compensate. Looking back, I may take the train more often this winter, as really, some of the conditions are really vile and the chances of a knock are higher.

Should we let everyone decide on what they believe is safe in everything in life? Of course not as there are people for whom rational judgement seems to not exist so we have laws to try to make them comply. As you rightly say there are limits on roads where judgment and experience tell you that the limit is too high and vice versa.

Vice versa you cannot wrap people up in cotton wool either. There is a real world out there. Part of being human is getting it wrong, no matter what the consequence may be. Its a part of life.

For those who have no rational judgement, there is life beyond the road. Something else will get them. They may take up this "planking hobby" that is gripping Australia. Let them. We have laws and speed limits and I do take your point, you are not born knowing this and people do need guidance, as the majority of them are pretty stupid.

However are traffic cars hiding in laybys (on roads which are safe to travel a little above the NSL) and giving chase to someone who is not a danger to anyone really the answer. Are hiding cameras behind signs on good overtaking spots really the answer? No, its a money raising exercise.

A thing I liked were signs on the A93 saying how many people died in specific sites over a year. THAT made you think about your speed and actions a lot more than a hidden camera taking £60 of your hard earned.

I made this point previously but you cannot just arbitrarily decide to flout a law because you think you know better. Just imagine if 90% of the traffic drove at the limit plus 50% all of the time.
I do not like a lot of regulation, detest being told what to do but that is a price we pay for living in a society that without it would quickly erode even further/

There comes a time, when enough people break a minor law, that it becomes decriminalized. Consider Americas policy on Alcohol, our near decriminalizing of canibis.

Would it be so bad if the motorway NSL became 80 just because that become the norm?
 
Last edited:
As we know, the UK 70 mph limit was introduced in 1965 as a temporary measure and many things have moved on since then.......

Personally, this summer a mate and I took a car to Spain for the summer for Mrs AMG to use on her holidays. The run from home to Folkestone was made, in parts, in excess of the NSL. However it was not made greatly in excess of it since a part of time, effort and concentration was spent watching for the Feds as a driving ban here would be inconvenient in the extreme.

When in France and on the run down to Spain the speeds were significantly higher as we both accepted the potential consequences. If we went fast we may get a fine, if we went very fast we may get a larger fine, if we went really fast we may get a ban. HOWEVER it was easier to drive faster as 100% of our concentration was dedicated to actually driving and not really watching for hidden Police Officers.

Speed, in the proper circumstances and conditions, is not a huge danger. The lack of common sense and awareness exhibited by some on the other hand is a far greater danger.

Driver training is surely the answer. :dk:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom