RedRobin Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 [ QUOTE ] I didn't hit it because I was going 65-70. Had I been going faster, although seemingly safe, I would have killed two people, and I would have been to blame for that. [/ QUOTE ] ....I don't agree. And I don't see how you can be so sure they would have died - Their fate may have been quite different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techieboy Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 [ QUOTE ] I was coming up the A1 last year, on a totally empty, well lit stretch, in a brand new car with ESP, new tyres, superb brakes etc etc, certainly 'capable' of handling speeds of more than 100mph, but I chose not to. Half way down said road, a collision occured on the opposite side of the A1, the Megane involved spun, rolled, and ended up on it's roof right in front of me. I didn't hit it because I was going 65-70. Had I been going faster, although seemingly safe, I would haev killed two people, and I would have been to blame for that. [/ QUOTE ] But, if you'd been doing 120mph surely the accident would have occurred 10 miles behind you Seriously though, lucky result. But even at 70mph if it had happened directly in front of you, you may not have been able to do anything anyway or you'd have taken such drastic action that even ESP wouldn't have been able to cope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32Ash Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Driver 1 blows 68 on the Intoximeter, almost twice the limit. He gets a 6 month ban. [/ QUOTE ] The minimum penalty for drink-driving is 12 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_C Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 [ QUOTE ] But, if you'd been doing 120mph surely the accident would have occurred 10 miles behind you [/ QUOTE ] Haha, reminds me of this classic. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantSE Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Anyway, someone mentioned drink drivers. 2 examples: Driver 1 blows 68 on the Intoximeter, almost twice the limit. He gets a 6 month ban. Driver 2 blows a similar reading but gets 12 months. 1 is a late 50s male who was a former school headteacher with no previous. Well-heeled, middle income, middle class. 2 is an early 40s male with no previous. He works in a factory, lives in a council semi. Why?! [/ QUOTE ] I bet they were not convicted in the same court, were they?. [/ QUOTE ] Yes. It is possible different magistrates heard their cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantSE Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Driver 1 blows 68 on the Intoximeter, almost twice the limit. He gets a 6 month ban. [/ QUOTE ] The minimum penalty for drink-driving is 12 months. [/ QUOTE ] Also correct. The sentence was unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danksy Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 nightmare markm you could always appeal against the sentence you know If you need your car for work etc. you can plead undue hardship if it would cause you to lose your job You can only use this defence once EVER though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Driver 1 blows 68 on the Intoximeter, almost twice the limit. He gets a 6 month ban. [/ QUOTE ] The minimum penalty for drink-driving is 12 months. [/ QUOTE ] Also correct. The sentence was unbelievable. [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps he claimed exceptional circumstances/hardship when it came to sentencing, but for being almost twice over, the magistrate decided a ban of some sort was necessary, even if reduced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddenmark Posted December 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 [ QUOTE ] I suspect markm may have 'previous' to have earned that punishment... If not, it seems harsh. A drunken Christmas in store then Mark?! [/ QUOTE ] No my license was completely clean, no previous at all. Solicitor was Freeman & Co although I did not have the man himself. I believe my case fell apart when the driver of the police car came in, gave evidence, then showed the tape of the incident, his passenger mate came in gave evidence, officer who calibrated the VASCAR 3 days prior to the incident gave evidence and then finally a civil engineer who measured out the mile at the side of the road to calibrate the machine gave evidence. When, my brief asked me if I wanted to give evidence and my answer was "What for? Seems I am done for." Never mind. Only really affect me for probably 6 weeks max as I spend most of my time out of the country and have another license for the country I work in Just means I cannot drive over here. Already planning first blast when I do get my license back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_C Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Just means I cannot drive over here. Already planning first blast when I do get my license back. [/ QUOTE ] Remember they are quite likely to babysit you when your licence comes back. Recall a fellow Tyresmoker being stopped a good five times in the first few weeks he got his licence back following a year ban. At least pick a different county if you fancy a late night run. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizze Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 I thought it had to be calibrated every day??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markpaq Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 [ QUOTE ] "Already planning first blast when I do get my license back" [/ QUOTE ] Let us all know when and we can stay clear of the M6 or wherever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botang Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "Already planning first blast when I do get my license back" [/ QUOTE ] Let us all know when and we can stay clear of the M6 or wherever. [/ QUOTE ] Whys that then? I take it the police had no evidence to suggest Mark was driving dangerously otherwise they would have prosecuted him for it You know if we all drove round at 0 miles per hour there would be no crashes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wobby Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 Lots of track days in the UK, try going to one of these if you feel the need to "blast" about. 118mph is well over the 70mph limit, you deserve a minimum 12 month ban. If you get caught again over 100mph it should be a life ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 Bring back hanging, I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Lots of track days in the UK, try going to one of these if you feel the need to "blast" about. 118mph is well over the 70mph limit, you deserve a minimum 12 month ban. If you get caught again over 100mph it should be a life ban. [/ QUOTE ] Are you saying that you've never gone over 100mph? Ever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Lots of track days in the UK, try going to one of these if you feel the need to "blast" about. 118mph is well over the 70mph limit, you deserve a minimum 12 month ban. If you get caught again over 100mph it should be a life ban. [/ QUOTE ] ....I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're joking! ANY amount of alcohol is what should automatically initiate a ban imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve2 Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 I saw an advert for a S4 Avant the other day which said "never been over 80mph" yea right why buy a car like that and poodle around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wobby Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 Nope, sorry RedRobin, i'm not joking. So give me both barrels Yes i have gone over 100mph on a public road, infact over 130mph. And if caught i would expect and deserve a ban. IMO it deserves a ban of 12 months minimum. I think its dangerous, if anything happens fast in front of you, maybe Dorethy and Mable on the way to bingo? They dont realise the car coming up behind is doing 100+mph, then what happens? If your going 70 you might get on the brakes and slow down to 20-30mph prior to impact. People will probably live. If your doing 130mph and get down to 80-90mph if your fast enough people ARE going to die! Just putting my opinion, TBH i am quite often wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muppetboy Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 [ QUOTE ] maybe Dorethy and Mable on the way to bingo? They dont realise the car coming up behind is doing 100+mph, then what happens? [/ QUOTE ] They could try not hogging the middle lane... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve2 Posted December 19, 2006 Report Share Posted December 19, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Nope, sorry RedRobin, i'm not joking. So give me both barrels Yes i have gone over 100mph on a public road, infact over 130mph. And if caught i would expect and deserve a ban. IMO it deserves a ban of 12 months minimum. I think its dangerous, if anything happens fast in front of you, maybe Dorethy and Mable on the way to bingo? They dont realise the car coming up behind is doing 100+mph, then what happens? If your going 70 you might get on the brakes and slow down to 20-30mph prior to impact. People will probably live. If your doing 130mph and get down to 80-90mph if your fast enough people ARE going to die! Just putting my opinion, TBH i am quite often wrong [/ QUOTE ] so, in your own words you went over 130mph andif you were caught you would expect your driving days to be over for ever, so why drive at that speed if you believe in what you said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Wobby, I think it comes down to where and in what conditions you drive over 70 or over 100. 60 in a 30 limit is potentially more likely to lead to a nasty accident (with a pedestrian for example) than 130 on a clear dry Autobahn, imo. It isn't speed which kills but inappropriate speed. I have to accept that some of us have different ideas about what 'appropriate' speed is! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botang Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Everyone is intitle to their opinion, and IMO the histeria related to travelling above 100mph has no real foundation at all as accident rates in countries where it is common place prove. Lets look at the options 70mph in a Ford Anglia (I think thats what car it was based on) or 118 or more 155mph if you like in my A8. I know where I'd rather be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidicks Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] I think its dangerous, if anything happens fast in front of you, maybe Dorethy and Mable on the way to bingo? They dont realise the car coming up behind is doing 100+mph, then what happens? [/ QUOTE ] Well, I'm assuming that most people on here won't be doing 100+ mph through town, on country roads or on busy motorways and dual carriageways. So let's assume that they are doing 120mph on a relatively quiet motorway. If they do come up behind Doris and Mable (?) on their way to bingo then, assuming that D&M are travelling at a sedate 60mph, the 'closing' velocity of the cars is 'just' 60 mph. That being the case, there would be plenty of time for the 'speeding' driver to take avoiding action in an emergency, and with 2 spare lanes available, that will not be a problem, plus there is a crash barrier to prevent the accident impacting traffic on the other side of the road. In any case a good driver will see the 'hazard' up ahead and respond before it becomes an issue. Now consider an ordinary NSL road, single carriageway each side. The relative velocity of the 2 cars travelling at the NSL in opposite directions is 120mph! In the event of an emergency incident, there are no spare lanes to use for collision avoidance. I know whcih situation I'd rather be in. To be honest, I very rarely travel over 100mph, not because I believe it is dangerous (my car can allegedly do 178mph and we did emergency stops at 150mph on my Porsche driving day with no issues whatsoever) but simply because of the risks at getting caught a that speed - 6 years ago I got stopped for doing 109 on the A1(M) - clear day, zero traffic etc etc, so it wasn't what I consider to be dangerous, but regardless I knew the rules and took the punishment (50 day ban). Ironically I was slowing down at the time the police car finally caught me, as I realisd the implications of getting caught....... I think it comes back to the issue of speed versus inappropriate speed - it is only the latter that is dangerous. We just need to make sure we understand what is appropriate.............. JMHO Sidicks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 [ QUOTE ] IMO it deserves a ban of 12 months minimum. I think its dangerous, if anything happens fast in front of you, maybe Dorethy and Mable on the way to bingo? They dont realise the car coming up behind is doing 100+mph, then what happens? [/ QUOTE ] So in my situation where I was on the motorway in summertime (dry, sunny, good visibility etc) at around 6:30am on a weekend day where there was about one car every mile and simply because I was driving faster than a 40odd year old speed limit it's deemed dangerous? I can assure you it was far safer than doing a legal 60mph down many of the country roads around where I live. I've attended various driving days/sessions and am no stranger to the speed and it's affect on braking, handling etc due to my experience of numerous trackdays and trips through Germany. Simply saying a speed is dangerous doesn't stand up as a justifiable statement. It's all about the application of speed. Despite the fact that when conditions allow I will exceed some limits, I am very well behaved (much more than many many other drivers) in high risk areas (residential etc). I know who I consider to be more dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now