Caught speeding 106mph on motorway

Nilrem

Lord_Lardington wrote: »

c) Entering the lamest excuses known to man which seemed to anger the magistrates no end ("I didn't know I was speeding").

That one always goes down well from what i've heard, something to do with the magistrates not considering a driver who can't tell they are 30mph over the limit as paying proper attention to his driving I suspect

sarahg1969

"Old bloke ran a red traffic light ....."

And THAT was where he went wrong.

How does that compare with driving fast on a clear, straight road?

darich

michaels wrote: »

So all the moralisers would be content if the OP's nephew had been doing 70 in driving rain or thick fog cos it is not illegal?

Completely missing the point.
Driving at 106mph is against the law and punishable regardless of what anyone's opinion is of the speed limit or how clear the weather/road was.
Driving at 70mph while legally under the limit could probably still see you charged with "driving without due care and attention" - careless and/or dangerous driving according the the Road Traffi Act 1988. In other words not driving to suit the conditions.

Driving at 106 is stupid and wreckless and regardless of whether there is a disability or how essential the car is, drivers like this should be punished to the maximum. Because the next person might not be as lucky and cause a serious accident. A good deterrent is necessary, otherwise the crime continues for as long as people escape serious punishment.

Treadway1

sarahg1969 wrote: »

"Old bloke ran a red traffic light ....."

And THAT was where he went wrong.

How does that compare with driving fast on a clear, straight road?

I dont think there are many roads in the uk, that are completely straight, flat and with no trees, foliage, fences, etc., so as to afford perfect vision along it. As ive said before, I too dont really believe the phrase that speed kills, however, speed does increase the risk of something adverse happening. At a slower speed (notice I said slower, and not slow), you are less likely to lose control.

darich

sarahg1969 wrote: »

"Old bloke ran a red traffic light ....."

And THAT was where he went wrong.

How does that compare with driving fast on a clear, straight road?

Running a red light and breaking the speed limit are breaking the law regardless of how fast your car can stop and irrespective of the weather conditions and/or volume of traffic on the road.
The punishment for each may be different but both are punishable whether at 5pm rush hour in the pouring rain or at 6am on a sunday morning when the road is clear, dry and empty.

Lemonade_Pockets

Treadway1 wrote: »

I dont think there are many roads in the uk, that are completely straight, flat and with no trees, foliage, fences, etc., so as to afford perfect vision along it. As ive said before, I too dont really believe the phrase that speed kills, however, speed does increase the risk of something adverse happening. At a slower speed (notice I said slower, and not slow), you are less likely to lose control.

Ei. thats devolution for you.

If we keep on in this direction, in 50yrs we will have cars that are near impossible to crash. If we do crash they won't do much damage. But we'll have a 20mph blanket speed limit just incase something does go wrong because, its less likely at 20 than it is at 30.

hewhoisnotintheknow

making roads faster would need to compulsary minimum speed upping, having the speed limit upto 100mph for example would lead to disaster when you have other motorway users travelling at 50

Treadway1

Lemonade_Pockets wrote: »

Ei. thats devolution for you.

If we keep on in this direction, in 50yrs we will have cars that are near impossible to crash. If we do crash they won't do much damage. But we'll have a 20mph blanket speed limit just incase something does go wrong because, its less likely at 20 than it is at 30.

Sorry, youve completely lost me there!!!
I dont really understand what youre getting at....

Lemonade_Pockets

hewhoisnotintheknow wrote: »

making roads faster would need to compulsary minimum speed upping,

Come again

having the speed limit upto 100mph for example would lead to disaster when you have other motorway users travelling at 50

Why would it? Not everyone would travel at 100mph, there would as there is now be a natural pace set on the motorway.
No-one does 70mph in the outside lane as it is (those that do cause huge tailbacks) - this doesn't mean they collide with all the vehicles travelling at 50 on the inside lane!

While it probably doesnt work out at 100mph for the uk, google "85th percentile" you might find it interesting!

Lemonade_Pockets

Treadway1 wrote: »

Sorry, youve completely lost me there!!!
I dont really understand what youre getting at....

What i'm saying is that whilst technology has improved over the last 50 years. Speed limits have on the whole reduced.
Like the trains we now travel slower than our predecessors did.
Progress i don't think so!

So i don't disagree that reducing speed reduces the damage in a collision. Just on a fundamental level that kind of approach to risk, would cause devolution not evolution. - Not what this country was built on.