'145 MPH' director cleared of dangerous driving - comments?
steve
proving it was not dangerous driving.
Company director Ian Tyre, 43, was in his £73,000 Honda NSX when police
recorded his speed at more than double the legal limit.
A court heard the car - top speed 180mph - was going so fast that a
patrol car could not keep up.
Prosecutor Caroline Rees said: "Tyre was driving on the M4 at a speed of
around 95mph. He accelerated to 125mph and when he reached a downhill
stretch of road his speed went up to 145mph.
"At that point he pulled away. The top speed of the police car was only
140mph".
Cardiff Crown Court heard police monitored his speed using an onboard
computer.
Miss Rees said: "The officer kept his siren off to make sure he recorded
an accurate reading of the speed. He was finally stopped on an A-road
after pulling off the motorway three junctions on."
Tyre, of Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan, was charged with speeding and
dangerous driving.
He admitted speeding but chose to go to Crown Court trial to deny
dangerous driving.
Defence barrister Nicholas Jones said Tyre admitted travelling at 95mph
but was not driving dangerously.
He said: "This was not dangerous driving. Even if Mr Tyre was driving at
140mph, that is not dangerous either.
"It is a case of a very experienced driver in a car in very good
condition, not drunk and displaying no loss of control".
The jury took an hour to find Tyre not guilty of dangerous driving.
He is due to appear before magistrates later to face a charge of
speeding.
A spokesman for Honda said: "Clearly many of our vehicles are capable of
exceeding the speed limits and may be driven safely at high speeds on
private test tracks or in countries which have higher speed limits than
the UK.
"We have a responsible attitude to road safety and do not condone
speeding".
---
Steve /|\ zaax
http://www.zaxxon.demon.co.uk
Please change 'nospam' to zaxxon before replying.
Terry Harris
>A businessman clocked at 145mph on a motorway escaped a ban today after
>proving it was not dangerous driving.
>The jury took an hour to find Tyre not guilty of dangerous driving.
Good I hope he was awarded costs. Nice to see that a jury despite all
the brainwashing still understood that speed does not automatically
equal danger. Perhaps someone should tell the CPS?
>Cardiff Crown Court heard police monitored his speed using an onboard
>computer.
>Miss Rees said: "The officer kept his siren off to make sure he recorded
>an accurate reading of the speed. He was finally stopped on an A-road
>after pulling off the motorway three junctions on."
Bet that impressed the jury - sounds like a bit of a cock up.
Cheers Terry...
James Talbut
Terry Harris wrote in message <36fee344...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>steve <St...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>A businessman clocked at 145mph on a motorway escaped a ban today after
>>proving it was not dangerous driving.
>
>>The jury took an hour to find Tyre not guilty of dangerous driving.
>
>Good I hope he was awarded costs. Nice to see that a jury despite all
>the brainwashing still understood that speed does not automatically
>equal danger.
True.
I hope he gets a ban for the speeding.
J.T.
Wildebeeste
ban...
W.
Terry Harris wrote in message <36fee344...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>steve <St...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>A businessman clocked at 145mph on a motorway escaped a ban today after
>>proving it was not dangerous driving.
>
>>The jury took an hour to find Tyre not guilty of dangerous driving.
>
>Good I hope he was awarded costs. Nice to see that a jury despite all
>the brainwashing still understood that speed does not automatically
MAB
>>>A businessman clocked at 145mph on a motorway escaped a ban today after
>>>proving it was not dangerous driving.
>
Why?
MAB
Gary Howland
>
> Terry Harris wrote in message <36fee344...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
> >steve <St...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>proving it was not dangerous driving.
> >
> >
> >Good I hope he was awarded costs. Nice to see that a jury despite all
> >the brainwashing still understood that speed does not automatically
> >equal danger.
>
>
> I hope he gets a ban for the speeding.
Amazing! This guy caused no accidents, was in control, and is likely to
get a ban (and indeed much of the public would like to see him get a
ban), whereas others can be without full control of their unsafe
vehicles, can cause a accidents (and perhaps even kill someone), and are
not necessarily deemed to be banned.
Gary
Malcolm Groom
<terry....@iname.com> writes
>>Miss Rees said: "The officer kept his siren off to make sure he recorded
>>an accurate reading of the speed. He was finally stopped on an A-road
>>after pulling off the motorway three junctions on."
>
>Bet that impressed the jury - sounds like a bit of a cock up.
Impresses me, what it really means is that the officer was bored and
fancied having a bit of fun so didn't sound the siren as that might mean
he'd have to slow down too.
As far as the judgement, about time.
--
Malcolm Groom
Malcolm Groom
<ga...@hotlava.com> writes
Yes but some people are amazingly jealous of things other people own.
--
Malcolm Groom
Paul Dundas
Mal...@WCompSys.XXXdemon.co.uk "Malcolm Groom" writes:
According to the article the Police were in a Volvo 850 and it maxed
out at 140mph.
Now, which is safer, a NSX designed for 185mph doing 140mph with no
siren up a motorway or a Volvo family saloon designed no more than
140mph travelling at 140mph up a motorway with no siren?
>
> As far as the judgement, about time.
> --
> Malcolm Groom
>
--
Paul Dundas
Mat Taberner
Paul Dundas wrote in message <922449...@advsys.demon.co.uk>...
>Now, which is safer, a NSX designed for 185mph doing 140mph with no
>siren up a motorway or a Volvo family saloon designed no more than
>140mph travelling at 140mph up a motorway with no siren?
And an unevenly loaded one full of distractions at that.
If police drivers are considered safe at that sort of speed, why can't we
all go through their training proceedure (at our own expense) and thus be
free of all speed limits.
Mat
Roland Perry
<Pa...@advsys.demon.co.uk> writes
>Now, which is safer, a NSX designed for 185mph doing 140mph with no
>siren up a motorway or a Volvo family saloon designed no more than
>140mph travelling at 140mph up a motorway with no siren?
That depends a great deal on the qualifications of the respective
drivers.
--
Roland Perry
Doug Ramage
Jules wrote in message <36fb6...@mail-mf.oit.net>...
>>>steve <St...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>A businessman clocked at 145mph on a motorway escaped a ban today after
>>>>proving it was not dangerous driving.
>>>
>>>>The jury took an hour to find Tyre not guilty of dangerous driving.
>>>
>>>Good I hope he was awarded costs. Nice to see that a jury despite all
>>>the brainwashing still understood that speed does not automatically
>>>equal danger.
>>
>>True.
>>
>>I hope he gets a ban for the speeding.
>>
>>
>>
>
>The first post said that he escaped a ban.
>
Yes, but for the dangerous driving, not the speeding.
Doug Ramage
StephenC
> That depends a great deal on the qualifications of the respective
> drivers.
Qualifications or skill?
--
Stephen
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
E-mail: stephen dot cuthbertson at gecm dot com
Peter McLelland
Gary Howland wrote:
> Amazing! This guy caused no accidents, was in control, and is likely to
> get a ban (and indeed much of the public would like to see him get a
> ban), whereas others can be without full control of their unsafe
> vehicles, can cause a accidents (and perhaps even kill someone), and are
> not necessarily deemed to be banned.
Firstly, he broke the law, whether it is a good law or not it is still the law
and if you break it the punishment must surely follow.Secondly, who has
certified that this person is as capable as his supporters claim. Every day
people are killed on our roads by people who think that some part of the law
should not apply to them.
Thirdly it is recognized by the police that juries are unwilling to convict on
dangerous driving in case they get caught themselves.
Peter
Bastard Bear
I don't know ... bloody car drivers.
You don't see motorcyclists doing this sort of thing ...
--
Regards,
Bastard Bear
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Bears
TART#1
Roland Perry
<mathew....@lineone.net> writes
>If police drivers are considered safe at that sort of speed, why can't we
>all go through their training proceedure (at our own expense) and thus be
>free of all speed limits.
Because they have sirens to warn other road users - or not as the case
might be!
--
Roland Perry
Richard Smith
<36FB7DAE...@gecm.com>...
> Firstly, he broke the law, whether it is a good law or not it is still
the law
He broke the law as regards speeding. He has been cleared of dangerous
driving.
> and if you break it the punishment must surely follow.Secondly, who has
> certified that this person is as capable as his supporters claim. Every
day
He's got a driving licence (at the mo...). Therefore he's passed a test of
competence to drive. He also proved himself capable of controlling a car
at more than twice the legal limit.
> people are killed on our roads by people who think that some part of the
law
> should not apply to them.
> Thirdly it is recognized by the police that juries are unwilling to
convict on
> dangerous driving in case they get caught themselves.
So write to your MP and get the law changed - perhaps something about
juries being compelled to return verdicts that the police like? The police
also recognize that the speed limit on motorways is too low, but I don't
see much being done about that.
--
Richard Smith
This life is a test.
It is only a test. If it were an actual life,
you would have received instructions
on where to go and what to do.
Paul Dundas
rol...@perry.co.uk "Roland Perry" writes:
> In article <922449...@advsys.demon.co.uk>, Paul Dundas
> <Pa...@advsys.demon.co.uk> writes
> >Now, which is safer, a NSX designed for 185mph doing 140mph with no
> >siren up a motorway or a Volvo family saloon designed no more than
> >140mph travelling at 140mph up a motorway with no siren?
>
> That depends a great deal on the qualifications of the respective
> drivers.
Of course.
The siren bit begs the question of what the aims of the Police
car following were.
If they maintain 140mph, or even 125mph when they first spotted him,
is dangerous to other road users what they hell were they doing pissing
about waiting for him to go faster.
They should have stopped him immediately and all they had to do was
switch the siren on (if you're driving at 125mph the sight of a Police
car behind does tend to slow one down!).
The answer is, of course, that they obviously didn't give a toss about
what may or may not be "dangerous" but simply wanted to nick a driver
at the fastest possible speed.
This is _not_ the way to developing mutual respect between Police and
Public!
> --
> Roland Perry
>
--
Paul Dundas
Roland Perry
>Qualifications or skill?
Skill is what qualifies you. As opposed to passing an examination, which
provides you with a qualification.
--
Roland Perry
Malcolm Groom
> Mal...@WCompSys.XXXdemon.co.uk "Malcolm Groom" writes:
>
>> Impresses me, what it really means is that the officer was bored and
>> fancied having a bit of fun so didn't sound the siren as that might mean
>> he'd have to slow down too.
>
>
>According to the article the Police were in a Volvo 850 and it maxed
>out at 140mph.
>
>siren up a motorway or a Volvo family saloon designed no more than
>140mph travelling at 140mph up a motorway with no siren?
You don't need to convince me. IIRC it was mentioned on the radio the
other day how the police were one of those groups with the larger number
of vehicle accidents. Of course they don't get
banned/convicted/fined/charged when they do it so I guess that's the
important bit then.
--
Malcolm Groom
Robin Shephard
<peter.m...@gecm.com> wrote:
>
>
>Gary Howland wrote:
>
>> Amazing! This guy caused no accidents, was in control, and is likely to
>> get a ban (and indeed much of the public would like to see him get a
>> ban), whereas others can be without full control of their unsafe
>> vehicles, can cause a accidents (and perhaps even kill someone), and are
>> not necessarily deemed to be banned.
>
>Firstly, he broke the law, whether it is a good law or not it is still the law
>and if you break it the punishment must surely follow.Secondly, who has
>certified that this person is as capable as his supporters claim. Every day
>people are killed on our roads by people who think that some part of the law
>should not apply to them.
>Thirdly it is recognized by the police that juries are unwilling to convict on
>dangerous driving in case they get caught themselves.
>
>Peter
>
Surely it also depends on the road conditions? ie, if it is dry and
the road is clear of traffic then there is less chance of having an
accident but if the motorway is busy and someone pulls out in front of
him would he be able to slow down in time?
Also if he does crash at that speed he will almost certainly cause his
own death and probably others too so this could be a reason for the
ban.
Robin
Ben Lovejoy
>You don't need to convince me. IIRC it was mentioned on the radio the
>other day how the police were one of those groups with the larger number
>of vehicle accidents. Of course they don't get
>banned/convicted/fined/charged when they do it so I guess that's the
>important bit then.
<panto>
Oh yes they do!
</panto>
There are few accidents investigated so thoroughly as one involving a
police vehicle.
It can also cost them their jobs in circumstances where there would be no
threat to a civilian's job.
Ben
--
Ben 'Darth' Lovejoy | 'Bosh, straight into the
b...@lovejoy.demon.co.uk | bricky bit around the
http://www.lovejoy.demon.co.uk/elam/ | centre of the boundyrout'
Doc Gonz0
<joh...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Peter McLelland wrote:
>>
>> Gary Howland wrote:
>>
>> > Amazing! This guy caused no accidents, was in control, and is likely to
>> > get a ban (and indeed much of the public would like to see him get a
>> > ban), whereas others can be without full control of their unsafe
>> > vehicles, can cause a accidents (and perhaps even kill someone), and are
>> > not necessarily deemed to be banned.
>>
>> Firstly, he broke the law, whether it is a good law or not it is still the law
>> and if you break it the punishment must surely follow.Secondly, who has
>> certified that this person is as capable as his supporters claim. Every day
>> people are killed on our roads by people who think that some part of the law
>> should not apply to them.
>> Thirdly it is recognized by the police that juries are unwilling to convict on
>> dangerous driving in case they get caught themselves.
>
>I don't know ... bloody car drivers.
>
>You don't see motorcyclists doing this sort of thing ...
Well, not getting caught, anyway. Any self-respecting biker would have
kept going at the junction. Interesting to know that most sports bikes
can out-pace the traffic police, though. And I wonder how much faster
a Hayabusa is than those choppers...
Wildebeeste
and the road was genuinely empty, but for one car doing about 100 (daresay
he was surprised). But it isn't an experiment I'd readily repeat: Motorway
bends become pretty tight above 110, other drivers don't expect you to close
at such a rapid rate, and if things do go pear shaped then one's life
expectancy is pretty short...
W.
Jim wrote in message <36fc3043....@news.netcomuk.co.uk>...
>
>>A businessman clocked at 145mph on a motorway escaped a ban today after
>>proving it was not dangerous driving.
>
>Nothing dangerous about doing 145mph in itself. It just happens to be
>illegal, but that is an entirely different thing. Assuming an empty
>road, I cannot see how it could be "dangerous".
>
>>Miss Rees said: "The officer kept his siren off to make sure he recorded
>>an accurate reading of the speed. He was finally stopped on an A-road
>>after pulling off the motorway three junctions on."
>
>"Accurate reading"? What a load of bollocks. The officer wanted to
>make sure the defendant was doing the maximum possible speed for as
>long as possible. How nice of him. I am sure a police officer enjoys
>going along at 140mph just as much as the next man, especially on an
>empty road...
>
Nick Finnigan
>> In article <922449...@advsys.demon.co.uk>, Paul Dundas <Pa...@advsys.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >Now, which is safer, a NSX designed for 185mph doing 140mph with no
>> >siren up a motorway or a Volvo family saloon designed no more than
>> >140mph travelling at 140mph up a motorway with no siren?
>>
> The siren bit begs the question of what the aims of the Police
> car following were.
> They should have stopped him immediately and all they had to do was
> switch the siren on (if you're driving at 125mph the sight of a Police
> car behind does tend to slow one down!).
IME you can see a police car with flashing lights at 70mph
a lot sooner than you can hear the siren - I wouldn't be
suprised if the deedah was almost useless in a 140mph chase.
Do we know whether the police Volvo was a unmarked car?
richard...@my-dejanews.com
> You don't see motorcyclists doing this sort of thing ...
Well not on any of the bikes I have ever owned ;-).
Cheers
Rich
GS500, bad preload adjust & piles
Ride the winds of vindaloo
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Malcolm Groom
<b...@lovejoy.demon.co.uk> writes
>Malcolm Groom <Mal...@WCompSys.XXXdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>You don't need to convince me. IIRC it was mentioned on the radio the
>>other day how the police were one of those groups with the larger number
>>of vehicle accidents. Of course they don't get
>>banned/convicted/fined/charged when they do it so I guess that's the
>>important bit then.
>
><panto>
>Oh yes they do!
></panto>
>
>There are few accidents investigated so thoroughly as one involving a
>police vehicle.
>
>It can also cost them their jobs in circumstances where there would be no
>threat to a civilian's job.
That's true, with a civilian their job could be lost just because they
were driving a little above a statutory & possibly inappropriate limit,
unlike the police. I don't like their attitude, I don't like them
playing in their cars and AFAIC they are more dangerous then a lot of
people simply because they seem to think they are allowed to do things
the rest of us know we couldn't get away with. Yes, I'm talking from
person experience of being caught up, tail-gated, travelled alongside
and then overtook when there were solid white lines down the middle of
the road by an unmarked police car. All because they wanted a chase and
boy were they pissed off that I refused to give them one.
When was the last case of death by dangerous driving brought against a
police driver, finding him guilty and sentencing him to a term in
prison? I'm interested as I can't remember ever hearing of this
happening and whenever I've listened to debates on it all sides seem to
say that it's not the police drivers fault its the person they were
allegedly chasing.
--
Malcolm Groom
coming_ba...@my-dejanews.com
"Mat Taberner" <mathew....@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> Paul Dundas wrote in message <922449...@advsys.demon.co.uk>...
>
> >siren up a motorway or a Volvo family saloon designed no more than
> >140mph travelling at 140mph up a motorway with no siren?
>
>
> all go through their training proceedure (at our own expense) and thus be
> free of all speed limits.
>
Police drivers are not considered safe at that speed, and are most certainly
not free of all speed limits, they have to provide extenuating circumstances
(and "I was late getting to the Donut shop, so had to floor it" is not one)
as to why the broke the speed limit, else they too are liable to the same
punishment.
Well that's the theory/law.
in practice - the coppers think they're above the law (in general - there are
some decent law abiding ones around), and do what they like.
--
CBAY
coming_ba...@my-dejanews.com
DocG...@TheClinic.Freeserve.Co.Uk (Doc Gonz0) wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 12:46:30 +0000, Bastard Bear
> <joh...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Peter McLelland wrote:
> >>
> >> Gary Howland wrote:
> >>
> >> > Amazing! This guy caused no accidents, was in control, and is likely to
> >> > get a ban (and indeed much of the public would like to see him get a
> >> > ban), whereas others can be without full control of their unsafe
> >> > vehicles, can cause a accidents (and perhaps even kill someone), and are
> >> > not necessarily deemed to be banned.
> >>
> >> Firstly, he broke the law, whether it is a good law or not it is still the
law
> >> and if you break it the punishment must surely follow.Secondly, who has
> >> certified that this person is as capable as his supporters claim. Every day
> >> people are killed on our roads by people who think that some part of the
law
> >> should not apply to them.
> >> Thirdly it is recognized by the police that juries are unwilling to convict
on
> >> dangerous driving in case they get caught themselves.
> >
> >I don't know ... bloody car drivers.
> >
>
> kept going at the junction. Interesting to know that most sports bikes
> can out-pace the traffic police, though. And I wonder how much faster
> a Hayabusa is than those choppers...
>
that speed on brit roads.
Mike Burton
> A businessman clocked at 145mph on a motorway escaped a ban today after
> proving it was not dangerous driving.
<snip>
He must have a criminal record as long as my arm to get away with that,
after all if you work hard to support your family, don't do drugs, don't
have a crimnal record and get caught doing something like that the
courts fine you about 2K and ban you for 18 months.
However if your a common tea leaf, spend half your days in and out
the police cells, steel cars/bike, don't have a job, do drugs and have
a criminal record dating back to the age of 10, then you get 30 minutes
community service and a 25p a week fine (which you dont pay anyway)
Not that Im bitter or anything.
--
Mike
Simon Robbins
at around 150-170mph, while a Bell 222B would likely make the double-ton
with ease. Thankfully most police forces buy cheap choppers for observation
purposes rather than airborne interception. (They start buying jump-jets and
we're really in trouble!)
Si.
Doc Gonz0 wrote in message <370e96d1...@news.freeserve.co.uk>...
Mat Taberner
Bastard Bear wrote in message <36FB81A6...@globalnet.co.uk>...
>Peter McLelland wrote:
>>
>> Gary Howland wrote:
>>
>> > Amazing! This guy caused no accidents, was in control, and is likely
to
>> > get a ban (and indeed much of the public would like to see him get a
>> > ban), whereas others can be without full control of their unsafe
>> > vehicles, can cause a accidents (and perhaps even kill someone), and
are
>> > not necessarily deemed to be banned.
>>
>> Firstly, he broke the law, whether it is a good law or not it is still
the law
>> and if you break it the punishment must surely follow.Secondly, who has
>> certified that this person is as capable as his supporters claim. Every
day
>> people are killed on our roads by people who think that some part of the
law
>> should not apply to them.
>> Thirdly it is recognized by the police that juries are unwilling to
convict on
>> dangerous driving in case they get caught themselves.
>
>I don't know ... bloody car drivers.
>
>You don't see motorcyclists doing this sort of thing ...
That's because we're
A Much smaller and,
B Much faster.
HTH
Mat
Richard Smith
<7dgc4m$7tk$1...@nntp2.uunet.ca>...
> That would depend on the chopper. A Jetranger would (I'm estimating) top
out
> at around 150-170mph, while a Bell 222B would likely make the double-ton
> with ease. Thankfully most police forces buy cheap choppers for
observation
> purposes rather than airborne interception. (They start buying jump-jets
and
> we're really in trouble!)
So, next year's Hiya Boozer will have chaff canisters and SAMs as options.
Won't that slow it down a bit?
Doc Gonz0
<rich...@csi.compuserve.com> wrote:
>Simon Robbins <simonrS...@istar.ca> wrote in article
><7dgc4m$7tk$1...@nntp2.uunet.ca>...
>> That would depend on the chopper. A Jetranger would (I'm estimating) top
>out
>> at around 150-170mph, while a Bell 222B would likely make the double-ton
>> with ease. Thankfully most police forces buy cheap choppers for
>observation
>> purposes rather than airborne interception. (They start buying jump-jets
>and
>> we're really in trouble!)
>
>So, next year's Hiya Boozer will have chaff canisters and SAMs as options.
>Won't that slow it down a bit?
Nah, stick 'em in that bloody 'orrible seat hump. And a Vulcan 30mm
cannon in that gargantuan mudguard.
John Burns
>
> steve <St...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >A businessman clocked at 145mph on a motorway escaped a ban today after
> >proving it was not dangerous driving.
>
>
> Good I hope he was awarded costs. Nice to see that a jury despite all
> the brainwashing still understood that speed does not automatically
Completely agree.
--
Who needs a life when you've got Unix? :-)
Email: jo...@unixnerd.demon.co.uk, John G.Burns B.Eng, Bonny Scotland
Web : http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk - The Ultimate BMW Homepage!
David Swarbrick
<St...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>A businessman clocked at 145mph on a motorway escaped a ban today after
>proving it was not dangerous driving.
I do not think he escaped a ban only a conviction for dangerous
driving. He is still liable to receive a long ban for speeding.
--
David Swarbrick, Solicitor, Brighouse, West Yorkshire
Web: http://www.swarb.co.uk. da...@swarb.demon.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1484 722531
Home of the law-index (9000+ case digests). IT Law and contracts.
The Law Society regulates us in the conduct of investment business
humbug
>In article <922454...@advsys.demon.co.uk>, Pa...@advsys.demon.co.uk (Paul Dundas) writes:
>>> In article <922449...@advsys.demon.co.uk>, Paul Dundas <Pa...@advsys.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>> >Now, which is safer, a NSX designed for 185mph doing 140mph with no
>>> >siren up a motorway or a Volvo family saloon designed no more than
>>> >140mph travelling at 140mph up a motorway with no siren?
>>>
>> The siren bit begs the question of what the aims of the Police
>> car following were.
>
>> They should have stopped him immediately and all they had to do was
>> switch the siren on (if you're driving at 125mph the sight of a Police
>> car behind does tend to slow one down!).
>
> IME you can see a police car with flashing lights at 70mph
>a lot sooner than you can hear the siren - I wouldn't be
>suprised if the deedah was almost useless in a 140mph chase.
>
> Do we know whether the police Volvo was a unmarked car?
If the Police car *was* marked, then the second charge should be
"driving without due care and attention" rather than "dangerous
driving".
The driver would have had to have driven past three motorway junctions
at this speed without looking once in his rear-view mirror not to have
noticed the Police car.
Hmmm ...
If the driver of an unmarked police car exceeds the speed limit to
this extent for this length of time, is he exempt from prosecution?
Is he driving dangerously ... following the car in front ... ?
Graham Wilson
<joh...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Peter McLelland wrote:
>> Firstly, he broke the law, whether it is a good law or not it is still the law
>> and if you break it the punishment must surely follow.Secondly, who has
>> certified that this person is as capable as his supporters claim. Every day
>> people are killed on our roads by people who think that some part of the law
>> should not apply to them.
>> Thirdly it is recognized by the police that juries are unwilling to convict on
>> dangerous driving in case they get caught themselves.
>
>I don't know ... bloody car drivers.
>
>You don't see motorcyclists doing this sort of thing ...
...Meanwhile, back on Earth...
(:-)
Graham
Gra...@dirconabc.co.uk
(to reply remove abc from domain name)
Graham Wilson
Harris) wrote:
>steve <St...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>A businessman clocked at 145mph on a motorway escaped a ban today after
>>proving it was not dangerous driving.
>
>>The jury took an hour to find Tyre not guilty of dangerous driving.
>
>Good I hope he was awarded costs.
He would have no automatic right to costs - It would be a matter for
the Judge to decide.
I would be surprised if he was awarded costs.
Richard Bristow
Faster is more dangerous. If you don't believe me look at any GCSE physics
syllabus about kinetic energy.
Faster means more dead people.
145 mph is not as safe as 70. Never.
Come on guys, grow up!
John
>Faster is more dangerous. If you don't believe me look at any GCSE physics
>syllabus about kinetic energy.
>Faster means more dead people.
>145 mph is not as safe as 70. Never.
Which is probably close to what the drummer Cozy Powell thought
when his tyre blew out and his car overturned at 130+mph, with the
result that he is now an ex drummer!
Kev Panton
>
> That would depend on the chopper. A Jetranger would (I'm estimating) top out
> at around 150-170mph, while a Bell 222B would likely make the double-ton
> with ease. Thankfully most police forces buy cheap choppers for observation
> purposes rather than airborne interception. (They start buying jump-jets and
> we're really in trouble!)
>
Might be some harriers going cheap soon...
--
Kev Panton
"I don't know, Brain the size of a planet...
Kev Panton
>
> Gary Howland wrote:
>
> > Amazing! This guy caused no accidents, was in control, and is likely to
> > get a ban (and indeed much of the public would like to see him get a
> > ban), whereas others can be without full control of their unsafe
> > vehicles, can cause a accidents (and perhaps even kill someone), and are
> > not necessarily deemed to be banned.
>
> and if you break it the punishment must surely follow.Secondly, who has
> certified that this person is as capable as his supporters claim. Every day
> people are killed on our roads by people who think that some part of the law
> should not apply to them.
> Thirdly it is recognized by the police that juries are unwilling to convict on
> dangerous driving in case they get caught themselves.
>
I wonder if it's because of the magic words "Company Director"?
Would we be allowed to use this same dubious logic? i.e. "I can go as
fast as I like because I have much better reactions than an old duffer
like you M'lud..."
Kev Panton
>
> Surely depends on the circumstance. Fastest I've gone is a shade over 130,
> and the road was genuinely empty, but for one car doing about 100 (daresay
> he was surprised). But it isn't an experiment I'd readily repeat: Motorway
> bends become pretty tight above 110, other drivers don't expect you to close
> at such a rapid rate, and if things do go pear shaped then one's life
> expectancy is pretty short...
>
> W.
>
> Jim wrote in message <36fc3043....@news.netcomuk.co.uk>...
> >
> >>proving it was not dangerous driving.
> >
> >illegal, but that is an entirely different thing. Assuming an empty
> >road, I cannot see how it could be "dangerous".
> >
> >>Miss Rees said: "The officer kept his siren off to make sure he recorded
> >>an accurate reading of the speed. He was finally stopped on an A-road
> >>after pulling off the motorway three junctions on."
> >
> >"Accurate reading"? What a load of bollocks. The officer wanted to
> >make sure the defendant was doing the maximum possible speed for as
> >long as possible. How nice of him. I am sure a police officer enjoys
> >going along at 140mph just as much as the next man, especially on an
> >empty road...
> >
Hmmm, these days my speedo regularly passes 160. But even in my earlier
incarnation as a biker (before the *low* speed shunt 7 years ago) 150+
was not uncommon. BUT, and it's a BIG but, only on suitable stretches of
road, and not in traffic. That would be silly.
See. There are sensible gixxer riders...
Kev Panton
Why does faster mean more dead people? It may mean less *stupid* and
*careless* people, but that's just natural selection.
We don't speed in fog or rain and cause multiple pile ups, unlike the boxes.
Wolf
<36fece53...@news.freeserve.co.uk>...
> Nah, stick 'em in that bloody 'orrible seat hump.
Windy's pockets aren't that big.
--
Wolf. NABD#2366. FTTC#1. MIB#2. UKRMHRC#1.
MAIL :- "Kick out the jams"
WWW :- http://web.ukonline.co.uk/andrew.mott/contents.html
"Psychofunkadelic Grungelism in the Garden of Dysfunctional Love"
humbug
<kpa...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I wonder if it's because of the magic words "Company Director"?
>Would we be allowed to use this same dubious logic? i.e. "I can go as
>fast as I like because I have much better reactions than an old duffer
>like you M'lud..."
Being a company director had nothing to do with the speeding. AFAWK he
was probably convicted of that and may have got a ban.
He was able to defend the charge of *dangerous driving* - presumably
he had the money to do so being a "rich man"
The length of his ban might be less than us mere mortals might
expect:-(
I wonder how "big" the fine was ...
Veggie Dave
>Faster is more dangerous. If you don't believe me look at any GCSE physics
>syllabus about kinetic energy.
>Faster means more dead people.
>145 mph is not as safe as 70. Never.
But then, that wasn't the point though was it?
Veggie Dave
UKRMHRC#2
V&S Extreme Photography http://www.bikehouse.demon.co.uk
Drag Racing http://www.bikehouse.demon.co.uk/racing.htm
--
Anything Smaller Than 1200cc With Less Than 200BHP
Just Ain't Worth Riding
Ben Lovejoy
>>There are few accidents investigated so thoroughly as one involving a
>>police vehicle.
>>
>>It can also cost them their jobs in circumstances where there would be no
>>threat to a civilian's job.
>That's true, with a civilian their job could be lost just because they
>were driving a little above a statutory & possibly inappropriate limit
Don't get me started on inappropriate speed limits!
http://www.lovejoy.demon.co.uk/elam/art_speedchange.html
Ben
--
Ben 'Darth' Lovejoy | 'Bosh, straight into the
b...@lovejoy.demon.co.uk | bricky bit around the
http://www.lovejoy.demon.co.uk/elam/ | centre of the boundyrout'
Simon Batey
>
>
>And an unevenly loaded one full of distractions at that.
>
>If police drivers are considered safe at that sort of speed, why can't we
>all go through their training proceedure (at our own expense) and thus be
>free of all speed limits.
>
I live in Bridgend. I erd like the reason he got off was because he said
that he couldn't have been driving dangerously because the police car
was doing the same speed...
--
Simon Batey - South Wales. BOF# 32
Simon Batey
<simonrS...@istar.ca> writes
>That would depend on the chopper. A Jetranger would (I'm estimating) top out
>at around 150-170mph, while a Bell 222B would likely make the double-ton
>with ease. Thankfully most police forces buy cheap choppers for observation
>purposes rather than airborne interception. (They start buying jump-jets and
>we're really in trouble!)
>
>
The local Bridgend helicopter was doing something else at the time. [1]
[1] Joy rides for Cadets :-) [2]
[2] Who said that...
Simon Batey
>police vehicle.
>
But however thoroughly the accident is investigated it was still a
result of the job needing to be done. Therefore very few convictions
result.
Simon Batey
<Ji...@JimL.NOSPAM.co.uk> writes
>I am sure a police officer enjoys
>going along at 140mph just as much as the next man, especially on an
>empty road...
>
I can assure you they do. But It's not in the public interest to admit
this so the answer is no...
Steve Fraser
- - cut --
>"Accurate reading"? What a load of bollocks. The officer wanted to
>make sure the defendant was doing the maximum possible speed for as
>long as possible. How nice of him. I am sure a police officer enjoys
>going along at 140mph just as much as the next man, especially on an
>empty road...
Peurile rubbish. On an empty road the police car can go at what spped it
wants, as long as the drive is 'practicing his art'. They can, and often do.
SRF
Huw Jones
>When was the last case of death by dangerous driving brought against a
>police driver, finding him guilty and sentencing him to a term in
>prison?
West Midlands Police, around 1995/6, to the best of my knowledge.
--
Huw Jones
CB750 =o&>o
Hamstead, Birmingham
NAMOAY#1
Terry Harris
>The Court's judgement was probably eccentric (it happens).
>
>Faster is more dangerous. If you don't believe me look at any GCSE physics
>syllabus about kinetic energy.
>Faster means more dead people.
>145 mph is not as safe as 70. Never.
>
>Come on guys, grow up!
What I can't figure is how someone so clueless actually manages to
post a usenet message - it's that bloody Microsoft.
If you don't believe me look at any GCSE physics sylabus about kinetc
energy.
Heavier means more dead people.
A 30 ton lorry at 50mph has as much kinetic energy as a 1 ton car at
273 mph.
Perhaps we should immediately prosecute all articulated lorry drivers
for persistant dangerous driving.
I could ask you if you would rather be hit by a car doing 70mph or
missed by one doing 145 mph? The 145 mph one seems safer to me.
Come on guy, get a clue.
Cheers Terry...
David Swarbrick
<Pa...@advsys.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <9+VCdWIw...@perry.co.uk>
>The siren bit begs the question of what the aims of the Police
>car following were.
>
>is dangerous to other road users what they hell were they doing pissing
>about waiting for him to go faster.
>
>They should have stopped him immediately and all they had to do was
>switch the siren on (if you're driving at 125mph the sight of a Police
>car behind does tend to slow one down!).
>
>what may or may not be "dangerous" but simply wanted to nick a driver
>at the fastest possible speed.
>
You are making an assumption with absolutely no justification.
Richard Bristow
one reason why so many are now limited to 90-100kph. Nevertheless, no one
can evade the fact that higher traffic speeds, all other things being equal,
will result in more casualties.
HMG's next safety campaign is reported to be based on speeding, and to make
speeding as anti social as drink driving. Any retards who really need to do
14o had better get in with it, as technology will soon make the game not
worth the candle.
Spudder
>wants, as long as the drive is 'practicing his art'. They can, and often
do.
Sounds like One rule for us ,one rule for them
bloody typical.
Last time I was "practicing my Art", I got nicked.
--
Spudder
www.giger.demon.co.uk
"Don't Tempt Fate...............Taunt It"
GSF 600 Bandit & UKRMHRC#7
Graham Wilson
>Being a company director had nothing to do with the speeding. AFAWK he
>was probably convicted of that and may have got a ban.
>
>He was able to defend the charge of *dangerous driving* - presumably
>he had the money to do so being a "rich man"
>
>The length of his ban might be less than us mere mortals might
>expect:-(
>
>I wonder how "big" the fine was ...
If he was only tried in the Crown Court in respect of the dangerous
driving charge and was found not guilty then there would be no fine.
I gather from the discussion so far that the charge of speeding has
yet to be heard by the Magistrates Court.
JNugent
>Terry Harris is spot on about heavy trucks having lots of momentum; that is
>one reason why so many are now limited to 90-100kph. Nevertheless, no one
>can evade the fact that higher traffic speeds, all other things being
equal,
>will result in more casualties.
Not quite. Higher average traffic speeds, other things being equal, may
result in more accidents (it depends on what your base-line was), and the
accidents may involve more casualties (by which I assume you mean injuries
or deaths). No-one dies from just "going too fast" (although that very
phenomenon was allegedly feared by the railway pioneers!) - unless it leads
to a collision.
>HMG's next safety campaign is reported to be based on speeding, and to
make
>speeding as anti social as drink driving. Any retards who really need to do
>14o had better get in with it, as technology will soon make the game not
>worth the candle.
OK by me. I've definitely never travelled that fast on the ground.
Graham Wilson
<h...@huwjones.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Malcolm Groom asked...
>
>>When was the last case of death by dangerous driving brought against a
>>police driver, finding him guilty and sentencing him to a term in
>>prison?
>
>West Midlands Police, around 1995/6, to the best of my knowledge.
That sounds about right.
It was a teenager who was driving at a safe speed in a safe manner
when his vehicle was hit by a speeding police car.
The vicitm could have been any road user - he just happened to be in
the wrong place at the wrong time.
In the above case, I cannot remember whether the police car was
chasing a third vehicle or whether they were attempting to get to the
scene of an accident.
Some forces make "trauma payments" to Police officers - The first
officers to arrive on the scene receive a £30 payment.
Such payments could be criticised as encouraging the Police to drive
at unsafe speeds in the race to be the first on the scene.
Graham
Graham Wilson
<postm...@hmleng.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <7dgc4m$7tk$1...@nntp2.uunet.ca>, Simon Robbins
><simonrS...@istar.ca> writes
>>That would depend on the chopper. A Jetranger would (I'm estimating) top out
>>at around 150-170mph, while a Bell 222B would likely make the double-ton
>>with ease. Thankfully most police forces buy cheap choppers for observation
>>purposes rather than airborne interception. (They start buying jump-jets and
>>we're really in trouble!)
>>
>>Si.
>>
>
>The local Bridgend helicopter was doing something else at the time. [1]
What was that? Wasting millions of pounds of tax payers money that
could be better spent employing extra police on the ground.
Graham Wilson
<r...@qticmarlow.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>HMG's next safety campaign is reported to be based on speeding, and to make
>speeding as anti social as drink driving. Any retards who really need to do
>14o had better get in with it, as technology will soon make the game not
>worth the candle.
And with GATSO 2 on the way, the speed cameras will catch offenders
and send the pictures via a mobile phone connection back to the Police
control centre.
The number plate details will be automatically extracted using OCR and
the details electronically checked against the DVLA vehicle register.
The paperwork will be issued by the Police usually within 48 hours.
Apparently, some manual cameras can run out of film within 1/2 a day.
If we look at Coventry Police who appear to shift the cameras around
every 2 weeks this would mean approximately a 27 fold increase of the
number of motorists caught on the new digital cameras.
In fact, the figure may be much higher as speed fire engines, police
cars and paramedic vehicles regularly set off the old cameras using up
the limited photographic film.
David Binderman
>
> "Richard Bristow" <r...@qticmarlow.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >Faster is more dangerous. If you don't believe me look at any GCSE physics
> >syllabus about kinetic energy.
> >Faster means more dead people.
> >145 mph is not as safe as 70. Never.
> >
> >Come on guys, grow up!
>
> What I can't figure is how someone so clueless actually manages to
> post a usenet message - it's that bloody Microsoft.
> I could ask you if you would rather be hit by a car doing 70mph or
> missed by one doing 145 mph? The 145 mph one seems safer to me.
Precisely. It's all about training.
If our idiot poster was correct, Formula 1 racing would be world's
most dangerous sport. It isn't, by a long way. 200+ mph is no problem
to someone that knows how to do it.
I've seen folks on the motorway completely clueless at 50 mph.
They are dangerous.
Regards
dcb
Hugh O'Hare
>
> I gather from the discussion so far that the charge of speeding has
> yet to be heard by the Magistrates Court.
>
I don't see how he can be tried twice on the same charge. The speeding
is the essence of the dangerous driving charge. It's the great speed
which made his driving essentially dangerous. He was prosecuted for
dangerous driving.
He cannot be prosecuted on the grounds of speeding as if it was a
separate offence. That would be having two bites at the cherry.
hugh
Jim Ley
<Mal...@WCompSys.XXXdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>You don't need to convince me. IIRC it was mentioned on the radio the
>other day how the police were one of those groups with the larger number
>of vehicle accidents. Of course they don't get
>banned/convicted/fined/charged when they do it so I guess that's the
>important bit then.
Indeed I'm afraid I can't recollect the source of this (so it could be
complete and utter hogswash of course) - but more innocent people are
injured/killed in Police accidents than are killed by drink drivers -
which one gets the millions on ad campaigns?
Jim..
David Binderman
>
> Surely depends on the circumstance. Fastest I've gone is a shade over 130,
135 mph in an MR2. I was being flashed at for not going fast enough by a
very
rapidly approaching BMW M5.
> and the road was genuinely empty, but for one car doing about 100 (daresay
> he was surprised). But it isn't an experiment I'd readily repeat:
I would: driving over 120 mph is one of life's major pleasures to me.
> Motorway
> bends become pretty tight above 110,
Even tighter down a two lane autobahn over 3000 foot mountains.
> other drivers don't expect you to close
> at such a rapid rate,
German drivers do, and UK could, if they took any notice of the training
they are given.
>and if things do go pear shaped then one's life
> expectancy is pretty short...
True, but ony about 5% of accidents occur on motorways in the UK.
> Jim wrote in message <36fc3043....@news.netcomuk.co.uk>...
> >
> >>A businessman clocked at 145mph on a motorway escaped a ban today after
> >>proving it was not dangerous driving.
So someone paid 70,000 pounds for a fast car, and pays a lot of money
to maintain it, keeps Japan in work, and some folks get upset because he
uses his car ?
I applaud his waste of money in a 70 mph limited country.
Regards
dcb
Mike Harrison
>On 26 Mar 99 14:17:29 GMT, ni...@yrl.co.uk (Nick Finnigan) wrote:
>
>>In article <922454...@advsys.demon.co.uk>, Pa...@advsys.demon.co.uk (Paul Dundas) writes:
>>>> In article <922449...@advsys.demon.co.uk>, Paul Dundas <Pa...@advsys.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>>> >Now, which is safer, a NSX designed for 185mph doing 140mph with no
>>>> >siren up a motorway or a Volvo family saloon designed no more than
>>>> >140mph travelling at 140mph up a motorway with no siren?
>>>>
>>> The siren bit begs the question of what the aims of the Police
>>> car following were.
>>
>>> They should have stopped him immediately and all they had to do was
>>> switch the siren on (if you're driving at 125mph the sight of a Police
>>> car behind does tend to slow one down!).
>>
>> IME you can see a police car with flashing lights at 70mph
>>a lot sooner than you can hear the siren - I wouldn't be
>>suprised if the deedah was almost useless in a 140mph chase.
>>
>> Do we know whether the police Volvo was a unmarked car?
>
>If the Police car *was* marked, then the second charge should be
>"driving without due care and attention" rather than "dangerous
>driving".
>
>The driver would have had to have driven past three motorway junctions
>at this speed without looking once in his rear-view mirror not to have
>noticed the Police car.
WRONG!
1) at that speed, why would you need to look in the mirror (except for
the police!)
2) looking in the mirror would be DANGEROUS as it would distract your
attention from the road for a very significant distance.
Dave Swindell
writes
>
>If our idiot poster was correct, Formula 1 racing would be world's
>most dangerous sport. It isn't, by a long way. 200+ mph is no problem
>to someone that knows how to do it.
>
>I've seen folks on the motorway completely clueless at 50 mph.
>They are dangerous.
>
same way, at roughly the same speed, without minor hazards like Volvos,
lorries, little wizzened men in trilby hats, traffic lights, large brick
structures that don't get out of the way, diesel spills, 17 year olds in
cars too big for their brains, GATSOs, rozzers, 17 year olds on bikes
too small for their egoes, cross roads, roundabouts, T junctions .....
Terry Harris
>Terry Harris is spot on about heavy trucks having lots of momentum; that is
>one reason why so many are now limited to 90-100kph.
Where they still have as much 'momentum' and a sports car doing more
than 200 mph.
>Nevertheless, no one
>can evade the fact that higher traffic speeds, all other things being equal,
>will result in more casualties.
The more miles you travel, all other things being equal the more
casualties will result. The less sticky your tyres are, all other
things being equal the more casualties will result. The less ambient
light there is, all other things being equal the more casualties will
result.
Your stupid assertion can be made about any of the thousands of
factors which affect the likelihood of crashes and injury.
>HMG's next safety campaign is reported to be based on speeding, and to make
>speeding as anti social as drink driving.
Another brainwashing attempt which I hope will meet with less success.
A freinds mother saw something on TV about a drunk driver running over
some pedestrians "they should hang him, they should hang him" she
cried. My friend asked here what they should do if someone sober had
done the same thing, "mumble mumble, I don't care what you say they
should hang him, mumble mumble".
>Any retards who really need to do
>14o had better get in with it,
No one *needs* to do 3/4 of the things they do. No one *needs* to
watch football, no one *needs* to ramble, no one *needs* to hang
glide, climb rocks, enter caves, sail, chase foxes ........
I would like to live in a society where people can do what they want,
only reasonably moderated by the detrimental affect on others. It
wouldn't bother me sharing the motorways with reasonably competant
drivers doing 140 in Honda NSX's.
IMO the retards are the ones who live their lives doing what others
tell them without question or understanding.
Cheers Terry...
Peter Smithson
<kpa...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Which is probably close to what the drummer Cozy Powell thought
>> when his tyre blew out and his car overturned at 130+mph, with the
>> result that he is now an ex drummer!
>
>Why does faster mean more dead people?
Well you see.. hang on...
>It may mean less *stupid* and
>*careless* people, but that's just natural selection.
You've answered your own question. Can't discount them just because
they are stupid and carless!
--
Windsor & District MAG - http://bigfoot.com/~wadmag
Bandit 600S nb The Lady of Shalott
Francis Burton
In article <36FD62...@pncl.co.uk>, David Binderman <d...@pncl.co.uk> wrote:
>135 mph in an MR2. I was being flashed at for not going fast enough by a
>very
>rapidly approaching BMW M5.
Was this on a motorway? If so, why couldn't the BMW have
overtaken in another lane?
Francis
Neil Murray
> Terry Harris is spot on about heavy trucks having lots of momentum; that is
> one reason why so many are now limited to 90-100kph. Nevertheless, no one
> can evade the fact that higher traffic speeds, all other things being equal,
> will result in more casualties.
This I would not take exception to, but it isn't the same as what you
said before. And it still doesn't tackle the relativity question. There
are many, many people who are safe at high speeds. There are just as
many who are lethal at 30mph. The law cannot differentiate between the
two so it sets an arbitrary limit.
> HMG's next safety campaign is reported to be based on speeding, and to make
> speeding as anti social as drink driving. Any retards who really need to do
> 14o had better get in with it, as technology will soon make the game not
> worth the candle.
Got an MZ, have we?
--
Neil Jawa Combo 750S S GT750 CB400F CD175
The Older Gentleman
BOF #30 GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1
http://www.btinternet.com/~Chateau.Murray/homepage2.html
Neil Murray
> The Court's judgement was probably eccentric (it happens).
>
> Faster is more dangerous. If you don't believe me look at any GCSE physics
> syllabus about kinetic energy.
> Faster means more dead people.
> 145 mph is not as safe as 70. Never.
It bloody well is if it's an aircraft in the sky we're talking about.
You sir, have the brains of my son's goldfish. I mean, the early
Victorians thought that travelling at 60mph in one of those new-fangled
steam trains would kill them....
Speed does not kill. Disrespect for it does.
Speed and danger are relative. There are times when it is quite safe to
travel at 150mph and times when 30mph is foolhardiness. It depends on
the circumstances.
Now, if you'd said that in the event of an accident, it's safer to be
travelling at 70 rather than 145 I might have agreed with you. As it is,
you've merely posted something *very* stupid.
Can't wait to see what's next.
Mark Godfrey
Ben Lovejoy wrote in message ...
>Malcolm Groom <Mal...@WCompSys.XXXdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>There are few accidents investigated so thoroughly as one involving a
>>>police vehicle.
>>>
>>>threat to a civilian's job.
>
>>That's true, with a civilian their job could be lost just because they
>>were driving a little above a statutory & possibly inappropriate limit
>
>Don't get me started on inappropriate speed limits!
>
>http://www.lovejoy.demon.co.uk/elam/art_speedchange.html
>
That is a well thought out and argued article.
Congratulations!
Mark.
Neil Murray
> I wonder if it's because of the magic words "Company Director"?
You mean, those words available to anyone with ukp100 worth of capital?
Neil Murray
> Surely depends on the circumstance. Fastest I've gone is a shade over 130,
> and the road was genuinely empty, but for one car doing about 100 (daresay
> he was surprised). But it isn't an experiment I'd readily repeat: Motorway
> bends become pretty tight above 110, other drivers don't expect you to close
> at such a rapid rate, and if things do go pear shaped then one's life
> expectancy is pretty short...
>
Indicated 157. Great fun, but motorway bends turn into fast sweepers at
that sort of speed. And as you say, other drivers (justifiably) don't
expect you to be closing at that sort of speed.
Neil Murray
> Terry Harris wrote in message <36fee344...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
> >steve <St...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>A businessman clocked at 145mph on a motorway escaped a ban today after
> >>proving it was not dangerous driving.
> >
> >>The jury took an hour to find Tyre not guilty of dangerous driving.
> >
> >Good I hope he was awarded costs. Nice to see that a jury despite all
> >the brainwashing still understood that speed does not automatically
> >equal danger.
>
> True.
>
> I hope he gets a ban for the speeding.
>
Vindictive cunt.
I hope he gets off, with his costs paid, a quid from the poor box, and
advice from the magistrate to try harder next time and lose the
bastards.
Neil Murray
Neil Murray
> Don't get me started on inappropriate speed limits!
inappropriate speed limits! inappropriate speed limits!
inappropriate speed limits! inappropriate speed limits!
inappropriate speed limits! inappropriate speed limits!
Oh hang on, you're not Windy, are you?
Neil Murray
> Might be some harriers going cheap soon...
Only one owner, never used in action, few slight bullet holes, no
missiles.
Neil Murray
> Last time I was "practicing my Art", I got nicked.
"Honest officer, they're legitimate art photographs, I'm doing a course
at college, well she said she was over 16...."
Huw Jones
>>>police driver, finding him guilty and sentencing him to a term in
>>>prison?
>>
>>West Midlands Police, around 1995/6, to the best of my knowledge.
>
>That sounds about right.
>
>It was a teenager who was driving at a safe speed in a safe manner
>when his vehicle was hit by a speeding police car.
Driver in question was going through a green traffic light
joining/crossing the dual cabbageway that runs 'tween Wolverhampton and
Bearwood, the A4123, IIRC. Police vehicle crossed a red light
(apparently under the misapprehension (sp?) that crossing traffic had
been stopped by another police vehicle, as had been the case at the
preceeding 3 sets of lights) and collided with the innocent driver's
vehicle. The police observer was killed, and the driver was, IIRC,
seriously injured. This incident led, about 2 years later, to the WMP's
decision to stop high-speed pursuits, and make more use of the force
helicopter to follow suspect vehicles, removing the incentive for the
suspect to drive dangerously.
>In the above case, I cannot remember whether the police car was
>chasing a third vehicle or whether they were attempting to get to the
>scene of an accident.
It was chasing a stolen vehicle, travelling at 90+ in a 40mph limit, on
a stretch of road that is now heavily GATSOed. I wonder if the same
decision re. stopping pursuits would have been made if the stolen
vehicle, rather than the police car, had collided with the innocent
motorist?
FWIW, the driver of the stolen car was never traced.
--
Huw Jones
CB750 =o&>o
Hamstead, Birmingham
NAMOAY#1
Windy
Chateau...@btinternet.com (Neil Murray) wrote:
>
>inappropriate speed limits! inappropriate speed limits!
>inappropriate speed limits! inappropriate speed limits!
>inappropriate speed limits! inappropriate speed limits!
New coil, ukp67.87! New coil, ukp67.87!
New coil, ukp67.87! New coil, ukp67.87!
New coil, ukp67.87! New coil, ukp67.87!
New coil, ukp67.87! New coil, ukp67.87!
>Oh hang on, you're not Windy, are you?
No, but I am.
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
--
~*~*~*~* " W I N D Y" *~*~*~*~
NGG #13 - BOCW#1 - The Iron(ic) Maiden[tm]-ICQ#2215547
Zephyr 1100 (Mr Al), Z550 (Kevin)
FIND THE UKRM FAQ at
http://www.windfalls.u-net.com/ukrm/ukrmfaq.html
Man of Chrome
I guess if you are posting from America, you are not aware that here in
the UK it is illegal to 'undertake' another car.
You are expected to overtake in the right hand lane, and may only filter
by in a car in the left hand lane if all the other traffic in your lane
is going the same speed as you (roughly).
Personally, I would be intrigued to see if adopting the American method
of passing in any lane would reduce incidents.
MAn-of-Chrome
GS850GN
Drew Eckhardt
Man of Chrome <dreamm...@sol.co.uk> wrote:
>Personally, I would be intrigued to see if adopting the American method
>of passing in any lane would reduce incidents.
It depends on the state (there are fifty). Arround here, you're required to
pull over and let the traffic pass if there are a handful of cars behind you,
and it's illegal to pass in the right lane although neither law is enforced.
A friend once related how her sister laughed in disbelief when
she told her that the right lane was for driving (hence the "slower
traffic keep right signs") and the left for passing.
--
Live to swoop, swoop to live http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/swoop.mpg
Email: drew at poohsticks dot org Home: http://www.poohsticks.org/drew
Veggie Dave
>New coil, ukp67.87!
I do hope these were nice, sexy Dyna coils (33,000v) and not cheap-shit
OE ones (18,000v).
Veggie Dave
UKRMHRC#2
V&S Extreme Photography http://www.bikehouse.demon.co.uk
Drag Racing http://www.bikehouse.demon.co.uk/racing.htm
--
Anything Smaller Than 1200cc With Less Than 200BHP
Just Ain't Worth Riding
Veggie Dave
>"Honest officer, they're legitimate art photographs, I'm doing a course
>at college, well she said she was over 16...."
Oi, get yer own bloody excuses
Donald Deasy
Steve Firth wrote:
>
> Bastard Bear <joh...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > You don't see motorcyclists doing this sort of thing ...
>
> Ah yes, the GPZ rider done for 125mph in 1989 on the M25 would be a
> figment of my imagination. And the riders on the A272 who regularly
> exceed the speed limit by 80mph would also be some sort of illusion?
>
Do you have calibrated proof. Thought not. Then it's an illusion of
greater speed created by the superior acceleration of a motorcycle.
--
Kippis
Donald
Kev Panton
>
> You've answered your own question. Can't discount them just because
> they are stupid and carless!
>
it wasn't the speed it was the people involved. In the same sense it's
not guns that kill people (it's bullets actually), but give one to an idiot...
--
Kev Panton
"I don't know, Brain the size of a planet...
Kev Panton
>
> "Richard Bristow" <r...@qticmarlow.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Terry Harris is spot on about heavy trucks having lots of momentum; that is
> >one reason why so many are now limited to 90-100kph.
>
> than 200 mph.
>
> >can evade the fact that higher traffic speeds, all other things being equal,
> >will result in more casualties.
>
> casualties will result. The less sticky your tyres are, all other
> things being equal the more casualties will result. The less ambient
> light there is, all other things being equal the more casualties will
> result.
>
> Your stupid assertion can be made about any of the thousands of
> factors which affect the likelihood of crashes and injury.
>
> >speeding as anti social as drink driving.
>
> A freinds mother saw something on TV about a drunk driver running over
> some pedestrians "they should hang him, they should hang him" she
> cried. My friend asked here what they should do if someone sober had
> done the same thing, "mumble mumble, I don't care what you say they
> should hang him, mumble mumble".
>
> >14o had better get in with it,
>
> watch football, no one *needs* to ramble, no one *needs* to hang
> glide, climb rocks, enter caves, sail, chase foxes ........
>
> I would like to live in a society where people can do what they want,
> only reasonably moderated by the detrimental affect on others. It
> wouldn't bother me sharing the motorways with reasonably competant
> drivers doing 140 in Honda NSX's.
>
> IMO the retards are the ones who live their lives doing what others
> tell them without question or understanding.
>
> Cheers Terry...
Ditto...
Kev Panton
>
> Richard Bristow <r...@qticmarlow.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Terry Harris is spot on about heavy trucks having lots of momentum; that is
> > can evade the fact that higher traffic speeds, all other things being equal,
> > will result in more casualties.
> said before. And it still doesn't tackle the relativity question. There
> are many, many people who are safe at high speeds. There are just as
> many who are lethal at 30mph. The law cannot differentiate between the
> two so it sets an arbitrary limit.
>
got my bike licence 10 years ago, but these days people can't even get
on the road on a bike without passing a test, and then they're limited
to smaller CCs. This I think is actually a "good thing", but why can't
they apply it to cars? perhaps because all the bleating from the sheep
would be deafening...
Neil Murray
> Windy <s...@windfalls.u-net.com> writes
> >New coil, ukp67.87!
>
> I do hope these were nice, sexy Dyna coils (33,000v) and not cheap-shit
> OE ones (18,000v).
>
Er, no.....
Kev Panton
> > syllabus about kinetic energy.
> > Faster means more dead people.
> You sir, have the brains of my son's goldfish. I mean, the early
> Victorians thought that travelling at 60mph in one of those new-fangled
> steam trains would kill them....
>
Nice point Niel, but it was 20mph for the victorians. And of course the
first thing they did was run someone over. Very car like : )
Incidentally, has anyone pointed out that when box-drivers were forced
to wear seatbelts, the injuries to other road users went up substantially?
Nick Knowles
Kev Panton <kpa...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:36FE0B07...@globalnet.co.uk...
> Neil Murray wrote:
>
> > You sir, have the brains of my son's goldfish. I mean, the early
> > Victorians thought that travelling at 60mph in one of those new-fangled
> > steam trains would kill them....
> >
>
> Nice point Niel, but it was 20mph for the victorians. And of course the
> first thing they did was run someone over. Very car like : )
>
Wasn't the poor unfortunate the local MP, or some such, who had popped along
to endorse the whole project?
ISTR reading this in the RRT2 manual - er, I shall go and have a shufty.[1]
--
Nick
nick.k...@which.net
GL1500SEV/CBR1000FL/TS185C
David Hansen
Sat, 27 Mar 1999 12:05:09 -0000 :
>No-one dies from just "going too fast"
True. It is coming to a standstill from speed that is the killer. The
faster someone is travelling the more likely this process is to be
fatal.
David Hansen | david...@NO.spidacom.co.SPAMuk | PGP email preferred
Edinburgh | CI$ number 100024,3247 | key number 5432274D
Due to the amount of spam now killing e-mail I have modified my address
to reply remove SEND NO SPAM.
JNugent
>It is observed that "JNugent" <JNu...@AC30.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
>>No-one dies from just "going too fast"
>True. It is coming to a standstill from speed that is the killer. The
>faster someone is travelling the more likely this process is to be
>fatal.
Yes. I think I either said so or agreed with someone else who had said so.
Your valuable insight was.... what, exactly?
Francis Burton
>> overtaken in another lane?
>
>I guess if you are posting from America, you are not aware that here in
>the UK it is illegal to 'undertake' another car.
Does that mean that both cars were in the outside (overtaking)
lane, and that the other lane(s) were occupied? If so, aren't
these speeds (135mph and 135+mph) rather reckless? I mean,
what would happen if a car in the middle lane moved into the
outside lane to overtake at 80mph say, not seeing the rapidly
approaching cars behind? I can see that 135mph could be safe
on an empty motorway, but not when there are cars in the
other lanes.
Francis
Neil Murray
> I would say there are way more idiot's who are unsafe at any speed! I
> got my bike licence 10 years ago, but these days people can't even get
> on the road on a bike without passing a test, and then they're limited
> to smaller CCs. This I think is actually a "good thing", but why can't
> they apply it to cars? perhaps because all the bleating from the sheep
> would be deafening...
Agreed