Speeding for 840 miles and got away with it.
 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...cid=spartandhp

So the Telegraph are reporting on an idiot who did John o' Grote's to Lands End in 9h 26m (average of 88mph) and posted on line, and it seems the police are at the moment turning a blind eye. This nupty should be locked up, bikers who post videos of themselves acting like twats are instantly collared.
The argument that "he didn't harm anyone" doesn't wash one bit, he could have, driving at speed for 9 1/2 hours with one stop for fuel. even lorry drivers can only drive a maximum of 9 hours, and have to have a 3/4 hour brake every four hours.

But of course being the Telegraph the reporting is fatally flawed to the point of comedy...... "It's a worthy adversary to a police car, with upgraded brakes taking it to 400 brake horsepower", Well Kate Morley it shows you know feck all about cars and driving, brakes don't increase brake horse power, and "Tommy Davies managed to break the land speed record" no you need a big jet powered thingy for that and do more than 750mph, but he probably did brake some kind of land speeding record. Back to the ironing dear!
One thing that was a dead cert, he was of course driving an Audi.

His photo tells you all that you need to know about him.

Possibly he got away with it because the saddo was wearing some kind of police jacket, not a cool look!

Just noticed...... "We left at 8pm , which we perfectly timed to pass Glasgow at 11.45pm, then come through Liverpool and Birmingham in the dead of night as they are the most populated areas."
and......... "Tommy Davies managed to break the land speed record from Land's End to John O'Groats"

"They passed Glasgow, then come through Liverpool and Birmingham", they did WHAT, it must have been difficult to drive all that way with one hand on his knob, possibly his mate helped there.
Anyway I digress, if they were doing Lands End to John O'Groats, all I can say is ..."OI MATE YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!"

"counter measures to avoid speed traps and a detector to pick up police radio signals so we know if there are any police with in a kilometer of us."
Section 46 of the Wireless Telegraphy act 2006, totally illegal to listen in on any signal not meant for you, even taxis. And what's a kilometer? something that measures kilos, like bathroom scales?

Nice run! Anyone got a map? 9-1/2 hours in any car seat can be brutal though.

-- Chuck

The original article by the telegraph says" It's a worthy adversary to a police car, with upgrading taking it to 400 brake horsepower ". The cut and paste on MSN must include an error.

Bragging about breaking the law on the internet isn't the brightest move.

I speed for every mile I can, which is probably most of em, get caught once every 3 years probably

And from what I see at least 50% of people are at it. Since I got a cam on my bike I've probably filmed on average one red light runner a month too

Wgaf

Well those 50% must be in the ones I've cited in my avatar, just because people speed doesn't make it right, 88mph AVERAGE, can you imagine what the speed range went up to, still if you were coming out of a side road on your bike and this clown hit you doing say 110mph you would be the first one condemning their actions, or at least your next of kin would be.
WGAF............... anyone with a brain would.

As for your habits, maybe points should stay on your licence for ten years.

Classic strawman - a biker would be almost equally as dead hit at 60mph.

it's classic Police nazi indoctrination in my eyes

to average 88mph he might not have driven faster than your average fast lane ford transit, he's just avoided traffic lights and and junctions. to average 80-90mph on the motorway is easy in the dead of night.

to speed is one thing, to drive recklessly entirely another in my humble opinion, i see people daily doing each mutually exclusively and could post a load of vids in support of that if i could be arsed. For me, doing 50 in a 40 need not be dangerous at all, but keeping in touch with your latest bit of snatch on tinder is.. or grindr, it's a free world ;)

you should defo restrict your s2000 angry Rich, it has far too much power to drive at 30 everywhere..

Yen maybe, but he would have twice as long to react to a car coming at him at half the speed wouldn't he.

Just because you can show vids of a load of wankers speeding doesn't make it safe or right, to speed is reckless, if you don't like that then move to Germany and do your speeding on the Autobahns, or at least keep it to the track, I do (generally).
"grindr, it's a free world ;)" Who the hell told you that!

Not my BIL, he reckons big brother is watching..

I just don't believe speeding is a cardinal sin..

road racing is, like the shitbag in the 'Stang who killed the mother and child.. I think it's hard to consider anything but a very punative sentence in that case
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/jalopnik.com/florida-street-racer-was-doing-102-mph-before-killing-m-1826469234/amp

I think we just draw the line in different places :)

The fast driver would have twice as long to react and to slow down, yes.

Which one does very quickly at the slightest sign of potential danger at speed, as most people aren't reckless, even if they are grossly exceeding an arbitrary limit. A few are, but they'd be reckless under any circumstances.

And that is why high-speed accidents are extremely rare in proportion to the overall numbers, even adjusting for the 70th-percentile.

It's still failure to obey a signal or not applying DC&A when turning right that are the biggest causes.

Hence speed limit absolutism is purely a religious belief.

But I realise you'll never modify your belief system; I might if the empirical evidence changes.

This discussion is getting humorous in a forum for cars designed to exceed posted speed limits at will. :) Our cars will do over 80 mph in 3d gear and there are 3 more of them!

Speed limits are arbitrary and rarely have a relationship to safety. As if there's a definition of safety -- note this run was completed with out incident, so it was safe. Exceeding the arbitrary limit -- as every one of us does daily -- is not automatically unsafe. Quibbling about how much over the limit is still quibbling. Two (2) mph over is still over and by the definition some have postulated unsafe.

Here in in western Virginia (and West ByGod Virginia) the rural speed limit is approximately 55 mph but if you drive that speed in the mountain areas you're not gonna stay on the road in many places. 55 is way too fast around many of the curves -- but it remains the posted limit. Note Virginia doesn't spend any money on paved shoulders. There's the white line and then trees. So much for "safety." There are a few places going over the mountains with large yellow signs warning motorcyclists that they're approaching sections of the road especially treacherous for them. Marks on the pavement testify to that. But the speed limit doesn't change.

Now I'm curious. What's the posted speed limit in "the Dragon?"

-- Chuck

[QUOTE=Nick Graves;24470328]The fast driver would have twice as long to react and to slow down, yes.

Which one does very quickly at the slightest sign of potential danger at speed, as most people aren't reckless, even if they are grossly exceeding an arbitrary limit. A few are, but they'd be reckless under any circumstances.

And that is why high-speed accidents are extremely rare in proportion to the overall numbers, even adjusting for the 70th-percentile.

It's still failure to obey a signal or not applying DC&A when turning right that are the biggest causes.

Hence speed limit absolutism is purely a religious belief.
Nick are you totally brain dead? "The fast driver would have twice as long to react and to slow down, yes." I'm not talking about the driver, I'm talking about the biker who finds him self in the path of the speeding driver.
I can't believe that people like you with such a cavalier attitude to speeding and a total disregard to the safety of other road users are allowed to remain on the road, you are an absolute disgrace, I hope your next speed "cop" results in a ban and helps keep the rest of us road users safe.

Don't need a drivers license to drive so I'm not sure what a "ban" would do for a run like this. ;)

-- Chuck

Rich

Speed limits are a compromise - most people get that. They reflect the fact that not all drivers are equal, in ability or interest, before we even get to intelligence. No speed limits would be anarchic.

However, the way the law is applied is generally poor, especially when viewed with other road traffic offences and road planning, so many speeders will not give speed limits a huge amount of respect

That doesn't make them serial killers or even potential serial killers

[QUOTE=richmc;24470471]You clearly don't have the free will or the wit to understand that with power comes responsibility; it is the responsibility of the fast driver to low right down if a vehicle appears and there is a chance that the rider might not have differentiated accurately the speed of approach. Whilst that is technically the biker's mistake, it is the responsibility of the fast driver to allow for that.

You have also jumped from an hypothetical to an ad hominem argument, which is logically baffling.

I therefore contend that it is you, sir, who is not exercising your considerable power with responsibility and thus is the absolute disgrace.

I think Gad has put it succintly, the law has to draw a line for the sake of the masses. Silly to begin throwing insults about I think.

I overtook a police Audi at c90mph in a 70 a few years ago, I then took a junction and noticed him follow so went down to the limit..

He pulled me, checked me and the car and bollocked me.

That is the right application in my opinion. I was nowhere near anyone else, the speed difference was c20mph, my car is very well looked after and is a high performance car with excellent brakes, good tyres etc

If I'd done the same in a transit with a loose load he should ticket me but it was not inherently dangerous despite being technically worthy of a fine and points.

Just my pennies worth, we've all taken the piss at one point or another (I know I have) he just did it for longer and is probably laughing his arse off at the sanctimonious brigade..

Police people generally tend to be pretty pragmatic - it's rare to find a fundamentalist.

Of course, where it goes wrong is the situation one gets with 20mph zones. There is a lot of statistical evidence to suggest they have increased RTAs. They were invoked on gut feeling, but for reasons not fully understood had the opposite result of what was intended.

Some local authorities would like to revert to 30, but blew the budget on the 20mph signs...

The likes of J J Leeming and the TRRL have done a lot of sterling work on the true causes of accidents and as a result, road safety has massively improved over the decades. Not to forget the car designers, et al who are also worthy of praise.

Indeed.

The case of the Bath 20mph zones is interesting. In some zones (7 of 13), KSIs went up, and in the others it went down/stayed the same.

The "20's Plenty" crew have refuted the report's findings: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/l...h-zones-954096 and do make some good points - most significantly that the data in the report was from one year and thus not entirely sufficient.

Reducing mobile phone usage whilst walking/riding/driving would probably improve things even more.

this. I regularly see cars wandering lanes, sometimes towards oncoming traffic.. almost always shuffling a phone

The sentences for that ought to be significant fines imho, there's little preventative benefit in the device grassing you up after you've run into the other car

I recently narrowly avoided the schoolboy error of ramming someone from behind at a roundabout

Having avoided it, and as it was a two lane approach, I decided to go around the hesitator, only to see the daft bint peering into her phone

Incredibly annoying

I understand all the argument for and against here, especially with speed, ability, breaking the law etc.

Something that's interesting that no one here has yet touched on is the attentiveness of the driver. If you are on a spirited drive and running outside the posted limits, I imagine you are watching every little detail of the road carefully. In this condition you are prepared and very alert for potential problems. An issue we have probably all encountered is that person trundling along under the speed limit. Typically their attention is slack and reaction times are significantly increased. So.... for a given situation whats better? Old betty doing 10 under and nails an accident full tilt, or Mansell doing 10 over and being prepared to avoid one?

I remember reading an insurance report on who had accidents at various speeds and road types, from what I remember there were much fewer motorway/dual carriageway accidents than there were urban accidents. The motorway accidents were individually higher cost accidents than the urban accidents as expected. But the urban accidents when totalled cost the insurers something like ten times more than the motorway mishaps these had a higher proportion of total loss claims. The motorway accidents happened during a time span of 6.00am to 8.00pm, the urban accidents between 8.00am till 9.30am and 2.30pm and 4.00pm, with not much in between. It did go on to describe the nature of the drivers in more detail, but I bet you can guess the rest.

Now what does that say to you?

Trouble with old Betty is she is totally unaware of the string of frustrated drivers behind her who will sooner or later attempt to overtake, whether or not it's safe to do so. Poor old Betty never had an accident but seen loads.

We don't need ridiculous examples of 10mph drivers.

I live in the SE in an area where there are very high numbers of elderly drivers. I cannot remember ever seeing one 'trundling around at 10mph'. That sort of pace is the preserve of YOUNG learners whose instructors like the quiet roads.

What does happen is that the elderly tend to observe speed limits. They also drive in a more leisurely fashion, clearly not motivated to win races between traffic lights, gain places like driving is a race, etc.

It's THAT which seems to 'frustrate' drivers behind these elderly drivers.

Since said drivers seem to get frustrated behind learners observing the speed limit I don't think the age of the driver is in any way relevant.

10/10 for observation dude. Its 10 over or under, not driving at 10 mph. See how easy it is to miss something right in front of you.

Cool. How's this?

We don't need ridiculous examples of 10mph below the limit drivers.

I live in the SE in an area where there are very high numbers of elderly drivers. I cannot remember ever seeing one 'trundling around at 10mph under the limit'. That sort of pace is the preserve of YOUNG learners whose instructors like the quiet roads.

What does happen is that the elderly tend to observe speed limits. They also drive in a more leisurely fashion, clearly not motivated to win races between traffic lights, gain places like driving is a race, etc.

It's THAT which seems to 'frustrate' drivers behind these elderly drivers.

Since said drivers seem to get frustrated behind learners observing the speed limit I don't think the age of the driver is in any way relevant.

I live in the South West, Cornwall to be precise with it's aging population, our public transport infrastructure is so appalling that people who clearly shouldn't still be driving are forced to or be house bound. I see the 10mph (or more) under the limit every time I take my car out, I will overtake them when it's safe but see so many doing so on blind bends, before the brow of hills etc. I also see agricultural vehicles with strings of cars behind them, but at least most of them are aware of the fact and have the courtesy to pull into lay byes where possible. These elderly drivers are NOT driving at the speed limit as you said, do you realise that it's an offence to drive too slowly intentionally? it's called failing to make proper progress and comes under driving without due care and attention.

As I said, it's not something I see around here. I just see oldies driving in accordance with the limits - mostly 30 - 60 mph.

Younger drivers are a much bigger problem when it comes to causing problems as the insurance stats prove and that's reflected in premiums.

I understand ancient drivers are also disliked by insurers but they are fewer in number.

I would prefer to be held up by an OAP ditherer than t-boned at 100mph by a teenager.

I've also yet to see an OAP preoccupied with their make up or using their phone whilst trying to drive. They are also pretty good at merging in turn and not exiting motorways at the last second by crossing three lanes in 50m whilst giving you the finger.

Out of all the driving problems on the roads only a tiny proportion are down to old people driving at or below the limit.

As for the offence part, there are plenty of things I would prefer the Police to do before they worry about someone driving significantly under the limit. As you know, it's a limit not a target.

The road to my house is NSL. I would say a safe maximum for the majority of the road is 30mph.

Like for instance this?

Pensioner, 82, driving wrong way on a motorway killed himself and another driver in 100mph head-on crash | Daily Mail Online

I'm not sure a single case proves much. Licence removal is pretty rare I think, probably more so than it ought to be

When I was a kid my mates younger brother was a proper menace. Multiple big crashes, regular convictions. Makes that chap look well behaved.

Premiums for the young prove the risk, the oldies may be annoying but they kill far fewer I imagine.

I could raise you:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8179441.html

however that wouldn't be any more useful than your example of bad driving really

so I will just leave this here:

Older Drivers - Key Facts

Hardly an example of an accident, that was a deliberate criminal act that resulted in death and destruction, stealing a car stuffing it full of your "mates" speeding and joy riding around town ending up crashing into a tree is not an accident. The driver was 15 years old so would never have had a driving lesson, and 88mph in a 30mph area, if that's not enough evidence of a criminal act I don't know what is!

I take the point he would never have had a proper lesson

Of course, driving the wrong way up a motorway by the elderly driver you quoted was also deliberate and illegal but I doubt that driver was intending to kill anyone either.

So how about this one then?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...rash-vcjq882cp

Or this one, just to demonstrate that old people don't have the monopoly on driving the wrong way down main roads (cracking video):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...tland-15718599

But as I said, trading individual examples doesn't change the facts, which are that:

Younger drivers are a bigger problem than older drivers

When was the last time you:

• were tailgated at speed?
• were deliberately cut up?
• were alarmed by what you regarded as the excessive high speed of another vehicle?
• the subject of road rage?
• overtaken dangerously?

Odds are that it will have been a younger driver

I know people get wound up up by old people driving but if you are inconvenienced by one, the chances are that it will fall into a few categories:

• they are going too slowly for your liking (in everything from parking to joining a main road)
• they are more risk averse than you (examples such as not overtaking where you would, stopping at give way lines, never going through an amber, let alone a red)
• their situational awareness (straight-lining roundabouts)

A bit like (invariably young) learners really, who we all have to put up with as well. The roundabout one is a classic. I've lost count of the times I have been a passenger where the 'young' driver has been 'cut up' when it was blindingly obvious that it was unwise to be alongside the other driver on a two-lane roundabout. Who do you blame - the old person with poor situational awareness or the young(er) driver knowingly and wilfully putting themselves in a positional of potential conflict?

This is the mentality of the dashcammer - let's help conflict to happen in the interests of footage. Just about every dashcam video I see (barring the Russian variety and ones where serious criminality are involved such as chases) demonstrates poor anticipation by the dashcammer. This mentality is also shared by many younger drivers who don't want to adapt to accommodate the different standards of driving that exist on our roads. Dashcammers are also invariably at the younger end of the spectrum.

I'm not arguing because of any personal bias - just reflecting the facts. I think my mother should stop driving in the forseeable future but at 77 she is still safer than most 17 year olds. I also see pensioners who are clearly a liability but that's a different matter from just driving to the limits and generally applying a level of caution that younger drivers do not.

The problem, if there is one, sorts itself out anyway. Old people die and young people get better at driving. Then it all starts again.

Interesting reading, as always. Rich, I think you need your own column for debates. And good for you to stand your ground - I'm kind of with you on this too.

Many, many years ago, I owned an mk2 XR2 (my first car actually), and I did something as stupid as the said title. This was from my digs in Kent up to the north west, averaging over ** leptons in this little tin box. And that was including stopping at Dartford Tolls to throw in my 50p in the bucket. Little wonder that when I was peeling off the m'way at the end of the journey, it blew the head gasket off the thing. It's not something to brag about, I was young and stupid in a nippy little car. Boredom gets the better of you when you're a sprog and this was also in the dead of the night, before speed cameras. One thing I won't ever forget, is that I never saw one police car in that journey. Times have changed. Or have they.
On a recent journey to Kent, in the day time, M6/M40/M25/M26, I saw one police car attending to a broken down vehicle on the M25, during the 5 hour journey. There needs to be more presence - especially about mobile phone use. For the record I wasn't speeding (awaits NOIP in the post...:p.).

I'm surprised that the vein of this conversation has mainly focused on the driver, in his big powerful steed, sporting bin lid sized brakes and honest awareness of the road ahead allowing him to trickle over the limit. Thing is, it's not normally about the driver, it's about the pedestrian and although the conversation had shifted from this said dickhead in the A5 with his motorway exploits - you have to accept that pedestrians (and cyclists) are the real reason for the 20/30/40 limits. Not all pedestrians are smart, some are children retrieving the football or pratting about on the pavement. Kids do stupid things. Survival rates are higher at lower speeds. Just imagine that you are doing 40 in a 30, and for that brief moment that you're checking your new Raybans are looking great.... You would never be able to live with yourself. Lets say that you are doing 30, and checking Raybans etc, fiddling with the radio or whatever, and the incident happens - the chance of survival is better. No one is guilty of ever being human and making an error like this. We all, at some point, are not looking at the road ahead. We should be but can be easily distracted - taking mobile phones out of the equation. As far as I understand these limits present a chance for life for someone that is struck. And its about behaviors of those drivers that respect them, even if we could agree that the limits do seem a bit low. In these arguments, I'm always tired to read about braking being better on faster cars, quicker to react etc. Tosh. It's an excuse, always an excuse. When you have lost somebody you love dearly to a speeding driver, you will feel more emotive about it. Over the years I've been up to 9 points on my licence (clean for last 6 years), all from speeding and being an ignorant bastard to 30 limits. 2 times caught at 36 mph, one at 41mph. I deserved the points. I learnt my lesson too many times, just glad I didn't take someone out in the process.

I really didn't mean to sound in any way patronizing in that passage, no offence meant. I know that you lot on here are intelligent chaps and talk like you've swallowed a Thesaurus. Forgive me!

So I don't buy any BS about speeding being ok - a lot of performance cars are terrible to drive at 30. So blame the manufacturers then - trade it for something more dual purpose, rather than waiting for it to appreciate. Go on a track day, airfield or somewhere to enjoy the machinery. Peace!

Why not require manufacturers to limit car speeds to say, 80 mph? Exceptions for emergency vehicles.

But honestly, I don't disagree with the sentiment Tony. I think it is impossible to deny that speed is a multiplier/exacerbator or whatever the word is to reflect the fact that being hit at 50 is going to hurt more than being hit at 20 etc. Although of course there is no difference in the hurt if hit at 50mph or 180mph. One is kaput in that range.

And as I have said, I see speed limits as a necessary compromise on roads used by such a diverse range of drivers/other users.

I just wish the conversation could be more nuanced. For example, I'm troubled by the idea that exceeding a speed limit is inherently dangerous. If what's meant by that is that you might have an accident, well then so are cooking, walking, flying, skating, swimming and touching any electrical appliance inherently dangerous.

Returning to the subject of the thread, I cannot get too excited about the speeds involved in this stunt. I can see that at the time it was done, it would have been relatively easy to maintain that average speed without sustained periods at 150mph.

When I did my speed awareness course we were asked why we speed or were speeding at the time we were caught. My answer was that going fast is enjoyable. I had to explain that driving at 100 mph on a crowded road was not what I meant but that in the 'right' circumstances (where right meant fewer risks) it was sometimes more enjoyable to drive my car above a limit than at or below it. I also accept that if I allow my pursuit of enjoyment to override my awareness of the law, then I must accept the possible consequences. Unfortunately the campaign arguments are usually simplistic - e.g you speed so you are dangerous and a bad driver. You don't speed so you are careful and safe.

But back to compromise. We live in a world where we increasingly legislate to the lowest denominator. I can live with that and the consequences of being a maverick every now and then. I suspect most people aren't much different and we only hear the hysterics above the normal calm.

Speed kills - isn't it such a boring mantra?

Careless driving and excessive / inappropriate speed plus a whole host of other contributing factors is what kills. I am very much with you on this. Should i get caught out whilst speeding in a safe appropriate place then like you, i'll take my slap on the wrists but will never change the view that speed in itself is a killer.

I think mobile phones should be Faraday caged by the car as soon as the engine starts and would only work if the engine is running AND the hazard lights are on and the car is stationary. Same as i think private vehicles need air detectors installed that monitor alcohol levels in breath and if they are too high ( this includes passengers ) then the car won't start. Drunk drivers / drunk passengers are a liability.

I had someone gesticulating at me the other day ( driving the S2000 ) doing 30mph but in 2nd gear waiting for the NSL, too fast they shouted. Had i been in the Aygo doing the same speed in the same gear they'd not have batted an eyelid. The perception is that roofless noisy red sports car is dangerous and must be speeding because of the noise. I like the noise, maybe they like wearing crocs and watching Love Island - two far worse crimes from my point of view.

If you really really want to offend people with perceived speed ./ danger - have a go on a motorbike. You may as well have devil horns growing from your helmet.

But as far as the original issue goes, it's a problem with social media, not speeding. Social media gives a voice to people who really don't need it and then provides them with an audience they should never have had. I didn't care what strangers did before because i knew nothing about it ( actually i still really don't care ) but now i have to read about it when people i do know post it up.

:D

I've had that too, in the S2000. It must look very fast at 30...

How did that go down with the course leaders :D

I do believe that counts as being speed aware ..... :D