Jail for 172mph Porsche motorist

[JNugent]

bugbear wrote:
> Martin Dann wrote:
>
>>
>> TBH I am not sure that a jail term is right (even thought it is
>> short). Much better would have been a large fine, and a longer ban,
>> with lots of points on his license when he does get it back. e.g. nine
>> points, with another automatic ban if he commits another motoring
>> offence.
>
>
> Interesting; can (anyone) tell me how many
> points are on your license after a ban?

> Does it come back "clean" ?

> BugBear (ignorant)

I understand that it does.

And that is at least logical, even if very little of the rest of the
system is.

 

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:23:49 +0100, Matt B
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What do you think the maximum speed is that could be _safe_ (even if
>> technically illegal) somewhere on our roads?
>
> Speed limits contribute more than just increased safety.

Are you sure that they contribute increased safety - is that assertion
based upon the same quality of evidence as is "helmets make cyclists safer"?

Anyway, the question was: "What do you think the maximum speed is that
could be _safe_ (even if technically illegal) somewhere on our roads?".
I'd be interested in views and opinions on that.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

bugbear wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Do /you/ understand the road safety difference between "exceeding the
>> speed limit" and "going too fast for conditions"?
>
> do /you/ understand the difference between well defined,
> enforceable laws, and hours of debate
> over each-and-every case ?

Yes, it's called "justice".

I take it you'd rather have knee-jerk laws that were defined to be easy
to prosecute, regardless of whether they are just, or whether there was,
or was ever likely to be a victim, and regardless of any effect they had
on casualties, rather than laws which targeted specifically dangerous
and anti-social behaviour.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
>> What do you think the maximum speed is that could be _safe_ (even if
>> technically illegal) somewhere on our roads?
>>
>> --
>> Matt B
>
> Certainly something less than not being able to stop within 935 yds.

So what do you think would be a reasonable stopping distance then? 500
yds? 250 yds? 50 yds? 10 yds? 1 yd?

--
Matt B

 

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:45:00 +0100, Matt B
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>>> What do you think the maximum speed is that could be _safe_ (even if
>>> technically illegal) somewhere on our roads?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt B
>>
>> Certainly something less than not being able to stop within 935 yds.
>
>So what do you think would be a reasonable stopping distance then? 500
>yds? 250 yds? 50 yds? 10 yds? 1 yd?

Mebbe what's recommended in the Highway Code? Or do you know better?

 

[Martin Dann]

> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:45:00 +0100, Matt B

>>> Certainly something less than not being able to stop within 935 yds.
>> So what do you think would be a reasonable stopping distance then? 500
>> yds? 250 yds? 50 yds? 10 yds? 1 yd?


Stretch out you hand in front of you, and imagine a mark
on it 1/4 mm wide, my 1 mm high. It is extremely difficult
to see that. That is how big a large adult at 1km away
will appear.

You will simply not be able to so that person.

btw, Matt, what bikes do you own?.

 

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:45:00 +0100, Matt B
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> What do you think the maximum speed is that could be _safe_ (even if
>>>> technically illegal) somewhere on our roads?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt B
>>> Certainly something less than not being able to stop within 935 yds.
>> So what do you think would be a reasonable stopping distance then? 500
>> yds? 250 yds? 50 yds? 10 yds? 1 yd?
>
> Mebbe what's recommended in the Highway Code? Or do you know better?

The highway code doesn't recommend a maximum or a reasonable stopping
distance. I was wondering what those who thought that 935 yds, or
whatever from 172 mph, was an unreasonably long stopping distance
thought /was/ an acceptable stopping distance.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

Martin Dann wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:45:00 +0100, Matt B
>
>>>> Certainly something less than not being able to stop within 935 yds.
>>> So what do you think would be a reasonable stopping distance then?
>>> 500 yds? 250 yds? 50 yds? 10 yds? 1 yd?
>
> Stretch out you hand in front of you, and imagine a mark on it 1/4 mm
> wide, my 1 mm high. It is extremely difficult to see that. That is how
> big a large adult at 1km away will appear.
>
> You will simply not be able to so that person.

So you'd base maximum reasonable stopping distance on the distance you
can reasonably perceive a person from. I like it. How close would they
have to be, do you think, to be recognised as such?

--
Matt B

 

[bugbear]

Matt B wrote:
> bugbear wrote:
>> Matt B wrote:
>>> Do /you/ understand the road safety difference between "exceeding the
>>> speed limit" and "going too fast for conditions"?
>>
>> do /you/ understand the difference between well defined,
>> enforceable laws, and hours of debate
>> over each-and-every case ?
>
> Yes, it's called "justice".

Good luck with that.

BugBear

 

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:28:20 +0100, Matt B
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Marc Brett wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:45:00 +0100, Matt B
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> What do you think the maximum speed is that could be _safe_ (even if
>>>>> technically illegal) somewhere on our roads?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Matt B
>>>> Certainly something less than not being able to stop within 935 yds.
>>> So what do you think would be a reasonable stopping distance then? 500
>>> yds? 250 yds? 50 yds? 10 yds? 1 yd?
>>
>> Mebbe what's recommended in the Highway Code? Or do you know better?
>
>The highway code doesn't recommend a maximum or a reasonable stopping
>distance. I was wondering what those who thought that 935 yds, or
>whatever from 172 mph, was an unreasonably long stopping distance
>thought /was/ an acceptable stopping distance.

1mm less than the distance to the obstacle you would otherwise hit.

("Why not 0.1 mm, or even less", I hear you troll. Safety margins, dear
boy. Safety margins.)

 

[[email protected]]

On 26 Sep, 18:45, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >> What do you think the maximum speed is that could be _safe_ (even if
> >> technically illegal) somewhere on our roads?
>
> >> --
> >> Matt B
>
> > Certainly something less than not being able to stop within 935 yds.
>
> So what do you think would be a reasonable stopping distance then? 500
> yds? 250 yds? 50 yds? 10 yds? 1 yd?
>
> --
> Matt B

No, what do you think a reasonable stopping distance is.

Sniper8052

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 26 Sep, 08:13, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
> Show me a post on a cycling forum that fantasises seriously about
> killing motorists, like the despicable sociopaths on Pissedonheads.
> Show me the abuse you claimed I posted on PH. Explain with examples
> why you think cycling forums never ever accept that a cyclist is
> never wrong. Explain with examples why you think cycling forums
> always maintain that a driver is always wrong. Or answer the questions
> in my first post- see the charlatan with your own eyes and ask him the
> questions he's ignored.
>

OK, what were your user names on PH and Cycling Plus? You had so many
I lost track..

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 26 Sep, 08:50, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
> Plus, more seriously, Paul Smith is a danger to other road users. His
> anti-cycling agenda makes the roads more dangerous. The research is
> clear- the more cyclists on the roads the safer the roads become but
> when Smith is asked, repeatedly, which roads shared with cyclists he
> would speed on he refuses to answer. Try it yourself when you ask him
> the awkward questions above.
>
>

If you weren't so rude then perhaps he'd answer your questions
himself!
As far as I can see there isn't an anti-cycling agenda on Safespeed,
except in your fevered imagination.

If you want to know which roads I'd speed on - then easy- all of them!

 

[7@m3 G33k]

Sir Jeremy wrote:
>
> If you want to know which roads I'd speed on - then easy- all of them!
>

Go Cameras!
Go Cameras!
Go Cameras!


Ian

 

[[email protected]]

On 27 Sep, 12:29, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 26 Sep, 18:45, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >> What do you think the maximum speed is that could be _safe_ (even if
> > >> technically illegal) somewhere on our roads?
>
> > >> --
> > >> Matt B
>
> > > Certainly something less than not being able to stop within 935 yds.
>
> > So what do you think would be a reasonable stopping distance then? 500
> > yds? 250 yds? 50 yds? 10 yds? 1 yd?
>
> > --
> > Matt B
>
> No, what do you think a reasonable stopping distance is.
>
> Sniper8052

Come on we are all dying to know what you think about what a safe
stopping distance is, or are you chicken.

Sniper8052

 

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:28:20 +0100, Matt B
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Marc Brett wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:45:00 +0100, Matt B
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> What do you think the maximum speed is that could be _safe_ (even if
>>>>>> technically illegal) somewhere on our roads?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Matt B
>>>>> Certainly something less than not being able to stop within 935 yds.
>>>> So what do you think would be a reasonable stopping distance then? 500
>>>> yds? 250 yds? 50 yds? 10 yds? 1 yd?
>>> Mebbe what's recommended in the Highway Code? Or do you know better?
>> The highway code doesn't recommend a maximum or a reasonable stopping
>> distance. I was wondering what those who thought that 935 yds, or
>> whatever from 172 mph, was an unreasonably long stopping distance
>> thought /was/ an acceptable stopping distance.
>
> 1mm less than the distance to the obstacle you would otherwise hit.

So if the obstacle was 935 yds + 1 mm away, what would be a safe speed?

> ("Why not 0.1 mm, or even less", I hear you troll. Safety margins, dear
> boy. Safety margins.)

I'm all for science, not prejudice, being used to define road safety
policy ;-)

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 26 Sep, 18:45, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> What do you think the maximum speed is that could be _safe_ (even if
>>>> technically illegal) somewhere on our roads?
>>>>
>>> Certainly something less than not being able to stop within 935 yds.
>> So what do you think would be a reasonable stopping distance then? 500
>> yds? 250 yds? 50 yds? 10 yds? 1 yd?
>
> No,

None of those?

> what do you think a reasonable stopping distance is.

One that eliminates all reasonable likelihood of a collision.

I don't think you can say that a specific absolute stopping distance is
too great. It depends on the present circumstances - just as daft as
absolute speed limits really.

30 mph is often way too fast in many 30 mph zones, yet when did you last
hear of a conviction based on using inappropriate speed which was within
the posted 30 mph limit??? Contrast that with the number of convictions
for using a possibly safe speed which happened to be above the posted limit.

I'd rather we concentrated on the dangerous, not the safe, use of speed
- wouldn't you?

--
Matt B

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 27 Sep, 20:13, "7@m3 G33k" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sir Jeremy wrote:
>
> > If you want to know which roads I'd speed on - then easy- all of them!
>
> Go Cameras!
> Go Cameras!
> Go Cameras!
>
>
> Ian

Are you something to do with You tube?

 

[[email protected]]

On 28 Sep, 13:09, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On 26 Sep, 18:45, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>> What do you think the maximum speed is that could be _safe_ (even if
> >>>> technically illegal) somewhere on our roads?
>
> >>> Certainly something less than not being able to stop within 935 yds.
> >> So what do you think would be a reasonable stopping distance then? 500
> >> yds? 250 yds? 50 yds? 10 yds? 1 yd?
>
> > No,
>
> None of those?
>
> > what do you think a reasonable stopping distance is.
>
> One that eliminates all reasonable likelihood of a collision.
>
> I don't think you can say that a specific absolute stopping distance is
> too great. It depends on the present circumstances - just as daft as
> absolute speed limits really.
>
> 30 mph is often way too fast in many 30 mph zones, yet when did you last
> hear of a conviction based on using inappropriate speed which was within
> the posted 30 mph limit??? Contrast that with the number of convictions
> for using a possibly safe speed which happened to be above the posted limit.
>
> I'd rather we concentrated on the dangerous, not the safe, use of speed
> - wouldn't you?
>
> --
> Matt B

And you think 172 mph is a speed from which you can make that
assessment as you approach a hazard? You do realise you are
travelling at a mile every 20 seconds don't you?

Sniper8052

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 28 Sep, 13:09, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On 26 Sep, 18:45, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> What do you think the maximum speed is that could be _safe_ (even if
>>>>>> technically illegal) somewhere on our roads?
>>>>> Certainly something less than not being able to stop within 935 yds.
>>>> So what do you think would be a reasonable stopping distance then? 500
>>>> yds? 250 yds? 50 yds? 10 yds? 1 yd?
>>> No,
>> None of those?
>>
>>> what do you think a reasonable stopping distance is.
>> One that eliminates all reasonable likelihood of a collision.
>>
>> I don't think you can say that a specific absolute stopping distance is
>> too great. It depends on the present circumstances - just as daft as
>> absolute speed limits really.
>>
>> 30 mph is often way too fast in many 30 mph zones, yet when did you last
>> hear of a conviction based on using inappropriate speed which was within
>> the posted 30 mph limit??? Contrast that with the number of convictions
>> for using a possibly safe speed which happened to be above the posted limit.
>>
>> I'd rather we concentrated on the dangerous, not the safe, use of speed
>> - wouldn't you?
>
> And you think 172 mph is a speed from which you can make that
> assessment as you approach a hazard?

What assessment?

All I'm saying is that speed limits can condone inappropriate speed.
Prosecutions should be based on the danger of a given situation, not on
how much above an arbitrary speed limit a driver happens to be going.

25 mph in a 30 mph limit can be more dangerous, in certain
circumstances, than say, 80 mph on a clear motorway.

The charge, and the penalty, should take account of the circumstances,
and reasonably expected likely consequences - not on a go/no-go test as
to whether a limit has been exceeded, and by how much.

--
Matt B