It's even worse. In the BBC video report, the presenter says that police had recorded bikers going at more than 200mph on the same stretch of road, but had been unable to catch them.
On the basis of the dodgy sight and finger co-ordination required to operate this VASCAR kit and potential for parallax, a driver could have been sent to jail for 2 years.
That is a completely ridiculous situation.
As it was, some kind of justice was served. They guy got a ban and a £5k fine for 105 in a 50.
But soon, if the nutters get their way, the whole country will be blanketed with a 50 limit on what are currently 60 limit roads. And that 50 limit will be heavily enforced.
This will hugely increase journey and transport times, put up the cost of everything, and make life very miserable for anyone needing to travel significant distances on A and B roads just to get to work.
Every voter now has to decide, do you want to live in a fascist state that photographs your every movement as soon as you step out of your front door.
Because if you don't vote against it, that's the kind of state you will soon be living in. And once you've got that kind of state you won't ever be able to get out of it.
HJ
Edited by Honestjohn on 21/03/2009 at 10:55
|
|
I would think it possibe to modify the Elise to be capable of that speed. A common conversion on the Elise is to transplant the Honda K20 engine from the Civic Type R. This can produce 240BHP with just an exhaust and ECU remap, easily supercharged to produce 300BHP+. Combine that with the 6 speed Honda gearbox and a taller final drive and I would find that quite plausible. I had a mildly modified CRX and we calculated that had managed 153MPH at 8000RPM in 5th so I think very likely that an elise could do 180MPH+.
|
sq
But was that 153mph on tarmac or on a rolling road? Aerodynamics account for a lot of top speed, which is why I wonder if it is possible for a Lotus Elise to 'find' another near 50mph (which is a huge increase when you think about it) to add to it's existing figure.
The original Dodge Viper had a 'theroretical' top speed of 300 mph, based on its gearing (50 mph per 1000 revs in top gear, 6 speed box), but of course it would never get anywhere near that, I think the claimed figure was about 185mph.
Edited by Pugugly on 21/03/2009 at 10:09
|
|
|
|
Every voter now has to decide do you want to live in a fascist state that photographs your every movement as soon as you step out of your front door. Because if you don't vote against it that's the kind of state you will soon be living in. And once you've got that kind of state you won't ever be able to get out of it. HJ
Well said, people need to wake and realise that we are fast moving from the thin end of the wedge to the thick end...
|
|
|
"police had recorded bikers going at more than 200mph"
Without wishing to condone it, that does rather illustrate that speed on its own isn't necessarily fatal. Concentration does tend to rise in proportion, and unfortunately the reverse is also true.
|
"Concentration does tend to rise in proportion, and unfortunately the reverse is also true."
Why, where and how?
Yes, it does say that they recorded bikers at more than 200mph. It doesn't say that there were no fatalities or injuries amongst them.
|
"It doesn't say that there were no fatalities"
You don't think that would be headline news? As for concentrating, I do find I concentrate harder as the scenery accelerates - I'm a bit worried if you don't!
|
|
I like to think that my concentration is independant of speed. but related to the prevailing conditions and situations. My concentration is more focussed around schools, housing estates or anywhere where an increased risk such as loose livestock, wild animals, disabled people....infact I think my concentration is always "harder" when driving anywhere. Isn't yours?
|
"related to the prevailing conditions and situations"
I think that should include speed. Clearly, one concentrates more in built-up areas and where there are predictable hazards, but all I am suggesting is that travelling quicker requires more mental effort than tootling along in the slow lane.
|
|
|
|
|
Were we separated at birth HJ ?
Edited by Mr X on 21/03/2009 at 10:49
|
|
|
|
HJ, I didn't realise you were such a rabble rouser!
|
|
|
"Because if you don't vote against it, that's the kind of state you will soon be living in. And once you've got that kind of state you won't ever be able to get out of it."
Sorry Comrade, but I think there is a world of difference between a speed limit being lowered and a fall into fascism. Or is that how Hitler, Mussolini, Pot, Franco, Mao(quasi fascist), Batista and Co got started? And their fascist states don't seem to have lasted, why would ours be any different?
Which party do you advise voting for, I haven't seen any one that has promised to deregulate the current road laws?
"And that 50 limit will be heavily enforced."
Yes. Probably as well enforced as the current limit, as you may have noticed, you seldom see an HGV bowling along at 56 mph on single carriageway NSL roads >:{
Motor Connection: Mussolini was a car nut.
|
Motor Connection: Mussolini was a car nut.
What thread size, etc? The youngsters will need more information than you've given.
Edited by L'escargot on 21/03/2009 at 11:11
|
Every voter now has to decide do you want to live in a fascist state that photographs your every movement as soon as you step out of your front door. Because if you don't vote against it that's the kind of state you will soon be living in. And once you've got that kind of state you won't ever be able to get out of it.
Just who do you suggest we vote for, HJ, I can't see any current party that would change the status quo and if you think that I'd be daft enough to vote for Clarkson if he stood, you've got another think coming!
There has to be some sort of rule of law, and its not that motorists are "easy targets" its more that most of us choose to break the law, so inevitably it will look as though we are being picked on... Limits are a moot point, a blanket limit of 50 would plainly be stupid, but just where do you draw the line? As proved earlier on there are some people who are quite capable of driving at high speed safely, but there are clearly others that can't, how do you allow for all variations of skill level and also how do you restrain those who are convinced that their skill level is a lot higher than it actually is (probably a large percentage of us if we are totally honest with ourselves)?
I await your suggestions on what system you will put in place to ensure that we all have a safe road to drive on but can also drive to our safe limits, even though this will be different from individiual to individual...
And, Mr X, if you have the answer please let us know, the above request was not just aimed at HJ!
|
@B308:
>>how do you allow for all variations of skill level
Not possible - there is no common denominator low enough. Fortunately the vast majority of people never get near their limits, or find out quite quickly where they are.
>>and also how do you restrain those who are convinced that their skill level is a lot higher than it actually is (probably a large percentage of us if we are totally honest with ourselves)?
You can't, completely, and the cost of trying is far too high.
>>I await your suggestions on what system you will put in place to ensure that we all have a safe road to drive on but can also drive to our safe limits, even though this will be different from individiual to individual...
The premise of your question is at fault, this is not something that can realistically be achieved. Most people are not a problem. The best compromise is education in attitude, and skills training for the inexperienced.
As I remarked in the '50' thread, we have 'progressed' from having freedom, within limits that allowed some choice, to being controlled. It will only get worse, and even if it were possible to eradicate road deaths, the price is already too high.
Life has to be worth living to be worth saving, and most of us don't want to be relieved of the necessity to look after ourselves.
HJ is in no way overstating the catastrophe in my humble opinion.
|
Life has to be worth living to be worth saving and most of us don't want to be relieved of the necessity to look after ourselves. HJ is in no way overstating the catastrophe in my humble opinion.
If you look at the history of motoring we have always been heavily controlled and taxed, what we have now is nothing new... I was asking HJ (and MrX) what suitable alternatives they suggest, given the need for some amount of safety for us all and not just a free for all... The best compromise, whether we like it or not, is what we have now... the only thing that needs to be decided is what road markings and limits are put in place...
As for the "limits that allowed some choice" in past years - I'm sorry, but thats pink fluffy dice, the only choice we ever had was whether to break the law or not, and that is still the case...
I already know there are no satisfactory answers to my questions, what I was trying to do is get those who are most vocal about the situation to give us their answers that would solve the conundrum, as surely they must have a workable solution?!... but I'm pretty certain that they can't produce anything that is much different to what we have now... but I'd rather that they came and told me what their solutions were rather than someone else try and answer it for them... its easy to criticise, but much harder to produce a workable solution that will satisfy the majority...
Over to HJ and MrX... again.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 21/03/2009 at 19:29
|
If you look at the history of motoring we have always been heavily controlled .........
Before March 1935 there were no speed limits and no driving tests ~ we haven't always been heavily controlled.
|
Before March 1935 there were no speed limits and no driving tests ~ we haven't always been heavily controlled.
From the AA webiste:
"group of motoring enthusiasts met at the Trocadero restaurant in London's West End on 29 June to form the Automobile Association (the AA) ? a body initially intended to help motorists avoid police speed traps."
The year was 1905.
Nothing new...
|
From the AA webiste: "group of motoring enthusiasts met at the Trocadero restaurant in London's West End on 29 June to form the Automobile Association (the AA) ? a body initially intended to help motorists avoid police speed traps." The year was 1905.
Could you give us a link to that? I've looked on the AA webiste and couldn't find that particular bit of information.
|
Could you give us a link to that? I've looked on the AA webiste and couldn't find that particular bit of information.
Certainly:
www.theaa.com/aboutaa/history.html
|
|
>>As for the "limits that allowed some choice" in past years - I'm sorry, but thats pink fluffy dice, the only choice we ever had was whether to break the law or not, and that is still the case...
Sorry if I'm not on the invitation B308, but since you categorise my view as pink fluffy dice I will answer anyway.
It's not pink fluffy dice, because a sensible limit - let me spell it out - of say 60mph allows choice within that limit. The choice narrows as the limit reduces.
I consider a blanket 50 with average speed enforcement, which will result in the general flow being about 45 (indicated close to 50) to be a case of more control and less choice, of which this proposal is just one example.
Since you take my logic to task, I will say that I have noticed a pattern in yours - you often raise an irrefutable but irrelevant argument, as if the fact that it cannot be disputed proves something. It's called a straw man, and it doesn't.
Frankly you are just argumentative - why else would you say "I already know there are no satisfactory answers to my questions", while trying to insist that HJ and Mr X provide one?
pink fluffy dice indeed! Where are your manners? {very close to my delete key!}
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 21/03/2009 at 19:30
|
pink fluffy dice indeed! Where are your manners?
Appols for that, M, but your statement read to me as if we had a choice in the past, I thought that you were refering to the days past when, perhaps, authorities were more lenient towards us motorists... tbh its probably more the volume of traffic these days which control speed than the limits in many parts of the country... I wonder just how much difference a blanket 50 limit would make ... though as I've said, I don't agree with it.
As for an "irrelevant arguements"... I don't, I simply ask those who make very strongly worded statements like HJ and MrX do to tell us how they would do things better... so far they have not responded, and on more than one thread... its fine to have a general moan, I do that myself, but when it gets to the level some people take it to then I feel that its only fair to ask what their alternative is...
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 21/03/2009 at 19:30
|
B308. Truce!
Does leaving the NSL at 60 count as an alternative?
It's a crazy world, if when the Govt proposes a restriction of freedom, we are obliged to come up with an alternative way of being controlled, rather than just rejecting it ;-)
Edited by Manatee on 21/03/2009 at 17:50
|
B308. Truce! Does leaving the NSL at 60 count as an alternative?
:-)
It does seem like the current limit is the best we can hope for... though there are too many 50 limits sneaking in by the back door at the moment for my liking... many of them not required...
I freely admit I haven't got an answer either, though a blanket 50 limit I'm sure is not the way forward... but we as motorists should be discussing how we plan to stop it rather than infighting... but to do that we must have a plan of action...
Edited by b308 on 21/03/2009 at 19:59
|
|
|
|
davmal hasn't been listening.
The proposal is that the proposed 50mph speed limit be enforced by average speed cameras.
This in a country where there are already more surveillance cameras per head of population than any other country in the world.
The last thing we need are more restrictive laws that work only for the benefit of people who want to control us and who make the surveillance equipment.
Controlling people, fining people and developing means to accomplish this has been the biggest growth industry in the UK for the last 10 years and it's now the only growth industry.
HJ
Edited by Honestjohn on 21/03/2009 at 11:30
|
HJ
Cameras only record what is happening. They don't control us. Don't do anything worth censure and they will leave you alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what party do you suggest I vote for? HJ
Edited by spood on 21/03/2009 at 11:36
|
The Motorists Party.
You are one, aren't you?
There are more motorists than socialists, more motorists than conservatives, and a lot more motorists than liberal democrats.
Just don't ask me to lead the party because I'm too non-PC to be electable.
HJ
|
The Motorists Party.
You are one, aren't you?
HJ yes I am. But can you supply an answer less flippant. Seriously which mainstream party has the motorists interests at heart? Surely the journos at your paper would know which parties are lobbied more successfully by the Society of Motor Manufacturers or the AA or RAC.
Telling us to form our own party is just a brush off. Again, which party of the main three would deserve our vote?
As for a blanket 50mph. Lets not kid ourselves, majority would exceed this anyway to 60+.
Edited by spood on 21/03/2009 at 19:21
|
|
|
|
On the question of the reliability of the Police Pilot and the two day ban on its use in Scotland mlc wrote:
A decision very quickly reversed when the Scottish Chiefs realised how idiotic they'd been. >>
Not quite. They were advised by the Home Office that the devices were ok. Why don't I find that entirely reassuring? And they are still advising officers to be wary of using radios or mobile phones at the same time as using the devices - there seems to have been some concern about interference.
On the modification of the car, I read that the new owner in Germany wrote to the court to say that the car had not been modified. I take it that the CPS accepted that evidence as good.
The man drove too fast and got banned. Quite right. But I still think that the police should spend more time on serious crime and less on speeding offences.
|
What I am wondering is where did the 105mph figure come from?
173kph is more-or-less exactly 105mph.
Operator error?
|
What I am wondering is where did the 105mph figure come from?
It's what the motorist claimed was the lower limit of the range of his maximum speed. It came from the motorist himself.
|
It's what the motorist claimed was the lower limit of the range of his maximum speed. It came from the motorist himself.
Eh? What does that mean?
I find it strange that 173kph = 105mph.
Edited by madux on 21/03/2009 at 12:33
|
>> It's what the motorist claimed was the lower limit of the range of his maximum >> speed. It came from the motorist himself. >> Eh? What does that mean?
The motorist admitted to driving at speeds ranging from 105 mph up to another figure which I can't recall. 105 mph was the lower limit of the range of speeds to which he admitted.
|
|
|
|
midlifecrisis has been prominent in this thread. Understandably because his job is to enforce the law. It's also understandable that he should feel frustrated at people cocking a snook at police enforcement of the law. He may or may not be justified in this case, but the evidence against the greater charge of 173mph is actually in favour of the miscreant.
However, while it is midlifecrisis job to enforce the law, it is not his job to create the laws he enforces. That is the job of every single one of us. And if we feel laws may put in place unfairly against us then we must campaign to prevent that happening.
We won't though. We'll end up with a 50 mile an hour speed limit (heavily enforced), a completely stalled economy, a failed bail-out by the IMF. And, quite possibly, quite a lot of people either freezing to death or starving. Because we didn't stop it.
HJ
Edited by Honestjohn on 21/03/2009 at 12:18
|
The problem is most politcians aren't really interested in motoring. Transport Ministers never last very long in the brief and they just take onboard and embrace the continuing agenda of all the "Sir Humphreys". It's not as simple to remove the civil servants and that's where the probem really lies.
I can't think of any politician off the top of my head who may form part of the next government who has any interest in motoring and who would bring about change. David Davis is pushing the libertarian agenda of course but thats about it. Politicians are lazy and many will be happy to have the agenda to be set for them by civil servants so they can concentrate their energy on where their real interests lie.
|
The problem is most politcians aren't really interested in motoring.
They are when it involves the loss of several thousand of UK jobs.
|
|
|
... I can't think of any politician off the top of my head who may form part of the next government who has any interest in motoring and who would bring about change. ...>>
How about this:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1579236/Positive-p...l
18 Apr 2008
".... Speed cameras and "unnecessary" traffic lights would also be scrapped, under controversial proposals drawn up by Conservative Way Forward, a group chaired by Chris Chope, a former Tory transport minister.
The report ? "Stop the war against drivers" - also wants "obstructive traffic calming" scrapped, along with bus lanes that reduce road capacity.
It has also demanded the end of the 40 and 50 mph speed limits for lorries and the ending of urban cycle lanes.
The report was written by Malcolm Heymer, who was transportation manager at the London Borough of Havering until 2002.
It also calls for:
Raising the motorway speed limit to 80 mph
Greater use of part-time traffic lights
A major road-building programme
Fining highways authorities for keeping roads closed too long after an accident
Only prosecuting speeders who have been stopped after committing the offence. ..."
|
How about this: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1579236/Positive-p...l 18 Apr 2008
".... Speed cameras and "unnecessary" traffic lights would also be scrapped under controversial proposals drawn up by Conservative Way Forward a group chaired by Chris Chope a former Tory transport minister.
Chope is a well known Tory "free thinker". I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for his ramblings to become party policy
Edited by Bromptonaut on 23/03/2009 at 21:46
|
|
|
|
|
Question:
What makes anyone think that the government will stop at 50mph? There will, unfortunately, still be plenty of road deaths - which could definitely be further cut by reducing the speed limit across A/B roads to 40mph...or 30...
Is this not startlingly obvious?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voting for a party is useless - voting for an individual may me more helpful. The individual, even if you didn't vote for him, can be communicated with.
|
Well I am pretty sceptical about this whole issue regarding the 173mph. I live in Derbyshire and know the A515 quite well and I reckon that you would have to be pretty brave to even attempt that kind of speed on that particular road.
Even so I am not sure that this Lotus is even capable of the claimed speed. We know that the manufacturer has put the top speed down as being nearly 50mph less and it would take a lot of modification to give it another 50mph of umph. And in my experience, people with cars like that aren't interested in spending big money on making them go that much quicker - they are more likely to just swap it for something more powerful such as this guy and his Ferrari.
Think about 173mph though, you are talking proper supercar kinds of speeds here, not Lotus Elise speeds. Even Forumula 1 cars can only just about reach the magical 200mph figure. And as for the police forces claim of 'clocking' bikers doing over 200mph, then that is almost comical. Show me a road bike that will do 200mph in normal motoring conditions, where the rider can actually manage to hang on to the thing. That is unless Valentino Rossi and his MotoGP bike have been testing up and down the A515.
I feel fairly confident in saying that the police's figure of 173mph is unreliable and incorrect.
|
I would think that most of us should be able to differentiate visually with a car doing 105 MPH and 173MPH. Its difficult to verbalise the two without triggering the swear filter.
Police operated speed detection equipment corroborates a visual estimation.
Now if a Police Officer had a reading of 173MPH do you not think that the first question they asked themselves is "Is that really correct? (Or words to that effect) and then to issue a summons when the potential for a whole raft of questions to be asked and doubt to be cast requires someone to be fairly certain of their facts and is a brave step.
|
Clearly the old bill in this case, and those who contribute on here have failed to convince us he was doing 170mph plus, as well as the judge, and probaby not a jury either if it went there. And justice is administered on our behalf
Edited by Altea Ego on 21/03/2009 at 15:32
|
AE we don't have to convince you. Just giving a different bias to the story which is biased in the opposite direction. Then you can make your own deductions. The only way I could convince you is if I was there and put ALL the evidence infront of you as I would to a Magistrate. The burden of proof being beyond reasonable doubt.
Now some wise guy after the event pulls out a statement from Lotus saying the car is only capable of X MPH and I am unable to disprove that statement in this case then we already have reasonable doubt. Wether at the time I would have been aware of that limit and had a snoop round under the bonnet I don't know but why should I? I have just checked its speed at 173MPH which is an 'Absolute Offence'. Credit to the bloke if he can get away with the stunt he pulled.
Remember evidence has to be passed through the Criminal Protection Service and there aim is to get a high conviction rate at Court so cherish a bit of plea bargaining to ensure that happens - the easy option.
Now another side of the coin is that if they are prepared to accept that the vehicle is not capable of 173MPH then the Police evidence is seriously flawed. In which case the case should have been withdrawn. But they didn't, they chose to rely on an admission by the driver. Was that at the time or subsequently, we don't know. What was said at the time? Was the driver dealt with at the roadside, we don't know.
What we all know is that 173MPH is one heck of a speed!
{repeated text snipped at OP's request}
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 22/03/2009 at 03:07
|
>Wether at the time I would have been aware of that limit and had a snoop round >under the bonnet I don't know but why should I?
FC. tell me honestly if this had been you. You have just clocked a guy at the fastest speed you have ever seen on a british road in your entire career. 173mph? would you you say to yourself can this car go that fast? You know its a jailable offence, no question, no argument. Wouldnt you impound the car as evidence?
Ok you didnt. the case is screwed form that point on becuase no-one is gonna believe that car can go that fast. The police is actually lucky that the case stuck with what it had.
Edited by Webmaster on 22/03/2009 at 23:52
|
Honestly? I think I know my cars and have no idea what a Lotus will pull top speed in standard or tuned form. I do know that a 24V Senator will hit 150MPH, no problems. How? Because I have done it. 173MPH is not that far away is it? But if I have seen it with my own eyes and checked it with my calibrated equipment I would be happy. Seize the vehicle, everything checks out with the driver why should I? I might well be asking whats under the bonnet though as polite conversation.
All down to what the driver says at the time. If he informs me that, "Officer there is no way my car will do that speed, you must be mistaken." Then I will be looking a bit closer and asking a few more questions. If he says nowt and then 4 months down the line comes up with this defence then I've been ambushed. Remember the Caution "...If you do not mention now something you later rely on in court...." Unfortunately this does not always seem to apply.
|
>Remember the Caution >Unfortunately this does not always seem to apply
but this does not preclude or disqualify you from presenting evidence later in court proceedings. especialy of a tecnnical nature.
Edited by Altea Ego on 21/03/2009 at 21:24
|
All down to what the driver says at the time. If he informs me that "Officer there is no way my car will do that speed you must be mistaken." Then I will be looking a bit closer and asking a few more questions. If he says nowt and then 4 months down the line comes up with this defence then I've been ambushed. Remember the Caution "...If you do not mention now something you later rely on in court...." Unfortunately this does not always seem to apply.
If you were to stop me in my car and accuse me of doing 173 mph, my response would not be to say "my car's maximum speed is X" as I do not know what it might be.
|
|
|
|
|
