What is the point of a 1 week driving ban?

[steveindenmark]

Elliot Spencer must have fallen for Stephens rugged good looks and charm then.

Nice to see they decided not to buy an Aston Martin after all.

 

[jefmcg]

but this is why he made an announcement about it yesterday. Obviously they decided Fry should appear in court, and they were heading off any salacious rumours that might ensue.

 

[Smurfy]

I was always told that being caught over 100mph is an automatic ban. However, as this was only 1mph over and appears from reports to have not been excessively dangerous I suppose they imposed the minimum ban they could.

What would you have like to have seen instead @YellowTim?

In my opinion, a ban of less than one month is pretty meaningless.

Whilst it isn't a point I've made, there is logic in the offence varying by vehicle. A car such as the one being driven will steer and stop a lot better at 100mph than, for example, my old Ford Ka, which might have just got to that speed on a long downhill with a tailwind. Ergo the former is safer at that speed than the latter. If the offence was created as a safety measure then it is logical that the amount of danger created matters. It is indeed for that reason that driving on a normal road at 30mph is legal, whereas driving on a normal road at any speed whilst inebriated is an offence.

Besides which we do already have 'variable tolerance' of speed - there are different limits for different types of vehicle.

In practice it would be impossible to codify 'danger' as such.

What you need to consider is that if this Aston Martin collides with a Ford Ka at that speed, the Aston Martin driver is much more likely to survive than the Ford driver. This is one of the reasons I hate Chelsea Tractors, Pick Ups and other very large 'cars' so much, they're so heavily built, the average road user will invariably come off much, much worse. Of course lorries are much heavier still, but they require a higher level of training, and do actually serve a useful purpose.

Aston Martin DB9 = 1785kg
http://www.astonmartin.com/en/cars/the-new-db9/db9-technical

Ford Ka = 871-935kg
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/ford/ka/hatchback-1996/dimensions/

 

[raleighnut]

OMG! raleighnut is an escaped petrol head from the 'Safe Speed' website!

Or possibly an alias for Jeremy Clarkson . . . .

No I've never had a road licence for a car (I did have a competition licence but allowed it to lapse) and my only form of transport since 1985 has been cycles. The last time I drove a car on the road was in 1989 when my partner injured her knee walking in the Lake District and I drove the car home using my Motorcycle licence as a provisional and with my name on the insurance (a quick phone call) and 'L' plates (it was a 2 year old Peugeot 205 1.9 GTI)
I was always far too 'lairy' to drive on the roads despite qualifying as a car mechanic ( The bosses son and I used to compete in 'Rallycross' of a Sunday)

 

[jefmcg]

I thought the difference was about weight. A HGV would do a lot more damage in a collision than a sedan, thus it travels more slowly.

A Ka weighs about 1/2 of a DB9, so obviously the Ka should be able to legally go twice as fast (physics and engine sizes not with standing)

In my opinion, a ban of less than one month is pretty meaningless.


What you need to consider is that if this Aston Martin collides with a Ford Ka at that speed, the Aston Martin driver is much more likely to survive than the Ford driver. This is one of the reasons I hate Chelsea Tractors, Pick Ups and other very large 'cars' so much, they're so heavily built, the average road user will invariably come off much, much worse. Of course lorries are much heavier still, but they require a higher level of training, and do actually serve a useful purpose.

Aston Martin DB9 = 1785kg
http://www.astonmartin.com/en/cars/the-new-db9/db9-technical

Ford Ka = 871-935kg
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/ford/ka/hatchback-1996/dimensions/

And that's a TMN to me!

 

[glenn forger]

Just a point - a 1 [one] week ban is 1 [one] week longer that any cyclist would receive however and wherever he rode, no matter how fast and as there is no compulsory third party insurance that doesn't apply either.. [And please no 'Oh a bicycle wouldn't do as much damage as a car' we are talking principles here].

That's because cyclists have a right to the road, motorists are only allowed onto roads under strict conditions. Your argument for insurance for cyclists would be bolstered were you to post a verifiable example of a cyclist causing an unrecoverable loss, ever. got one? If it's such a big problem I guess you just have loads of examples.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Not so. Motorways speed limits were imposed before that.

I believe (enough not to bother googling to check, but not enough to bet money on it) that the speed limits came in to stop people/factories using motorways to speed test high performance cars, I have a much vaguer notion that either the Ford GT40, or TVR in general were the reason although it could equally have been Jaguar.

 

[StuartG]

I was intrigued by the statement that 'no other road users were inconvenienced'. Which is kinda interesting because in order to make up significant time the pair must have been driving at speed for a considerable time on a busy road passing many other road users with a considerable speed difference. Oh - and not being observant enough to spot a camera - or the speedo (aka unfamiliarity with this vehicle). So why would they have spotted me, perhaps a less excellent but considerately more experienced driver than Mr Spencer and I could well have misjudged that the vehicle coming up behind was closing so fast and with less time to spot/correct. I may because of this have done something tragic that may have been curtains for us all? Would I take the rap?

Otherwise their speed would have inhibited me from making a perfect legal and sensible manouvre to overtake a slower vehicle and make best use of all the lanes instead it being reserved for hoodlums.

BTW the limit introduced during the oil crisis was either 50 or 55mph from memory. Perhaps that could now be used to justify a 100 mph limit during this surplus

 

[w00hoo_kent]

There's a lot of supposition there.
Looking at it the other way, they might have only sped up when the road was empty and backed off again when cars came in to sight. It's surprisingly easy to go very quickly when in charge of a vehicle that is designed to go very quickly without realising how fast you happen to be going. I'd imagine 101mph in an Aston ridiculously easy to reach and like it or not equally easy to control the car at and slow back down from. Not condoning it, but not surprised by it and it doesn't necessarily follow that it was truly dangerous. Equally not surprised that he missed a speed camera. I'd imagine with Stephen Fry flapping away in the passenger seat about being late you might not be thinking of checking the road furniture as well as the road.
I did like the naivety that Fry thought he could just say 'it was really my fault' and get things changed because of it.

 

[Smurfy]

It's surprisingly easy to go very quickly when in charge of a vehicle that is designed to go very quickly without realising how fast you happen to be going.

I used to know someone who had one of these.
http://www.jaguar.co.uk/jaguar-range/xj/xj-models/xjr_swb.html
It's true that you hardly notice 100mph in such a well built, massively overpowered and sound proofed car.

 

[StuartG]

It's true that you hardly notice 100mph in such a well built, massively overpowered and sound proofed car.

I see, so what does the speedo indicate when you are doing 100mph? Or is it flipped out of sight?
Do 747 captains have the same problem in an even more stressful situation?

Should people be licensed to drive vehicles they can't control properly?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

A car such as the one being driven will steer and stop a lot better at 100mph than, for example, my old Ford Ka, ...

The car will only handle or respond according to the input from the driver. Is his skill to be assumed on the basis of the car he's driving?

GC

 

[oldfatfool]

Always makes me laugh that I can take any old banger to Germany and drive down the autobahn (a dual carriageway in most instances) at any old speed I like, yet in good old blighty on a three lane m'way the world ends at anything approaching 3 figures. Speed is not dangerous, inappropriate speeding is.

 

[KneesUp]

The car will only handle or respond according to the input from the driver. Is his skill to be assumed on the basis of the car he's driving?

GC

No - his skill is not a function of the car, obviously. Otherwise you could put anyone in a racing car and they would win.

Assume that the chance of an accident is a function of the capabilities of the car and of the driver (as well as other factors)

It follows that the same driver in a car that stops faster and responds to steering input more progressively will be more in control. Of all the cars I've owned I know that in an emergency situation I'd rather be in my (long gone) Alfa Romeo as it had the best brakes and the most precise steering of any car I've had - and I'd least like to be in my Viva, which was like driving a sofa.

 

[green1]

I believe (enough not to bother googling to check, but not enough to bet money on it) that the speed limits came in to stop people/factories using motorways to speed test high performance cars, I have a much vaguer notion that either the Ford GT40, or TVR in general were the reason although it could equally have been Jaguar.

They were all doing it but I think it was AC doing pre Le Mans testing of the Cobra on the M1 was the straw that broke the camels back. He didn't have a speedo but they worked out he was doing 185mph.