steveindenmark
Legendary Member
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.
Nice to see they decided not to buy an Aston Martin after all.
In my opinion, a ban of less than one month is pretty meaningless.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?
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.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.
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)OMG! raleighnut is an escaped petrol head from the 'Safe Speed' website!
Or possibly an alias for Jeremy Clarkson . . . .
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/
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].
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.Not so. Motorways speed limits were imposed before that.
I used to know someone who had one of these.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 see, so what does the speedo indicate when you are doing 100mph? Or is it flipped out of sight?It's true that you hardly notice 100mph in such a well built, massively overpowered and sound proofed car.
A car such as the one being driven will steer and stop a lot better at 100mph than, for example, my old Ford Ka, ...
No - his skill is not a function of the car, obviously. Otherwise you could put anyone in a racing car and they would win.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
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.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.