145mph..... is not dangerous
 

this maybe SIAH(!)


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/303005.stm



spread the word to every car/bike forum you know!

Sounds like he had my solicitor. :D

Right then....I'm off down the M4 in our NSX this weekend ;):D

Nice. a small bit of justice for a motorist.. I'm not saying he should get off with the speeding, but a lot of the time it isn't dangerous it just so happens its higher than the limit.

About bloody time, I've been banging on about this for years that the raw 'speed figure' has no relationship with dangerous driving. You could drive 400mph along a desert plane and its not dangerous driving or you could drive 20mph 1 foot from a truck beyond which you cannot see and that IS dangerous!

This morning I came to a straight section of dualled road which is about 1m long and with no access to or from it. There was not another car in sight so I punched it to 150mph as I fancied a high speed run. The conditions were clear, there was no other traffic, I wasn't endangering any other passengers, there was little/no chance of anything appearing on the road and my car is able to do that speed out of the box. Was it safe? Well no actually, but that is only because the brakes in the 406 cannot do a 150-0 stop without suffering serious loss of performance from about 70mph downwards so I'd be stuffed. However, if I'd done the exact same thing in my Impreza I'd have argued it was not dangerous driving until I was blue in the face as in the unlikely event I had to brake it could still shed 150mph quicker than the 't-shirt out the window to slow us down' braking ability of the cars that they figured braking distances with ;):p

lucky bugger :D

The story appeared "Wednesday, March 24, 1999 Published at 23:47 GMT " so it's not new news!

He may have escaped a ban for dangerous driving, but you can bet he lost his license for the speeding charge.

Not really, hes yet to get bummed for speeding lol

you know that they will hammer him for that :)

Not necessarily. I didn't.

Depends on the driver, conditions, car & road. I wouldn't accept that speed on it's own is a danger to other road users. Is is more inherently risky to the individual since any problems will be exaggerated by speed, but under the right conditions I can see his argument and why the jury agreed. He was right (and brave) to fight it in court. Well done for that.

I've been let off with two warnings at above 120, so even some traffic guys can see common sense. Mind you I did get a bo!!ocking and rightly so.

Kenny, I would say you're a danger in any vehicle at any speed ;):p

Stefan

The police car that was chasing him, with no lights and siren, was doing 140. Presumably the police officer didn't think his own speed constituted 'dangerous driving'.

Can't see the difference myself :rolleyes:

Incidentally, there is a 40mph limit dual carriageway near my house, where the police regularly set up speed traps. Yesterday, I got overtaken there by a police car, it was doing at least 60. Presumably the driver has since turned himself in ;)

But if they tried to do him for dangerous driving and failed, I think the chance they would have got him for speeding was around about 100%, don't you think?

By his own admission in court he was doing no less than 95mph and let's face it to outrun a police car he was doing well into 3 figures.

My record speaks for itself :p Hell, I don't even have the 'little car park bumps' :p

My dad was furious about this post, apparently he was behind the NSX driver , who wouldnt let him past. Bloomin lane hoggers :D

Errr, yes the speeding charge was never in question.

You originally said " you can bet he lost his license for the speeding". For that, and that alone, I said "not necessarily so".

I attended court for a similar speed and kept my license, that's why I said it.

How long ago was that Spoon? I was told by my solicitor that under current guidelines a ban is mandatory if you are caught doing 110mph+ on a 70mph road (i.e. >40mph over the speed limit). Between 30 & 40 mph over it's a discretionary ban. I don't understand how you could retain your license for doing a similar speed (130+ mph?) because so long as they have reliable evidence which cannot be contested then my understanding is the magistrate has no discretion, they must apply a ban.

If this is not so then I would appreciate it if you can tell me under what circumstances the magistrate can decide not to impose a ban. I'm sure many other motorists would like to know too (BIJ banned for 116mph)

BiJ,

i think that "over 100mph" was classified as "dangerous driving", rather than simply exceeding a given speed. As such, it allowed the use of a BAN as punishment.

As the chappie proved, in court, that he was not dangerous, then only punishments available for "speeding" applied - i.e. NOT a ban!!

Of course they have probably changed the law since then, along with treading on the cracks and wearing a loud shirt ;)

mb

Boomer, read the original story, link in 1st post. He was contesting the dangerous driving charge and got away with it. He was still due to face the speeding charge when the story was written. I don't know what the guidelines were in 1999, but my understand of the law as it currently stands (as told to me by my solicitor) is that >40mph over the law is a mandatory ban. If Spoon has got away without being banned under the current guidelines for doing 130+ mph I am very curious to know how he did it. Aren't you? Put us out of our misery Spoon, we want details.