Trouble is people will accept it as fact, without questioning it...
WUN UNDRED AN FIFTEE
[Edited on 6-5-04 by mangogrooveworkshop]
Driving a car at that speed carries the same danger as discharging a shotgun in a crowded street
Isobel Brydie, SCID
words of a woman possesed
[Edited on 6-5-04 by mangogrooveworkshop]
While I do not condone that level of speeding, you got to ask where the hell does she come up will such an utterly ridiculous comment......
Trouble is people will accept it as fact, without questioning it...
at the bottom it says one man got 5 months for doing 156mph!!! WTF
i've been close to that, its not as dangerous as they make out if traffic
conditions allow...
plus i sometimes use the phone at speed, but in my books some people just cant concentrate on two things at once, some can.
admittedly i once missed a red light whilst typing a text, but that does take concentration. lesson learned i guess...
loony.....
David 
I think it was the boys coming back from Crail raceway
Don't these so called officials talk a load of b*llocks - 150 in the right location is not dangerous.
I accept I don't know all the facts, but on the basis that 10% of the drivers caught were doing over 100mph I would suggest the road was
reasonably quiet.
In the right car, on the right road, I would happily do 150 except for the risk to my licence and personal freedom. Of course, there are parts of the
EU where it is perfectly acceptable (shame we only get the bad bits). It certainly is not the same as discharging a shotgun in the high street, except
if the high street is empty and the gun is aimed away from any buildings.
I wish I could get some proof of my life being saved by driving very fast so I could get the publicity given to the do-gooders who claim to have
suffered because of speed. Can anyone help with an incident. Then all I have to do is get a crappy acronym like SCID and BRAKE have.
I don't think using a phone at 150 is a good idea however....
I remember there was a case of a bloke getting clocked at 170mph or close in his NSX, he got let off the dangerous driving charge as he was under
complete control of the car. It might not work for everyone though as he may have been a proffesional racing driver or something to be able to prove
that in court.
On a phone at 150 is pretty wreckless it would be very hard to swerve or control a slide with one hand at that speed!
I think you would kill less people if you drove down the highstreet at 150mph than if you discharged a shotgun in a street.
If I was the guy I would tell the judge I was phoning emergency and saying "help! my accelerator cable is locked!"
Hehe, loony, well he was taking the wee but the shotgun statement is barmy.
I heard about the NSX guy, he still got done harshly for speeding I believe
I makes me wonder really about these magazines (esp Evo) where they admit to doing silly speeds approaching 200mph on public roads, I wonder if the
police can use that as evidence... If I was north wales police I'd know exactly where to be to bag me some juicy motoring journalists, just
follow the smell of burning brake pads.
150mph is not uncommon on germany's autobahns as I understand it. If it's so dangerous why isn't there carnage every day on
germany's roads?
I have done 138 mph on roads.
However, its been when there was a clear road.
It takes gazillions of feet to stop at those speeds. Anyone driving at that speed past other traffic is a knobhead who deserves a week or so in jail
if there were other cars around.
Try braking from just 100mph and see how many 100 yards it takes you to stop.
German roads have people driving on them that know the outside lane has people going past at ballistic speeds. In this country you dont expect it.
Someone driving at 60 mph on our motorways would look in a mirror, and not expect to have to look back several 100 yards cos someone was approaching
them at NINETY MILES AN HOUR. You would have to lose NINETY MILES AN HOUR in perhaps a hundred yards or so, and it cant be done. Genrman drivers know
to expect 4 wheeled excercet missiles in the outside lane - we dont.
I nearly slammed someone in the rear as they pulled out from a crossing in the middle of a central reservation. It was summer, and the long grass was
hiding them and they couldnt see me, and I couldnt see the gap in the reservation. End result was I was doing 100, they were doing 30, and I had 50
yards or so. NO amount of brake pressure could stop me in time, and the inside lane at my point was occupied. The accident was prevented by them
seeing me and getting the f%^k out of the way in time. This was 'only' at 100 - 150 mph would have seen 2 dead people minimum.
If the person was caught using a MOBILE as WELL in the outside lane, at 150, on a busy road, its a no brainer that he should be jailed.
The following table shows road deaths in france and germany (with similar populations to ourselves) at more than double our rate....
Austria 1079 +12%
Belgium 1397 -6.9%
Finland 431 +7.8%
France 8029 -4.8%
Germany 7749 -0.6%
Greece 2058 -7.5%
Ireland 413 -9.8%
Luxembourg 51 -10.5%
Netherlands 1090 +2.3%
Norway 304 -13.6%
Portugal 1737 -6.9%
Spain 5268 -11.6%
Sweden 551 +3.8%
Switzerland 583 -2.3%
Turkey 5723 -5.9%
United Kingdom 3564 -0.5%
[Edited on 7/5/04 by stephen_gusterson]
What a ridiculous article!
So that'd be shotgun firing blanks then!
Had my first ever ride on a motorbike the other day. Mate took me out on the back of his 1100 Blackbird. I thought it was good fun- though I prefer a
nice BEC round Donnington! We managed 155mph very nicely round some nice country roads.
He'd hit 170mph half hour earlier with my girlfriend on the back! We all got back in one piece!
James
quote:
Originally posted by James
He'd hit 170mph half hour earlier with my girlfriend on the back!
James
Both myself and my girlfriend have driven at 130mph on clear roads, very safely. I'll admit the braking distances are horrific as is using a
mobile phone at those sorts of speeds.
Another point i'd make (and then run for cover) is that gemany and france are over twice the size of the uk so even if the populations are
similar they have more roadfs to have accidents on!
Ned.
Got this picture too.
Rescued attachment bareassbiker.jpg
I've done 140mph before but that was on a deserted M10 at night in a car with good brakes and paying rather keen attention to the road ahead!
I'm guilty of showing off on the A47 doing 135 past cars doing 65 though, I was not pleased with myself!
I'd be interested to see what the stopping distances from silly speeds are for serious machinery (new breed hot hatches, boxter/s2000-esque
things and full on 911-360-Enzo type cars. I know most good cars can pull up from 70mph in under 60m but I'd imagine it's not at all a
linear scale up to double that.
It's the speed differential that's key as you say.
[Edited on 7/5/04 by mackie]
[Edited on 7/5/04 by mackie]
Double your speed and it takes four times longer to stop...simple K.E = 0.5mv^2
Of course you have your rection time to add to that as well....usually however far you travel in 0.1 - 0.2 seconds.....
David
Thats strange logic ned!
Are you saying that given the same number of drivers and cars, but 4x the roads, that the accident rate would go up proportionally - ie 4 times
I would think it relates to miles travelled per driver, but wether more roads = more travel is something perhaps only transport 2000 might suggest!
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by ned
Both myself and my girlfriend have driven at 130mph on clear roads, very safely. I'll admit the braking distances are horrific as is using a mobile phone at those sorts of speeds.
Another point i'd make (and then run for cover) is that gemany and france are over twice the size of the uk so even if the populations are similar they have more roadfs to have accidents on!
Ned.
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
Got this picture too.
Surely with 4 times the amount of roads they would be more spread out and less likely to hit each other???
quote:
Originally posted by greggors84
Surely with 4 times the amount of roads they would be more spread out and less likely to hit each other???
As a frequent overseas visitor I'm surprised the UK speed limit is not reduced.
Compared to many European countries; and anyone driving within the EU could vouch for this; we are terrible drivers - (we drive on the wrong side of
the road too!). Oversea's drivers use motorways more or less correctly - not the stereotypical white van driver lane hoggers. The point in
question is more reason for the authorities NOT to raise speed limits IMHO.
Despite figures stating the contarary Mr G, I simply think we are better at avoiding accidents, that's why our figures are lower.
Controversial as it may be!
well,
the french may have better lane control on the autoroutes, but driving all those old hydro-pneumatic suspensioned citroens they're bound to
either fall asleep or chuck up evry now and again.
Ned.
Lane control!! From my experience there's not a lot of it in Germany and none in Holland.
americans have no lane control at all on major highways. You can overtake either side and the traffic is basically 'plug flow'
I think that the reason we have lower accident rates is due in part to better road layouts and markings. Anyone thats driven in greek or spanish
islands will notice the lack of road markings.
In corfu, no overtaking lines mean nothing. some roads have em continually for miles - so people just overtake into oncoming traffic anyway.
In america six months ago I nearly had a horrendous accident when I ran a 4 way stop sign. I just forgot to look for the signs - in the UK we are
attuned to stopping where you see road markings - you dont get those markings in America.
Slightly off the topic, but insurance companies recon that there is an insurance claim every 19,300 driven miles, but drivers who do high mileages,
have no more accidents than those doing lower mileages.
Which brings me to restricted mileage policies, I asked the stats office of NU, they said that it was probably due to policyholder stereotyping, and
predictions of the type of driver that builds a car, perhaps that is why the premiums are so reasonable?
I've said it before, so I'll say it again.
It's not the speed, it's hitting things that's the problem.
I would like to see a 20mph ZONE on my estate. I'd also like to see certain stretches of motorway deristricted.
I can take a pushbike/horse and cart/dog for a walk etc on a dual carriageway (which have roundabouts/T-junctions etc etc), yet I can go exactly the
same speed on a motorway where you'll get nicked for taking a dump beside the road, no matter how desperate!
I once needed to do 110 miles in a hour. I did it with ten minutes to spare And no, I'm not saying where or when!!
ATB
Simon
I went straight through a red light on my bike. There was nothing else coming but the light was a suspended one and I hadn't seen one before. I
just didn't look up. I don't think at 150mph your reaction time is quick enough to react to a changing situation. O.k. if there's only
you on the road but if you have an accident it's going to take someone else out as well. Unfair on others. I'd like to see everyone stick to
the limit for a week and see how the police handle the loss of revenue from cameras. Get them off their arses and out to work again.
[Edited on 7/5/04 by Peteff]
I like to think I practice safe fast road driving, although I would like to go on a proper fast road course (expensive though!)
Main thing is just not to leave anything to chance and drive only at a speed at which you can stop in the distance you can see and that is appropriate
to the conditions.
I'm off out in a bit for a blast down the B660 and I expect I won't need to speed to have fun
This wasn't the guy caught doing 150 on the the A9 (a lethal busy main route) while using a hand held mobile phone ?
Nutter of the first order
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
I would like to see a 20mph ZONE on my estate.
I go to spain every summer to windsurf, and after going there for 18 years we have met alot of french and spanish friends. The french bloke who taught me to windsurf all those years ago, drives down to spain so he normally drives when we go to a different windsurfing location or the local surf shop. I was shocked the first time i went in the car with him, he was a crazy driver by our standards and for a middle aged espace driving family man. I asked him about they way he drives mainly because he was quite open about his mad over taking manouvers and he said in france most people drive like that and u have to get anywhere. He has been over to the UK numerous times and reckoned that our driving standards are much higher, he thinks speed cameras have something to do with it, and because of this they are becoming more popular in france, he blames this on us!
the nuttyest driver I have been in a car with in the last few years is a relation by marriage.
He is a squadron leader in the RAF who teaches flying of C130 herculese!
atb
steve
I once got a lift with a Mothers Pride bread van driver. He was radio rental, never again. He was sliding a 3.5 ton Leyland luton sideways like a
rally driver but on dry roads.
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
I once got a lift with a Mothers Pride bread van driver. He was radio rental, never again. He was sliding a 3.5 ton Leyland luton sideways like a rally driver but on dry roads
Bread, roll, it just gets better Steve , or is it butter.
Driving at 150 mph on a public road,motorway or whatever you call it, when there is a chance,even the slightest,of hurting other people is a crime!
To those who are so full of German "autobhan freiheit" remember that when you cause an accident at speeds above the recommended speed,you
loose ALL rights instantly(no insurence!) and if you still live,YOU are gonna be the bummer who has to pay, if there is such thing as "paying for
a human live".
NOBODY can predict what somebody else is going to do so passing another driver at 150 mph is playing with the live of the driver you are passing.
All the speed freaks should take a simple test.Get yourself in a "ready for the scrapyard car" and drive this car at 20 mph into a concrete
wall,a ridicilous speed in a car?
You might be surprised to see the amount of SH#t your body contains if you have the guts to keep your feet on the accelerator and off the brake.
There are lots of chances to go to circuits and drive as fast as you dare.
There's a big difference between fun and adrenaline.
In the UK you are still insured, regardless of any traffic laws you break that lead to an accident.
anything else would be stupid!
we also have unlimited liability - so you could drink drive, crash a petrol tanker into a public building, and kill 100 people and trash a 20m pound
building. Your insurance would have to pay every penny.
In the USA they dont have unlimited insurance - some states have ins as low as 50k min cover. When you hire a car, you can extend the value to 1m
dollars if you pay an extra fee. Just about cover you hitting a ferrari.
atb
steve
What do you mean by "everything else would be stupid"?
Embrace your UK insurence with both arms Stephen as long as it lasts!
Sure in our country the insurence pays the victim but they have legal rights to recover the money from the one who caused the accident under certain
circumstances.Driving under influence or unacceptable speed like 150 mph are legal grounds to recover the money.
And so it should be!
Dont get me wrong here,i dont claim that i'm driving by the road code all the time or keep the speed limit as the bibles word but it's not a
black and white world.
Insurence is there to cover accidents within the traffic code and it's no different than in daily live.
Those who take to much advantage of the weak points in a system usually make everybody else pay for it and cause the system to be narrowed and worse
to live with.
im reasonably sure that insurance companies could sue for the money back, but I have never heard of such a situation.
Even if there was, there is a get out.
If a huge claim is made against you, you declare bankrupcy. You will lose your posessions, but assuming my 1m claim example, they wouldnt get the
money back in full from mr average.
In the UK, even if you have NO INSURANCE the UK insurance industry must pay in part the damages caused to a 3rd party, even tho you were not insured
at all.
The law is basically trying to protect others. So in the uk, being totally un-insured cos you were speeding, wouldnt happen, as it would affect the
rights of the person you had the accident against.
Thats why anything else wouldnt make sense....
atb
steve
some change to the bankrupcy law recently, or maybe a proposed change, reducing the time to 12 months before you can unregister as bankrupt. thats the gist of it anyway. makes it too easy a way out in my books.
Stephen, you seem quite knowledgable about this insurance lark.
Blueshift got hit by a driver being persued by the police and caused minor damage to the rear bumper and a light cluster.
They didn't catch him so there's noone to sue, is there anything he can do?
Im by no means an expert - its just what I have heard (and unhappily thro accidents!) learnt.
The association of british insurers (i think) run an uninsured losses scheme, where an uninsured driver causing harm to others has to be paid for by
the insurers. I think it must be part of the deal that basically allows the law to make em a fortune cos insurance is compulsory. What a way to get
business - you MUST by law have a product.....
However, as you dont have a driver at all, I dunno how that works out.
thats the beauty of comprehensive insurance - you can get it repaired one way or tother!
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by mackie
Stephen, you seem quite knowledgable about this insurance lark.
Blueshift got hit by a driver being persued by the police and caused minor damage to the rear bumper and a light cluster.
They didn't catch him so there's noone to sue, is there anything he can do?
Steve,i dont think it matters for the victim who's gonna pay him/her,and the victim certainly wont bother if the insurence company will try to
recover the money from the irisponsible driver.
No matter how you look at it,in the end the insurence company is there in the first place to make money so that 1 m has to be recovered by the
company,one way or another.
It maby would be interesting to find out how much Lloyds would charge for a car insurence with a driver who's doing 150 mph on public roads or
driving under influence.
For the rest....i'm not to keen on insurence company's except.... when i need them
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
This wasn't the guy caught doing 150 on the the A9 (a lethal busy main route) while using a hand held mobile phone ?
Nutter of the first order
how would you like foreigners to look
atb
steve
If you are deemed to be speed testing or racing another vehicle your insurance will be invalid. It happened to 2 lads who worked for a friend. They were on a dual carriageway coming back from a job in 2 vans and were charged with these offences and fined heavily for the insurance breach.
agreed
thats specifically mentioned on all policies I have ever had........
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
If you are deemed to be speed testing or racing another vehicle your insurance will be invalid. It happened to 2 lads who worked for a friend. They were on a dual carriageway coming back from a job in 2 vans and were charged with these offences and fined heavily for the insurance breach.
If you are hit by an uninsured driver you can claim for all of any injuries and any damage over £400 from the motor insurance bureau so the tip would
be to get whiplash to cover the access damage. This fund was set up by all the underwriters and is another excuse as to why are premiums are so
high.
Basically the only winners are the scumbags who drive pissed and uninsured.
car insurance companies run at a loss apparently, proped up by other insurance lines. that was on telly recently, apparently a 20% annual loss. in other words, they pay out 120% of what they take as premiums.
Yeah,right. No business in its right mind subsidises a loss for more than 3 or 4 years. It would be financial suicide. They would drop the motoring section like a hot coal if on a loser. Don't believe everything you read. 98% of all facts are made up to substantiate an argument, including this one.
quote:
Overall this will be another inflationary factor on private motor insurance rates at a time when the industry is still coming to terms with the most recent statistics on uninsured drivers and personal injury claims. The ABI estimate that the private motor insurance industry in the UK is currently running at a loss ratio of 160%, that is, £1.60 paid in claim for every £1.00 received in premium. Rates will continue to rise and you should concentrate on obtaining every possible discount to keep your own policy realistic. We would advise you to consider the following
It doesn't mention other insurance propping up motor insurance in that article and it doesn't say how long it has been running at a loss. It could be for the last two weeks. If they are paying out 60% more than they are taking in be sure that next time you insure it will cost you 60% more than you are paying now. They have a captive market and they know it.
I have to agree with Peteff,it's hard to believe that any company would go on doing buisiness when they loose money.
If i must believe our bank press reports than there is'nt hardly any bank that makes money!They all loose money.
At least SOMEBODY must get money.
On the other hand...a 20% drop compared to your previous profit can also be considered as a loss.
Ask yourself how long your boss will keep you when you are the guy who's costing the firm more than you earn for him.I guess this can be counted
in hours instead of months
Major cause of expensive insurance claims is car theft, in the old days if a car was stolen you might get it back some times even undamaged, these
days it will be either burnt out the "joy-riders" usually having caused loss and damage to other vehicles property or people along the way
or will have been sold to the ringers.
[Edited on 14/5/04 by britishtrident]
well, of course they dont intentionally run at a loss. If they were(running at a loss), they would be constantly putting premiums up, to try and stay
in front of the dreaded payouts. Oh yes, they are arent they...
[Edited on 14/5/04 by JoelP]
i have another theory why insurance is so expensive - perhaps mark allanson might wanna stick his neck out on this...........
its stuff getting repaired that didnt need to be.
When I whaked my mazda gainst a kerb and needed new front suspension bits and a new alloy , they replaced stuff that had been normal wear and tear -
like the 400 quid each alloy on the back, that had slight scuffing from kerbs.
I told the insurance co, and they didnt care a crap.
Then there is stuff like the windscreen for my wifes new megane..... 895 friggin quid....just for a bit of glass!!!!
atb
stev
probably true steve, i think it is this combined with the constant increase in claims/compensation which is resulting in spiraling payouts, and the
rising premiums simply not going up fast enough to keep pace. Hence the alleged 160% difference. Undoubtedly they will keep raising premiums until
they feel they have got a suitable future-proof profit margin.
Why do people find it so hard to believe that it is possible for rising costs to spiral above revenue?
I had a new windscreen a few years back and when I asked the receptionist how much she asked me if it was an insurance job. It wasn't and I was quoted £67. The price through insurance was £130ish. I paid the £67 to save a £50 excess and loss of no claims. I now pay to maintain my no claims so it would save me £17 on that and cost them £80 to have it done at the full price and if it costs me £30 a year to cover the no claims it will take them 3 years to recoup that money. About 4 years ago I had my car stolen and it wasn't recovered. It was only a cheap Clio but we loved it. The insurance paid me £1400 for it and I was happy with that but it was my first claim in 17 years. They make money on me so who are they losing on?
It will take my wifes insureres 3 years to get the screen money back. and it doesnt even affect her no claims.
insurance companies have shareholders. They are also backed by lloyds, which itself is backed by individuals that take on unlimited liability for a
share of any profits.
if the ins co were losing, their shares would be shyte, and the lloyds names would all get out of the market.
ins co invest their income on the stock market, bonds, etc, or lend it out ie banks. that way your premium works for them. dont think they lose 60% or
make it either in speculation
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
and the lloyds names would all get out of the market.
steve