[Closed] pitch forks at the ready not clarkson this time.

Well that's bloody stupid.
If he want to kill himself at that speed fine but what about whoever he hits?

I'll start the petition.

He's not even a real Martin.

Makes him even more suitable for hosting TG 🙂

#buthesarealGuy

Take it he wasn't on the Isle of Man then.

If he want to kill himself at that speed fine but what about whoever he hits?

I'm sure they'll be happy, as I am yet to meet anyone who doesn't warm to Guy's cheeky charms.

Although, I'm not sure how happy Guy will be after all that probing....

[img] [/img]

Take it he wasn't on the Isle of Man then.

Yes he was. In a 40 mph area according to the link.

Whoops.......

Haven't we all done that?*

Not me obviously m'lud.

Haven't we all done that?*

In a 40? No.

Haven't we all done that?*

Only coming down Winnats Pass on me fat bike, proper fast.

Ok he's been a plank. Hardly compares to being a collosal bell end with tongue cancer for years.

In my book 180mph in a 40 zone is worse than a girly fight in a bar.

I'd rather be slapped in the face than struck by a car travelling at 180mph.

Haven't we all done that?

One erstwhile (And sadly missed) member of this parish used to boast about riding a motorbike at "speeds which would make your eyes bleed". Couple that with all the probing, and it really doesn't sound all that pleasant.

What car was he in, that's an impressive speed.

Ok he's been a plank. Hardly compares to being a collosal bell end with tongue cancer for years.

Fancy a tankslapper?

So how long a ban should 180mph in a 40 zone carry?

What car was he in, that's an impressive speed.

If only there was a link to a story about this event. Which maybe had a bit more detail.

Ah well.

I'm going to guess it was this:

[img] [/img]

Yeah sorry, oblique reference to Clarkson, perhaps I'll spell it out next time.

What? Is that a joke?

[img] [/img]

or something.

So how long a ban should 180mph in a 40 zone carry?

Doesn't he already have something like 21 points on his licence? I might well be remembering wrong, but I'm sure he was talking about it.

Look on the bright side, if he was doing 180 in a 40, it would only be for a couple of seconds at that speed.

Look on the bright side, if he was doing 180 in a 40, it would only be for a couple of seconds at that speed.

Agreed. Wasn't even worth slowing down.

Well, you wouldn't catch Sue Perkins doing that would you!

Ok he's been a plank. Hardly compares to being a collosal bell end with tongue cancer for years.

What? Is that a joke?

Well I laffed.

Ok he's been a plank. Hardly compares to being a collosal bell end with tongue cancer for years.

You Sir, stay off the forum.

So how long a ban should 180mph in a 40 zone carry?

Life.

So how long a ban should 180mph in a 40 zone carry?
Life.

Yup, no question.

Thing is, there are 40mph zones and 40 mph zones. I can think of several stretches of dual carriageway in the uk, where a fast car or bike could relatively safely hit 180mph, yet they are 40mph zones.......

Thing is, there are 40mph zones and 40 mph zones. I can think of several stretches of dual carriageway in the uk, where a fast car or bike could relatively safely hit 180mph, yet they are 40mph zones.......

But they're not 180mph zones they're 40.

there are 40mph zones and 40 mph zones.

I'm pretty sure the speed limit is the same in both. Invariably, for good reason as well.

Should maybe put little signs after the speed limit signs, like 'no, really a 40' or 'just a little bit 40'

I can think of several stretches of dual carriageway in the uk, where a fast car or bike could relatively safely hit 180mph, yet they are 40mph zones.......

Do you honestly think the local authority just restricted the speed on them for a laugh?

Or do you think they looked at things like junctions, sight lines, road surface, prior accidents, crash protection, camber, drainage, likelihood of wild animals, etc etc?

Graham, it's OK in this case, as it's Guy. You know? Chief, boss. Proper brew.

Makes it totally OK to be a bell end.

Apparently.

Actually, there are a surprisingly high number of speed limits due to noise!
I can't think of any which would be 180mph if there were no nearby residences though. Maybe 60mph, but not 180mph.

CaptainFlashheart Invariably, for good reason as well.

Sorry, but they are often 40mph for very poor reasons!

Take my local towns bypass, which is a dual carriageway with Central reservation crash barriers (ie proper motorway spec) and has been 70mph for the last 17 years i have lived here.
Last year, a woman attempted to run across the road (rather than walk 200m up the road to the pedestrian foot bridge provided). She was hit by an HGV and killed.
As a result this stretch of road is now 40mph. (a speed incidentally, at which you will still be killed completely to death when hit by an HGV.....)

As a result this stretch of road is now 40mph. (a speed incidentally, at which you will still be killed completely to death when hit by an HGV.....)

Clutching at straws there.

maxtorque - Member

Take my local towns bypass, which is a dual carriageway with Central reservation crash barriers (ie proper motorway spec) and has been 70mph for the last 17 years i have lived here.
Last year, a woman attempted to run across the road (rather than walk 200m up the road to the pedestrian foot bridge provided). She was hit by an HGV and killed.
As a result this stretch of road is now 40mph. (a speed incidentally, at which you will still be killed completely to death when hit by an HGV.....)

Sorry but you feel aggrieved because it takes you now 1 minute more to get to the other end of the dual carriageway where you live rather than last year...

#selfcenterednimby

She was hit by an HGV and killed.
As a result this stretch of road is now 40mph. (a speed incidentally, at which you will still be killed completely to death when hit by an HGV.....)

I'm struggling to see how being struck at 180mph would be an improvement.

Or is this not one of those roads?

Drac
As a result this stretch of road is now 40mph. (a speed incidentally, at which you will still be killed completely to death when hit by an HGV.....)
Clutching at straws there.

So you think 40mph is a suitable speed for a dual carriageway? By this logic, why don't we make all speed "limits" zero mph? That way any pedestrians will be completely safe at all times.

And that's my point, speed limits are arbitrary limits based mostly on politics and very little else. I could drive round my local area with a camera a photograph probably 100 roads where the speed limit is in fact inappropriate, both too low and too high. This is why it's best to drive to the conditions and not to an arbitrary number written on a sign. (If you do this, there will be times when you don't get near the "Limit" and times when you will exceed it, but if you do this, you will be driving in the safest possible manner.)

bikebouy
Sorry but you feel aggrieved because it takes you now 1 minute more to get to the other end of the dual carriageway where you live rather than last year...

#selfcenterednimby

I'm not aggrieved in the slightest because i ignore the ridiculous limit when ever conditions allow on that stretch of road 😉

(as incidentally do approx 99.9% of other drivers on that stretch of road btw)

How can the police prove it though?
Unless he admits to it in interview

I used to work in traffic managementroad safety for a local authority. I've seen a 60 dropped to a 40 for no other reason than some locals thought people were speeding. I did the speed survey, there wasn't a problem. However, a perfect storm of pestering a councillor, money in the budget which must be spent and an election coming up, they got exactly what they wanted. Sack all to do with road safety.

Similarly, I can come off the motorway in a 70 zone, around the roundabout at 70 then it drops to 40. Not because of accident stats but because it was cheaper than putting a barrier down the central reservation.

I don't condone speeding but I've seen first hand that you can't trust the powers that be to do the right thing for the right reason.

And for what its worth, if it is true then he is a dick for doing it.

So wait.. you're supposed to read up on local council history whenever you drive anywhere, so you can make an informed decisino about the legal limit?

Or should you use your judgement? Cos, you know.. drivers are GREAT at that.

These threads are incredible. On the cycling ones drivers are all a bunch of homicidally incompetent and inattentive lunatics, displaying the lowest standard of driving possible. But as soon as someone mentions speed limits, they are all highly skilled, responsible and able to make perfect assessment all the time.

So you think 40mph is a suitable speed for a dual carriageway?

Depends on the dual carriageway, either way you still can't do 180mph on it. Which makes you point absolutely worthless.

I'm not aggrieved in the slightest because i ignore the ridiculous limit when ever conditions allow on that stretch of road

Sounds like you're aggravated to me then.

either way you still can't do 180mph on it.

No, no. You can! If you're "driving to the conditions" and are an awesome alpha male driver! Grrrrr!

😉

I'm sure he was just making progress.

EDIT: Chief.

Is this the fanboiz going into meltdown?

Sorry if true and its verified he wont simply get points will he.

There's some cracking comments on this thread. If it was Katie Hopkins driving at that speed I'm sure the response would be slightly different but as it's "We love him and would gladly let him sleep with the wife, hell with me too" Guy Martin, some are saying it's fine as he was apparently driving to the road conditions.
I have to say I agree with Molgrips.

Drac - Moderator
So you think 40mph is a suitable speed for a dual carriageway?
Depends on the dual carriageway, either way you still can't do 180mph on it. Which makes you point absolutely worthless.

The point i've made is that you can't just say "180mph in a 40mph, OOH THE HORROR" in a Dailymail stylee. Well you can, but you're not very bright if you do.

Speed and risk are not directly linker or linearly proportional, they are indirectly linked / non linear.
All we can say is that there [b]is[/b] more risk when doing 180mph than doing say 40mph.
The absolute level of risk though depends much more heavily on many other factors than an arbitrary number painted on an arbitrary sign.

Now in reality, it's pretty stupid to do 180mph anywhere, no question on that, but i'm not going to get "all mumsnet" about it and claim the worlds coming to an end or that won't we all "think of the children" or whatever else people like to say and get all "outraged" about it.......

Today, probably a couple of people died in the uk as a result of inattention, careless or deliberately aggressive driving. Exactly no one died as a result of someone doing 180mph when they shouldn't be.

if you think the problem we need to "fix" is the second issue, then i'm afraid deaths on our roads will not change in the foreseable future.

EDIT: Chief.

Good save.

you can't just say "180mph in a 40mph, OOH THE HORROR"

No, I can say that. And I'm more than bright enough to do so, because, "in reality, it's pretty stupid to do 180mph anywhere".

All we can say is that there is more risk when doing 180mph than doing say 40mph.

You're not very good at this, are you?

Today, probably a couple of people died in the uk as a result of inattention, careless or deliberately aggressive driving. Exactly no one died as a result of someone doing 180mph when they shouldn't be.

I like to make some stuff up when I need to make a point too.

EDIT: Chief.

Would still like to know how they are going to prove it without him actually owning up.

You Sir, stay off the forum.

Who died, possibly in a high speed car accident, and made you Chief, Chief?

He's a straight up kind of guy. Maybe they'll have a reet nice brew and bash it out between them. Hopefully it'll be the police chief that has a chat with him.

This is why it's best to drive to the conditions and not to an arbitrary number written on a sign. (If you do this, there will be times when you don't get near the "Limit" and times when you will exceed it, but if you do this, you will be driving in the safest possible manner.)

You do get that an individual concept of best speed for conditions is as arbitrary as a sign?

All those people crashing every day. Most were under the impression they were driving in what they thought was an appropriate manner, right up to the point when they found out they weren't.
Now I'm not suggesting that a speed limit magically stops this, but suggest that things are much safer when people just drive how they feel is suitable is insane.

Today, probably a couple of people died in the uk as a result of inattention, careless or deliberately aggressive driving. Exactly no one died as a result of someone doing 180mph when they shouldn't be.

I thought you weren't going to get all Daily Mail. Is it all about health and safety gone mad and the EU that's caused this?

Today, probably a couple of people died in the uk as a result of inattention, careless or deliberately aggressive driving. Exactly no one died as a result of someone doing 180mph when they shouldn't be.

I'm guessing stats isn't your strong point, which might explain your understanding of risk.

You are probably right. Chances are that no one died today as a result of someone doing 180mph. But that's because it is still pretty rare for someone to be doing that kind of speed, and NOT because it is safe.

You could also argue that no one died today from juggling chainsaws while being set on fire in a pit full of hungry bears. I still wouldn't want to try it.

Chances are that someone did die today in a road accident where speeding was a contributing factor. Maybe not 180mph. Maybe just 70 in a 40.

Maxtorque (despite the ill advised user name and the obvious fighting against the tide of hand wringing) makes some good points. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) that he condones Mr Martin's alleged actions, he just seems to me to be pointing out the fact that despite what the authorities would have you believe, it's not speed [i]per se[/i] that kills on the roads, it's poor driving. It's the fact that most people are poor drivers combined with the logistical challenges of actually proving shite driving that just makes it easier to arbitrarily enforce a speed limit. Which is sometimes far too fast and occasionally significantly slower than is safe to proceed, depending on the prevailing conditions. But, we are British, and breaking rules is soooo continental...

[img] [/img]

Well aside of all the bickering, this is where it allegedly happened. Does that look appropriate to anyone??? Hardly a deserted dual carriageway is it...

Looks nice and quiet though. Was it early in the morning?

EDIT: Chief.

Well it is the IoM. They are probably used to it.

it's poor driving

Poor driving at high speed is pretty bad combo though isn't it. I prefer low speed poor driving.

Exactly no one died as a result of someone doing 180mph when they shouldn't be.

No one died as a result of someone doing 220mph either. Makes you think doesn't it ?

Maxtorque, and others:

Let's just clear something up. We're not getting all mumsnet. OF course, we appreciate that going slightly over the limit in a clear safe spot isn't going to kill anyone. We get that, you don't need to point it out.

But you have to realise that on the roads there needs to be a common habit of safe sensible behaviour that we all need to adhere to, if we are to save lives. Yes, we need to pay attention, we need to not use our phones and so on, but we also need to be going a sensible speed. How do we make sure everyone's going a sensible speed? Well that's a good question. Posted speed limits are the only way to do this. They are important for a few reasons.

1) They are conservative, for sure, but it's always better to err on the side of caution when lives are at risk. And they are - driving is risky, people DO die. They aren't punitive though - they are perfectly fast enough to get around the country without any problem. We're all used to them, and they work. You might feel aggrieved that you could be going faster, but tough. My kids feel the same way when I tell them they can't have crisps for breakfast. They love crisps, but they don't get to eat them for breakfast. You might love speed too, but that's not a good enough reason to let you do it.

2) The other thing that speed limits do is encourage consistency. In town, I can look around at the cars and I know what kind of speeds I expect them to be doing. This is really important, becuse it really helps me and everyone else make good decisions about crossing the road, pulling out, turning right on my bike etc etc. The crucial factor here is that the limit is the same for everyone.

3) You simply cannot leave it up to people to make their own decisions about speed. People WILL end up driving way too fast, especially the young ones. They do it now, they crash, and kill themselves and their mates. I've done it too, but I got lucky. If you let people decide when it was safe, they'd make mistakes and miss stuff. They do it at 60, it'd be even worse at 100.

4) Your speed affects other road users, even if you don't hit them. Do you want someone bombing past you at 100mph when you are on your bike? I bloody well don't. Even if they do think they are safe.

The only reason you want to drive faster is that you like doing so. Well sorry, there are rules. I don't get to do everything I want either, but we have to deal with it. (I have this same conversation with my kids, incidentally).

Hardly a deserted dual carriageway is it...

No, it's a deserted single carriageway. And the propped up bikes shows that the cyclists have had the commonsense to keep off the road. I can't see a problem.

Poor driving at high speed is pretty bad combo though isn't it. I prefer low speed poor driving.

Not saying he's right, but who would have liked to be a passenger in the little jaunt around the island?

I'd still vote for better driving, given the choice.

Well quite. I'd also vote for long hot summers every year and ice cream and rainbows and unicorns. How're you going to make it happen chief?

IanMunro
All those people crashing every day. Most were under the impression they were driving in what they thought was an appropriate manner, right up to the point when they found out they weren't.
Now I'm not suggesting that a speed limit magically stops this, but suggest that things are much safer when people just drive how they feel is suitable is insane.

I agree, but there is another factor that a lot of studies have showed is very important when assessing real risk and the influence on our choice of speed.

It's called "progression to normality" and is a classic bit of human behavior.

In an ideal world, each and every driver would be skillful and trained enough to be able to choose a suitable speed at [b]all[/b] moments they are driving, and hence avoid any accident that might occur.

However 2 critical factors play a major part:

1) most people are "average" drivers not expert ones.
2) Accidents are actually very rare, on a time or miles per crash basis.

As humans we have a concept of "Normality" but that is not an absolute value but is a relative thing. "abnormal" becomes "normal" via familiarity, which is why people can get used to doing things like skydiving, bull runing or even bare knuckle cage fighting if you do it enough

So, we get in our cars and drive, for hours and thousands of miles a year, without accident or incident. Chances are, we can do 60mph in a 40mph limit for literally years before we eventually have an accident, and each time we do, ie that speeding becomes "Normal".

Now each time we reduce limits to below approx 85% of the average speed on any given road (google numerous studies on 85% percentile speed)
drivers start to exceed those limits (because for most of the time they feel too slow), and each time they do, the impact and authority of those speed limits are eroded a bit more.

So, when we have a speed limit that IS appropriate, most drivers now ignore it (like they have learnt to ignore all those inappropriate ones they have passed without crashing thousands of times).

And as "average" drivers, they do not posses the skills to be able to read the [b]real[/b] signs that their speed is in fact excessive (which are highly linked to attention, observation, and above all "Road craft" (see the book of the same name!!)).
Hence, when a situation unfolds "unexpectedly" to them they cannot react in time and as a result have an accident.

The more we dumb down our limits to the lowest common denominator, the more we treat everyone like idiots, the more we remove responsibility (and accountability) from drivers, the more we will continue to have accidents as a result of inappropriate speed in the short few moments before the accident occurs.
People will crash, and just say " i don't know what happened, i wasn't speeding" as if that makes it all fine.

(incidentally, when i was training class 1 police drivers back in the mid 2000's i'd hear officers saying 'time after time drivers always say "but i wasn't speeding" pretty much as the first thing they say to us when we arrive at the scene of an RTC', even though clearly, their speed was totally inappropriate in the moments before the crash!

I'd also vote for long hot summers every year and ice cream and rainbows and unicorns. How're you going to make it happen chief?

Vote SNP ?

The more we dumb down our limits to the lowest common denominator, the more we treat everyone like idiots, the more we remove responsibility (and accountability) from drivers

So you're advocating removing speed limits altogether? And simply 'trusting' the people who you've just admitted are in fact rubbish? becuase if you simply raise them, then everything you said will still be the case only with more kinetic energy.

It's clear we need far better training. But we still need limits, if only to encourage consistency. You might argue for no limits on say motorways, but having driven in Germany I can assure you it's really not that good of an idea.

Regardless of whether your think a limit is justified or not, it's there, and it's law. So break it, and you're in the wrong. And 180mph on any sort of public road is idiotic.

So do we all agree he was stupid allegedly driving at 180mph in the location shown in this thread where he should be doing 40 mph?
And if proven to be true should he have a life ban?

I'd also vote for long hot summers every year and ice cream and rainbows and unicorns. How're you going to make it happen chief?