You've spelt Bagpuss wrong.
Everyone knows it's Kingston Bagpuss.
A London man has been handed a 10 week jail sentence for taking a Porsche 911 Turbo on a 172mph spin earlier this year. Timothy Brady, a 33 year old from Harrow, London, was snared in a routine speed check near Kingston Bagpuize, and pleaded guilty to dangerous driving at Oxford Crown Court last month. Brady was sentenced …
This post has been deleted by its author
Arguably, dangerous driving (esp. jail time) is only justified if that speed can be proven to be dangerous in the specific conditions at the time.
I believe that stretch of road is straightish for 1km either side of the bridge:
A 911 turbo stops from about 150mph in about 200m, so I can't imagine 170mph takes much more than 250m.
So, without exactly applying rigorous analysis to this, I can see how this might not be dangerous, provided that the tyres are rated for this speed, the car is properly maintained, the road surface has been checked for debris, the weather and traffic is clear, and the driver is sufficiently capable.
But since he didn't contest the charge, I assume some of these conditions were not met.
Yeah 172Mph is excessive but why do the morons who steal cars and then race them through city centres at up to 100Mph just get 100hrs Community Service. Justice, there's no such thing in the UK.
I was doing over 150Mph quite legally just a few weeks ago on a German Autobahn and it's not that big a deal. Over there they trust people to drive appropriately, at least until the Speed Nazi's get their hooks into them.
Speed doesn't cause accidents, crap drivers cause accidents. Speed just makes the damage more impressive when the accident happens.
Not only is he now contributing to the already over subscribed prison system but i am sure that the extra-curricular activities will teach him to take other vehicles. I am sure he will be admired, by all the other little toe-rags, for his 172mph record.
But then again, how can we expect 'Justice' to be meted out, when the people, 'meting' it out, are all over 70yrs old(well nearly) and have never driven their own cars. Oh my word, when will we get some common sense in our law courts.
I agree that this particular individual does need taking off our roads. He was driving too fast for the conditions but a custodial sentence?? Why the hell do i have to pay for him, with my bloody taxes...*weeping silently*
On a separate note... it is a good job it was a radar camera and not a GATSO that clocked him... i seem to remember that Top Gear drove a TVR past a GATSO at 172mph and it didn't even flash.
Also.. .i would love for someone to redefine the stopping distances for the modern cars, i am sure that the car he was driving can stop quicker than the 150 car lengths that has been quoted...
Spin spin and more spin, i love this country!
"But I suppose serious crimes like driving obviously requires a "lets make an example of him" custodial sentence."
You seriously think that driving along a dual carriageway (not even a motorway) at 172mph doesn't deserve a jail sentence? He's travelling at 84 yards a second. If someone travelling at seventy decides to pull into the same lane as him, he's still going at a ton relative to that car - if the car is fifty yards away, he'll run into the back of him in a second.
He's a bloody lunatic who deserves to be put away.
For a car travelling at 150mph (not km/h, mind) to stop within 200m, the tires would have to have an effective coefficient of friction of 1.145 (check out http://www.csgnetwork.com/stopdistcalc.html to see for yourself). While it is true that such tires would (under ideal braking conditions) stop in just over 260m at 172mph, a more "typical" coefficient of friction for good tires and a clean road surface is around 0.8 (and would yield stopping distances of 286m and over 375m). Add reaction time to the mix (as Martin Benson wrote above, 1 second of delay = 84 yards) and 172mph does start to seem a bit, well, dangerous.
I found that kind of surprising. I understand it's for "costs," but in the US, there'd probably be some short jail time, a ban, AND a huge fine (as well as possibly some community service). Could be because the US is a very money-centric society. I think it's related to our propensity for lawsuits.
Speed doesn't kill, only differences in speed kills. If everyone there was going 172 this would've been extremely safe.
I say give the guy a medal for showing us our speed limits are way too low and let all speed limits be determined by how fast this guy can drive this Porsche around every street without crashing.
"But then again, how can we expect 'Justice' to be meted out, when the people, 'meting' it out, are all over 70yrs old(well nearly) and have never driven their own cars. Oh my word, when will we get some common sense in our law courts."
Indeed, let's have teenage muggers, burglars and joy riders sitting on the bench.
At least they will know what they are on about. ;)
Extremely dangerous criminal person goes to jail... oh, no sorry, had my sarcasm turned up to full...
... Just because some pencil-neck-paper-pusher has decided that a certain metrical limit is dangerous, someone has to go to jail... but rape or rob, and you get off with wiggly finger...
Screwed up world...
BTW, Speed has never killed anyone; sudden lack of it on the other hand is a real killer.
Firstly, speeding doesn't carry a prison term, not even speeding at 172mph. Like most of the media those commenting here are ignoring the fact that the sentence was for dangerous driving, not speeding. For speeding he was given a ban at a previous court appearance.
TBH I think he had terrible or probably no legal representation since there doesn't seem to have been any evidence of bad, let alone dangerous, driving. Unless failing to see someone dressed in yellow holding a speed gun is a sign of dangerous driving. He got a prsion sentence because he admitted to dangerous driving and that I suspect was because he was threatened with other charges if he insisted on pleading not guilty to that charge.
He harmed no one, not even himself. However at the same time someone who harmed children escaped without a custodial sentence. I can't see any justice in either sentence.
This post has been deleted by its author
With the word 'if' (as in "If someone..."), we can all retreat to our caves and stomp out the fire. We've all seen elderly people drive as 'if' something might happen - they're going 42 mph on the expressway and periodically stomping the brake when anything new enters their field of view.
"You seriously think that driving along a dual carriageway (not even a motorway) at 172mph doesn't deserve a jail sentence? He's travelling at 84 yards a second. If someone travelling at seventy decides to pull into the same lane as him, he's still going at a ton relative to that car - if the car is fifty yards away, he'll run into the back of him in a second."
Perhaps he was "familiarising" himself with the car, a la PC Milton at 159mph on the two-carriageway M54, at 3m, in an unmarked Vauxhall Omega?
Most IT analogies are made by referencing an auto so to say there is no IT angle is preposterous.
What he did was the equivalent of dropping an Athlon processor into a 486 motherboard. Now the Northbridge chip has put him in power saving mode for 10 cycles and he cannot use his mathco for the next 156 cycles.
...there is an interesting interactive calculator for braking distance at http://www.csgnetwork.com/stopdistcalc.html, with links to more advanced discussion of the theory and practice of decelerating vehicles under control.
For what it is worth, at 172mph the calculator produces a figure of 377m on good tyres in good conditions, 750m if the tyres or road surface are poor.
And yes, modern vehicles on good tyres can decelerate more rapidly than the "Highway Code" figures if driven with a reasonable level of skill. But it is a rather Clarksonesque stance to equate individual skill at techniques of vehicle handling with road safety; we have to share the roads with many other users - with and without vehicles - so getting locked up for gross disregard of that seems fair to me.
Have you taken a look at the loser, he won't be learning much from other lags in prison other than how to touch his toes whilst being reamed from behind.
He's a mummy's boy who took a company vehicle without asking, then decided to show off down a stretch of road that's almost always covered with mobile speed traps.
He is covered by the dangerous driving legislation as he wasn't fully in control of the vehicle whilst breaking because the arresting officer reported that the car wobbled badly under breaking.
... there is no justice.
10 weeks in jail (if he's been on remand I doubt he'll even do that) and a three year ban? The jail time is singularly pointless, but idiots like this should be kept off the roads. Permanently and at gunpoint if necessary (and believe me, as an occasional motorist and regular long-distance cyclist I've seen the depths of stupidity committed by the average motorist - hell, not all my driving decisions have been zingers either)
Seriously, the guy lost his job (fair enough) but it beggars belief that he didn't lose his license *permanently* (as I thought was the case if you got clocked doing 100mph+) - at very least, I'd have made the stupid fucker sit a seriously extended driving test once his ban was up (ideally with the examiner who failed me first time ;-) )
And you wonder why so many people are desperate to get out of this godforsaken country ...
"BTW, Speed has never killed anyone; sudden lack of it on the other hand is a real killer"
So mother with pushchair's last thoughts can be "How stupid of me to be about to hit that wall at 60 miles an hour. But that acceleration from 3 to 60 in 100 milliseconds was SOOOO exhilarating..."
It's odd that speeding is the only offence that people will argue against, I can't think of another offence that people would seriously argue that because it's them carrying out the offence it's somehow alright: "... Yes officer, I was smoking a large bong in the street, but you see, it's ok for me, I'm not like the rest of them...", "...I know that I shot that guy, but he was really annoying me, so, y'know it's ok...", "...Shoplifting? Nah, I just didn't think that the cost of the product applied to me...".
Also, I wonder what the car's tyres were speed rated at, if they're not 'Y' rated they could've been in serious danger of failing, especially under breaking.
"It's odd that speeding is the only offence that people will argue against, I can't think of another offence that people would seriously argue that because it's them carrying out the offence it's somehow alright"
To give another example, technical copyright infringement for personal (fair) use is something that people don't consider wrong, because it's not.
People argue against speeding offences not because it's them doing it, but because it's an absolute offence, and takes no account of circumstances. It's not even a crime, it's a code violation. There are plenty of offences that penalise unsafe driving, such as DWODCA, dangerous driving etc, but these all take account of circumstances, so they are perceived to be reasonable (have never heard anyone argue against dangerous driving as a law, except where some numpty judge decides that at sufficient speed it's got to be dangerous, regardless of circumstances)
"A 911 turbo stops from about 150mph in about 200m, so I can't imagine 170mph takes much more than 250m.
So, without exactly applying rigorous analysis to this, I can see how this might not be dangerous, provided that the tyres are rated for this speed, the car is properly maintained, the road surface has been checked for debris, the weather and traffic is clear, and the driver is sufficiently capable."
Unless a 4 year old steps out in front of said Porche without looking at 248 and is killed by this idiot. Of course the driver could swerve at the last minute and roll the car, killing himself.. M0r0n
Any way you look at it, outside of a controlled environment, 170mph is dangerous. You could argue that 70mph is equally dangerous, but aside from the driver having a lot more time to react, a car swerving at 70mph is SIGNIFICANTLY less likely to lose control.
To anyone who argues that it's not speed that kills, it's the driver, have you ever been hit be a stationary vehicle? Have you?
"BTW, Speed has never killed anyone; sudden lack of it on the other hand is a real killer."
Please, for the sake of humanity, sterilize yourself. We don't need your kind breeding. You see, you take your statement at face value, and, like faith, never question it. But even a cursory examination of the statement "Sudden lack of speed can kill" gives the obvious corollary of "Sudden occurrence of speed can kill". Quickly going from 172mph to zero will kill you. Why? Because, among other reasons, your brain is smashed into your skull will enough force to cease all brain activity (you smush your brain). Simple logic and physics tells us that the same thing happens if you quickly go from zero to 172mph (or any other sufficiently-high speed) because the same force is applied to the brain, resulting in the same exact consequence.
"Unless a 4 year old steps out in front of said Porche without looking at 248 and is killed by this idiot. Of course the driver could swerve at the last minute and roll the car, killing himself.. M0r0n"
(a) Why would a 4 year old be crossing an armco'd dual carriageway?
(b) Why would a Porsche 911 turbo roll as a result of a a "swerve"? Have you ever actually driven a car? You do realise that (v1 Merc A-classes subjected to scandinavian flicks aside) this doesn't actually happen outside of Hollywood, unless you hit something low or dig a wheel into a soft verge).
"To anyone who argues that it's not speed that kills, it's the driver, have you ever been hit be a stationary vehicle? Have you?"
Well, obviously impact kills, and impact implies some non-zero closing speed, but to follow your argument to it's conclusion, we would all drive on motorways at 10mph, just in case a toddler walked out.
Inappropriate speed increases the risk of accidents, but appropriateness must be judged based on the specific conditions. This man's speed was almost certainly inappropriate, but I don't know because I wasn't in court hearing the evidence. Were you?
I'm not sure whether the "M0r0n" comment was aimed at me or not.
Jail time isn't going to effect the desired change, the fellow needs psychological counseling to determine why he felt his life and those around him were of little enough value to drive this excessively. If he were a 16-20 year old kid I could see it as youth folly and a feeling of invincibility but by the age of 33 he had more than ample time to outgrow such behavior.
Being barred from driving for a year or two seems quite reasonable, providing this is the standard penalty for such an offense and he wasn't singled out because of a number, since 172MPH in that car is bound to be as safe as a lower speed in some other cars.
To those who cleverly tried to calculate out stopping distance, if you want to do that then practically everyone on the road is a dangerous driver, especially with wet roads, except that we have a modern luxury now, the steering wheel. That doesn't excuse his behavior nor make it safe, but it does invalidate an overly simplistic idea about the only options being crash or stop in time. Most accidents are not avoided with brakes, it's the steering wheel and driver skill that matters. Often, aggressively appying brakes is why the driver loses control.
"Please, for the sake of humanity, sterilize yourself. We don't need your kind breeding. You see, you take your statement at face value, and, like faith, never question it. But even a cursory examination of the statement "Sudden lack of speed can kill" gives the obvious corollary of "Sudden occurrence of speed can kill". Quickly going from 172mph to zero will kill you. Why? Because, among other reasons, your brain is smashed into your skull will enough force to cease all brain activity (you smush your brain). Simple logic and physics tells us that the same thing happens if you quickly go from zero to 172mph (or any other sufficiently-high speed) because the same force is applied to the brain, resulting in the same exact consequence."
Physics, it's all about physcis. And yes, you DO need my breeding, because I am actually questioning something; the sentence of this gentleman. I'm also well aware of that the brain is a moving part of your body. So for now my statement stands; It's the lack, today, that's the killer... There's no (standard) vehicle that's capable of accelerating so fast that you'd bruise your brain to the inside of your skull.
The statement: "Speed does not kill" is a physical fact. To make it untrue you have to apply other factors. This is the part that I'm questioning; Absolute speed limits without regards to other factors, such as road, vehicle and above all driver's capacity. Your babbling about acceleration or deceleration is, to me, a cry for help in a matter that you seem to have very little comprehension about.
Just to put this in my perspective, I constantly travel way over 100mph, I am so "good" that I can spot the string of Porsches approaching me in the mirrors several corners ahead and I'm fully capable of letting them pass me at over 50+mph higher speed than me. At the same time I'm capable of preparing to overtake that slower vehicle in front of me at considerably higher speed than the other vehicle.
But speed has got nothing to do with it, absolutely nothing; circumstances on the other hand has got everything to do with it. And this is not "face value" this is years of experience.
Sadly, you've got full rights to breed and populate your views.
Nice to meet some normal thinkers here.
The speed limits in this country are designed to generate revenue in the name of safety.
The legal system is designed to punish only people who can afford to pay or have something to loose.
Thieves and rapists can usually expect counceling when convicted and very little else.
We need some bright new thinking on our legal system where the criminals are convected and punished . In America convicts are made to do manual labour digging the roads and the like . We should be doing the same here.
Well, all I can say is if the (mainly civilian) operators of speed camera's can target an object moving towards them at 172 mph and holding a consistent aiming point (which they are required to do)....then they are in the wrong job. Perhaps they should be top military snipers!
I am suprised he only managed 172 mph along that stretch though LOL
"...Why would a 4 year old be crossing an armco'd dual carriageway?..."
It could have been in a layby, there is at least one along that section of the road in question. Or it could have been in a car crossing at the staggered crossroads. Or in a car joining the road from one of the many country lanes. This isn't a motorway.
It is unlikely that this particular car would roll, many would, I really can't see this one doing so, however it certainly would spin and bury itself into a tree/ditch/hedge etc. still pretty fatal at that kind of speed, crumple zone or no. Also, have you any idea how long it takes to relay a hedge? The local farmers would be mighty pissed off.
Also, you note about rolling due to soft verges - this is Oxfordshire, so it is highly likely that there will be soft southern verges.
"Jail time isn't going to effect the desired change, the fellow needs psychological counseling to determine why he felt his life and those around him were of little enough value to drive this excessively"
come on have you never driven a fast car and just got carried away with the speed, I know i have many times...
ok 172mph was excessive to say the least.. but its very easy to get carried away.
as for the driver having a jail sentance and that pedo going free... this country is going down the drain... quite soon no one will be allowed to drive and you will have to take your kid to a pedo for a weekly session...
Things like this really wind me up.
The speed this guy was travelling was WRONG, I don't disagree with that.
BUT he did not kill anyone, injur anyone, or damage anything.
So in reality, he was guilty of "doing something silly" and he got a prison sentance.
Then you have violent criminals and thieves walking free becuse the prisons are full.
How is speeding (without crashing) more serious then assault / theft / violence / vandalism?
Not so long ago I was a whitness in court against someone who caused hundreds of pounds of damage, and was risking peoples lives (throwing bricks through windscreens of both parked and moving cars), lots of other whitnesses including 3 police whitnesses and all he got was a "Don't be a naughty boy again ...ok?"
BTW, the A420 is mostly single carriageway (without central barrier) with plenty of T-junctions throughout the entire length.
Let me say that what Brady did was dangerous, at least by posing significant and unnecessary danger to other road users. Today in this country, it is completely unreasonable to expect, or have to plan for, drivers travelling at 172mph.
The fact he didn’t actually do any damage is irrelevant – he (and everyone in his proximity) was simply fortunate this time. Brady could not have reasonably expected road users to have correctly anticipated his actions, not at those speeds. This guy was a nutter and deserved all he got.
Oh, I’m a paid up life member and supporter of the Safespeed campaign www.safespeed.org.uk
Obviously you’ve never used a hand-held speed camera (especially Lidar). The speed of the car is irrelevant; what matters is the rate of panning and the distance to target.
1. Drove along a stretch of road that, at least when I lived in Oxon., was notorious for serious accidents, at a speed nearly two and a half times over the maximum allowed, knowlingly, deliberately, recklessly.
2. This criminal committed the offence of "Taking and Driving Away", which is a form of theft (Theft Act), itself imprisonable.
3. By virtue of 1. and 2., this twit drove while uninsured, a virtually criminal offence in itself.
The area is densely populated, despite being "rural" and the road is busy most of the time (I drove there at various times just last week).
How on earth did he get away without a criminal charge for 2. and a charge for 3.? Seems to me the CPS has gone pretty soft.
As for you defenders of very high speed by any driver: please use public transport and stay out of any motorised or even pedal-driven transport. You must be loony and singularly unaware of your own defects and the probable ones in any mechanical device (and I am a too-fast driver at times when in a car, to my shame, though fortunately not insanely so, in my opinion).
Here's hoping everyone who thinks that speeding isn't dangerous gets hit by a car "they didn't see coming".
It's a crowded country so why don't you all sod off to a bigger country with some more space for your selfish behaviour. If you can't share the nation then get the hell out of it. I suggest Iraq our soldiers need a few human shields and you won't be missed.
If you think speeding is the government being tyrannical then you really REALLY have misplaced priorities (hopefully you misplace your reproductive organs as well just to save the planet you having any offspring).
"So for now my statement stands; It's the lack, today, that's the killer... There's no (standard) vehicle that's capable of accelerating so fast that you'd bruise your brain to the inside of your skull."
For one, no one died in this story, so today...there IS no killer, and you're just being dramatic.
Secondly, the reference made is to the sudden acceleration a pedestrian would experience upon being run into by a vehicle travelling in excess of 170 mph.
You got in such a rush to defend yourself that you failed to realize that you are not in fact the only person that knows anything. That's a blunder right up there will an Asian Land-war.
Stop. Think. Then post.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022