104mph cop keeps job -- The Simple Truth about Speeding from the Horse'sMouth

Subject to the quality of the leaves on the line of course ;-)

 

Are you sure you've got that right? If you are, what point are you
making?

Anyway the date, for those who may be interested, I'd have chosen would
be 1988/9. IIRC.

 

And of course the truth is he was driving safely at 104 mph just like

As someone who has spent more years than he cares to remember and cut
more people out of cars than I can actually remember and studied the
subject in depth (cutting fools out of cars) and taught it. I consider
myself well placed to comment on the above post.

Whoever you are you are full of shit!!!

While speed does have an effect on what happens in an accident it is
only one of a great number of factors and speed DOES NOT CAUSE
ACCIDENTS

Accidents are caused by stupid muppets doing the wrong thing at the
wrong time and that can equally be driving too slow as driving too
fast.

I could go on but drivel like the above post annoys me too much

 

Johannes H Andersen says...

The hard shoulder?

 

On Sat, 01 May 2004 11:44:08 +0100, Johannes H Andersen

In the leftmost lane, Lane 1 for preference. Lanes 2 and 3 are for
overtaking and no vehicle should be in them unless in the process of
overtaking a slower vehicle. Theoretically.

 

: Lozzo wrote:
: >
: > Johannes H Andersen says...
: >
: > > I go 70mph in the middle lane. Why? because it's often the only lane that's
: > > free. The other day on M4 it was ridiculous; long lines of traffic in the
: > > outer and the inner lane, guess what lane I took.
: >
: > The hard shoulder?
:
: Nah, that's too bumpy. In practice, you have that the inner lane is for
: vehicles going <70mph or about to leave the motorway. The outer lane is for
: vehicles going >70mph, so where to stay when going 70mph causing the least
: inconvenience?
:
:
You are so wrong it's not even funny. I always use the inside lane
unless I have to overtake. Lorries taking over the inside lane has
means many people who SHOULD be in the inside lane crawl along at 70mph
in the middle lane. This *really* pisses me off. You should use the
inside lane - I have never seen anyone going less than 70 on any m-way.

 

So what was it Newton said about the probability of accidents
occurring on 21st century roads?

 

Well, quite, basing an argument on the highway code leaves one open to
that risk.

However if you're one of the mindless people that sits in the middle
lane or the outside lane at *whatever* speed when the lane to your left
is free then you should be shot.

 

I don't think I have ever observed the behaviour you describe here -
sure you're not pulling in after overtaking and then reducing your
speed?

--

jeremy
['75 RD250A ] | ['02 Fazer 600 in blue]
____________________________________________
jeremy dot ovenden at hazelweb dot co dot uk

 

Bad form etc - I see what you mean now- sorry misread your post.
--

jeremy
['75 RD250A ] | ['02 Fazer 600 in blue]
____________________________________________
jeremy dot ovenden at hazelweb dot co dot uk

 

I suspect you mean not since privatisation. I've seen 125mph
Inter-City 125 trains dawdling along at 110mph (using a GPS) and still
keeping to time recently. They can go a lot faster. I clocked one at
132mph after a signal stand not too long ago in an attempt to make up
the time lost.
--
John Wright

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

 

Lesley, you stupid woman - that's not an overtaking lane, that's the
fast lane

Shesh...

--
Veggie Dave
UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08
IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com
Extreme Racing http://www.veggie-dave.co.uk
Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me

 

Veggie Dave says...

I'm quite happy to see cars hogging the middle and outside lanes for
mile after mile. It leaves the inside lane nice and clear for me to
filter up.

 

Veggie Dave says...

No change there then.

Oh, hang on, let's have a look here..

http://www.2pass.co.uk/motorway.htm

and here..

http://www.rac.co.uk/carcare/advice/general_help/motorway_driving

Indeed, especially if you weren't being serious for a change...

--
Lesley
ZXR400SP
SBS#11[with oak-leaf cluster]
BOTAFOT#101A UKRMHRC#12
BONY#54P BOB#18

Un-cork me to reply

 

Rubbish, it's for sales reps and national Express coaches. The centre lane
is for HGVs, weekend drivers and pensioners and the nearside lane is for
caravans.

 

The reason I chose 1988 as my "trains got slower date" as this, IIRC, was
around the time ASLEF agreed, following requests from the BRB, to drop
the double manning requirement on HSTs below 110 mph, with assurances
that this would only affect Sundays as the services would be retimed then
but remain the same Mon-Sat.

This would bring big savings by keeping Sunday manning costs down. As
the railways were under financial attack from the Govt of the day the
Union agreed.

Within a timetable change all the HSTs M-Sa had been retimed to run at
110mph (with only a few exceptions, Reading - Pad being one).

As to the top speed HST's have limiters but some don't. The fastest I
ever saw one (ex WR) at was 133mph. Which is more or less flat out.

 

On Sat, 01 May 2004 12:39:40 +0100 and in article
<40938C7C.803C4BBB@sizefitter_n_o_s_p_a_m_.com>, Johannes H Andersen
said...
: > You are so wrong it's not even funny.
:
: Coming from someone who goes up to 110mph on motorways

heh, well what can you do with a 2.5 v6?

: > I always use the inside lane
: > unless I have to overtake. Lorries taking over the inside lane has
: > means many people who SHOULD be in the inside lane crawl along at 70mph
: > in the middle lane. This *really* pisses me off. You should use the
: > inside lane - I have never seen anyone going less than 70 on any m-way.
:
: Lorries, busses? They do have tachographs and drivers don't like to be
: on the wrong side of a dispute for all sorts of reasons.

Lorries, yes. They just cruise along at 60mph, and drivers instead of
staying in the inside lane just choose to idle in the middle lane. It
is one of my major bugbears on the road.

 

: On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 23:22:04 +0100, "dormouse" <>
: wrote:
:
: >: >> PeterE says...
: >> > >
: >> > > Well given the choice between believing your half-baked theories and
: >> > > those of Isaac Newton, I'll choose Newton's. Accidents are going to
: >> > > happen and what happens after that depends upon the force of impact.
: >> > > Have a crash at 30 mph and you stand a good chance getting out of your
: >> > > car alive, have one at 104 mph and the fire brigade will be cutting
: >> > > your corpse out of it. Drivers that purposely speed are no better than
: >> > > drink drivers as both selfishly endanger the lives of others.
: >> >
: >> > Better stop all those trains doing 104 mph, then. Speed kills, you know.
: >> >
: >> They go *that* fast?
: >
: >Not since nationalisation.
:
: I suspect you mean not since privatisation.

I reckon the OP meant nationalisation. The railway's have effectively
been nationalised again by the back door by Labour. The way they
handled the buy back of Railtrack was an utter fiasco, bringing it back
under State Control.

 

You haven't any idea what "nationalised" means, have you?

 

Johannes H Andersen wrote

Utter fucking twaddle.