# Driving over 150mph on public roads is....



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

*Driving over 150mph on public roads is....*​
Fucking stupid and dangerous regardless of circumstance6155.45%Safe and no problem if the road is 'clear'4339.09%Quite sensible - why all the fuss?65.45%


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

V6 TT said:


> jdn said:
> 
> 
> > So if the first time was to see if your car 'does what is says on the tin', why do it again?
> ...


In repsonse to Dean's reply over on Off Topic, I wonder if in fact I am in the minority?


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

What type of road is it? If a A or B road then fooking stupid. If a M-way when clear.....Still stupid but i would think the chances of having a accident are very small. Providing you can handle the car at those speeds. Which isnt exactly hard going in a straight line. Problem is you always have the what if factor. Which may be unlikely but could happen. ie. Your bombing along in the outside lane you see a lone car on the inside lane assume its going to stay there. However it hasnt seen you and decides at the moment in time to move into the outside lane. or something like that


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

A deserted derestricted autobahn looks pretty much like desserted restricted UK motorway and drives the same too. Many UK motorways are actually better than their derestricted German counterparts.

What's the difference of doing 150mph here or Germany? The law and personal morals - that's all. JDN what are your morals allowing you to say is acceptable in terms of excess speed. 85mph? 95mph? 110mph? 120mph?

Of course in UK other users will not be expecting someone to be travelling a 2X their speed. But we are talking 'desserted' in your hypothetical example.

So, with the caveat that one knows the law, the roads really are deserted (and this is not often the case in UK) one is a smooth driver (this is very important over 150mph); one has correct tyres fitted and correctly inflated; one's screens and vision is clear; and the car is capable of doing the speed; then I don't find the construct of doing 150mph to be morally outrageous.

And I have done it in UK - albeit briefly. (allegedy) I have done it regularly and legally in Germany too, but I have to say that, in a decent car 120-130mph is a 'better' high speed cruising pace for covering ground without too much stress and fatigue.

Beyond legality, major trouble for safety is that most UK drivers are relatively poorly skilled in high speed road craft.

But there are still plenty of occasions, locations and times in UK, when driving at 130mph is safe and an occasional squirt to 150+mph is not necessarily reckless. Just illegal.

Everyones morals are different.

Besides a stock CaymanS is just not capable of a true 182mph. 997 product marketing won't permit it. :wink:


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

. . . so why is 70mph to 150mph acceptable? Why is over 150mph fucking lunacy and we should *all* be banned before we kill someone, because your (JDN) car isn't capable of doing it?

Are *we* more than likely to crash, burn and take some by standers out at 180mph than 150mph?! Of course not, what the fuck are you droaning on about? You've killed you're own argument with this poll, 150mph ain't too clever either, neither is 100mph, the end results of an accident at any of these speed would be pretty much identical - carnage, I've seen accidents at 50mph where no one walked.

Get you car off to the dealers straight away and have it restricted to 70mph then come back. You assume way too much for someone who has no idea who I am, how capable a driver I am, how capable my car is, or there on the actual night I did this, so grow a pair and fuck off before I start to make some assumptions about your personality and drag it kicking and screaming through the forum - what the fuck?

You're talking bollox but it's entertaining! :lol: BTW, just remember that this forum has over 6,000 members . . .

. . . .wow, did I just type all that, I must be bored or I got issues! :roll: :lol: :wink:


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

garyc said:


> Besides a stock CaymanS is just not capable of a true 182mph. 997 product marketing won't permit it. :wink:


. . . one word, 'software'! Hey it's just what I read off the digi readout it could of been 82 my eyesight was a bit blurry, I was pissed!! :roll: :wink:


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

Dean - I'm sure you yourself think it was pretty fucking stupid that you drove at that speed on a UK motorway - the reason being that you know if you got caught you would probably go to jail. I think you were pretty crazy doing such a speed but not because I think you may kill someone, but because I know you are taking a big risk with regard to your licence, livelihood etc.

If I'm honest, I'd like to take that kind of risk myself and throw caution to the wind and overtake you at 189mph :wink: but I haven't got the guts to do it. What stops me from driving over 100mph on the motorway is just that, I'm too shit scared of the *legal* consequences.

I've taken my 911 on the autobahn and quite frankly, as garyc says, those roads are far less suited to high speed driving than some of the UK motorways. I would feel a lot safer driving at 150mph on our roads (if legal) than I would on an autobahn.

If I met you in person and you told me what you'd done, I'd judge you very differently from how I'd judge you if you told me you regularly drove whilst well over the limit. Which is what this argument is all about after all. :roll:


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

raven said:


> Dean - I'm sure you yourself think it was pretty fucking stupid that you drove at that speed on a UK motorway


. . . well it ain't too fucking clever that's for sure (what do some of these wankers take me for huh?), but I kinda think that I'm bright enough to figure out all the pro's and con's of my actions all on my own and at the time wanted to see what my new toy was capable of doing the one time . . . it was past 03:00am, dry, straight stretch of M-way, Porker with correct tyres (N1's rated over the cars capable speed) and pressures (I'm a bastard about this) amazing chassis, brakes, safety, PSM left on, PASM left off as not to unsettle the car, not a headlamp or break light for miles in any direction so went for it, did it then cruised all the way home not going over the 'magic' 150mph as not to kill anyone including myself! :wink:

. . . was it safe? As safe as it could of been in my opinion although I ain't oblivious to it all and do realise it's never 100% safe. Well the only thing really would of been a blowout over some crap on the road, but let's face it, we could get struck by lightning too.

Dean

PS Great thread, my boring Friday afo in work is flying!! :wink:


----------



## David_A (May 7, 2002)

raven said:


> stuff
> 
> I haven't got the guts to do it. What stops me from driving over 100mph on the motorway is just that, I'm too shit scared of the *legal* consequences.
> 
> more stuff


Same here,


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

GaryC - 100% agree. I could have written exaclty the same post as it all matches my own experiences etc.


----------



## steveh (Jan 14, 2004)

David_A said:


> raven said:
> 
> 
> > stuff
> ...


Ditto.

I can't believe the voting. Tha vast majority (so far) think that driving at over 150 mph on a public road is wrong in any situation.  Ok, it's illegal in the UK but there are still plenty of roads (mainly motorways) where it would be safe to drive in excess of 150 at certain times and in the right conditions. Ok, if you value your licence then you'd be mad to try it but...

It seems strange that, on what is a forum for a 'performance' car, there seem to be so many people who seem to be anti speed. :?


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

V6 TT said:


> You're talking bollox but it's entertaining! :lol: BTW, just remember that this forum has over 6,000 members . . .


I would return that statment straight back.

Clearly there is no 'cut-off' speed but I had to choose something for the poll. I also agree with Garyc's comments regarding safety on autobahns - but there is also the fact people are aware that cars are being driven at this speed and would hopefully behave appropriately.

This poll was entirely designed as a red rag to stimulate some debate on this issue - it clearly raised some hackles.. :wink:

For the record I do speed - don't we all? 
But 80 on a motorway is generally keeping up with the flow. Over a ton is unneccassary. If I want a speed buzz I go on a track day. I think there is far more driving joy to be had on an open and winding B-road at low speeds where you can relish handling, steering, braking and the 'flow' of good driving rather than just flexing your right foot - which any mug can do.

Let's see how the voting goes...


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

V6 TT said:


> PS Great thread, my boring Friday afo in work is flying!! :wink:


Happy to help.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

V6 TT said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > Besides a stock CaymanS is just not capable of a true 182mph. 997 product marketing won't permit it. :wink:
> ...


182mph from 295bhp sounds a bit rich to me. 171mph on the other hand, Porsche's claimed figure sounds more realistic.

Personally, I'll be popping over to the the M1 later to see what 470bhp or so can do. Please leave the road deserted therefore :lol:


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

clived said:


> 182mph from 295bhp sounds a bit rich to me. 171mph on the other hand, Porsche's claimed figure sounds more realistic.


. . . maybe it's tolerance as it's what I read off, but it is 300 kilos lighter than my old 6'er.

Dean


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

clived said:


> V6 TT said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


He may have been going downhill... :roll:


----------



## Jac-in-a-Box (Nov 9, 2002)

And Porsche is well known for being conservative with it's bhp figures...a little more than 295 I suspect :wink:

Dave


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

But you'd need a fair bit more to add 11mph to 171 ;-) 6% speedo over-read also sounds a little bit un-Porsche (but I don't know), so maybe it was a little downhill, a little over-read and a little more than 295bhp - still plenty-o-MPH anyway


----------



## Jac-in-a-Box (Nov 9, 2002)

Agreed, think it's accepted that Porker speedos consistently (throughout the complete scale) read high by 3 - 4mph, the digital bit included.

And where have found 470bhp from?! Is that on the TT?

Dave


----------



## NaughTTy (Jul 9, 2003)

Jac-in-a-Box said:


> ......
> 
> *And where have found 470bhp from?! Is that on the TT?*
> 
> Dave


Check the second line in his sig Dave :wink:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

V6 TT said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > Besides a stock CaymanS is just not capable of a true 182mph. 997 product marketing won't permit it. :wink:
> ...


295 ponies just aint enough for that speed. 100%.


----------



## Jac-in-a-Box (Nov 9, 2002)

NaughTTy said:


> Jac-in-a-Box said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...


Ah, right, got it Paul...and I gave Clive an extra 50 bhp too (for free as well!)

Dave


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> V6 TT said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


The Cayman S weights just 1340 kgs which is extremely light for 295 bhp to push it to that speed. An RS4 weights 300 kgs more. Yes the ratios (bhp/tonne) is still higher on the RS4 but not much.

Having said that, Autocar was saying that at 6th gear top speed is 171mph. :?


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

I wasn't comparing the RS4 to the Cayman S. I was saying I didn't think The Cayman would do 182mph with 295bhp (which at least Gary and Autocar seem to agree with me on) and making a seperate joke about my going off to play on the motorway..... :roll:

More importantly V, as you've gone to the effort of pointing out the differences, I look forward to your explaination of what weight has to do with it. As the rest of us hopefully know, power to weight ratio effects acceleration, but not top speed, so how much the two cars weigh isn't relevant here at all. If you'd have mentioned power, drag or gear ratios you'd have earned a credible place in the conversation, but you missed your chance ;-) Well, that's if we were having a conversation comparing the two cars, which we're not 

Oh, and yes - 470-480bhp is MRC's estimate of the power of the RS4 now based on their on-road timings of a couple of set peices. I'm only aiming for 420bhp ish out of the TT.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

answering the original question....

Selfish, immature and dangerous. But drop the speed in the question to a ton.

No need for it. If you wanna race, go to a track.

V6TT is out of order for what he did imo and that sort of driving is idiotic but from his posts hes also goading everyone and doing a good job of it. Hats off to him you are all biting too lol (did myself in another thread beiefly).

Let the law be a judge of it (the driving I mean not the flaming, err, there isnt a Forum police is there, there is u say, admins u say, oops)


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Sat in an RS4 at the dealers yesterday. Saw a Cayman at the lights on the way back.

Personally speaking the RS4 is a miles nicer car and if I wanted a Cayman I would get the convertible version anyway. Whats it called again, oh yeah, a Boxster S.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

clived said:


> I'm only aiming for 420bhp ish out of the TT.


 :lol:


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

Leg said:


> No need for it. If you wanna race, go to a track.


. . . whose talking about racing here, racing what exactly? There was *nothing* else on the fucking road - why add little extra crap into the equation, maybe just to firm up your argument?

. . . and why is 100mph not so bad, you're still breaking the law and a mishap at that speed will still leave you (and others) eating through a fucking tube for a bit *if you're lucky*?

Dean


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

Leg said:


> Personally speaking the RS4 is a miles nicer car and if I wanted a Cayman I would get the convertible version anyway. Whats it called again, oh yeah, a Boxster S.


. . . how 'immature'! :lol: :wink: . . . the RS4 is an amazing car (if not way overpriced as are all the'sporty' performance saloon cars) but I'd don't have any kids (no shit!) and wanted a true sports car designed that way from the ground up.

The CaymanS *is* a different animal to the BoxsterS in many ways but why waste time educating the ignorant and uniformed? Neither of these cars (RS4/CaymanS) seem to be in your grasp from the 'life choices' you've made so it don't really matter as you'll never get your arse in either, ho hum, best stick to what you know 'Dad', kids are priceless anyways right? :wink: :roll: :lol:

Dean


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

V6 TT said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Personally speaking the RS4 is a miles nicer car and if I wanted a Cayman I would get the convertible version anyway. Whats it called again, oh yeah, a Boxster S.
> ...


lol, hit a sensitive spot did I?

Awww did someone say his ickle car was the same as a slightly cheaper model, there there, ignore the nasty man and he will go away.

:lol:


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

Leg said:


> lol, hit a sensitive spot did I?
> 
> Awww did someone say his ickle car was the same as a slightly cheaper model, there there, ignore the nasty man and he will go away.
> 
> :lol:


. . . not at all, it's ok, just popping out for another drive in my *Porsche* anyways - you never fail to disappoint! :roll: :lol:


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

V6 TT said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Personally speaking the RS4 is a miles nicer car and if I wanted a Cayman I would get the convertible version anyway. Whats it called again, oh yeah, a Boxster S.
> ...


 :lol: :lol: nice


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

V6 TT said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Personally speaking the RS4 is a miles nicer car and if I wanted a Cayman I would get the convertible version anyway. Whats it called again, oh yeah, a Boxster S.
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> If you'd have mentioned power, drag or gear ratios you'd have earned a credible place in the conversation, but you missed your chance


I mentioned both power and gear ratios within my 2 lines of course. But apparently you didn't read it right.

You did compare the two cars together, when you mentioned that your RS4 has 470 bhp but the Cayman S only 295 bhp.

Autocar hasn't tested the top speed of the Cayman S. Gary hasn't either. But Dean has. So who is more credible?


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> > If you'd have mentioned power, drag or gear ratios you'd have earned a credible place in the conversation, but you missed your chance
> 
> 
> I mentioned both power and gear ratios within my 2 lines of course. But apparently you didn't read it right.
> ...


Ok, I wasn't explicit enough. If you'd have used power rather than weight as your arguing point... I'm still looking forward to your explaination of what weight has to do with it however.

And as for gear ratio, you mention that where in your post, Knowing a car has a 6th gear isn't talking about the relative gearing ;-) :



> The Cayman S weights just 1340 kgs which is extremely light for 295 bhp to push it to that speed. An RS4 weights 300 kgs more. Yes the ratios (bhp/tonne) is still higher on the RS4 but not much.


And just because I chose not to post twice to make two seperate points, it doesn't mean I was comparing one car to the other. My post about the RS4 was a quip to illustrate which side of the "it's ok to do 150 sometimes" debate I sit.

As for who is most credible? Well, given that dean was using, as he has said, the car's speedo to asses the top speed, and Autocar would be using measuring gear, I'll go with Autocar. However, lets discount both of those sources, and I'll take Porsche's figure. Or are you going to tell me that Porsche are not credible?


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

lol, ure right, wish I had not had kids or anything else ive got so i could bump my V6TTC for a Cayman :roll: :lol:

Having said that...........there are brief occasions....usually when I find a half eaten sweet on a car seat :evil:


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

Leg said:


> lol, ure right, wish I had not had kids or anything else ive got so i could bump my V6TTC for a Cayman :roll: :lol:


. . . 'bump'? Eh - did I crash my 6'er for the Porsche? You're not making much sense now, it's ok I understand, obviously touched a nerve . . .

Way too late for regrets now, enjoy and be happy with what you've got! Don't panic I'm sure you'll do things differently next time round. Hey, I'm sure you're a wonderfull Dad, now come on, fucking snap out of it, these are the things money just can't buy! :lol: :wink: . . . this is just too easy! 

. . . my work here's obviously done (best one yet, thanks fella!) - the poll's looking pretty interesting too . . .

Dean


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

. . . ok, so Tim (jampoTT) has just gotta be out of the country right? I'm actually stunned by your abscence - I miss you!!  . . . fucking hell, these guys just ain't in your league fella!! :lol:


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

. . . would love to know the 2 users who voted for the 'quite sensible' option - now that is funny! :lol:


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

clived said:


> As for who is most credible? Well, given that dean was using, as he has said, the car's speedo to asses the top speed, and Autocar would be using measuring gear, I'll go with Autocar. However, lets discount both of those sources, and I'll take Porsche's figure. Or are you going to tell me that Porsche are not credible?


. . . jeezus, just fucking forget what I said, just get's me in bloody trouble! :lol:


----------



## slg (May 6, 2005)

V6 TT said:


> . . . would love to know the 2 users who voted for the 'quite sensible' option - now that is funny! :lol:


I was one of them! :roll:


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

If the motorway was empty and conditions were good, then I don't see what all the fuss is about. :?

Good on ya, fella. [smiley=cheers.gif]


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

Don't worry Dean (not that you are), they're all just jealous cos their cars won't go that fast


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

'bumped' means swapped up, exchanged up, traded up round ere.

As in 'bumped up to first class'.

Anyhoo, seems a dead thread now, some of us think excessive speeding is wrong, some dont, good job otherwise it would have been a tedious thread/discussion.

For the record, enjoy your Cayman V6TT, personally as you pointed out I chose a different lifestyle and for me the difference between the Cayman and the V6TT (there is a difference I would be daft to deny it) aint worth all the other things.

Each to their own, we makes our choices, we takes the risks.

Mines family and early retirement and a V6TT, if thats boring then guilty as charged m8.

Mind u at a dinner party last night, I felt quite an exciting bloke compared to the other people there lol there isnt a yawny smiley to describe the evening :roll:

Bye.


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

Leg said:


> there isnt a yawny smiley to describe the evening :roll:


How about [smiley=sleeping.gif] or [smiley=zzz.gif]


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

vagman said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > there isnt a yawny smiley to describe the evening :roll:
> ...


I stand corrected. Times that by 100 and ure spot on, never again!


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

You tested what you paid for Dean, fairplay.......


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

jdn said:


> V6 TT said:
> 
> 
> > jdn said:
> ...


Well. this one seems to have run its course - and meandered off topic once or twice.

As it stands, only 40% think it is safe in certain circumstances, and 4% playing devils advocate.

So, most car enthusiasts agree.

Enjoyed the banter, especially Dean's 'my car is considerably faster and more expensive than yours*' playground arguing techniques.

* he's correct on both counts of course.


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

I wouldn't say it is anyone of those three.

It is obviously something NOT for the faint hearted and only to be done by someone that has had sufficient experience/training before hand.

Every person has their traits, habits and hobbies and it'd be stupid to question these sort of things as just look at those gumballers that a lot of us idolise. Are they "fucking stupid"?


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

L8_0RGY said:


> I wouldn't say it is anyone of those three.
> 
> It is obviously something NOT for the faint hearted and only to be done by someone that has had sufficient experience/training before hand.
> 
> Every person has their traits, habits and hobbies and it'd be stupid to question these sort of things as just look at those gumballers that a lot of us idolise. Are they "fucking stupid"?


Some good points.

NOT for the faint hearted - Well, I guess you would need balls to do it, but there is a fine line between bravado and stupidity.

Sufficient experience/training - indeed, but I guess this is my point. I would assume the majority attempting such speeds will not have this. If it turns out Dean is an ex-police driver with years of advanced driving experience, or a wealth of high speed training then perhaps he knew what he was doing. Surely if the first time you drive at these speeds is on a public road something is wrong?

Gumballers - I don't idolise them. Are they stupid? Don't know enough detail about how the event is run to say.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

jdn said:


> So, most car enthusiasts agree.


Not sure your sample size is _quite_ large enough for that sweeping assertion!


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

clived said:


> jdn said:
> 
> 
> > So, most car enthusiasts agree.
> ...


I guess the carriage return between the 'As it stands' and 'most car enthusiasts' statements does mislead.

Not intended to be sweeping, so to clarify;

'of those who have voted so far'

...insert remainder of statment here.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

But if he is hogging the outside lane at 182mph, he had damn well better make room and move over for those with lesser morals who feel that 195mph is OK in their Boxster S's. :wink:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

V6 TT said:


> . . . ok, so Tim (jampoTT) has just gotta be out of the country right? I'm actually stunned by your abscence - I miss you!!  . . . fucking hell, these guys just ain't in your league fella!! :lol:


Sorry, fella - I was out of Blighty, in a land where 55mph is the way forward 

For what its worth, I sit with the "too scared of the legal issues" camp to go mental on the roads. I reckon my car is good for at least 165mph, but there's no way I'll be testing that on a public road in the UK.

Like most people who own a performance car, I've had the odd "test", and squirted the right foot, but back off straight away, because I'm extremely paranoid about losing my license.


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

jampott said:


> V6 TT said:
> 
> 
> > . . . ok, so Tim (jampoTT) has just gotta be out of the country right? I'm actually stunned by your abscence - I miss you!!  . . . fucking hell, these guys just ain't in your league fella!! :lol:
> ...


Yes i think your car is probably good for that also....Just a shame i didnt get it up to that speed....Give me a late night on the A10 and ill find out for ya


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

dont c its a problem - you can do it in other countries and they dont have 1000's of dead


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Toshiba said:


> dont c its a problem - you can do it in other countries and they dont have 1000's of dead


Obviously in the countries where you CAN do it, people learn to anticipate that it might happen.

In Germany, I bet your average Joe on the derestricted Autobahn is passed every few minutes by someone cruising well over 100mph, and pretty regularly by someone doing over 150mph. Its part of life.

Here, though, it isn't... and as you simply aren't expecting someone to be catching up with you at well over twice the legal speed limit, you are far more likely to pull out in front of them without properly judging their speed. Of course in this instance, both parties are partly responsible, but both will end up looking like strawberry jam, and ultimately the blame will lie with the speeding twat.

You simply can't correlate the fact that speeding is "safe" in known, publicised derestricted areas with extreme speeding on the roads of the UK.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

100% agree.

That's why I voted for "Safe and no problem if the road is 'clear'" coz if it's clear (which I took to mean deserted) then there's not another persons action to anticipate.

If other people are around then it's a no no.... unless they're also doing the same speed as you. :wink:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

I voted stupid & dangerous if we're restricting the actions to the UK. Whole different ball game on un-restricted roads.

If your question had based the speed as 90 or 100MPH, my answer would have been different, however as Tim states above, it's a quick squirt rather than a sustained speed. Doing 150MPH anywhere other than a de-restricted road or track/airfield is plain crazy & of course an outright ban (i can't afford to get banned). The number of times we all see some to$$er pull out on a motorway for no reason or without looking gives further weight to the speeding issue, at 70,80,90 & perhaps even 100MPH, most cars could pull up fairly safely if required, but 150MPH is a whole different ballgame & probably game over for more people than just the speeding driver.


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> I voted stupid & dangerous if we're restricting the actions to the UK. Whole different ball game on un-restricted roads.
> 
> If your question had based the speed as 90 or 100MPH, my answer would have been different, however as Tim states above, it's a quick squirt rather than a sustained speed. Doing 150MPH anywhere other than a de-restricted road or track/airfield is plain crazy & of course an outright ban (i can't afford to get banned). The number of times we all see some to$$er pull out on a motorway for no reason or without looking gives further weight to the speeding issue, at 70,80,90 & perhaps even 100MPH, most cars could pull up fairly safely if required, but 150MPH is a whole different ballgame & probably game over for more people than just the speeding driver.


Agree entirely.


----------



## omen666 (Oct 10, 2004)

with SCOttY one this one but....

having been done for 80mph on a deserted dual carriageway at 0730 on Boxing Day can't help but think sometimes the traffic Police are not connected to the real world.

And I mean deserted, no one else there. I even saw him sat still in rear view on slip road.  He didn't get a reading on me, but in his 'opinion' I was doing over 70mph

WTF....get a reality pill :evil:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> 100% agree.
> 
> That's why I voted for "Safe and no problem if the road is 'clear'" coz if it's clear (which I took to mean deserted) then there's not another persons action to anticipate.
> 
> If other people are around then it's a no no.... unless they're also doing the same speed as you. :wink:


I agree with this too. But just to add one more thing. Provided that this is not done regularly and it was a one off.

Dean did this at night, so it wasn't so safe for himself and only himself and didn't risk killing anybody.

But it must be scary. I have only done 140mph in the TT in Germany...and it was pretty fast!


----------



## che6mw (Nov 13, 2003)

vlastan said:


> I agree with this too. But just to add one more thing. Provided that this is not done regularly and it was a one off.


So if you do something irresponcible only once then it is ok? Just make sure you don't do it very frequently?

What rubbish!!! Something is either acceptable or it isn't. We're not talking about eating pies where moderation is important.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Yes it is OK, because the risk he took was low and nothing happened and he won't do it again. Imagine if he was driving at this speed daily.


----------



## che6mw (Nov 13, 2003)

vlastan said:


> Yes it is OK, because the risk he took was low and nothing happened and he won't do it again. Imagine if he was driving at this speed daily.


But surely if it is ok to do it once it is fine to do it every day?

Is it ok for me to drink drive then? But only if I do it once???

I don't really see how moderation can be brought in to this. Surely the more often you do something the better at it you get. So he'd be safer and able to read the road and the car better at 150mph if he did it more often ????


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

You are referring to addiction here which IS bad.

It is all about being able to control yourself and after you tried something, no matter how good it felt, you don't repeat it as it is illegal or irresponsible.


----------



## che6mw (Nov 13, 2003)

vlastan said:


> You are referring to addiction here which IS bad.
> 
> It is all about being able to control yourself and after you tried something, no matter how good it felt, you don't repeat it as it is illegal or irresponsible.


Not talking about addiction at all! I am talking about whether something is right or wrong. And if it is wrong, it can't be okay to do it just the once.

If driving at 150mph or over is irresponsible or wrong then it is wrong EVERY time. It isn't ok if you do it only once. Which is what it appears you meant in your post.


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> That's why I voted for "Safe and no problem if the road is 'clear'" coz if it's clear (which I took to mean deserted) then there's not another persons action to anticipate.
> 
> If other people are around then it's a no no.... unless they're also doing the same speed as you. :wink:


. . . like it matters anymore what I say but I didn't see another car in the 15 mile stretch that night at 03:30am between Swansea and Llantrisant - hardly London now is it and the guys on the cameras were probably sleeping! :roll:

182mph *is* just plain wrong, never disputed that and some didn't seem to care or just simply liked to disregard the circumstances, run away with themselves, add crap that wasn't there in the 1st place and even assume too much about my character to fuel their own little private demons. :lol: It's just that some numpty's seem to think anything upto 150mph is ok though or even upto 100mph and then for me the issue would be 'holier than thou' and it all became extremely farsicle and very entertaining to watch it all unfold . . . as far as school yard tactics well I can't ever recall casting dispurtions on anyones character or name calling other than 'Dad' of which we seem to have a few of on here and I'm positive it is a life changing experience, so is driving at 182mph in a Porsche, you had your chances, *that* was mine.

All the big guns on this Forum stayed very quiet for a while but some voiced rational opinions but the fact remains the majority of those actually own high performance of one thing or another and I know that 'you' know no matter what's said here we all know what goes on when no ones looking and yes even you Tim (nice to have you back BTW), so let's not fuck around now is it.

Blipping the throttle on a fairly light big engined sports car takes you into serious speed territory extremely quickly, it's not like you need a 4 mile run up at silly speeds. :roll: :wink:

Just play safe out there whatever you drive, yes even you JDN with whatever highly polished car you own (shit probably not reading this as you're in bed as the kids have worn you out . . . unless you're up as maybe your baby's teething, hear Karpol's pretty good? :wink:  )

Dean


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

> All the big guns on this Forum stayed very quiet for a while but some voiced rational opinions but the fact remains the majority of those actually own high performance of one thing or another and I know that 'you' know no matter what's said here we all know what goes on when no ones looking and yes even you Tim (nice to have you back BTW), so let's not fuck around now is it.


Apart from the "look you is it?" Welshism at the end, I didn't catch a word of that... what are you saying? :lol:


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

jampott said:


> > All the big guns on this Forum stayed very quiet for a while but some voiced rational opinions but the fact remains the majority of those actually own high performance of one thing or another and I know that 'you' know no matter what's said here we all know what goes on when no ones looking and yes even you Tim (nice to have you back BTW), so let's not fuck around now is it.
> 
> 
> Apart from the "look you is it?" Welshism at the end, I didn't catch a word of that... what are you saying? :lol:


. . . that's the general idea, it's in code! :lol: . . . fuck only knows it was late! :roll: :lol:  . . . "you can take the boy out of the valley but you can't take the valley out of the boy" :wink:


----------

