A man caught doing 180mph in a police chase on the M6....!!

Jonnycoupe · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:14

NathWraith said:
All cars should be limited at 70MPH no matter what their power output.

Errrm on the road... they are. Just legally not physically

InvaderGIR · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:15

This is me reading this thread (especially Ross's posts):

rG-tom · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:16

Not quite, his hair isn't receding.

Gaygle · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:17

rossk26 said:
This forum is beyond ridiculous.

No-one bats an eyelid at someone admitting to doing nearly 180mph on British roads, and expressing his views that it's entirely safe to travel at 120+ on a regular basis.

I suppose you have missed the last 3 pages of this thread???

rossk26 said:
Yet I drive on an unlit road without my high beams on and I'm worse than Hitler.

At the time, it was the argument you were using to try and justify it that was just simply hilarious and that provided entertainment

rossk26 said:
Least I have changed my driving style now, accepted that using high beams is much better on unlit roads.

Fair play to you. Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone seems to learn from them.

Raymond Lin · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:17

PMKeates said:
Probably not, but then a dog on a motorway is going to die - sorry.The stopping distance from 180 MPH is less than a third of a mile, probably a quarter in an RS5. The chances of your encountering a completely stopped object on the motorway, randomly and suddenly, are pretty much nil; people who brake down go to the hard shoulder, and it would be only someone with a death wish or something that is stupid enough it's going to die anyway that would be there.

You could possibly have something that has launched from the other side of the road, but then I wouldn't advocate travelling at 180 MPH in anything but virtually clear conditions in the UK, so you have, as I said earlier, some margin for error, like a clear lane to move in to.

Someone at work doing 70mph in day light hit a deer, it jumped out of the bush from the side, they either hit the deer, or hit the deer, it was so short a time they didn't even have time to hit the brakes.

Amazingly, despite cracking the engine block, because they were in a big car, Audi Q7, it did not go over the bonnet onto the windscreen, which would enviably gone through it and killed them (it would most likely in your 535) - the police accident investigator's words, not mine.

And the deer "flew" from the impact.

Nil? That deer disagree with you.

InvaderGIR · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:17

rG-tom said:
Not quite, his hair isn't receding.

I'm wearing a wig in that video (and a hat).

PMKeates · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:17

Philz0r said:
@tomo

but how long does it take you to realise you need to stop in that half mile?

sorry just being pedantic

It depends, really. In rossk26's first contrived scenario of the car pulling out, you'd see it fairly soon on a clear road; easily enough time to slow. In the dog situation, it'd probably be too late, and you'd probably move out of the way anyway. In the human situation it'd be entirely dependant on whether they are moving about or not; if they are lying on the floor you might be able to move out of the way before you hit them, maybe not.

I also disagree with the accident investigator.

PMKeates · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:18

Raymond Lin said:
Someone at work doing 70mph in day light hit a deer, it jumped out of the bush from the side, they either hit the deer, or hit the deer, it was so short a time they didn't even have time to hit the brakes.

Amazingly, despite cracking the engine block, because they were in a big car, Audi Q7, it did not go over the bonnet onto the windscreen, which would enviably gone through it and killed them (it would most likely in your 535) - the police accident investigator's words, not mine.

And the deer "flew" from the impact.

Nil? That deer disagree with you.

How many deer are grazing in the outside lane of the motorway? Because in rossk26's contrived scenario you cannot overtake, so you must be in the outside lane.

In fact, was this 70 MPH even on a motorway, or just a dual carriageway? There's a difference as one does not tend to have wildlife all over it.

Gaygle · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:21

Right, ok, all this talk of deers and dogs on the motorway is just stupid.

The main hazards on the motorways are other cars doing unexpected things.

Raymond Lin · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:24

PMKeates said:
How many deer are grazing in the outside lane of the motorway? Because in rossk26's contrived scenario you cannot overtake, so you must be in the outside lane.

In fact, was this 70 MPH even on a motorway, or just a dual carriageway? There's a difference as one does not tend to have wildlife all over it.

Your effort to try and wiggle your way through these argument is sad.

That accident happened while doing 70mph, and motorway btw. So it's not Nil, and had that been you, you would be dead.

No, I do not know the number of deer grazing on the side of the motorway, I do not have the latest paper publish by national geographic, but the fact that is there are, that accident happend.

Nil? It is much higher than nil. I was in a car in an area that is not known to have deer, country lanes, and a deer jumped out of nowhere, stopp just in time in the Celica and we were doing about 50. Go around it would be either head straight into oncoming traffic or tree.

I would have neen likely to be dead, dead or dead out of anyone of those.

Philz0r · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:24

Gaygle said:
Right, ok, all this talk of deers and dogs on the motorway is just stupid.

The main hazards on the motorways are other cars doing unexpected things.

like throwing dogs out thier boots and lurring dear on the road?

rossk26 · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:25

InvaderGIR said:
This is me reading this thread (especially Ross's posts):

Sorry, if I were to travel everywhere at 120 mph, would this satisfy you?

Firestar_3x · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:26

And those of us who have done vmax on the autobahn know that things don't always happen in the distance, they can happen much closer, like your ever so nice German lorry pulling out for no reason.

But that's only on a busyish road.....

rossk26 · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:26

Gaygle said:
Right, ok, all this talk of deers and dogs on the motorway is just stupid.

The main hazards on the motorways are other cars doing unexpected things.

Precisely, and my point of a car blowing a tyre and going sideways (covering two lanes) with no way of getting past, before it slams into the central reservation and eventually grinds to a halt in the fast lane.

Got overlooked.

Cos PMKeates has this all planned out.

PMKeates · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:27

Raymond Lin said:
Your effort to try and wiggle your way through these argument is sad.

That accident happened while doing 70mph, and motorway btw. So it's not Nil, and had that been you, you would be dead.

I'm sorry but you have absolutely no basis to claim that, and to attempt to say that if I hit a deer at 70 MPH I would die is completely ridiculous.

Besdies, I said "pretty much nil" not "nil".

Here's a photo of a normal car hitting a deer, reportedly at 150 MPH.

Which part of this would I die from? I'm more likely to die from hitting a bird that's level with my head.

rossk26 said:
Precisely, and my point of a car blowing a tyre and going sideways (covering two lanes) with no way of getting past, before it slams into the central reservation and eventually grinds to a halt in the fast lane.

Got overlooked.

Cos PMKeates has this all planned out.

With all this happening half a mile ahead, you have completely overlooked... braking? Changing in to another of the three, four, five etc. lanes a motorway may have? You are contriving scenarios increasingly more elaborate and unlikely, and continue to remove the several options for avoiding the accident people are providing, like the most obvious - stopping - which a car capable of 180 MPH will be able to do in a third of a mile, if not a quarter of mile.

Oh, sure, if the absolutely unbelievable happens an airship might crash in to the motorway half a mile ahead of me, my brakes simultaneously fail, and I'll crash in to it. Yup, you have me there ross, I couldn't possible get out of that one!

I have a funny feeling this 'scenario' is going to start occuring closer than half a mile now..

Firestar_3x · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:27

rossk26 said:
Precisely, and my point of a car blowing a tyre and going sideways (covering two lanes) with no way of getting past, before it slams into the central reservation and eventually grinds to a halt in the fast lane.

Got overlooked.

Cos PMKeates has this all planned out.

Very low probability of that happening though.

InvaderGIR · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:29

Raymond Lin said:
Your effort to try and wiggle your way through these argument is sad.

That accident happened while doing 70mph, and motorway btw. So it's not Nil, and had that been you, you would be dead.

Please provide proof that an E60 535d driver would be killed at 70mph by hitting a deer, your argument is more that slightly flawed.

rossk26 said:
Sorry, if I were to travel everywhere at 120 mph, would this satisfy you?

Given your lack of understanding distances, lights and such, I'd rather you took the bus.

Gaygle · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:32

At a 180mph there is a much higher chance of someone doing something unexpected, a much higher chance of you not reacting to this quick enough, a much higher chance of your car not slowing down quick enough, a much higher chance of you hitting the vehicle, a much higher chance of you killing occupants of both vehicles, and should you avoid them there is a much higher chance of you losing control and the car hitting something else (yes, even with DSC activated).

It isn’t rocket science, as the speed increases, the risk does also. At more modest speeds, such as 100-120mph, this increased risk can be significantly mitigated by only doing these speeds when the traffic is low, the weather is clear, the car is suitable and when you know the road. As you climb in speed, this stuff starts being outweighed by the risk of other people doing something stupid, as you are far more at the mercy of other people’s cars and driving than your own.

Raymond Lin · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:32

PMKeates said:
I'm sorry but you have absolutely no basis to claim that, and to attempt to say that if I hit a deer at 70 MPH I would die is completely ridiculous.

Besdies, I said "pretty much nil" not "nil".

Here's a photo of a normal car hitting a deer, reportedly at 150 MPH.

Which part of this would I die from? I'm more likely to die from hitting a bird that's level with my head.

With all this happening half a mile ahead, you have completely overlooked... braking? Changing in to another of the three, four, five etc. lanes a motorway may have?

"police accident investigator"

You can take up your proof with him.

As for your photo, that looks like the size of a dog, you do not know and I don't either know the size of the deer my colleage hit. Right now, I am taking the words of the police over yours.

I think that is perfectly fair. Unless you go out and hit a big deer doing 150mph, come back and tell me in person it was survivable.

Firestar_3x · 24 Aug 2012 at 14:33

InvaderGIR said:
Please provide proof that an E60 535d driver would be killed at 70mph by hitting a deer, your argument is more that slightly flawed.

He would have been if the deer hit the windscreen rather than the front bumper / grill, people die in places such as Canada due to hitting elk, whilst larger than a small deer it's not hard to see an adult doing enough damage to kill you.