That moment when you clock the van...
- Thread starter Muffin`
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 5,937
- Location
- Essex
He was speeding to overtake someone - that's illegal. How can anyone defend exceeding the speedlimit to complete an overtake. Morons.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,224
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Are you calling us Morons?
Being a hated prius owner, I'll write "a few" lines, then hide.
I've had "normal" cars in the past, and had speeding tickets etc.. so I'm not a saint lol.. However, my ex GF lived in MR, and I have driven and walked this stretch of road.
The car would have come around a fairly tight right hand bend (although an easy 70+ for "performance" cars ), after which is an exit on the right from the layby where often hundreds of motor bikes can be found during the summer nights / weekends. About 100m after the exit (and closer to the camera van) is the entrance to the layby, and then a little closer is a side-road through the woods to some houses. Between there and the camera, there is practically nothing either side in terms of roads, as it passes the racecourse.
Visibility of the road itself is pretty good, although the visibilty of stuff wanting to come onto the road from the junctions is near zero due to the trees.
Just behind the camera van it turns into a 40 limit as you enter the town.
That stretch of road is often used by motorbikes (and clearly drivers) to race along, at high speed, and there have been a number of accidents and deaths along that stretch. I should point out that it's also used sensibly by lots of motorbikes and cars, simply out for a summer "run around".
There are also many people who walk from the town into the woods along the path.
I agree that the faster you pass something, the quicker you're in the "safe zone" again, however, 113mph ? Come on.. 70 is borderline, and to do it in front of a safety van, of which you would have had good visibility, is just plain stupid, or you need your eyes testing...
I've had "normal" cars in the past, and had speeding tickets etc.. so I'm not a saint lol.. However, my ex GF lived in MR, and I have driven and walked this stretch of road.
The car would have come around a fairly tight right hand bend (although an easy 70+ for "performance" cars ), after which is an exit on the right from the layby where often hundreds of motor bikes can be found during the summer nights / weekends. About 100m after the exit (and closer to the camera van) is the entrance to the layby, and then a little closer is a side-road through the woods to some houses. Between there and the camera, there is practically nothing either side in terms of roads, as it passes the racecourse.
Visibility of the road itself is pretty good, although the visibilty of stuff wanting to come onto the road from the junctions is near zero due to the trees.
Just behind the camera van it turns into a 40 limit as you enter the town.
That stretch of road is often used by motorbikes (and clearly drivers) to race along, at high speed, and there have been a number of accidents and deaths along that stretch. I should point out that it's also used sensibly by lots of motorbikes and cars, simply out for a summer "run around".
There are also many people who walk from the town into the woods along the path.
I agree that the faster you pass something, the quicker you're in the "safe zone" again, however, 113mph ? Come on.. 70 is borderline, and to do it in front of a safety van, of which you would have had good visibility, is just plain stupid, or you need your eyes testing...
How can anyone possibly defend staying on the wrong side of the road for an extended period just to remain within some arbitrary speed limit? Morons.
The flattening of distance in the video makes it look worse than it is, if he was overtaking a single car I wouldn't have a problem with it as such, tho its a bit quick. Doing that speed past very obviously novice road users, and ones without the shell of a car, etc. to protect them shows extremely poor judgement in my opinion.
Its hard to get a lot of the facts from that video but it looked like the bikers weren't being particular considerate of other road users either - assuming they were travelling relatively slowly that there was a real need to overtake them (does look like other traffic is queuing up behind them at the end of the video) the formation didn't leave drivers a whole lot of choice but to blast it past in the other lane down the whole length of them.
End of the day tho if he seriously thought he needed to do 100+ mph to do the overtaking manouver he seriously should have been waiting for a better chance.
"Nothing wrong with his overtake"
Accept he was almost 3 times above the legal speed limt (I assume that as he got the car down to 23mph and than back up to 40mph at the end.) Now I'm guessing there are two camps 1. He's speeding, let him burn in hell and 2. Speed isn't always dangerous good luck to him.
In the eye of the law he's 100% guilty, speed limits are there (Big cough... to protect people, not make money)
I fall somewhere in-between. But where was he looking when he started his maneuver? it certainly wasn't way down the road in front of him, he didn't take into account the learners. It was simply ****-poor judgement. (we've all been guilty of that in our lifetime)
The standing on the brakes is indefensible, he's a moron. He's all but done an emergency stop with god knows how many learner bikers behind him, and nearly lost it in so called perfect driving conditions in one of the best handling cars in the world he's such a good driver. NOT
He's firmly in the group the rules don't apply to me..
No it is not.
I can & anybody that knows the law of the road will defend speeding to over take as it is Legal.
I did my big bike test early last year & it was one of the things I remember being taught. I suggest you check your facts before you call people morons.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,224
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
I have 0 problem with people speeding when overtaking, I’d much rather everyone limits the exposure risk by finishing the manoeuvre as quickly as possible.
However i shall remember your ideal when someone plows into the front of me down a country road.
"It's ok dear, you may have no legs but least he wasn't speeding".
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,224
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Liquefied road safety campaigners, nothing stops you faster or with as little Judgment and facts.
Last edited:
99.9% sure that's wrong.. It is Illegal to speed while overtaking. (The clue is in the wording speed LIMIT) If you start an overtake and misjudge it and your choice is die in a head on, or put your foot down an break the law and live, it's an easy choice you break the law.
Of course you could see if you're right by overtaking a patrol car travelling at the legal limit..
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 5,937
- Location
- Essex
What. Please explain why you are overtaking someone if they are travelling at the speed limit?
It's almost like you are saying that if I'm overtaking a lorry that's doing 20mph in a 40 limit and I need to get past before the road narrows, I'm fine to roar past at 100. That is quite frankly ridiculous. Legally I'd be entitled to go up to 40mph to pass the slower moving vehicle. Anything above that is speeding.
Last edited:
I'd argue it was his lack of observation, then followed by his overreaction that caused it more than the safety camera.
The camera van was say half a mile away from him when he started the overtake? An overtake where he ended up doing 113mph, which is what, sub-20 seconds to travel that half a mile? Surely it would be reasonable to expect you'd pay at least some attention to where you were headed?
It was a clear day, straight road, nothing obstructing his view, this is surely a situation where, with most drivers, the safety camera would probably have prevented the overtake as they would've been paying attention.
I'm not the biggest fan of camera vans, or even static cameras as they can, and do, cause panic braking like you're implying happened here, but I just don't see this as a case of that. If the road had been clear and he'd come around the bend in the distance at 113 and then panicked like that then maybe you'd be right, but this seems more like a lack of observation to me.
whilst its best to overtake someone at speed 113+ is a bit excessive on a road like in the video IMO
on the motorway or a barriered dual carriageway i would have no problem but their could easily of been kids/walkers/OAPs crossing loitering etc
he didnt spot the van and even when he did took ages to get to sensible speed , how long would it of taken him to come to a full stop for an obstruction in the road ? the idea of a 60 limit is surely that it gives you time to react and stop on a clear day
on the motorway or a barriered dual carriageway i would have no problem but their could easily of been kids/walkers/OAPs crossing loitering etc
he didnt spot the van and even when he did took ages to get to sensible speed , how long would it of taken him to come to a full stop for an obstruction in the road ? the idea of a 60 limit is surely that it gives you time to react and stop on a clear day
The speed limit is 60 not 40.
As I said earlier 40-23mph would take only a few metres. It's not like the bikes are going to drive into him. As proved by the fact they didn't.
For all we know the camera man was hiding in bushes and heard the car
Lol, those bright yellow jackets blend right in.
I surrender, I'm off to watch Stargazing Live...
![[TBR]MadMark](/styles/overclockers/avatars/2.png){kind=avatar}
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 365
He should have been paying attention though - most camera vans in Lincolnshire (and most other counties) mainly park in the same locations. Anyone from the local area would have known this. Also in the summer the coast routes are swarming with plain cars and camera vans