100mph+ club

[diy]

Interesting article on the beeb today about the number of drivers stopped doing over a "tonne". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35654611

The highest speeds clocked after the BMW [M4] at 156mph, were a Mercedes C200 doing 155mph on the M1 in Hertfordshire, and a Jaguar at 144mph on the M4 in Gloucestershire.

Pretty impressive that C200 given it has a top speed of 146mph.

But the really interesting bit is ""But yes, I was over 100mph. Modern cars are very safety engineered but nothing's going to stop two ton of vehicle at that speed very quickly. It's made me more aware and I use cruise control now much more to keep a check on speeds." - this chap gets 6 points on his license for doing 103mph and his solution is to disconnect himself from the speed controls.

I really think we need to go back to a policy that educates people how to determine a safe speed for the conditions and not focus on the numbers so much. I reckon people would drive much slower where it counts if we did this.

[shootist]

The problem, IMO, is in part the opinion that everyone is 'entitled' to a driving licence and as a result the driving test remains fairly basic, and driving lessons teach how to pass the test rather than drive. If speed kills I would have been dead long ago. I do regard myself as fortunate that my need for speed has long ago been quenched by my police service during which I drove various cars as speeds significantly in excess of any limit. But you can quantify speed easily whereas it's far more difficult to quantify careless driving, or even reckless driving.

I still remember from years ago one police Chief, Manchester IIRC, who was asked whether UK police might copy the Germans by setting up equipment that could measure tailgating against speed and prosecute. He responded with contempt for such an idea, saying it might be fine in Germany but not in the UK, where laws are different. He no doubt remains convinced that the laws of physics are different over there. A typical police response to any suggestion they haven't thought of first.

[Hairyloon]

I am moved to wonder if their insurance cover is valid at such speeds... or if it ought to be considered as not to be.

[atticus]

How fast are you moved?

[Hairyloon]

I tend to wonder at a gentle pace.

[atticus]

I question the wisdom of making an insured driver uninsured in this way.

[Hairyloon]

And so you should, but that was not quite what was suggested.
There is more depth to the thought than is apparent at first sight, but I do have time to articulate it properly just at the moment.

[atticus]

That deserves:

[Millbrook2]

Does not the insurance issue have 2 different components.

If you crashed the car at a speed above the limit with comprehensive cover could the insurance company pay out for the damage to a third party but refuse to cover the cost of the damage to your car because you were over the speed limit?

[dls]

If you crashed the car at a speed above the limit with comprehensive cover could the insurance company pay out for the damage to a third party but refuse to cover the cost of the damage to your car because you were over the speed limit?

That argument might in any event be available to an insurance company now.

An insurance policy covers you against your own recklessness, but I am not sure that it extends to acts of recklessness.