I feel for that guy - I drive the stretch regularly where he got done. Almost got done myself just up from there for doing a 'little' over 100... but the policeman was nice when he pulled me in!

Still, good effort though.

I wonder if he'll get the same treatment as the copper late last year who was "testing the capabilities" of his new squad car? I highly doubt it, after all the fickle arm of the law needs all the help it can get in persecuting Joe Motorist - they're a good little earner after all.

Ne'ermind the almost ritualistic occourances of stabbings and shootings that seem to be plaguing our fair isle of late, or the public's increased view that crime is on the up - there's always money to be made from the lead footed and speed camera photogenic amongst us.

Maybe this isnt the issue that he is being 'victimised' the mention of the aggravated vehicle taking makes it more interesting tbh.

Maybe the car wasnt his

Blonde then?

Apparently the bloke worked for one of those luxury car rental firms. Seems he 'borrowed' the car in his lunch break.

Does our author know there's a difference?

See, in Germany, this is simply not the case, here and there. And it's a German car, you know...

Depending on the fine, it'd almost be worth it to get your name in the paper as having done 172mph. I imagine he'll have something to brag about for quite a while.

just how many times the speed of a sheep in a vacuum is that?

"I imagine he'll have something to brag about for quite a while."

In an ideal world, he'd have plenty of time to brag about it whilst waiting for a bus on account of having his license shredded into tiny little pieces before his eyes.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the stupid f$cker will probably end up with a slapped wrist, a token fine and 3 points on his license. And maybe an offer of a lift to his local job centre too ...

Sorry not impressed, my 12yr old 300 quid diesel citroen can do 125mph (gps, airfield nearby officer), for all the extra money that car cost, I'd expect more....

(And I get a decent cup holder)

OK, some Reg readers are also wannabe or actual boy racers. However, 100+mph over the speed limit on a public road is plain reckless. The man will be lucky to escape prison. However good the driver is there is no way he was in proper control of his car at that speed on that road. He could easily have hit someone - not much "bragging" to do if that had happened, more a lifetime of remorse and someone else's family devastated. Not really a "good effort", and definitely not "worth it" just for a thrill. Who among you would you "feel for him" if he had killed someone?

I don't feel for that guy, I regularly cycle my bike down that road.

Hope Mr Ouch gets a nasty copper next time he does 100mph.

There's a huge difference between 125 and 172. Somewhere around 150 my stomach reaches down and pulls my foot off the accelerator. I can barely see far enough in front of me (even in perfect conditions on a straight track) to be able to react to anything at those speeds.

at least here in Texas... 25mph over the limit is a felony... if the officer writes it up as that, you get an automatic 90day suspension and pretty stiff fines. last time I head of someone going more than 50 over the limit, they were hauled into the slammer after being wrestled to the ground and not to gently placed in the back of the squad car. Their car was impounded. No telling what happened from then on cause that wasn't covered in the news at the time. Must have been ratings week.

Other offeders caught st similar velocities in substantially lighter vehicles (ie motorbikes) have ende dup with prison terms ... I would hope he gets the same treatment.

"So ... you're the guy that did 172mph in a Porsche then"

"yep, thats me"

"well, Im pretty fast with my juggernaut, here I'll show you .. bend down and pick up that bar of soap would you?"

Oh thank you!

I looked at the comments expecting a whole bunch of righteous indignation that I could laugh at. For a while I thought Mr Angry was on tea break but at last we had it...

You must try a bit harder though - maniac is a bit tame. The BBC got someone to go as far as 'shocking and horrific'.

I'll stick to my GSX-R - I've got a gear or two to go at 172 and it's so much cheaper than a Porche :o)

yeah he could of killed someone

he could of driven into an orphanage and killed hundreds of children

he could of hit a church and killed some NUNS

but he didn't

so there :P

"Timothy Brady, of Harrow, was snared in a routine speed check near Kingston Bagpuize"

He was racing past a large stuffed cat?

<Begin Rant>

One thing that makes me laugh so much about our country: the perception that anyone speeding is acting stupidly and unsafely.

There is nothing wrong with doing 150 down the M4, M5 or M1 (that is, if you can get all the blind and unaware people out of the outside lane) or wherever providing the conditions are right. There is nothing unsafe about it - as long as you are in control of your car, and can stop if you need to.

Can a Ford Ka stop in the same distance as a Porsche with full on high performance brakes? No.

If a Ford Ka was doing 172, that would be stupid. If the porsche was doing 172 down single country lanes, that would be stupid. Maybe he was stupid if he "borrowed" the car and wanted to see how fast it could go; but do not judge him on his speed alone: that is Naive.

Go and visit SafeSpeed (www.safespeed.org.uk), and get a proper understanding of what is safe - and what is not.

<End Rant>

I'm not impressed. I've been at 250kmh in a taxi (in Germany).

PS: Didn't Top Gear say that 170mph was enough to confuse a speed camera?

I spent at least several days of my life at +150 mph until now, but I'm a german, so that's OK then.

But did you ever think about how driving at high speed might perhaps prolong your life? I mean, with general relativity and all that stuff around...

Now, where's that coat of mine...

Ah, so one of Paul Smith's fanboys (the guy who started Safe Speed and gets his name and a quote in the media every time there's a story about Speed Cameras) tells us to go and visit the so-called "Safe Speed" site where practically every road accident is seemingly blamed on speed cameras and motorists not being allowed to drive at whatever speed *they* think is safe (obviously if you think that driving at 172mph is safe, you should be allowed to do this!) yet his "evidence" appears to be based on little more than cherry picked statistics and dubious "interpretations" of the facts.

If you want to have a laugh, take a look at some of Mr Smith's analysis and the graphs and charts he uses to justify his claims, for instance the "Long Term Fatality Rate Trend" chart http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html which projects a trend which implies that if Speed Cameras *hadn't* been introduced, then the level of road accidents would fall to *zero* by about 2015!

"at least here in Texas... 25mph over the limit is a felony.."

Use to be in Cali doing 100 mph on the freeway would get both you and the car hooked and impounded. Now cops write 100+ tickets so often its now just a ticket. I've have had friends that got a warning for doing 100 in a 75.

170 is too fast for UK roads..people just won't see you om time and no one is expecting a car to go that fast.

He won't be driving for quite a while and may well find the penalty a lot worse.

The problem's not the speed, his l33t driving skills or tool of choice, it's about doing it where everyone else is pottering about in vans, little clios and bicycles,

I know someone who got stopped doing 138mph in a capri (lazer).

The policeman said "I didn't realise these could go that fast" to which he replied "yeah, I made some modifications..."

He got let off because he was driving "with absolute care and attention".

Obviously this was 25-30 years ago, wouldn't happen now.

He still has that capri btw.

And for the record, speed itself is not dangerous. People who drive faster than they can handle are dangerous. People who can't stop in a sensible distance are dangerous. Have you ever seen a ford anglia try to stop from 70? Bearing in mind that they are permitted to do this speed on the public roads, everyone who drives a relatively modern car should be allowed to do at least 150. In my opinion, speed limits should be set based on overall stopping distance (incl drivers reaction time), but that would be far too expensive to ascertain.

... should be 5 years as a lollipop lady, outside a school.

Then, when someone does 172mph and runs him [or her...] over and makes them deaded, he will realise how dangerous he has been and a very bad boy.

I find over 125mph it looks and feels the same to about 160mph cannot comment above that speed.

BTW overall stopping distance in the UK Highway code is based on mid 1960 cars....possible the anglia

1946 the then new version Highway Code started to show stopping distance : 10mph / 15 feet , 20mph / 40 feet , 30mph / 75 feet , 40mph / 120 , 50mph / 175 feet.

The new draft version March 2007 shows 20/40, 30/75, 40/118, 50/175 60/240 , and 70mph / 315 feet.

Whell notice at 40 mph the 2 foot difference must be that ABS technology or some metric conversion factor.

But better than the USA (where I live)

The American Safety Council states "Any regular passenger vehicle traveling at a speed of 20 MPH should be able to stop within a distance of 25 feet. " ok that sound fine but then the California DMV Driver Handbook quotes "35 mph, it takes about 210 feet to react and bring the car to a complete stop." ! " 55 mph can stop in about 400 feet." ? Thinking distance ? heavy cars ?

The California DMV Driver Handbook states “three-second rule" gap. no stopping distance (maybe too hard to remember for the average american? ).

and Scrap It.

Serious take the car and scrap it. A fine is nothing. Hit him where it hurts.

Dangerous driving is when idiots decide to hog the middle lane or outer lane while not overtaking anyone. They cause congestions and frustration and stress for all other drivers.

Dangerous driving when people's driving position has their eyes barely over the steering wheel. Pratts that do the "gangster lean" are in a whole different category...

Dangerous Driving is when people pull out without looking in their mirrors, or over their shoulder, without signaling (without due care and attention).

Dangerous Driving is whenever a Truck/Coach/Caravan decides to overtake.

Having driven regularly on the German Autobahns at over 150MPH (and still getting overtaken) I can honestly say that driving fast isn't dangerous - it is the idiots above that make it dangerous. Those are the idiots that should be clamped down on...

I would trust a driver who was confident at driving at, say, 130mph, better than many other drivers.

The biggest sin is to not be aware of what's going on, and the slowest drivers in many cases are the worst/dangerous drivers - the ones that pootle along at 25 in a 30; 60 in a 70.

I'm not necessarily condoning his actions but he didn't kill anyone, and motorway speeds should be at least 90 for at least the outer lane.

"In my opinion, speed limits should be set based on overall stopping distance (incl drivers reaction time), but that would be far too expensive to ascertain."

Two things... If the above isnt possible shouldnt we just work to the average ability... oh wait that would probably mean lowering the limit given the number of tits behind the wheel..

2. Given that on the motorway most people seem to think that < 2m is adequate stopping distance at 70+ mph I doubt that the highway code being based on 1960s stopping distances makes any difference...

The fact is, as has been said.. This speed may be safe on some roads (the autobahn was built for this purpose and is monitored 24hours a day for possible dangers, and the speed limit does get dropped in certian conditions ie thick fog, accidents etc). The speed that guy was doing, on that road, where there could have been any other veichle on the road (inc push bikes) is just fucking mental... bear in mind that it wasnt his car, so he probably wasnt used to driving anything near that speed...

I think its disgusting that people who intentionally speed are let off so lightly. For every 5mph over the speed limit you should be fined one month's salary. If your skidding distance is in excess of the distance to the next corner then your car should be crushed. If you crash into anyone then you should be automatically guilty, and have to prove your innocence, first penalty being car crushing followed by months of salary payments. Before the charge of attempted murder.

The people that say they are good drivers are usually the ones with points on their licence in my experience - mostly for "victimless" speeding offences. Pathetic.

Why are all cars not fitted with a small black box to record the last 30 minutes of instrumentation? This can be downloaded ready for court. Might make people think, before charging off down the foggy dual carriageway at 90+ mph!

About 3-4 years ago now two guys were clocked riding their motorcycles at 150 and 155mph respectively (zx-12r and zx-7r kawasakis). They went to prison. Now while I don't wish prison on anyone I hope that driving a car, something with 10+ times the inertia so hence destructive power, something no where near as capable of handling the speed (compared to the bikes), and something that will take far longer to stop receives a penalty that keeps this in balance.

Personally I don't think he should get anything worse than a ban. But that said I don't believe speed kills. In fact I know it doesn't... You can travel at any speed you like safely. The only thing that hurts is sudden acceleration.

Yup.

When you blink at 172 mph do you know how much road you have covered?

Was this guy driving on a straight piece of road 100 miles long?

With the grass verge 100 yards away left and right?

Did he have 20*20 vision? Zero alcohol?

Get real.

Andy Tunnah said:

"yeah he could of killed someone

he could of driven into an orphanage and killed hundreds of children

he could of hit a church and killed some NUNS

but he didn't

so there :P"

How about this?

yeah he could HAVE killed someone

he could HAVE driven into an orphanage and killed hundreds of children

he could HAVE hit a church and killed some NUNS

(At least his English would have proved he had some sort of education."

The faster you drive, the more likely you are to have an accident, and the more likely you are to be involved in a FATAL accident.

So there :P

...is quite obviously a prick. Argue all you want about speeding, and whether its 'safe' or not. There is nowhere in this country where its suitable to do 170MPH+. Here's hoping he dies is a firey ball of doom once he gets his license back...

..... Is vital. Read other comments here, it's a road open to cyclists and Joe and Joanne Schmoe in clapped out diesel clio's etc...... Have any of you guys a clue as to the kind of damage an impact between one of these slow moving, legal road users and this cretin would mean ? Some poor bloody copper cleaning human remains off the road with a broom and mop.

I've ridden motorcycles, and currently own a sports car. I've nearly lost my life whilst riding legally at 30 miles per hour because some schmuck thought rules didn't apply to him.

Laying in a casualty room with a leg hanging off, nurses talking about bikers being de facto organ donors and always at fault - in front of you, whilst doctors tell your wife to say goodbye - not expected to survive....... PTSD, wheelcairs, hip replacements at age 41...... Seven years off work and now untouchable by mainstream IT employers...... Maybe you'd like to see life from where I'm sitting ?

Bloody well grow up.....

I suppose you are one of the tossers who think it is perfectly safe to be doing 60+ around housing estates. 172 is perfectly safe, as long as you are a very good driver and ON A RACE TRACK. It is not safe on any public road where you have no idea who is about or how they are going to react or even what is going to happen to your car. Imagine what could have happened if one of his tires had blown out (See Richard Hammond for further details) or someone cut in front of him, or a kid kicks a ball to far and it ends up in the road suddenly so he had to swerve to avoid it or any one of a hundred other things that could have gone wrong.

Speed is dangerous because the faster you go, the less time you have to react. This is kind of obvious. At very high speeds, you will never react in time, however powerful your brakes and regardless of your driving skills.

And if I remember right, kinetic energy is proportional to the square of your speed. Double your speed and a crash will hurt 4 times as much. Incidentally I am a driving fan and I have a "sports" car.

all you muppets who think it's safe to do 172mph because it's a performance car better hope the driver is up to it as well. thinking time (usually assessed at approx 1.5 secs and thats optimistic) means he'd have already travelled 378 feet before his foot touches the break. then you're praying for the brakes.

whilst i'm happy that 90mph is not unreasonable on a motorway, it's because of the distance you can see, the type of road etc. this waster should never be allowed in a car again. if you want to sample the speed go play on a track. that way you only kill yourself.

We had a department company car, a renualt 5 GTI. I drove it once and it scared the shit out of me as I accelerated in 2nd gear only to find I was doing 80 down the A4.

I can see easily how someone could do 172mph on a nice straight piece of road, but wouldn't he scared shitless - even in a porsche.

Some people have more money than brains!

"thinking time (usually assessed at approx 1.5 secs and thats optimistic)"

have you any idea how SLOW 1.5 SECONDS is???? please check your facts. you must be talking about a drunk 90 year old granny.

@ David Barrett

"This speed may be safe on some roads (the autobahn was built for this purpose and is monitored 24hours a day for possible dangers, and the speed limit does get dropped in certian conditions ie thick fog, accidents etc)."

uhh - no. try the autobahn near where i live, it's 2 lanes built in WW2 and is not of any better quality than any road anywhere - it's the cars and the drivers that are. and, no - the speed limit does not get dropped in fog or after an accident - it's just that during fog or after an accident no-one is stupid enough to drive at high speed.

i think you may be mixing germany up with italy, where there is a posted fog speed limit on the autostrada. there is also a posted regular speed limit, which everyone of course ignores. i've done 155 mph on both (regularly in germany), and trust me i feel MUCH safer on the german roads (infintessimally lower idiot factor).

Years ago I figured out to sneeze out my mouth and not my nose and thus stopped my eyes closing up after scaring myself sneezing at 110 mph on the A1 south of Hatfield. (Causes me problems sometimes as I have to blow down my nose to clear it out sometimes or I sneeze for a long time).

But back to high speed: A 2005 study by the German Interior Ministry on autobahns indicated that motorway sections with unrestricted speed have the same accident record as sections with speed limits.

The A420 Oxford-Swindon is for the most part winding single-carriageway (50 limit) with small sections of dual. Both types feature regular side road junctions. The road has a bad fatality record.

Autobahn it isn't. 172mph is so far off the sensible speed scale *for this road* that no defence is possible. If this nurk didn't kill someone, it wasn't because of his skill or judgement.

Come now. 172 is just silly. I'm a firm believer that the current speeding laws and enforcement are a perversion of the intent of the lawmakers when they were written, but 172 (275kmh) on that piece of road is well over the top. There's about 2km of dual carriageway with a roundabout at one end and standard 3-digit A-road at the other. If he was doing that speed at the beginning of it and didn't have to stop it'd take all of 30s.

http://www.multimap.com/maps/#t=l&map=51.6833,-1.44178|15|32&loc=GB:51.6833:-1.4229:13|Kingston%20Bagpuize|Kingston%20Bagpuize,%20Oxfordshire

It was lunchtime. The idiot took an unacceptable risk and has been banned from driving. He will almost certainly go to jail and be levied a stiff fine.

Why waste money and a good car by crushing it ?

If the situation means a car can be confiscated, why not simply sell it at auction to reduce our tax burden.

Anyway, I remember driving down a motororway once, only doing about 95, and I passed a car with some old fogey who was doing about 70. He and his wife looked at me with disgust as I passed them.

It was daytime, light traffic, good visibility, and dry.

Shortly after, I came across road works - there was no posted speed restriction, but there were cones on the road, and workmen in the closed off lanes. Also, just as I approached this work, a sudden downpour occured. Naturally, I slowed down, and with the spray, and rain, I went from 40mph to even 30mph at one point through this hazard.

Just at that moment, said old-fogey passed me - he was still doing 70mph.. Posted speed limits are for those too daft to be able to work out a safe speed for themselves.

I'd also like to point out that my current car is far safer and controllable at 100mph then my old old car was at 70mph - and it wasn't that old at the time.

I have ridden bikes and driven cars since I was 17, I currently have 6 motorbikes and 1 car. I have been stopped for doing 101.8mph on my VFR750 on the M40 over 10 years ago and the court went to three hearings before it was settled as I defended myself until the last hearing. At that hearing I was told that I could not be a technical witness as to quote the crown prosecution I wasn't qualified to be a technical witness. Strange being qualified in Maths, stats and computing, Mechanical engineering and automotive engineering and design and being involved with nephews that went on to be British kart, Formula Ford and Australian F3 champions. My manager at the time only took me to court because he beleived me when I stated I wasn't going that fast ( Including the growth rate of my tyres at the temperatures, pressure and speed on the day of the incident) He was concerned I may get a short term ban.

They let the police go back to duty before sentencing me, I got 6 points and a £200+ fine, if I had deniedspeeding I would of been let off as at the time radar guns didn't work on bikes and they used VASCAR. However, being honest i admitted to speeding but not the speed they claimed.

OK that's my 'qualification' for commenting on this case.

172mph on a British Public road is not safe. Even if on a dual carriageway that is empty in your direction and only cars on the other carriageway at that speed if your car hits the barrier it can be thrown over the centre, plough through fences in to houses or roads off the nearside all just through getting a blow out in a tyre.

The other falicy on the comments above state that bikes can stop quicker than a car. No they can't they may have far less mass and big fat tyres and big powerful disk brakes, however, Cars have a longer wheelbase, wider track, 4 rubber contact points with the ground each having a much larger contact area than that of a sports bike and in the case of sports casrs they also have very powerful brakes.

My VFR750 is quite capable of standing on it's nose under braking with the back wheel several feet in the air it's been known to happen down the M1 due to the numpties on the road. With only one wheel on the ground and a small contact patch it doesn't stop as quickly as a car that at high speed has all 4 wheels on the ground with nice fat contact areas all doing some braking.

At low speeds the difference between cars and bikes braking is minimal, at high/racing speeds they are not, this driver was caught doing 172mph - 252.27 feet per second if he has perfect eyesight he is blessed, if he only meets the minimum required of reading a number plate at 25 yards he has covered massively more distance than he can see clearly in just his reaction time.

Get a puncture, lose a wheel weight, have warped disks because of consistent heavy braking and at the speed he was going he would hardly see anything even the end of his own nose. If his car was immaculate in it's mechanical preparation then it may be safe to go that speed (on a suitable road or track). Speed limits are there to protect road users and the public for when things go wrong or are not in perfect order, they will always err on the side of caution. I don't always stick within the limits, however, I would save such speeds for the correct environment - which isn't British public roads.

Yes this driver should receive gaol time, but that is only my opinion, the driver himself would say he doesn't as he no doubts feels he was safe. The law is there to protect you from yourself as well as other people from your actions!

In Texas.. US...

I think in "Bad boys" and many other similar cop propaganda they say something like "he's dangerously going over 80 miles an hour in this pursuit" or something in that flavour. 80 Mph? That's an easy commute home after rush.

Of course, I would only drive that "fast" on an almost empty freeway, until I hit the border with Germany, where I would go 120Mph max, because any faster than that I'd be at my destination too soon.

Over 25Mph+ over a felony? What will they come up with next? Releasing blather pressure on a cactus indecent exposure?

"Hey Bill, nice truck"

"Yeah, it idles really cool Joe"

"Does it run fast too Bill?"

"Heck I don't know Joe, I can only go 55Mph cause any faster, the cops will pull me over and I get the death penalty"

"Shame of that Hemi big block you got in there"

"Yeah, but the commercial for it is really cool isn't it?"

It seems to me that anyone doing 172MPH is shrugging their shoulders at the law and jail time already, so why pull over for the police? I doubt there's a cop anywhere that is going to pursue you at those speeds nor would they likely get your license plate as you went passed; even if they did you could have someone punch you in the eye after you ditch the car and claim it was 'jacked. (Don't try this at home kids, I heard this doesn't work.)

I dont know the specifics of this case

but sometimes that sort of speed isnt dangerous

i have a pretty fast car and have once taken it to 165 on the clocks

was around 156 on the gps

was a very straight stretch of the m4 3 lanes that where totally empty

id say 90% of people with performance cars push the car to the limit atleast once

you just have to be sensible when doing it

Graham:

The graph you point at at Safespeed.org is in logarithmic scale. So it doesn't imply anything being zero, ever. While the cause for the change in pattern is certianly debatable, there is nothing wrong with the trend highlighted in the graph.

..do you think a professional racing driver would seriously consider driving on a public road at 172mph? No? Why not?

Maybe its the lack of safety equipment, no marshalls, no ambulance/fire personnel on standby, the stray dogs/cats,children, the fact traffic is 2 way or some other equally annoying danger. What pussies !!

If a pro wouldn't do it, a spotty faced boy-racer should leave well alone.

No matter how good he is at XBOX or PS3 driving games.

Well known FACT. Reaction times of the fastest people in the world behind the wheel (Top Fuel dragster and Funny Car racers) is 0.6 seconds... and they are just waiting for the green light, the processing work involved in recognising dangers, processing the ideal response to the danger and actually doing it is considerably longer (and is likely to exceed 1.5 seconds for anyone who doesn't have 20:20 vision and is super alert and concentrating).

..and on a related note:

Speed does not kill - it's the sudden stop that kills.

Regards,

Mat

(A 300kmh/180mph bike rider)

I'm no lawyer, but I believe that breaking the speed limit is an "absolute" or "technical" offence, in that provided that the facts are proven (it was you, and you were going at speed X) you are guilty.

Whereas dangerous driving depends on the PRECISE conditions (visibility, traffic, weather, car etc) and your behaviour at the wheel.

So, "speeding" may be safe (or not), but is still illegal. Dangerous driving is, by definition, dangerous.

The Safe Speed campaign probably reflects the law on dangerous driving, which is all based on circumstances. Exceeding the posted speed limit CAN be safe, and dangerous driving can happen below the speed limit.

To those who would condemn this man I say - you are probably right, but you can't be sure until you get ALL the facts, which you won't get from a Register article, or the BBC.

This is why we have a complex, expensive legal system, and not "trial by Register comments".

FWIW, sports cars don't generally stop significantly quicker than other road cars; most modern cars have enough brake and tyre performance to do ONE emergency stop from VMAX - or else the manufacturers would get sued for selling a product not fit for purpose. And if I was to choose a car for quick direction changes under heavy braking, it wouldn't be the arse-engined 911, PASM or not.

John

... are one reason I don't live in the UK anymore. And glad for it.

I now live in Germany, funnily enough, where I'm quite happy to do the recommended speed limit of 130km/h (around 80mph) on the autobahns. Yeah, on unrestricted sections, you can let rip ... but after a while, the novelty fades - and the petrol bill beckons (aerodynamic drag quadrupes as your speed doubles - so, for example, going from 70mph to 100mph could double your fuel consumption). There's many good arguments for sticking to the lowest safe speed (see later) you can, and none of these are legal arguments...

By the way, the 130km/h limit is "recommended" for several reasons - especially one important reason that's always worth bearing in mind: Your insurance companies can decline to pay out if you have an accident and you were going at >130km/h (even if the accident was not your fault). Why? They can (and do) argue that if you had been doing less, the accident could have been avoided. So, there is responsibility to be had for the thrill: Just remember, it's on your head (just in case anyone here was thinking of flying to Germany and renting a Porsche for a quick thrash on the autobahn. Don't laugh - it happens a lot with Dutch drivers who get new cars, and take them over the border to "test" them. Invariably, accidents happen because these drivers are going at dangerous speeds in a vehicle they are not familiar with).

I will agree with other posters that the problem with idiot drivers in Germany is much less pronounced than in the UK. Here, idiot drivers tend to wind up dead - and as the Germans seem none too keen on declaring idiots a protected species, it means German autobahn drivers are generally a LOT more savvy than the typical UK driver. You have to be: You could be going down a 2-lane autobahn, with a lorry doing 80km/h in one lane, and a Porsche coming up behing you at 270...

However, the best (and safest) speed to drive at is this: The speed everyone else is doing. If you're the only 55mph driver in a motorway chock-full of people going at 70, really, you should do the world a favour and give up your driving licence. Speed differentials caused by slowcoaches have caused *many* sticky situations I have faced on the road (both in the UK and in Continental Europe, where I drive a lot these days - seeing as I live there now).

By the same token, German penalties for speeding in residential areas are extremely stiff (and make the UK look lenient by comparison) - just because some autobahn stretches are unlimited does not mean you can pretend to be Nigel Mansell around the Altstadt. Quite apart from anything else, the autobahns are designed to carry high-speed traffic (it's actually sturdy enough to land a 747 on, something you couldn't say about the average UK road!) - and as such, speed thrills should be restricted to where everyone else is doing the same thing...

Oliver.

dude was only going 172mph ? get that f##king roadblock of the outer lane.

I need some breathing space for my bike.

stupid idiet. should get something with nuff horsepowers that he doesnt look like a sand-dune on the move.

aawww... cant giddid.

and whats the problem with speed you buggers have ? where is the problem ? if you are pantsies, keep to the slow-buggers lane. stay outta the way.

the rest of us will be laughing off our arses all the way from london to gumball finishing gates.

If the average speed on a motorway is 60 and you do 172 then if someone moves into the fast lane in front doing the average speed how are you likely to slow down?

You can talk about performance brakes all you like, you can't drop 112 mph in a second safely, road surfaces are uneven, hit a bump and you're in a spin.

You can get caught out with a sudden change in speed on the motorway doing the limit (accident ahead etc..).

for the anon poster who thinks 1.5secs is ages, try it. face a complex 3 dimensional relative speed problem and come up with a viable solution in that time. pilots don't consider it a long while and have a far clearer "road" and far more training. 1.5 is nothing to think properly, plan and act. you cannot rely on instinctive reaction not to kill someone. if someone want to take the risks themselves, great, get a track day and have fun (that where i take the bike and regularly clock 150+), but on a road the other users aren't given the choice whether they want to risk dying. stop being a selfish b*****d. i have no problem with saying it to someones face. if someone i care about was to even suffer a scratch because of an idiot like this i would want them 6 foot under

>> There is nothing wrong with doing 150 down the M4, M5 or M1 (that is, if you can get all the blind and unaware people out of the outside lane) or wherever providing the conditions are right.

Okay so you are travelling at 67 metres per second down the M4, how exactly are the "blind and unaware people" (i.e. those without radar and ESP) going to be able to see you?

Has it occurred to you that the reason people don't see / are unaware of you might have some to do with your excessive use of speed (+bends in the road +other traffic)? These people aren't blind they are partially sighted - you may be able to see them from say 2 seconds/135 metres away (out of your windscreen), but do you think they can see that far and assess your speed using only their rearview and wing mirrors, whilst also concentrating on all the other traffic around them?

BTW by "unaware" do you mean "don't move over when an idiot approaching at 110 mph behind them, stops six feet off their bumper and flashes them because they are travelling at a safe distance from a queue of traffic which is stuck at 65 mph because someone twenty cars ahead is half asleep?"

>> There is nothing unsafe about it - as long as you are in control of your car, and can stop if you need to.

And in control of every other vehicle on the road (and every piece of debris and moving part on your car).

Can a Ford Ka stop in the same distance as a Porsche with full on high performance brakes? No.

>> Can a Ford Ka stop in the same distance as a Porsche with full on high performance brakes? No.

The Ford Ka clearly can't stop in the same distance as Porsche. Can a Ford Ka change lane in a massively shorter distance than a Porsche can stop? Yes.

"Use to be in Cali doing 100 mph on the freeway would get both you and the car hooked and impounded. Now cops write 100+ tickets so often its now just a ticket. I've have had friends that got a warning for doing 100 in a 75."

True that. Californians love to haul ass 8-). Around 2002 or so I was driving a 1985 Chevy Celebrity with 2.5L 4-cylinder. It only had an 85MPH speedo, but on flat ground would top at about 112MPH. Well, going across on the I8 to San Diego, traffic slowed from 100MPH to about 85MPH for the curvy bit within San Diego that was marked 35MPH. Going up on the I5 (marked 65 or 70MPH), I was doing around 105MPH in the slow lane (full throttle, but not perfectly flat) and EVERYONE was passing, probably doing 110-120MPH. I certainly didn't mind, it took like half an hour to get up to southern Los Angeles.. but then another hour at least to go the last 10 or 15 miles. (Yep, traffic drops from 100+MPH to 5-10MPH once you get into LA proper...)

... expect everyone else to be perfectly aware at all times that they might choose to be utterly demolishing the law and to allow for it.

Utterly, staggeringly, inexcusably, selfishly, self-righteously stupid.

> "Timothy Brady, of Harrow, was snared in a routine speed check

> near Kingston Bagpuize"

>

> He was racing past a large stuffed cat?

A large stuffed cat from Hull?

Road Safety issues aside - obviously, one's "rate of progress" on the highway should be more closely related to "actual conditions at the time (the road, your car, how awake you are etc)" rather than some arbitary "limit" imposed in the mid 1900's and nothing pisses me off more than these idiot middle lane junkies and outer lane hogs that the roads attract these days.

I never got a chance to really test my old GSX1100E (a gorgeously well maintained old classic that died in a garage fire a few months after purchase) and the best speed I ever managed was only a poultry 155mph (clock speed). T'was many many many years ago, on a 2 mile straight up north on my mate's Ducati (Mk5 Le Mans)... and at circa 155mph all I could see was a dot where the road turned over a mile away, and a big grey woosh tunneling towards it. I say anyone who can achieve these sorts of speeds and stay on the road are of "above average" capability... but in hindsight, probably not particularly "forward thinking". At 155 I saw a side road... all too easily that would have been that.

But this creates a bit of a dilemma... if I drive now at an environmentally consciencious 55mph I am constantly tailgated by HGVs, cut up by caravans and run serious risk of unwittingly causing an accident. Even at 70mph there is a constant woosh of traffic overtaking. At 80 I am starting to keep up with the majority and at 90 I run the risk of a ticket.

And over 100 I start to grin.

@tony trolle: I know that bit of road well. Always nice and empty (and well lit) at about 2 in the morning for that kind of stunt.

"I know someone who got stopped doing 138mph in a capri (lazer)."

That's about the limit for a 2 litre Capri (unless the engine got rebored). You can get more out of a 2.8i however...

'Brady's impressive velocity rap "is thought to be the highest recorded in the UK for such an offence", the Beeb notes.'

Not so. Nick Harrison was caught (but not convicted) doing 173MPH on the M25 in 2003. He got off on a technicality (the police lost sight of his Porsche briefly and therefore couldn't prove he was driving at the instant they clocked him).

From what I hear (he's a friend of a friend), his brush with the law hasn't dimmed his enthusiasm for high speeds.