Ordinarily, I would flinch at the suggestion of three-figure speeds on public roads in the UK. I do so because the risks involved are too high to do this safely in the vast majority of situations – too much traffic, roads too narrow, poor visibility, road furniture and so on. However, it is possible when roads are closed – as happens on the Isle of Man during the TT and Manx GP for example, and the early hours on a quiet motorway offer an opportunity to do this safely albeit illegally. I still wouldn’t do it – a poorly placed manhole or tarmac joint after slight rain become deadly and I want to stay alive, thankyou very much.
However, this individual took the chance and got caught.
Purves, 27, was jailed for nine months and also handed a five-year driving ban after reaching the top speed on the A702 near West Linton, Peeblesshire, earlier this year.
Police caught Purves on May 13 when they were alerted by a ”high-pitched engine noise” while on patrol.
Peebles Sheriff Court heard that one of the officers involved, a man of 28 years’ experience, was ”shocked” at the ”excessively high speed” achieved by Purves.
Fiscal depute Alastair Learmonth told the court: ‘”The speed libelled (charged) of 166mph is thought to be the highest speed recorded on a public road in Scotland.’”
Apart from the speeds involved, nothing too unusual. And ordinarily, I’d just shrug my shoulders – after all, didn’t he get just what he deserved? He knew the rules. He chose to break them. Too bad.
What caught my attention was this from his defence counsel:
He said it was clear no other vehicles were using the road at the time and nor were any cars parked nearby.
So, the risks were reduced, then. I don’t know the road, but it is described as a “long, quiet, straight stretch of road”. Illegal, certainly, but not necessarily unsafe.
“I think it’s fair to say the level of risk that the public were subjected to was very low but there was considerable danger, I think, to the accused himself,” he told the court.
Well, yes, and that is the point that made me take notice. If there was little or no danger to anyone else, what place is it of the law to decide what risks we impose upon ourselves?
Just a thought…
——————————————
Update: and just another thought, there are echoes of this discussion that has been going on as I was typing…
I know that road, though it’s some years since I was last there. There is a very, very long straight stretch (several miles as I recall) with excellent visibility, but the road is not completely level. Even so, 166mph is crazily fast and all it would have needed was a farm vehicle to pull into the road from one of the fields (who after all would expect a car in the distance to be approaching at such a speed?), or an animal to have got into the road (I nearly hit a cow one night driving back home on that road, but as I was only doing 60 I was able to avoid it).
“the highest speed recorded on a public road in Scotland.”
I like the way he added “in Scotland”.
Does the English road speed record still stand at 185 mph, by that chap in an AC Cobra on the M1 back in 1963? So this poor (albeit reckless) guy is five years inside and all he can boast about is the Scottish record and not even the Great British one.
I agree about the point of managing his own risk, but he had no control over other potential road users, especially someone coming the other way. At that speed he isn’t really in control of the vehicle and could easily swerve into the path of an oncoming vehicle who would have no chance to avoid him.
It is difficult to decide how you punish increasing risk, though. He hasn’t done any harm and whilst there is a risk increase how do we measure and punish it? There is an arbitary line at 60MPH (why not 55MPH or 65MPH) yet no real increase risk by someone going from 59MPH to 61MPH yet we punish the latter (in theory) becaue we now percieve an increased risk.
.-= My last blog ..BNP Question Time – Winners and Losers =-.
Actually, people do manage to control vehicles at such speeds on public roads – I watch them do it on the TT course. The difference being, of course, there are no oncoming vehicles.
I have a real problem with arbitrary speed limits as they do not reflect prevailing conditions and a safe speed at any given time will vary according to those conditions.
I would suggest that punishment fits the crime. He broke an arbitrary speed limit but didn’t do any harm. If he caused harm then throw the book at him. Otherwise…
I don’t see that one floating, somehow.
I agree with the Great Simpleton. As it turns out, this person did no harm to anyone else, but it wouldn’t have taken anything more than a slight change in the situation to end up with very serious consequences.
.-= My last blog ..The road to hell is paved by Labour =-.
This really id the nub of it – should we be punishing people for what might happen?
The thing is, as a former speedster, we don’t know if that one unexpected bump will be there on narrow “domestic” roads. It’s probably more significant for a bike.
.-= My last blog ..Jessicawatch – sitting on the cabin roof =-.
Oh, very much so. However, should the law be used to punish people who are only risking themselves – and, importantly, have caused no harm?
The thing that bothers me is that illegal speeders get jail terms, bans, and big fines, no messing; whilst nasty little sods who commit multiple burglaries and assaults often get a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again. The whole ‘Justice’ system in the UK appears upside down and back to bloody front.
.-= My last blog ..Blast from the past =-.
So, the risks were reduced, then. I don’t know the road, but it is described as a “long, quiet, straight stretch of road”. Illegal, certainly, but not necessarily unsafe
He didn’t know that the road would be free of traffic. He took a risk that he wouldn’t meet anyone else coming along the road. He could have been wrong. I don’t see why he should be treated leniently because on this occasion he got away with it.
This really id the nub of it – should we be punishing people for what might happen?
In some circumstances, yes. When you want to discourage excessive risk taking on the public roads, for example. The fact that someone might get away with doesn’t mean that they haven’t put other road users at risk.
The thing that bothers me is that illegal speeders get jail terms, bans, and big fines, no messing; whilst nasty little sods who commit multiple burglaries and assaults often get a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again. The whole ‘Justice’ system in the UK appears upside down and back to bloody front
Only a tiny number of speeders get jail time. You can judge how rare it is from the fact that this story made the news. The only way you are going to jail time as a speeder is if you speed is integer multiples of the posted speed limit. Burglars are far more likely to get jail time than a speeder.
But – and this is the point I was trying to drill down – at which point does the risk become “unacceptable”? What is a “safe” speed?
The correct answer is not defined by law, it is more complex than that. Okay, I don’t know this particular road, but it is possible that such speed are safe in certain circumstances and the rider or driver suitably competent to make the decision based upon the prevailing conditions. So the question remains; at which point is it “unacceptable” and why that point and not one lower or higher? At which point does the state make decisions on our behalf as drivers? Bear in mind here that the vast majority of accidents happen in urban areas at relatively low speed. Taking to the road, whatever you use, involves a risk. Why should the state decide an arbitrary limit at which we are no longer deemed to have sufficient competence to assess and manage it? Rhetorical question, really, I already know the answer.
Oh and the point about jail time – usually it’s when you get to 30mph above the posted limit – or at least it was when I was teaching motorcycling. It may have changed since then.
But – and this is the point I was trying to drill down – at which point does the risk become “unacceptable”? What is a “safe” speed?
It depends on the circumstances. The court heard the evidence and concluded that it was highly dangerous.
The correct answer is not defined by law, it is more complex than that. Okay, I don’t know this particular road, but it is possible that such speed are safe in certain circumstances and the rider or driver suitably competent to make the decision based upon the prevailing conditions. So the question remains; at which point is it “unacceptable” and why that point and not one lower or higher?
I recall many years ago, Sterling Moss arguing succssfully that his speed wasn’t reckless driving because of his experience as a racing driver. I am guessing this driver did not have Sterling Moss’s experience.
At which point does the state make decisions on our behalf as drivers? Bear in mind here that the vast majority of accidents happen in urban areas at relatively low speed
The whole of the RTA is the state making ‘decisions on behalf of drivers’. These are public roads shared with many other people. Individual rights are somewhat secondary to enforcing rules which reduce risk for everyone.
Taking to the road, whatever you use, involves a risk. Why should the state decide an arbitrary limit at which we are no longer deemed to have sufficient competence to assess and manage it? Rhetorical question, really, I already know the answer
Because the road is shared by many people of varying competences. Some people do have the competence to ‘assess and manage’ speed. A large number of drivers don’t. Speed limits are a lowest common denominator thing. Speed limits are not a violation of civil liberties. Most countries have them.
But it isn’t, is it? We have arbitrary speed limits that decide for us. “Depends on the circumstances” should be the correct response, but it ain’t. 59mph is okay. 61mph is not. Given that the conditions are safe at 61mph, the arbitrary speed limit has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with regulation.
“Lowest common denominator” was what I was hinting at when I said that it was a rhetorical question. My main issue with arbitrary speed limits is that all too often they are not appropriate to the road – being politically imposed or because someone had an accident.
I am well aware of the competence issues surrounding driving in the UK – I used to teach both riding and driving professionally and am therefore aware of the low standards required to pass a relatively simple test.
That said, Stirling Moss was perfectly correct in his statement and I agree that this individual was unlikely to have the same level of competence. My question really revolves around the point at which it is appropriate for the state to make the decision. A question that largely remains unanswered.
An sensible approach would be a system of variable limits that could be used to regulate speed according to the prevailing conditions and traffic density. It works well where it has been applied and because it is dynamic and appropriate to the conditions drivers are much less likely to treat them with contempt. A blanket 50mph limit on an open road, for example, is treated with contempt and deserves to be.
But it isn’t, is it? We have arbitrary speed limits that decide for us. “Depends on the circumstances” should be the correct response, but it ain’t. 59mph is okay. 61mph is not. Given that the conditions are safe at 61mph, the arbitrary speed limit has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with regulation
Who says that 59 mph is OK? Driving at that speed on an icy road may cause you to crash and kill someone. Saying that you were going less than the speed limit isn’t going to get you off a charge of causing death by dangerous driving. Provided that limits are set sensibly then I can see no real objection to them.
“Lowest common denominator” was what I was hinting at when I said that it was a rhetorical question. My main issue with arbitrary speed limits is that all too often they are not appropriate to the road – being politically imposed or because someone had an accident
Obviously speed limits should be set correctly, should be signed clearly and any form of enforcement should be fairly enforced. Setting a limit that is well below the safe speed in good conditions is self-defeating and brings the principle of speed limits into disrepute. But my response would be to set the limits appropriately, not to eliminate them.
That said, Stirling Moss was perfectly correct in his statement and I agree that this individual was unlikely to have the same level of competence
And I think it is a reasonable defence – but one only that only a very few people could make successfully. Moss was still fined for speeding but his driving was not ruled ‘dangerous’.
An sensible approach would be a system of variable limits that could be used to regulate speed according to the prevailing conditions and traffic density. It works well where it has been applied and because it is dynamic and appropriate to the conditions drivers are much less likely to treat them with contempt. A blanket 50mph limit on an open road, for example, is treated with contempt and deserves to be
I agree. The traffic flow regulated limits on the M25 have been very successful. But they are expensive to implement and would be completely impracticable on a country road. I drive along the A24 to Horsham quite a bit and the 50mph limit there is entirely appropriate and anyone who treated it ‘with contempt’ would come off the road eventually.
Oh, good god! Do I have to spell out every little thing? The statement was assuming suitable conditions. It was clearly implicit in the statement.
I haven’t made any such suggestion. You are reading into my comments things that just aren’t there.
As for variable speed limits, the French system is effective and simple with posted limits according to weather conditions.
Depends on the circumstances” should be the correct response, but it ain’t. 59mph is okay. 61mph is not. Given that the conditions are safe at 61mph, the arbitrary speed limit has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with regulation
But you’d have to be pretty literal-minded to deduce that the existence of a speed limit, at say 60 mph, is saying that it is ‘unsafe’ to travel at 61mph. The limit is saying that for an average driver in good conditions, 60mph is within a safe speed and most enforcement allows for a fairly wide threshold before a NIP is issued. It’s not just speed limits that are affected by edge conditions. Civil debts remain recoverable for 7 years. Wait 7 years and 1 day and you won’t be able to recover the debt. Does that mean we shouldn’t have a limit to recover such debts?
Oh, good god! Do I have to spell out every little thing? The statement was assuming suitable conditions. It was clearly implicit in the statement
You are tetchy! The point is that no sensible person is claiming that either 59mph or 61 mph are safe and unsafe, regardless of the conditions.
I haven’t made any such suggestion
Well I haven’t any objection to your idea of variable speed limits. But they will still be affected by the same edge conditions that you complain about with conventional limits.
Not really – in such discussions it is reasonable for people to make certain base assumptions. I used to teach this stuff for a living, so I’m hardly likely to suggest that it is safe in all conditions and nor did I. I trusted you to realise that point.
My point is simply that 61mph is unlikely to be suddenly less safe given the same conditions, therefore the limit is not based upon a safe speed. That is something that only the driver can ascertain based upon their competence, the vehicle they are driving, their general state of health and alertness, the weather and road conditions and traffic density. Occasionally, the posted limit will be a safe speed. All too often a safe speed is rather higher or on the motorway, rather lower.
I would have more respect for our speed limits if they were more sensibly applied and allowed for variation according to conditions – i.e. they treated us as adults rather than children. Given the plethora of attempts to slow vehicles down where it is clearly not necessary brings them into well deserved disrepute.