seen this?

Yeah, probably. Mind you, if the speed limit was 60, as befits a dual carriage way with no sort of hazards on it, he's still well over the limit. That sort of speed would be more than a bit questionable on the motorway where there are crash barriers, embankments, etc.

Bang to rights, no?

Isn't the speed limit on dual carriageways 70...?

Not too bad actually. Some seriously zealous use of the old St Tropez, but certainly not the wrong side of minging.

Only if NSL applies.

Please tell me you didn't actually email the seller to get those?

why?

Nothing wrong with 180mph on the M1 at some times of the night

In article , snipped-for-privacy@home.com spouted forth into uk.rec.cars.modifications...

kill him, throw him in jail, break his legs, deport him

I'm sure you know what you meant to say, but stopping distances don't square when speeds double, they quadruple. What they do do is multiply by the square of the factor of the speed that the current speed is being compared to (if that makes any sense).

Either that, or the stopping distance at 140mph is 99225 feet, or 30.243km, and I've got it terribly wrong :-)

Peter

Thought there might be a possibility of some freebie rat shots :)

Arse. Is that the best you got?

Did he make reference to there being any shots of a more adult nature included in the purchase?

Would be very evil to win the auction and stick 'em on a site somewhere.......

Especially for her if people recognised her down the street.............

Peter

"there are many full nude shots, some open leg shots, close ups an much more"

Personally I'm interested in the 'much more' bit...

UKRCM group purchase opportunity? I have a server and I'm not afraid to use it ;-)

"If the road is so fast" ??

What kind of statement is that ?

If it's a 40 limit, it's a 40 limit, regardless of what you might want it to be. If it merits being raised for some reason and it hasn't been done that can be frustrating, but we all know the rules. Right or wrong.

I have Ronny's server and i'm not afraid to usit ;) !

Put me down for twenty pence worth !

But was it clearly signposted as not being a 116mph limit ? :)

Something that bothered me when I caught the report. All VR6 Golfs were 2.8L so that's a 25% over reporting (The biggest I've seen was just under a 3.2L modified job) if his speed was over reported by the same amount he was only doing 93mph.

That's generally valid, but the people who put this stuff in do actually make mistakes and just because a road is signed 40 doesn't mean it ought to be. I agree that nobody has an excuse if they don't obey a posted limit.

As an example, there is a set of traffic lights on a 60 zone road in west london, the road is wide, crash barrier dual carriageway with footbridges so there's no real issue with it being 60. It crosses another road which is a 40 zone road becoming a 30, the 30 bit is housing estate so quite rightly so.

Anyway. The traffic lights go from green, to amber, and then to red, just as you would imagine they would. The thing is, they were getting an awful lot of revenue because they had cameras set up to catch red light jumpers.

One day, I was driving along the dual carriageway, and I *wasn't* speeding, and as I came up to the lights they went to amber and I slammed on my brakes and only just, with some hairy stomping got the car to screech to a halt a little through the top line and not quite into the traffic stream from the right, obstructing it a bit but hey you can't have everything.

It was at this point, I thought, why was that so hard? I locked on almost before the lights began to change, and even so, only just got to a halt without jumping them. Maybe I did, but the camera wasn't pointing where I fetched up.

It was an interesting question, so I went back for another go with a stopwatch, pad of paper, pencil, edge of the layby up near it. Timing the cars going past into the lights, I quickly realised they were set to allow a deceleration from about 40 mph. Say a car can get to a stop in 30 yards from 40, the time allowed them to do that but if they were doing 60 - in other words the speed limit - they'd have little chance of stopping because the lights went red before a car doing 60 could typically stop. And that left very little thinking time and required decent brakes to just about catch it when really paying attention.

Similar level of thinking, if you looked at the other set of lights, they went amber for about 3 seconds longer. Now, at this point you can probably work out that the lights had been set to a reasonable braking period but they'd put them the wrong way around.

So I emailed the police in that region, and a few weeks later, I came along and noticed they'd fixed it.

I would bet that loads of drivers were fined for jumping the red light and I bet few people had any sympathy for them, after all, it's a crime to jump a red light. Possibly there were accidents, I dunno, but if a car cannot physically stop before the light is red and the other light goes green, the chance of a shunt must be greatly encouraged.

How many of these "villains" were compensated with their fine money returned and/or their insurance claims paid off by the local council / police / highway contractors? I don't know the answer to that question, it's too easy to be cynical and say "none", because I don't know.

The moral of the tale, just because people get caught for something, doesn't make them a dreadful criminal intent on running people down, it may be badly designed road signs / furniture. Not that that excuses 120 anywhere, frankly, that's deliberate and if you get caught, you're bang to rights.