French-Cdn Auto Journalist Caught Speeding

[sirAQUAMAN64]

Suspended license. Risky business and in a way of the job evaluating a high performance machine, but Longueuil is still greater Montreal, so not like as though he's in the middle of nowhere (near Snowy) driving that fast.

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/10/12/tabarnouche-french-canadian-journalist-loses-his-license-for-sp/

Tabarnouche! French-Canadian journalist loses his license for speeding
Posted Oct 12th 2006 6:02PM by Noah Joseph

An automotive journalist in the Canadian province of Quebec was caught driving 222 km/h (approximately 138 mph) on a public road early Monday morning. Philippe Laguë was testing the Dodge Charger SRT-8 on highway 132 in Longueuil, near Montreal, and faces a fine of $958 CDN ($845 US) , plus 15 demerit points on his license – enough to have it suspended. Maudite!

Laguë claims he's not the only journalist who performs high-speed testing on public roads in Quebec, and that while car manufacturers advise journalists to watch out for police, they often prevent them from testing on closed tracks. He admits that he was driving too fast and obviously made an error in judgement. (Uh, no kidding.) He also says he's going to ask the Quebec provincial police (Sûreté du Québec) to investigate how the information on his arrest was leaked to the press.

Quebec has some great driving roads and many are tempted to push the limit. (Claiming you were rushing home to watch the hockey game doesn't always work.) Needless to say, losing your license, for an automotive journalist especially, poses an even bigger problem than usual. But as the saying goes, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

[mdxtasy]

Nail 'em.  You run the risk if you 'test' the car on public roads.  Nobody's immune to the tickets...except that Sportscentre girlie who thinks she's better than the rest of the 'commoners'. 

[Gwendly]

*chuckles*

 

[safristi]

Hey go easy on BRIDGE willya Md....... ....

[dr_spock]

Take away his press pass too, n'est-ce pas?

[The Mighty Duck]

220km/h?  Idiot...  should have his lisence torn into bitty little pieces and fed to the K9 unit...

[haris]

So he was going about 40km/h over the traffic flow?

[dorin]

220km/h?  Idiot...  should have his lisence torn into bitty little pieces and fed to the K9 unit...

  Fer cryin' out lood!  None of us know the real conditions of the road that he was driving on so give the guy a break.  I've driven at 220 km/h on the autobahn for hours and it was perfectly fine.  I've also driven a wee bit faster than the speed limit at times in Canada when the road was completely clear and it was fine as well.  Just because someone is driving fast at times doesn't mean they're driving dangerously so simmer down slowpokes.

[The Mighty Duck]

220 km/h is not simply "driving fast".  On our roads, it is driving recklessly, without due regard for public safety.  The autobahn is designed for high speeds, and such speeds are commonplace there.  Not so on our highways.  I'm guessing that he was travelling TWICE the legal limit.

And you're trying to tell me there's any justification for that?  A few kilometres over the limit is all well and good...  doubling it is not.

[ovr50]

Given the driver education and mix of drivers in this country, plus no lane discipline, nor observance of slower traffic allowing faster to go by; I would say that 222kph anywhere in Canada is very dangerous business. The European Autobahns are a totally different matter and do not relate to this particular incident at all. Regardless of the safety issue, the posted speed limit is likely about 120kph max, so the fact the journalist got a serious and costly ticket is to be expected. You play the game, you pay the price. Tough.

Besides, dorin, you're the guy always harping about poor fuel economy and wasting fossil fuels. I dare say that 222kph in any vehicle will be somewhat wasteful. Thought you'd be all over the guy for being selfish and wasting hydrocarbons. 

[airbalancer]

PQ is 100 kph max

[dorin]

220 km/h is not simply "driving fast".  On our roads, it is driving recklessly, without due regard for public safety.  The autobahn is designed for high speeds, and such speeds are commonplace there.  Not so on our highways.  I'm guessing that he was travelling TWICE the legal limit.

And you're trying to tell me there's any justification for that?  A few kilometres over the limit is all well and good...  doubling it is not.

I call BS on that.  Our highways are just as fine for high speed as the autobahn.  The only question is whether he was going that fast in traffic or not, and given that the only detail we know is that he was caught early in the morning I am inclined to believe that he wasn't doing it traffic.

[dorin]

Given the driver education and mix of drivers in this country, plus no lane discipline, nor observance of slower traffic allowing faster to go by; I would say that 222kph anywhere in Canada is very dangerous business. The European Autobahns are a totally different matter and do not relate to this particular incident at all. Regardless of the safety issue, the posted speed limit is likely about 120kph max, so the fact the journalist got a serious and costly ticket is to be expected. You play the game, you pay the price. Tough.

Besides, dorin, you're the guy always harping about poor fuel economy and wasting fossil fuels. I dare say that 222kph in any vehicle will be somewhat wasteful. Thought you'd be all over the guy for being selfish and wasting hydrocarbons. 

I'm not saying he should necessarily get a walk on this, but I am saying that (for the time being) I have some sympathy for the guy.  The report says he was caught in the early morning which probably means sometime between 2 am and 6 am.  I don't know about where you live, but around here the highways are close to deserted at that time, which would make it low-risk conditions for a high-speed run.  Now if it turns out that he was doing this in traffic, then by all means I'll join the chorus condemning him.  But until we have the actual facts I'm not about to join the accusatory finger pointing.

As for the fuel consumption question, if you remember my thread about the hypocrisy of making high-powered cars only to drive them stupidly slow, you'll remember that I'm against wasting fuel in overpowered, oversized vehicles used only to go to the mall.  Granted, the SRT-8 is still oversized for normal use, but it's the inconsistency of high-power and low-speed that really bothers me.  In this case, at least the guy was making proper use of the power by going fast. For that he gets a conceptual from me.

[AVToller]

I see. If you are wasteful,  . If you are wasteful, violating the law by a WIDE margin, and posing a potential danger to the general public,  .

I very often agree with you, but this time, only  will do I'm afraid.

[johngenx]

On a few occasions I have driven at a very high speed on our Alberta highways.  Only when there is pretty much zero traffic (anyone else around, the speed is brought down, right now) and perfect road conditions and visibility.  Is the physical structure of our highways fine for higher speeds?  Sure.

What's the real problem?  Inattentive and unskilled drivers.  Cars are more capable than ever.  Highways are mostly excellent.  It's just plain bad drivers.

[dorin]

I see. If you are wasteful,  . If you are wasteful, violating the law by a WIDE margin, and posing a potential danger to the general public,  .

I very often agree with you, but this time, only  will do I'm afraid.

I respect what you say here and I am sorry to disappoint you AVToller, but it is only a conceptual .  Basically, all I'm saying is that they guy is at least conceptually consistent - he was in a 425 hp speed machine and actually drove it to its potential.  If people accept the premise that cars like the SRT-8 ought to be made (and for the sake of this argument, I'm working from that premise) then they must also accept that it's okay to drive them to their limits.  I'm really annoyed at the hypocrisy of supporting the making of such vehicles but whining whenever people actually use for what they're made for. 

I actually don't think we should have 425 hp family cars or 500 hp pick-ups (ring a bell Demo?), but if we're supposed to be all enthusiastic that they're being made then at least we should have the intellectual consistency of supporting their intended use. 

[ovr50]

The fact that the SRT8 is capable of 200+kph speeds does nothing to negate the fact that driving that speed on a NA hiway, at any time of day or night, given other drivers, animals (particularily at night) and other risks is foolish and unlawful. On a 4 mile road course or at Mosport or any speedway - have at her, and use it up. No on public roads. Your argument that this is what the car is intended to do just is meaningless, and I would have expected a better response from you, as you often make decent points in an agrument. This position you have taken is not defensible at all. 

[initial_D]

I see. If you are wasteful,  . If you are wasteful, violating the law by a WIDE margin, and posing a potential danger to the general public,  .

I very often agree with you, but this time, only  will do I'm afraid.

 

...........

  .............

I only looked ........... 

[AVToller]

OK, I can accept what you are saying. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. We are in essential accord.  I still can not countenance such extreme speed on a public road however. I don't accept it from Snowy. I, in my much younger and more foolish days occasionally drove at highly "extra-legal" speeds on EMPTY roads. I was wrong to do so. So was this writer IMO.  BTW, I can't see any reason for those 400+ hp vehicles either. 

[dorin]

The fact that the SRT8 is capable of 200+kph speeds does nothing to negate the fact that driving that speed on a NA hiway, at any time of day or night, given other drivers, animals (particularily at night) and other risks is foolish and unlawful. On a 4 mile road course or at Mosport or any speedway - have at her, and use it up. No on public roads. Your argument that this is what the car is intended to do just is meaningless, and I would have expected a better response from you, as you often make decent points in an agrument. This position you have taken is not defensible at all. 

I think that your position is intellectually inconsistent.  Where's the consistency in allowing cars like the SRT-8 to be sold as road-legal vehicles if they are never to be used to their potential on public roads?  Certifying such cars for sale means that our society doesn't really believe in respecting our speed limits. 

I also maintain that our highways are just as physically capable of accomodating such speeds as long as there's very little traffic.  Assuming you've driven on the autobahn, what exactly is it about those roads that magically makes them so much better suited to high speeds than ours?