Tim & Justin's fears come true

[Knipps]

Teenage driver held over 140 mph YouTube video

LONDON (Reuters) - A teenager has been arrested on suspicion of having posted a video of himself on YouTube driving at speeds of more than 140 mph, police said Thursday.

The car, a Ford Escort, was filmed on the A76 single-carriageway road in southwest Scotland.

The detained 19-year-old has not been named.

Sergeant Scott McLachlan, from the Roads Policing Unit at Dumfries and Galloway police, described it as "completely foolish behavior."

"Not only did he endanger his own life, but that of other road-users. It is unacceptable, and to post a recording of such driving on the Internet is entirely stupid."

One-in-three fatal accidents involve drivers under the age of 25, he added.

"Young men in particular seem to think they are invincible behind the wheel -- but the facts tell a different story."




http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSHER05113020070830?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews

[bad64chevelle]

a ford escort? come on now...seriously? 140???

[WildBillyT]

Methinks it should be kph and that somebody screwed it up.

[90FormulaWS6]

voluntarily posting video of you doing anything illegal is stupid, and if the cops decide to come down on you... you f'n deserved it

[DieselKickYoAss4Sure]

yeah thats dumb there are quite a few people on this board that have videos of temselves speeding or street racing

[Blacdout96]

Im going to put money on it that he was driving a Ford Escort Cosworth. Those things are nasty. they were turbocharged 4wheel drive showroom rally cars, because FIA rules said they had to make a production car adn a certain amount in order to race them.

[GP99GT]

Im going to put money on it that he was driving a Ford Escort Cosworth. Those things are nasty. they were turbocharged 4wheel drive showroom rally cars, because FIA rules said they had to make a production car adn a certain amount in order to race them.

x2. cosworths are badass

as can be seen in getaway in stockholm 2 http://youtube.com/watch?v=fzjAepptbQI

[firehawk1120]

don't forget this is in another country. The internet is causing all sorts of problems with laws that are not written yet. It may take just one conviction or one case to be thrown out to set precedent going forward.

[mtnhopper1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9mRP8NUl9E

Escort RS Turbo, whatever that is.

[mtnhopper1]

Here's a similar story from a couple months ago:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/12/youtube_boy_racer/

Like Firehawk1120 said, from a legal standpoint, this is very interesting. Although I doubt a video like this, by itself, would be enough to convict anyone. There has to be more to it.

What worries me most about these clips is the thought of some 18 year old douchebag doing 140 while fumbling with his cell phone camera.

[Blacdout96]

the only thing thats more badass witha ford badge and forced induction, is the Ford RS200. BUilt with racing in mind, and had road versions built, which were basically once again the rally car with a muffler and some emissions on it, it was a 2.1 litre 650hp, yes 650hp rally car that ran in group B, but due to fans standing inches from the track, the mind boggling speed, and the many deaths that had followed in 1986 corsican rally, Group B was closed shortly after. It is still used toda in events, but really only for show. THey hada price tag of 30,000 and could go from 0-60 in 3 seconds and 0-100-0 in around 11 seconds, which was a world record. the only downside to these cars were that the engine was built to last 10 hours, because it had so much boost in it, wide open throttle, but I would so rock one. It can be found on GT2 and 4.
Heres a good video of it:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3219990917516477360&q=Ford+RS200&total=107&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
http://www.shorey.net/Auto/American/Ford/1986%20Acropolis%20Rally%20Ford%20RS200%20Stig%20B lomqvist.jpg

[90FormulaWS6]

Like Firehawk1120 said, from a legal standpoint, this is very interesting. Although I doubt a video like this, by itself, would be enough to convict anyone. There has to be more to it.



how much more evidence would you need to convict someone, if they are identifiable by the tape?

let me put it very simply... criminal is caught on tape breaking the law, they ID the criminal from the video tape and they follow through with the charges

[mtnhopper1]

how much more evidence would you need to convict someone, if they are identifiable by the tape?

let me put it very simply... criminal is caught on tape breaking the law, they ID the criminal from the video tape and they follow through with the charges

THey would have to be able to prove who is in the tape, that the speedo was accurate, that it was on a public road, and that the tape wasn't altered. More importantly, the prosecutor has the burden to show all of these things beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a pretty high standard. It means that if there is any question about any of these, they couldn't convict. With as easy as it is to edit digital video, I think it would be pretty difficult for the prosecutor to affirmatively prove, without doubt, that the video wasn't tampered with. The offender can just sit there, without even testifying, and have his attorney raise the possibility of tampering. The prosecutor would have to prove otherwise or no conviction. No easy task, I'd say.

[jims69camaro]

THey would have to be able to prove who is in the tape, that the speedo was accurate, that it was on a public road, and that the tape wasn't altered. More importantly, the prosecutor has the burden to show all of these things beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a pretty high standard. It means that if there is any question about any of these, they couldn't convict. With as easy as it is to edit digital video, I think it would be pretty difficult for the prosecutor to affirmatively prove, without doubt, that the video wasn't tampered with. The offender can just sit there, without even testifying, and have his attorney raise the possibility of tampering. The prosecutor would have to prove otherwise or no conviction. No easy task, I'd say.

yeah, in this country. we're talking about scotland. big difference in the way their courts work.

[Dark_Knight7096]

yeah, in this country. we're talking about scotland. big difference in the way their courts work.

Yea, over there its guilty till proven innocent. Burden of proof is on the accused rather than the state.

[1972LT1]

Justin and Tim's fears come true....I thought this was a UBG thread?!

[1972LT1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9mRP8NUl9E

Escort RS Turbo, whatever that is.

http://www.ford-rs.org/lamby/lambybigs2.jpg

OMG look at this Eurotrash POS. You know this thing would spank rice.

[NJSPEEDER]

yeah, in this country. we're talking about scotland. big difference in the way their courts work.


in reality the potential for law enforcement to start going after people with their own videos is there in the exact same way in this country. police and prosecutors have used video evidence collected from online to convict high school girls of jumping another high school girl right here in new jersey afte the video was found posted on myspace.
it is not far reaching to think they would be willing to start prosecuting for automotive/highway offenses in the same manner soon. all they really have to do is prove that the protion of the video used to collect evidence is not altered in any way and they have all the proof they need to pin someone to the wall withit.

[jims69camaro]

[...]

they have all the proof they need to TRY to pin someone to the wall with it.

our legal system is bass ackwards. read mtnhopper1's post again, to put it into perspective. my point wasn't that they couldn't try to do the same thing here, only that it is much easier on the prosecutors in a country like scotland.

p.s. can someone PLEASE resize that pic? i'm set at 1024X768 and i have to scroll to read the posts. annoying only begins to describe it. :mrgreen:

[Noodles]

lol@the title of this thread