LOL. Keep thinking that. Very wishful thinking. I have yet to meet anyone who can read the plates of a car passing at that speed.
And 99.9% of the cops I have talked to wouldn't even bother chasing.
Besides the fact, do you really think someone would pull over after seeing a cop? Nope.
It is almost humorous some folks think you can roll 100+ coast to coast on an interstate and even if observed by police, nothing happens. Please share with us how many hundreds of miles you have traveled on an Interstate at 100+MPH and not been pulled over.
§38.04. EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is:
(1) a state jail felony if the actor uses a vehicle while the actor is in flight and the actor has not been previously convicted under this section;
(2) a felony of the third degree if:
(A) the actor uses a vehicle while the actor is in flight and the actor has been previously convicted under this section; or
(B) another suffers serious bodily injury as a direct result of an attempt by the officer from whom the actor is fleeing to apprehend the actor while the actor is in flight; or
(3) a felony of the second degree if another suffers death as a direct result of an attempt by the officer from whom the actor is fleeing to apprehend the actor while the actor is in flight.
(c) In this section, "vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 541.201, Transportation Code.
(d) A person who is subject to prosecution under both this section and another law may be prosecuted under either or both this section and the other law.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 504, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 126, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 708, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.240, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1334, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1480, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Good luck running from the cops, ya better hope ya don't get caught!
If you read the accounts (wired.com has a good one) of the 2007 record, the police evasion tactics were pretty serious. So that the nondescript car could better get lost when it blew by police on the side of the road, the tail lights were on a switch. When evading, they killed the rear lights, removing one of the major markers that the police can use to identify a vehicle traveling so fast that it must maneuver in and out of traffic. They also monitored radio, kept in touch with their eye in the sky, and weren't averse to pulling off the road and hiding.
Yes, the advantage is to the police. A smart, well-funded, and determined criminal, however, can make their job so much more difficult that the crook just might win.
Also note that the 2007 record-setter got caught on multiple tries and had already paid a high price before he finally succeeded. I don't know what aborted attempts the current (disputed) record-holder went through before he succeeded. For all I know, he did it on the first try. Still, it's not something I'd be willing to attempt.
the new dude also had the taillights wired to shut offIf you read the accounts (wired.com has a good one) of the 2007 record, the police evasion tactics were pretty serious. So that the nondescript car could better get lost when it blew by police on the side of the road, the tail lights were on a switch. When evading, they killed the rear lights, removing one of the major markers that the police can use to identify a vehicle traveling so fast that it must maneuver in and out of traffic. They also monitored radio, kept in touch with their eye in the sky, and weren't averse to pulling off the road and hiding.
Yes, the advantage is to the police. A smart, well-funded, and determined criminal, however, can make their job so much more difficult that the crook just might win.
Also note that the 2007 record-setter got caught on multiple tries and had already paid a high price before he finally succeeded. I don't know what aborted attempts the current (disputed) record-holder went through before he succeeded. For all I know, he did it on the first try. Still, it's not something I'd be willing to attempt.
Ok, Renegade. Which times and days would you have chosen to do something like this if it was up to you (and you had the inclination of course) to avoid as many potential confrontations as possible???
From my experience, they did it at the best time to avoid the majority of LEO patrols. Of course, there was a small time frame around bar closing time when the risk was higher than for most of the run, but on the whole it was chosen at least saturated time possible.
With the prep that went into the thing, I would have thought times would have been a priority so that is why I believe they did their research and left at what they believed was the optimal time frame for the driving conditions and traffic expected.