Mind you I'm not sure why 17 police vehicles *and* a helicopter were needed... Perhaps a fine proportionate to income and assets (if any)
How about the police recovering their costs from the convicted in this situation, as in income and assets, if any. The fuel bill for the helicopter alone must be considerable.
Edited by Old Navy on 12/08/2008 at 19:43
|
How about the police recovering their costs from the convicted in this situation as in income and assets if any. The fuel bill for the helicopter alone must be considerable.
Unfortunately don't think that this would be acceptable. The law would be put into the hands of the police, who could "fine" someone, for instance, by chasing them with 99 cars and 30 helicopters.
|
who could "fine" someone for instance by chasing them with 99cars and 30 helicopters.
>>
I was thinking of civil recovery, with the courts as a moderator, but they would probably dish out 50p a week for ten years. I agree it would need supervision. (IPCC?)
|
|
|
|
FT,
The sentence is for dangerous driving - driving that fall far below the standards of a careful and competent driver.
As regards 17 police cars and the helicopter.
Well, it's a chase and it's exciting and there's not much chance of getting filled in, so every copper in the district wants a piece of it.
|
About 10 years ago a colleague of mine got sent to prison for six weeks for driving up the M1 at 150mph on his Fireblade - and banned for a year.
The patrol cars couldn't catch him, so they followed him in the police chopper. They caught him when he stopped at a roundabout just off the next junction. He never realised they were even chasing him until they'd finally caught up with him.
|
|
|
I am not for a moment condoning riding at 130 mph on public roads, but I am questioning the cost of jailing this idiot for 15 months. It costs us a great deal of money to lock up a fool and presumably when he comes out he will still be a fool.
Jail is a harsh sentence for such a 'crime' (he hurt no one and damaged no property). A better punishment would be community service, as this could make him put a considerable amount of effort into the economy.
Why does the law, in effect fine us (the taxpayer) in order to punish someone who acually did no harm to anyone?
|
|
Because of his previous convictions and the fact that community referral orders have not stopped him re-offending. Jails should be made cheaper, how much does it cost to make a cast-concrete room with a bucket and some bread and water?
|
|
|
A better punishment would be community service as this could make him put a considerable amount of effort into the economy.
Yes, that sounds OK (and it should be done in some sort of "uniform", contrary to what do-gooders feel). Let's see. The equivalent ought possibly to be 2 1/2 years worth of Mon-Fri 9-5:30 work at something (that's assuming 1/2 the 15 month real-life sentence to be served). Agreed?
I re-open this to say that the "uniform" could advertise the offence, in big letters!
Edited by FotheringtonThomas on 12/08/2008 at 21:19
|
|
|
You must be joking Spospe - community service (hahaha!)
The issue here is *Dangerous Driving* people like him maim (or worse) innocent folk on a regular basis, you're not a social worker by any chance ?
|
There's two aspects to this punishment.
1) to punish the individual
2) to show the rest of the population that it's not a clever thing to do.
He caused no direct harm, but that's not to say that the next person who does 130 on a bike won't. Imagine the scenario and outcry if a coach load of school-kids had been involved. The judge is sending a clear message, and rightly so, in my opinion.
Edited by oldnotbold on 12/08/2008 at 21:38
|
|
|
Hamsafar
A man after my own heart - a concrete tower with grid floors and no bucket - serious criminals at bottom - lesser at top - bodily functions should be done through floor - those at bottom get it the most - once every two weeks turn on hose at top. - I would certainly turn prisons from holiday camp into something no one would want to enter and save taxpayer a fortune
|
Aren't the police by releasing this footage and the press milking this rather a lot?
I find it a little bit off that if someone does this they are a danger to the public, but pursuing police officers aren't?
Haven't the number of accidents involving 'emergency vehicles' gone up over the last few years?
I loved that 'Traffic Cops' show a few years ago where they had this young, handsome 'poster boy' patrolling some housing estate in a T5 and he was driving along with his head craned down and a hand on that mobile phone thing that they have attached to their waistcoats, talking into it.
Isn't it just propaganda? Shouldn't everyone in secondary education be made to read that book Flat Earth News?
There was a case in my local press recently where the judge threw the book at a teenager doing a similar velocity on a dual carriage at midnight on his 400cc import. The judge said he couldn't have been control. The trouble is such stupid, unscientific statements alienate anybody with half a brain.
This kid couldn't have been control, but a traffic plod on a motor bike doing the same speed would have been?
My local rag has fallen into this tabloid sensationalism. They showed a fatal head on last year in big gory, oil stained photos on it's website. You could figure out from where the vehicles stopped and where the engine was what had happened. But the chap that died was feted. They are doing a similar thing now where a bike has passed double whites and hit a car head on and killed the car driver (they had the good sense to pixcelate a bit of that photo out). The paper is carry eulogies to this lovely guy.
The police have 'special training'? No civilians ever get regular retests to the same standard as police drivers do they?
The rider was a bit silly. It was wet. And see the bumps and suspension rebound working? Our roads are seriously carp.
And seeing that on the BBC website they had it by that piece on the new Leics Police camera van that has cameras facing front and back so they can catch motorcyclists. That Asian safety camera woman is well fit!
It also annoys me that people that commit real crimes such as assault get far lesser sentences and punishments, and speed camera convictions have provided the model for bin men with more powers than PCSOs to criminalise for the contents of our rubbish bins? And Labour have the brass neck to have a go at China about Human Rights? Land Girls fed us in WW2 so Brown can turn Britain into a facsimile of the former Eastern Bloc?
|
TFF, that WAS a "real" crime - as others have said things could have gone wrong and the outcome could have been fatal, both to him and innocent people, he knew what he was doing and desrves the punishment (and I agree with those proposals for the new jails mentioned earlier!).
As for the chasing police, my understanding is that they ease off if things look dicy, as they clearly did several times, which was more than he did....
|
|
|
|
That is all very well dxp55 but, if you treat a person like an animal, they will act like an animal on their release.
The name Prison should be changed to say Correction Centre - to correct a persons faulty behavour and (hopefully) rehabilitate him/her.
|
The name Prison should be changed to say Correction Centre - to correct a persons faulty behavour and (hopefully) rehabilitate him/her.
You are joking? Prisons are training camps designed to produce the next generation of recurring ofenders. Take a mixture of inadequates, mentally ill, drug addicts, and a core of hardened instructors, and they turn out a steady stream of jobless no-hopers who are then released "into the community" with nothing to do but offend again.
|
>>>Prisons are training camps designed to produce the next generation of recurring ofenders<<<
Precicely Herr Pope, I spent 3 months in a Detention Centre back in the 1960's, which although it was run with tough Military dicipline, I was not treated like an animal and, I haven't returned (yet)
Really, it all comes down to lack of disipline (up-bringing ?) in the home, in the school etc., etc. - "give me the child for 7 years - and I'll give you the man".
|
I would say that jail is the only option for this individual. But only if jail means hard labour, rice and water to live on (until he earns enough via there hard labour to buy better food), hole in the corner to do his business in, one shower a week and one hours exercise a week.
In reality he will get access to a TV, playstation, games room, phone calls, three square meals a day, heating and all at our expense. It?s a great country we live in when an individual who has done wrong gets treated better than some poor pensioner who has worked all there life and can only afford to have one meal a day and has to think can I afford to turn my heating on.
|
I wouldn't mind were it not for the fact that every time a burglar, shoplifter or someone caught with a knife in their pocket walks free from court, "the jails are full" is used as an excuse. Yet when it comes to motorists, there always seems to be scope to come down on them like a ton of bricks.
The previous convictions are all that stop me from being outraged by this sentence.
Cheers
DP
|
This clown was always going to jail - full prisons or not.
Where I think some motoring offenders do get a raw deal is the resources thrown at catching them - about 30 coppers, 17 police vehicles and a helicopter in this case.
Just suppose you get filled in by some yob this Friday night - you'd be lucky to get one policeman to spend much time on it.
Burgled? 'Are you insured, mate? Good, here's your crime number.'
|
|
The biker went very fast. I didn't see him doing anything unusually dangerous in the clip I saw. From time to time I come across very fast bikers on an A road. They don't bother me or shock me or frighten me. I don't think they should go to jail and I think it utterly ridiculous and pathetic of people to applaud the jailing of this one, previous record or no.
|
|
Quite simple hang him problem solved.
|
Lud,
How can you make that statement? This was a 23-mile chase and he obviously had plenty of time to stop. What are you meant to do with him and all his previous convictions? (feel sorry for him) I think not.
I wonder if you would have the same attitude if he had caused a crash and someone was killed. God forbid that it?s was someone you knew.
|
Did he know he was being chased? If so obviously he isn't all that bright.
If someone driving at twice the limit causes a fatal RTA and survives, clearly they should be prosecuted. And since there are speed limits, if detected exceeding them grossly they should suffer some penalty. Like other people though I am not keen on miscreants getting porridge for victimless crimes. It makes people cynical, combined with ruffians getting community service for GBH.
|
|
His record indicates measures other than banning, fining are required. I'd also argue that such behaviour is not "victimless" as the libertarians profess. When riders go past my bike at 100 plus on a minor road, it causes alarm to me, especially when several of the swine go past, within feet, in succession! No consideration. Their "fun" is at the expense of others whether through unwanted risk, noise or simply raised stress levels. Whether or not there is a victim at the time, the rider was relying on luck. Known as latent risk in the jargon. Not in control of the machine, if there is another event, and the rider is over-committed so unable to brake etc.
|
The way I see it is this - 130MPH on a bike, on an A road is stark, staring, bonkers.
He may well have been in total control of his machine but, a car could have pulled out of a side road, or he could have hit a pothole with disastrous consequences leading to the death of an innocent.
Its like drink driving, and yes - I've done it I am sorry to say ... anyone convicted of drink driving should be dealt with very, very severely indeed.
|
A friend has just been involved in a crash involving a biker overtaking on a blind bend. By luck or good judgement he is still alive - 6 inches further to the right by either party and it would have been goodbye to him and possibly the biker. Impact speed was estimated at 80 mph, but neither party speeding. Sentences need to act as a deterrent to other motorists who think they know best.
|
There are a number of reasons why he was sentenced to a custodial sentence - all intertwined.
Seriousness of the Offence
Remorse
General risk of re-offending measured against a National matrix
Previous Convictions
Previous response to Community Sentences
Co-operation with NOMS during the Pre-Sentence Report writing
and his personal circumstances.
|
Remorse
I suppose that means lack of, which in this case would mean looking ashamed and saying he wouldn't do it again.
Perhaps this individual is unusually dumb and pig-headed and can't see he's doing anything wrong at all. Perhaps under the circumstances the law had no real choice.
The ideal place for people like that is really on a race circuit to get all the juice out of the system for a while. Probably hard to get a competition licence though with attitudes like that. Most racers, even fun-loving ones, are quite sensible on the road.
|
|
Reminds me of one of the first tape recorded interviews I was present in around 89/90. Chummy coughed the lot, the Police Officer trying to tease some remorse out of him prompted him to add something at the end of the interview. The tea-leaf was baffled until the Officer held up a piece of paper with "sorry" scribbled on it !
|
I've watched enough idiots trying to kill themseleves - or others - by reckless driving on the roads round Buxton - the worst in the Uk for deaths... to have zero sympathy or concern for the criminal activities of bikers.
Edited by madf on 13/08/2008 at 16:24
|
madf
Agreed I have also seen enough of these idiots to have little or no sympathy. The other day driving along M8 Junction 30 Erskine Bridge. I was indicating to exit motorway with a car overtaking me. We where not going fast enough for this numpty. So he went speeding up the hard shoulder.
|
|
Just after leaving Wales on the A5 the other week a biker went past through the middle of the two opposing streams of traffic. If he was doing less than 130 then I'm a Belgian - quite astonishing.
|
We seem to be getting a little off-track here.
My original post asked if 15 months jail was too harsh a sentence, especially as it costs us, the taxpayer a great deal of money.
Would it not be better to make such a person do extended Community Service? Such activity means that they in effect pay us taxpayers back, instead of us paying to house them in jail.
The effect of having to do community work for several hundred (or thousand) hours on, say road safety initiatives, would I think have a salutary effect on future behaviour.
This is not someone who deliberately goes out to rob, or attack people; he is just an idiot who needs straightening out. To jail him, puts him in the same class as robbers, muggers, GBH merchants etc, he is none of those things and so as the Mikado said, let us, ?Make the punishment fit the crime?
|
Whether right or wrong, and I'm not party to the full court proceedings, I wouldn't get sidetracked by the Jail.....
It's a sunk cost, i.e. if he doesn't fill it another scroate will soon be along.
IMHO I think that having 17 police cars/1 Helicopter chasing him you would have thought he would have pulled over.....
I think this is the aggravating factor in the Courts view.....
Cheers
Benjurs
|
My original post asked if 15 months jail was too harsh a sentence especially as it costs us the taxpayer a great deal of money.
No where near as much as the cost to the community if he'd killed or injured someone whilst driving...
He was "banned from driving" at the time, what part of the phrase does he not understand?... That also means he could not have had any insurance... just to make matters worse he drove at highly irresponsible speeds...
As he clearly does not understand the word "banned" then I feel jail is very appropriate... and I also feel that a jail sentance should be used more often when a banned driver decides to put us all at risk by getting behind the wheel when they shouldn't...
A car has been likened to a loaded gun and as people who have been banned have clearly demonstrated that they shouldn't be in the driving seat in the first place I have no sympathy if the courts throw the book at them, in fact they have my wholehearted support....
|
We where not going fast enough for this numpty. So he went speeding up the hard shoulder.
I've seen this a handful of times in the last year, and every single time without exception, the perp was driving something four wheeled and German. When I'm in the car, I am troubled far more by idiots in other cars, vans and HGVs than idiots on bikes (who exist, and I don't dispute that).
On the bike, I have lost count of the number of times I've been pulled out on, carved up, blocked or been the victim of aggressive behaviour, and I've done probably a fiftieth of the mileage on two wheels that I have on four.
At the end of the day, there are people driving / riding all forms of powered transport that further the argument for psychological screening before license issue. Maybe it's because most bikers "law bending" involves speed that it annoys people so much, but frankly I feel far safer being overtaken by a FireBlade at 130 than tailgated by white van man on a mobile at 40.
Cheers
DP
|
|
I agree DP. Some bikers are certainly crazy, but generally speaking their high-speed driving and hazard-awareness standards - inevitably when you come to think about it - are far better on average than those of car drivers, in another league altogether in fact.
|
DP,
You are right there are far more idiots driving 4 wheeled vehicles than 2 wheels. In my commute to work I may see one or two crazy moves by bikes during the week. With car users that seems to be every few miles
|
|
There are many more cars on the road so you're bound to see more prats in cars.
|
it interests me when some people state that 130mph ought to be an automatic jail sentence for a crime, because it's automatically dangerous enough to warrant it
does this mean that police or paramedic motorcyclists should go straight to jail for doing this sort of speed on an 'A' road?
should the police driver training schools stop doing these sorts of speeds on 'A' roads as they have done for decades and who constanty risk assess their activities?
i'm not sticking up for this fellow, as it sounds like he's got his just rewards and PU has ably stated why each case should be looked at on its' own merits. Concentrating solely on the speed aspect isn't necessarily helpful (although i'd concede one of the police officers quoted, an Inspector, did just that).
I have no doubt this man received a jail sentence for a number of things and the speed was one part of it.
|
As some one that was first out on the roads on an L plated GP100U, and someone that's since passed several advanced car tests it's interesting to note the proportion of motorcyclists that open their left hand to say 'thank you' when you leave a gap for them for them or pull over to the left to make it easier for them.
However I did get a mouthful of abuse in the wet, going up a hill in a 30 when I aborted my intended manouevre and pulled up on the left as the van I was in didn't have any rear windows and had lost him. Couldn't see him anywhere. I thought it was better than turning right and this chap and his pillion going up my offside.
What is odd is the amount of abuse cases like this get, but riders and drivers that die having crossed double whites seem to get feted. Perhaps it's my local press reacting to gory, blood thirsty way they sensationally cover such horrific accidents?
|
it interests me when some people state that 130mph ought to be an automatic jail sentence for a crime because it's automatically dangerous enough to warrant it does this mean that police or paramedic motorcyclists should go straight to jail for doing this sort of speed on an 'A' road? should the police driver training schools stop doing these sorts of speeds on 'A' roads as they have done for decades and who constanty risk assess their activities?
Where do you draw the line?
What about the civi who has lived abroad, where such speeds are nothing out of the ordinary and has possibly done more hours than the officer giving chase at these speeds and also has indepth knowledge of the local area?
Who is the greater risk then ?
People tend to judge these cases using their own driving experience as benchmarks then labeling everyone outside their own parameters an idiot. Not sticking up for this guy by the way.
Laws are laws even if you don't agree with them, you have to obey them or know some very influential people.
Edited by gmac on 14/08/2008 at 00:40
|
|
As Westpig says - the Police have chosen to Focus on the speed aspect - mainly as this may be the political imperative at the moment, the clip I've watched shows a remarkably smooth ride, there were some risky manoeuvres in there, including pulling out onto that main road towards the end. I suspect he was at more risk from other road user - maybe Lud's mimsing carphounds who would have pulled out from one of those minor junctions in front of him. As for he argument about not seeing the chasing Police cars is clearly a nonsense, especially in the early part of the clip, where the blues reflect from his number plate - if the rider was that unaware of the surrounding (including rear) road conditions, he deserves all that was coming to him.
|
Where do you draw the line? Laws are laws even if you don't agree with them you have to obey them
>>
Totally agree. My point is the facts should be concentrated on, not falsities often hyped by the tabloid press or 'one angle' issues or politics...e.g. the simplistic 'speed kills'.
To use this motorcyclist as an example. The only thing to really come across here, from the news article and the quote by the Police Inspector, is that a motorcyclist was jailed for speeding.
That's not accurate, it is far too simplistic. The real version will be something close to 'known crook, with long history of offending, currently disqualified, so therefore no driving licence or insurance, drove at reckless speeds through several counties pursued by numerous police etc'.....
which is a bit different to your local businessman hopping on his weekend bike and opening up to 130mph on his local by-pass
both are wrong, both deserve some form of punishment, but both are at differing levels in the 'how much punishment they deserve zone'.
... and before i'm pilloried on here, i think there's a time and a place, so 45mph past the kids going to school on a wet morning is an absolute no-no of the highest order.. but who'd go to jail for that?
|
Sponse
Pugugly and Westpig have got the nub of it.
As PU, said There are a number of reasons why he was sentenced to a custodial sentence - all intertwined.
Seriousness of the Offence - Remorse - General risk of re-offending measured against a National matrix - Previous Convictions - Previous response to Community Sentences - Co-operation with NOMS during the Pre-Sentence Report writing - and his personal circumstances.
In other words, the guy's attitude was one of the main reasons he was jailed. I knew a young fellow who went to jail for a fairly minor offence. A lot of people were shocked that he got a custodial sentence. But the real reason he went to jail was because it was clear to the judge that the chap had no respect for the law. In fact he basically told the court that he would not hesitate to do the same thing again. Basically he was jailed because of his utter contempt for the court and for the law. And judges take a very dim view of that sort of attitude.
I rather suspect that this is also true in the case under discussion.
I don't think jail was hugely appropriate, but I think that it may have been the only realistic option in this case. I personally think that community service is all very well in theory, but often useless in practice - and in this case might not do much good. A lifetime ban on owning or driving any motor vehicle would be appropriate, but this individual would just ignore it.
I personally think that a couple of days in the stocks might be better than jail, but I can't see many people (especially those who make laws) rushing to agree with me :-)
Edited by tyro on 14/08/2008 at 12:26
|
8< SNIP!
Less politics, more motoring please.
DD.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 15/08/2008 at 00:53
|
Tyro
I think that you have summed the case up nicely and that perhaps in this case I am wrong to suggest Community service as a better punishment to jail.
|
This biker got what he deserved. It wasn't just the original speeding, but the police chase and all the other stuff.
In general, someone caught driving at such an exceesive speed should be charged with dangerous driving as well. 130 mph on a public highway is, unequivocally, dangerous driving.
People who do that sort of thing should be banned from driving for life, as they are psychologically unfit to drive on a public highway, which is, arguably, medical grounds for revoking a licence.
|
130 mph on a public highway is unequivocally dangerous driving.
Out of idle curiousity, do you believe that this is true on public highways in Germany as well as in the UK?
|
>> 130 mph on a public highway is unequivocally dangerous driving. Out of idle curiousity do you believe that this is true on public highways in Germany as well as in the UK?
Regarding the case in question, perhaps you'd care to compare and contrast the roads this motorcyclist was speeding on with the ones in Germany to which you allude.
|
|
Sorry, FT. I should have prefaced my post with the words "Apologies for going off-topic, but . . ."
|
|
Anyone who has driven on the unlimited stretches of the Autobahns knows that there is no comparrison with the roads he drove on and wouldn't have even suggested that there is....
|
Does not the presence of other road users doing anything from 0-70mph mean it is impossible to drive safely at 130mph?
Their safety must be compromised even if this guy reckons he can handle the speed.
|
In general someone caught driving at such an exceesive speed should be charged with dangerous driving as well. 130 mph on a public highway is unequivocally dangerous driving.
sorry to be repetitive...but does this include a police motrocyclist attending an emergency call or likewise a paramedic?
.. and if you discount those two, then it cannot possibly be the case that 130 mph is automatically dangerous, per se... because if it was, the above two would be prevented from doing so
i'm not saying at all that this sort of speed should be acceptable or is indeed wise to do, just to keep it in perspective
|
I saw the above snip. But isn't speeding being spun?
I live next to the A379, an arterial route into Plymouth. There's a GATSO within eyeshot. The road is like a race track and has been for years.
Royal Parade in Plymouth was pedestrianised and made into a vehicular assualt course. The council justified this as 'it's the only way we could stop the boyracers'. A few months before there was a 'blitz' by plod who basically busted drivers for what they'd be doing for ages, racing down Royal Parade. The police bust was deemed front page news by the local rag.
Basically it looked like the police action was there to help the Council justify and implement the mess they made of Royal Parade. Meanwhile the road past my house which has a zebra crossing on a bend with poor visibility and near an accident a month ago hasn't received a similar police operation.
I called a speed camera supplier earlier in the year as I had an idea (I work in Electronics) and he couldn't see the benefit in the system I was describing and cited how near him a 'traffic calming' measure had been heralded as a success, when in reality the local bypass had been extended and now the people that were using the road as a rat run use the new bypass instead.
Speeding, like global warming and the environment is being used, and spun by politicians locally and nationally.
|
Speeding is being spun, you only have to watch cheap to make TV like Traffic Cops to see that.
What was the 'carbon footprint' of all the police vehicles and the 'force helicopter' in this pursuit? How much does it cost to service a 'chopper' and they need servicing after how many flying hours?
Perhaps criminals should be invoiced for the full cost of their 'apprehension' and if that necessitates selling the vehicle involved then so be it.
I've been safer over the limit several times, whilst there are many out there who are unsafe at any speed.
|
>>>I've been safer over the limit several times<<<
We're all safe drivers after a few Golden Throat Charmers F_F .... until !!!
|
>>I've been safer over the limit several times<<
And an example is?....
I suspect that on our roads it would always be safer to be going slower rather than faster... if you have needed to go faster the chances are you shouldn't have been where you were in the first place to have to accelerate over the limit...
But I await being corrected!
|
But I await being corrected!
Waste of breath really b308. This is not a subject on which meetings of minds are always possible. It's a question of different attitudes to personal responsibility and different attitudes to society.
Suffice it to say though that rapid drivers are generally more wide awake, aware and generally on it than slow ones, because they have to be. Acquiescence to the current religion of driving by numbers has a bad effect on a driver's general behaviour in my opinion, causing a general slackening of interest and a tendency to be taken aback and outraged by anything out of the ordinary.
A bit like the Double-Take Brothers who I often quote here: taking four or five seconds to register an entirely normal and predictable event, then leaping high in the air with a cry of alarm. I really hate and despise people who drive like that, and there are more and more of them.
|
Lud, it's been a while so...
Can I ask how many cars/bikes you have seen on the road doing 130mph?
Don't think I've seen any, which means if I did see one I would struggle to judge speed, distance, etc.
Example: As a reasonably competent driver, I pull up at a give way junction and look left and right.
Fail to judge - or even see - the speed of the 130mph projectile coming one way or the other and pull out...
Within a second we're all knockin' on heaven's door.
You could even say the collision is partly my fault - due care at worst, but the sheer speed of the other guy makes his driving dangerous.
And in answer to a couple of other posts, it matters not what he does for a living, where he is going, if he's kind to animals or anything else.
The laws of physics apply just the same and we are all just as dead or seriously injured.
|
I am not condoning his actions, or driving whilst benned but how many police vehicles reached what velocity trying to catch him?
What's worse at a 130mph on a wet A249? A Volvo T5 Estate or a ZXR600?
Was it 2004 that a Devon and Cornwall plod rushing to the scene of a body on a beach put a Focus on it's roof in a little country lane?
There's a time and a place. Did a body on a beach warrant risking life and limb for?
If plods make these decisions why can't anyone else?
None of the plods you've ever seen on Traffic Cops, or Police Stop Camera Action have ever shown signs of 'the red mist'?
I kind of rail against this almost religious like fervour the issue of speeding attracts.
Examples of when I've safely exceeded the speed limit?
Well on a quiet national limit dual carriageway on a nice dry, sunny week day afternoon? I'd just bought the car and it was returning from a hundred mile plus drive to the New Forest and wanted to give it a bit of test before deciding whether to keep it, or dispose of it via my local auction. My mother didn't scream. I don't think she had her prescription glasses then, but I certainly had mine, and I was wearing them.
Some of us have spent our own time and money regularly improving on our driving since passing the test as spotty teens.
A few years ago I was returning down south from Glasgow, going at a fair lick in an Astra van, a colleague snoozing in the passenger seat. In the mirror in the distance I spotted a white Cavalier with colour coded bumpers gaining on us. I eased off and pulled over to the middle lane and this white Cavalier passed us, the driver looked over his left shoulder before moving across the middle lane in front of and then off at the next junction. It had a sign on rear bumper saying something along the lines of 'Lancs. Constabularly driver training car'.
What about on that downhill stretch of the M4 heading east towards the A46 Bath exit before you start climbing the hill? On a quiet week day summer evening?
If you pick your moments and travel between midnight and 6am if you have a long trip the biggest threat some of us will be is to the wildlife.
I doubt that I have ever done 130mph on the roads.
This whole is issue is rather like the enviro mentalists. Anybody that offers a different view is shouted down.
Many people and cars exceeded 70 before the speed limit was introduced and not all of them died or crashed.
The problem with a bit of perspective is?
|
The problem with anti-speeding wonks is driving by numbers.
In the clip at the top of this thread, there are speed readouts (of the pursuing car, not the bike it is chasing) going up and down all the time, between about 30mph and I think an absolute top whack of 141 for about a second. Generally speaking that is what it is like going quickly on an A road. But if the figure of say 130mph is mentioned, people become fixated on that figure. They imagine this wicked biker blinding along at 130mph under all circumstances, even when someone who has 'failed to judge his speed' is doddering into his path. That obviously isn't what people do. You can only go like that on that sort of road in a vehicle with pretty serious acceleration and braking. In an ordinary repmobile it just isn't possible. But if you are fixated on the numbers that is what you imagine them doing - blinding along more or less flat out - and naturally you become indignant and want the mad brutes to be locked up.
The problem with a bit of perspective is that it isn't usually available.
|
there are plenty of times when driving at a speed under a speed limit could be absolutely lethal
i would like to see a perspective applied, rather than a catch all 'Speed Kills', because the trouble with a catch all slogan or arguement is that the unaware or ignorant ignore the full facts and concentrate on only one element, which isn't the bigger picture
|
People don't always understand just how capable fast bikes can be compared to bread-and-butter cars.
I used to know slightly a mad biker, bit of a rip, agreeable, quite rich, had serious bikes and used to do the Isle of Man in Nutters' Week. In the winding Sussex lane past his house there is a stretch where the road opens out a bit in front of two cottages, although it still isn't really straight, and you can see about 150 yards between one blind damp downhill bend and the next blind damp uphill one. In a car a momentary 50 or 60 is quite brisk there, but this biker used regularly to hit 100.
Came to grief alone, on an A road, after coming out of a tight 60 degree S-bend with a dip in it. No other vehicle involved and no one could work out what had happened. It wasn't obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
