BBC news.

[_Batty_]

Utter utter tripe.
watching the coverage of the 122mph biker and its so bad its bloody hilarious!
the child was wearing no glove shocker!
if anything went wrong the bike would have been transformed into a lethal weapon...

i mean FFS

[beanbag]

_Batty_ said:

Utter utter tripe.
watching the coverage of the 122mph biker and its so bad its bloody hilarious!
the child was wearing no glove shocker!
if anything went wrong the bike would have been transformed into a lethal weapon...

i mean FFS

The father was a total dick for doing what he did. 122mph with no protective gear?!!? No thanks. Especially in the wet.

[fathomfive]

Discussion underway here: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[JMGS4]

The father was a total dick...no excuse, however the supercilious comments from the Beeb and the twit in uniform were also inexcuseable.... the biker DIDN'T kill anyone (although he could have) and the 20 dead bikers in Devon and Cornwall do NOT necessarily profit from a reduced speed limit, especially when there are daft holidaymakers who are not looking what they're doing and endangering anyone and everything with their lazy driving (sorry automobile moving, cos drive they can't)!!!

[IainT]

beanbag said:

_Batty_ said:

Utter utter tripe.
watching the coverage of the 122mph biker and its so bad its bloody hilarious!
the child was wearing no glove shocker!
if anything went wrong the bike would have been transformed into a lethal weapon...

i mean FFS

The father was a total dick for doing what he did. 122mph with no protective gear?!!? No thanks. Especially in the wet.

Seriously though, at 122mph what kind of protective gear would make any real difference?

[RemaL]

IainT said:

beanbag said:

_Batty_ said:

Utter utter tripe.
watching the coverage of the 122mph biker and its so bad its bloody hilarious!
the child was wearing no glove shocker!
if anything went wrong the bike would have been transformed into a lethal weapon...

i mean FFS

The father was a total dick for doing what he did. 122mph with no protective gear?!!? No thanks. Especially in the wet.

Seriously though, at 122mph what kind of protective gear would make any real difference?

I hope my leathers would protect me more than jeans and a jacket.

[V8mate]

Inflatable icebergs! Fantastic!

[lizardking]

His quote,
""Bennett said he had "pulled back the throttle" on his Suzuki 1300cc motorbike because it had "started to rain".""
Idiot!!

[hifihigh]

The sped up footage was laughable.

[Nobody You Know]

hifihigh said:

The sped up footage was laughable.

That bit was superb! The most retarded thing that the BBC have ever done it looked like something from Benny Hill and was about as intelligent as well.

I feel embarrassed that this report was done by the Points West region, not everyone down here is that stupid.

[Jasandjules]

Does anyone know the stats in respect of RTAs and bikers? i.e. is it speeding, or colliding with a driver who didn't bother to look? I only know three people who have been in accidents on bikes, all three of them when a car pulled out.......

[IainT]

RemaL said:

IainT said:

beanbag said:

_Batty_ said:

Utter utter tripe.
watching the coverage of the 122mph biker and its so bad its bloody hilarious!
the child was wearing no glove shocker!
if anything went wrong the bike would have been transformed into a lethal weapon...

i mean FFS

The father was a total dick for doing what he did. 122mph with no protective gear?!!? No thanks. Especially in the wet.

Seriously though, at 122mph what kind of protective gear would make any real difference?

I hope my leathers would protect me more than jeans and a jacket.

At lower speeds sure but at that speed... toast.

[normalbloke]

IainT said:

beanbag said:

_Batty_ said:

Utter utter tripe.
watching the coverage of the 122mph biker and its so bad its bloody hilarious!
the child was wearing no glove shocker!
if anything went wrong the bike would have been transformed into a lethal weapon...

i mean FFS

The father was a total dick for doing what he did. 122mph with no protective gear?!!? No thanks. Especially in the wet.

Seriously though, at 122mph what kind of protective gear would make any real difference?

Ask Rossi et al..

[dangerousB]

IainT said:

Seriously though, at 122mph what kind of protective gear would make any real difference?

Having the experience of more than 10, 100mph+ plus getoffs, with the fastest being ~140mph (trackside), I can tell you unequivocally that wearing high quality one piece leathers, gloves, boots, back protector & body armour with a high quality, well fitting lid will make all the difference in the world (unless you hit something solid!).
Admittedly I haven't undertaken control crashes in jeans and trainers, but then again I wouldn't want to. I could hazard a guess at the results though.
On the subject of matey boy, 6 months custodial sentence for that is outrageous. I don't think (as has been mentioned) he was a "dick" for doing it per se. That would depend on circumstance . . . and I'm not gonna read the reporting or watch the doctored vid as I can guess the portrayal. Doing 122mph, with or without passenger, is no more dangerous than doing 70mph if conditions are reasonable.
Should he have done it? No. Did he endanger his son? Doubtful.
Is a custodial sentence justifiable? Absolutely not.

[croyde]

I thankfully, have never crashed at some of the speeds that I used to get upto on my various bikes but had plenty of offs at 30 mph or less thanks to dozy car drivers, diesel, wet manhole covers etc.

It was a 30 mph incident with a car about 6 years ago that so injured me that I could not work for ages and made me finally hang up my leathers after 25 years.

[IainT]

dangerousB said:

IainT said:

Seriously though, at 122mph what kind of protective gear would make any real difference?

Having the experience of more than 10, 100mph+ plus getoffs, with the fastest being ~140mph (trackside), I can tell you unequivocally that wearing high quality one piece leathers, gloves, boots, back protector & body armour with a high quality, well fitting lid will make all the difference in the world (unless you hit something solid!).

I fully accept that the right gear will prevent injury - I've watched enough bike racing to be astounded with how well protected the racers are.

My point is that, on the road at 122mph, the chances are that you will hit something solid and no gear's going to make any difference. The lack of gloves as a point for discussion is ludicrous in the context.

[Hedders]

dangerousB said:

Admittedly I haven't undertaken control crashes in jeans and trainers, but then again I wouldn't want to. I could hazard a guess at the results though.

Is your name Ironic?

[Simpo Two]

I took the view that the actual offence was riding the bike at 122mph. The fact he had a 14y/o on the back is probably unimportant, it's just a 'shocker for the morally outraged' to have a go at.

Note also that the news about the Labour bloke (jailed for killing somebody) was obsessed with the fact he'd been texting 2 mins before the accident, and even the judge said the texts were nothing to do with it - but guess which the BBC picked on?

[HiRich]

Jasandjules said:

Does anyone know the stats in respect of RTAs and bikers? i.e. is it speeding, or colliding with a driver who didn't bother to look? I only know three people who have been in accidents on bikes, all three of them when a car pulled out.......

RCGB says for 2007:
No. motorcycles in reported accidents: 20, 342
Motorcycle did not contribute to the accident: 7, 225 (36% actually the lowest of all vehicle categories)
Determining what are the causes is a bit tricky (because there can be multiple causes) but standouts are:
Biker failed to look properly: 3,062 (15%, lower than other classes)
Loss of control: 3,008 (15%, much higher)

Because of the way the data is collected and published, it's hard to be more specific - what would help would be the analysis of contributory and precipitatory (the main one) causes, restricted only to motorcycle accidents. What data there is is almost impenetrable (and too much for me to do right now), but it does seem that the biker is at least as equal to be the cause of their own demise as a car or van pulling across them.

[Rich_W]

HiRich said:

Jasandjules said:

Does anyone know the stats in respect of RTAs and bikers? i.e. is it speeding, or colliding with a driver who didn't bother to look? I only know three people who have been in accidents on bikes, all three of them when a car pulled out.......

RCGB says for 2007:
No. motorcycles in reported accidents: 20, 342
Motorcycle did not contribute to the accident: 7, 225 (36% actually the lowest of all vehicle categories)
Determining what are the causes is a bit tricky (because there can be multiple causes) but standouts are:
Biker failed to look properly: 3,062 (15%, lower than other classes)
Loss of control: 3,008 (15%, much higher)

Because of the way the data is collected and published, it's hard to be more specific - what would help would be the analysis of contributory and precipitatory (the main one) causes, restricted only to motorcycle accidents. What data there is is almost impenetrable (and too much for me to do right now), but it does seem that the biker is at least as equal to be the cause of their own demise as a car or van pulling across them.

Sorry, not having a go at you. But those statistics are BS. The amount of SMIDSY's is way in excess of 36% And I'd love to know how exactly a biker "failed to look properly" Also Loss of control is interesting. The biker had to swerve to avoid the car pulling out and lost control. Or the biker lost control because a truck had spilt diesel all over the road. They are too vague!