Self posting video gets him Nine months inside

[TackleburyUk]

Stickyfinger said:

With logic like that, you mate are a THICK tt
ONE mistake and people are DEAD you fracking idiot

Edited by Stickyfinger on Friday 28th August 08:12

Thanks for your input.

[black-k1]

Esceptico said:

I think you have hit the nail on the head when you use terms like "expect" and "assume" for road conditions. In my view that is another key contributor to accidents - riders "expecting" other road users to act correctly eg not pull out when they shouldn't, not stop or do things unexpectedly and for road conditions to be "normal" rather than looking to make sure that the road conditions are actually okay. If a rider is not able to read the road and conditions and behaviour of other road users (and have enough time to react to put themselves out of danger) I would suggest they are going too fast - irrespective of the actual speed they are going.

I suspect that a lot of people don't want to listen to such arguments because they have a knee-jerk reaction as soon as speed is mentioned because they are sick of the simplistic and counterproductive "speed kills" messages (especially as it is usually put forward to kill joy Mr Shouty types that have invaded this thread).

Appropriate speed is all about context. I was out riding yesterday and overtook lots of vehicles. Did I pull out and dawdle past (thereby being close to the vehicles I was overtaking for longer and being on the wrong side of the road)? No I used appropriate speed and got past as swiftly and safely as possible. But in the same context, for some reason there seemed to be an unusually high amount of dirt and stones and crap on the roads and so was riding a bit slower overall (especially as the sun was making it a bit difficult to see at times).

I think you are being way to simplistic. Every road user HAS to make assumptions about both conditions and the actions of other road users every second of every journey.

Examples:

Every other vehicle you see coming towards you on a normal piece of road you assume is not simply going to swerve across the road and try to run into you.
You assume every puddle you drive through on a rainy day you assume has tarmac and not a 10' deep hole underneath it.
You assume that every wall/tree on the side of the road is not simply going to fall on you.

If you were to ride in a way that gave you space and time to make correcting actions should those assumptions prove wrong then you'd never get anywhere!

So, having accepted some assumption is required, the question is what is reasonable to assume and what is just wishful thinking and lack of planning?

Even your overtake assumed that none of the cars were simply going to swerve to the right without signalling, straight into you/your path.

The highway code tells us how we and others should use the roads. It is reasonable to assume that most road users will follow most of what's in the highway code and experience/training will inform us which elements of the highway code as most likely to be ignored (both by us and by others) thus potentially pose a greater danger.

Road surface conditions are dictated by law so it's reasonable to assume that surface conditions will either meet the legal requirement or will be close to it. (Hence councils have to pay out £Ks for damage to vehicles caused by potholes). Again, experience/training can inform us under what circumstances the assumption of the road surface condition is likely to be at risk.

We also assume (and undertake appropriate servicing to try and ensure it) that the vehicle travelling at 70mph on a motorway is not simply going to fall apart.

Individual drivers/riders set their own speed based on a whole host of assumptions. Their skill/experience/bravado/stupidity will all contribute to that decision making process. In the event of an accident, the police at the scene then make a call as to whether the decision made was reasonable (in their option) or not. From the statistics shown, it would appear that most riders don't get it wrong very often.

[moanthebairns]

Stickyfinger said:

Reardy Mister said:

I understand you're passionate about it. I'm mainly interested in at what point you will be satisfied that you've made your point and end the impotent rage? It must be quite an effort.

Try not regurgitating crap comments then in a stupid attempt score a neg point pages after the topic has come to an end and the thread has moved on to cover other people points/views/information.

Edited by Stickyfinger on Saturday 29th August 09:51

I've figured it out. Your from the moon.

[LoonR1]

black-k1 said:

I think you are being way to simplistic. Every road user HAS to make assumptions about both conditions and the actions of other road users every second of every journey.

Examples:

Every other vehicle you see coming towards you on a normal piece of road you assume is not simply going to swerve across the road and try to run into you.
You assume every puddle you drive through on a rainy day you assume has tarmac and not a 10' deep hole underneath it.
You assume that every wall/tree on the side of the road is not simply going to fall on you.

If you were to ride in a way that gave you space and time to make correcting actions should those assumptions prove wrong then you'd never get anywhere!

So, having accepted some assumption is required, the question is what is reasonable to assume and what is just wishful thinking and lack of planning?

Even your overtake assumed that none of the cars were simply going to swerve to the right without signalling, straight into you/your path.

The highway code tells us how we and others should use the roads. It is reasonable to assume that most road users will follow most of what's in the highway code and experience/training will inform us which elements of the highway code as most likely to be ignored (both by us and by others) thus potentially pose a greater danger.

Road surface conditions are dictated by law so it's reasonable to assume that surface conditions will either meet the legal requirement or will be close to it. (Hence councils have to pay out £Ks for damage to vehicles caused by potholes). Again, experience/training can inform us under what circumstances the assumption of the road surface condition is likely to be at risk.

We also assume (and undertake appropriate servicing to try and ensure it) that the vehicle travelling at 70mph on a motorway is not simply going to fall apart.

Individual drivers/riders set their own speed based on a whole host of assumptions. Their skill/experience/bravado/stupidity will all contribute to that decision making process. In the event of an accident, the police at the scene then make a call as to whether the decision made was reasonable (in their option) or not. From the statistics shown, it would appear that most riders don't get it wrong very often.

Agree with all of that except the pothole comment. There is no compulsion on councils to pay for pothole damage. They rarely pay out. You have to prove negligence for them to be legally liable and that is very difficult.

[black-k1]

LoonR1 said:

Agree with all of that except the pothole comment. There is no compulsion on councils to pay for pothole damage. They rarely pay out. You have to prove negligence for them to be legally liable and that is very difficult.

I would NEVER expect you to agree with everything I said!

[mckeann]

Jeeeeeeeezo. I've worked out why they call you sticky finger, it's because you have it up your arse whilst wking furiously to the holier than thou ste your posting. fking tt.

[Esceptico]

black-k1 said:

I think you are being way to simplistic. Every road user HAS to make assumptions about both conditions and the actions of other road users every second of every journey.

Examples:

Every other vehicle you see coming towards you on a normal piece of road you assume is not simply going to swerve across the road and try to run into you.
You assume every puddle you drive through on a rainy day you assume has tarmac and not a 10' deep hole underneath it.
You assume that every wall/tree on the side of the road is not simply going to fall on you.

If you were to ride in a way that gave you space and time to make correcting actions should those assumptions prove wrong then you'd never get anywhere!

So, having accepted some assumption is required, the question is what is reasonable to assume and what is just wishful thinking and lack of planning?

Even your overtake assumed that none of the cars were simply going to swerve to the right without signalling, straight into you/your path.

The highway code tells us how we and others should use the roads. It is reasonable to assume that most road users will follow most of what's in the highway code and experience/training will inform us which elements of the highway code as most likely to be ignored (both by us and by others) thus potentially pose a greater danger.

Road surface conditions are dictated by law so it's reasonable to assume that surface conditions will either meet the legal requirement or will be close to it. (Hence councils have to pay out £Ks for damage to vehicles caused by potholes). Again, experience/training can inform us under what circumstances the assumption of the road surface condition is likely to be at risk.

We also assume (and undertake appropriate servicing to try and ensure it) that the vehicle travelling at 70mph on a motorway is not simply going to fall apart.

Individual drivers/riders set their own speed based on a whole host of assumptions. Their skill/experience/bravado/stupidity will all contribute to that decision making process. In the event of an accident, the police at the scene then make a call as to whether the decision made was reasonable (in their option) or not. From the statistics shown, it would appear that most riders don't get it wrong very often.

You seem to place a lot of store on this list of statistics. Apologies if I don't seem quite as impressed. Reducing an often complex event like an accident, where a whole host of factors were likely at play, to just a single category seems very simplistic and just as likely obscure the truth as highlight it. That is especially so when the categories are so broad. What does "inexperienced rider/driver" actually mean? Doesn't that cover any mistake that a more experienced rider would likely not make (and could fit into many of the other categories)?

It could be that you are a serving traffic cop and are directly involved. If so it would be useful to have more first hand knowledge on how these categories are defined and the criteria for deciding how to allocate between them.

You might call me cynical but I spent too long in business having to review statistics that were collected for no good reason, not collected properly and never used to implement (sensible) changes.

[Esceptico]

black-k1 said:

LoonR1 said:

Agree with all of that except the pothole comment. There is no compulsion on councils to pay for pothole damage. They rarely pay out. You have to prove negligence for them to be legally liable and that is very difficult.

I would NEVER expect you to agree with everything I said!

You might want to take a screenshot of this thread for posterity

[black-k1]

Esceptico said:

You seem to place a lot of store on this list of statistics. Apologies if I don't seem quite as impressed. Reducing an often complex event like an accident, where a whole host of factors were likely at play, to just a single category seems very simplistic and just as likely obscure the truth as highlight it. That is especially so when the categories are so broad. What does "inexperienced rider/driver" actually mean? Doesn't that cover any mistake that a more experienced rider would likely not make (and could fit into many of the other categories)?

It could be that you are a serving traffic cop and are directly involved. If so it would be useful to have more first hand knowledge on how these categories are defined and the criteria for deciding how to allocate between them.

You might call me cynical but I spent too long in business having to review statistics that were collected for no good reason, not collected properly and never used to implement (sensible) changes.

I'm not a serving police officer. Every accident is a unique event with a different set of circumstances. From the point of view of improving road safety, analysing any one particular event is pointless as you will never have that same set of circumstances again. All you can do is look at "trends" and "common themes" in an attempt to find ways of managing those. Categories are set reasonably wide to try and show themes and trends but, of course, are open to misinterpretation both in the gathering of statistics and the subsequent analysis. Likewise, data is gathered by police officers as they are viewed (rightly or wrongly) as the ones best able to decided which contributing factors apply to each circumstance.

I copied the statistics (at your request) from the government web site in response to the point made that the judge may have been trying to make an example of the rider in the video to reduce the likelihood of future accidents. The point was made that speeding and/or excessive speed (the only thing that the video shows him of being guilty of) represented a small proportion of bike accidents, thus the judge may have made a pointless gesture.

Further to that, you said:

Esceptico said:

Sorry for banging on about inappropriate speed but...doesn't .inappropriate mean the wrong speed for the conditions...and isn't the skill and experience of the rider a key condition? Do people crash because they misjudge a corner and go in too slow?

and

Esceptico said:

The key point I'm trying to make - but not really succeeding - is that appropriate and inappropriate speed are completely conditional on the unique circumstances of each ride and each rider. On the same bend the appropriate speed could vary massively eg a really skillful and experienced rider on a warm sunny day with light traffic could take it well above the speed limit and that would not be inappropriate versus inexperienced rider with wet roads with less than perfect tyres (where appropriate speed could be less than the speed limit). Not sure how a policeman sitting at his desk could retrospectively judge that.

As you appeared to not understand what the statistics were showing or how decisions were made as regards to categorisation, I have tried to explain it to you.

[RemyMartin]

Stickyfinger said:

Reardy Mister said:

Did you give that bloke the sermon on the mount until you'd bludgeoned him to your way of thinking too, or are we just lucky?

Rotate on it

Maybe if you had to go thru what I have seen people go thru because of stupid deadly speeds on public roads you would think before you talk bks

Edited by Stickyfinger on Saturday 29th August 09:11

Did those people affected turn out to be spiteful, opinionated, poisonous s aswell?
X

[0000]

Stickyfinger said:

Rotate on it

Maybe if you had to go thru what I have seen people go thru because of stupid deadly speeds on public roads you would think before you talk bks

Or maybe he'd lose all perspective too.

[creampuff]

black-k1 said:

Or, to put it yet another way, you could just use Excel to divide two numbers and not format the resulting value!

hehehehehehhe

[Undinist]

LoonR1 said:

Where do you come up with that joyous stat? Bikes can and do crash into and injure plenty of other roadusers or pedestrians.

I couldn't answer that properly without an incredibly long post. It would take an hour to write and who would read it? (Accident studies are a favourite of mine, I'm the pub bore.)

[Stickyfinger]

Say what you like Gents, remember to me you are just pixels and I can just ignore them with ease by scrolling my mouse for a micro second.

Let me clear it up for you all, given the choice I would NOT jail the rider for nine months either, I would beat the life out of the with a baseball bat and put the dangerous life threatening bd in hospital for nine. ? Clear ?

Edited by Stickyfinger on Saturday 29th August 14:49

[LoonR1]

Undinist said:

LoonR1 said:

Where do you come up with that joyous stat? Bikes can and do crash into and injure plenty of other roadusers or pedestrians.

I couldn't answer that properly without an incredibly long post. It would take an hour to write and who would read it? (Accident studies are a favourite of mine, I'm the pub bore.)

I think it'd be really interesting for you to post it. I'm also intrigued by it, given my knowledge of claims

[black-k1]

Stickyfinger said:

Say what you like Gents, remember to me you are just pixels and I can just ignore them with ease by scrolling my mouse for a micro second.

Let be clear it up for you all, given the choice I would NOT jail the rider for nine months either, I would beat the life out of the with a baseball bat and put the dangerous life threatening bd in hospital for nine. ? Clear ?

What a constructive post!

[RemyMartin]

Stickyfinger said:

Say what you like Gents, remember to me you are just pixels and I can just ignore them with ease by scrolling my mouse for a micro second.

Let be clear it up for you all, given the choice I would NOT jail the rider for nine months either, I would beat the life out of the with a baseball bat and put the dangerous life threatening bd in hospital for nine. ? Clear ?

Which ironically would put you in jail, for longer, for GBH.

Idiot.

[Stickyfinger]

RemyMartin said:

Which ironically would put you in jail, for longer, for GBH.

Idiot.

err....given the choice ?
oh dear

[Reardy Mister]

Stickyfinger said:

remember to me you are just pixels and I can just ignore them with ease by scrolling my mouse for a micro second.

If only!

[Mad Jock]

Reardy Mister said:

Stickyfinger said:

remember to me you are just pixels and I can just ignore them with ease by scrolling my mouse for a micro second.

If only!

Look, he's seen the light, and is now an ex-biker. Just like an ex-smoker, he now feels free to tut at us for daring to continue enjoying what we like doing.

We're all doomed, Ah tell ye. Doomed!