Self posting video gets him Nine months inside

[moanthebairns]

black-k1 said:

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!

Ah the Internet hard man comes out. He's that hard he's afraid to post a picture of himself on the Internet

What is it with middle aged middle class males who have anger issues. You know the kind they're hard.

It's pathetic

[mckeann]

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 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

So, all it will take is for me to film myself doing 170mph, give you my address, and then we can sort this out???

[ORD]

Oh dear. This thread now reminds me why, even if I owned a bike, I would think long and hard before ever hanging out with bikers. Middle aged men playing tough is as embarrassing as it is homoerotic.

[curlie467]

ORD said:

Oh dear. This thread now reminds me why, even if I owned a bike, I would think long and hard before ever hanging out with bikers. Middle aged men playing tough is as embarrassing as it is homoerotic.

So even though you don't own a bike, you come on the bike section and get reminded about your thoughts of not hanging around bikers if you owned a bike while getting slightly turned on at the prospect of middle aged men wrestling each other.
Interesting.

[ORD]

curlie467 said:

So even though you don't own a bike, you come on the bike section and get reminded about your thoughts of not hanging around bikers if you owned a bike while getting slightly turned on at the prospect of middle aged men wrestling each other.
Interesting.

A fair observation.

[curlie467]

ORD said:

curlie467 said:

So even though you don't own a bike, you come on the bike section and get reminded about your thoughts of not hanging around bikers if you owned a bike while getting slightly turned on at the prospect of middle aged men wrestling each other.
Interesting.

A fair observation.

[Tribal Chestnut]

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 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

PH post of the day perhaps?

I suspect that I do many things that you would disapprove of.

Feel free to PM me if you want to meet up.

[Undinist]

Stickyfinger, could I make a few points? I'm not having a go at you.

Do you think your grief and anger over your friend in the wheelchair may have clouded your judgement? You seem to be using this thread as therapy. Maybe it would be better to talk to someone about it.

You keep conflating fast bike risk with fast car risk. They're very different, the stats prove it. For example, you mentioned an M5 doing 80 in a country lane. If the M5 has an accident, the driver will probably live, but others may well be killed. If a bike has an accident at that speed, the chances of anyone but the rider and pillion being hurt or killed are statistically very remote. The stats prove it. If I had a couple of hours to spare I'd write a post all about it quoting lots of research.

You seem to be treating your friend's accident as a fairly typical example. It wasn't, it was a freak occurrence. Bikers killing themselves is common, bikers killing occupants of other vehicles is incredibly rare.

You're also very upset about the effect that a biker has on his family when he's killed or crippled. I'm afraid humans do selfish things like that to their loved ones all the time. Otherwise there'd be no motorcycling, horse riding, fast jet flying, smoking, chronic obesity or a hundred other hazardous things we choose to do. Even swimming on a Portuguese beach can break your neck, a friend of mine has been in a wheelchair for 20 years because of that, and a couple of months ago another guy was in the papers because of the same thing. Humans have a way of persuading themselves to overlook or embrace risk. Maybe it's a tendency we evolved with to make us better hunters.

If you've given up biking to avoid the risk of putting your own family through hell, I salute you, not many people are so unselfish. I've had friends and relatives die too early for all sorts of reasons and I saw the agony my own family went through when I had cancer and they thought I would die. I tried to give up bikes once or twice, or to slow down by riding a Harley, but it made me miserable. I compromised by learning to be a much better rider and giving up sports bikes for road use. Now I have a big bus of a bike which is somehow very rewarding to ride at 60 or 70, so maybe I'll stay alive a bit longer. Perhaps you have compromised with your classic car? Maybe you could think about getting a sensible middleweight bike with ABS and a Dainese airbag system?

[LoonR1]

Undinist said:

Stickyfinger, could I make a few points? I'm not having a go at you.

Do you think your grief and anger over your friend in the wheelchair may have clouded your judgement? You seem to be using this thread as therapy. Maybe it would be better to talk to someone about it.

You keep conflating fast bike risk with fast car risk. They're very different, the stats prove it. For example, you mentioned an M5 doing 80 in a country lane. If the M5 has an accident, the driver will probably live, but others may well be killed. If a bike has an accident at that speed, the chances of anyone but the rider and pillion being hurt or killed are statistically very remote. The stats prove it. If I had a couple of hours to spare I'd write a post all about it quoting lots of research.

You seem to be treating your friend's accident as a fairly typical example. It wasn't, it was a freak occurrence. Bikers killing themselves is common, bikers killing occupants of other vehicles is incredibly rare.

You're also very upset about the effect that a biker has on his family when he's killed or crippled. I'm afraid humans do selfish things like that to their loved ones all the time. Otherwise there'd be no motorcycling, horse riding, fast jet flying, smoking, chronic obesity or a hundred other hazardous things we choose to do. Even swimming on a Portuguese beach can break your neck, a friend of mine has been in a wheelchair for 20 years because of that, and a couple of months ago another guy was in the papers because of the same thing. Humans have a way of persuading themselves to overlook or embrace risk. Maybe it's a tendency we evolved with to make us better hunters.

If you've given up biking to avoid the risk of putting your own family through hell, I salute you, not many people are so unselfish. I've had friends and relatives die too early for all sorts of reasons and I saw the agony my own family went through when I had cancer and they thought I would die. I tried to give up bikes once or twice, or to slow down by riding a Harley, but it made me miserable. I compromised by learning to be a much better rider and giving up sports bikes for road use. Now I have a big bus of a bike which is somehow very rewarding to ride at 60 or 70, so maybe I'll stay alive a bit longer. Perhaps you have compromised with your classic car? Maybe you could think about getting a sensible middleweight bike with ABS and a Dainese airbag system?

You're going to have to explain the M5 vs bike scenario to me.

If the M5 crashes and kills others, then how does the bike in the same accident only manage to kill the rider and pillion? I'd love you to explain your ongoing assertion that bikers only kill themselves and pillions.

I don't agree with the shouty one, but our arguments need to be solid too.

[anonymous-user]

Chap was sentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. Nothing atypical about it.

A road death, even a single biker, is expensive and takes out a lot of emergency service capability for a fair bit of time.

[Esceptico]

black-k1 said:

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.

I asked for the statistics to be copied as I thought they might not be useful in highlighting the real causes of accidents. Having seen them I am more suspicious, not less. In my view "slippery surfaces" or "filtering" are unlikely to be the real causes of accidents. It depends on whether you are looking for mechanical explanations or meaningful explanations.
That is crucial for identitying ways of cutting accidents. To illustrate the point consider the collapse of the twin towers. Why did they fall down? The physical reason was because they were hit by commercial airliners full of fuel. That is undeniably true but misses the point because the real, underlying reason was that Al Queida wanted to destroy them as part of its fight against the U.S. Should we try and prevent a similar tragedy by fitting out all buildings with anti aircraft missiles? Or go after the terrorists?

There was a post on here recently about a guy who highsided his bike (on the road). Where would that fit in the categorisation? Slippery surface? Inexperienced rider? Reckless? Possibly all those are part of the answer but if you stand back and look at the situation then the intent of the rider was to go faster than his ability or road conditions allowed. I am not having a go at the rider because I have done similar stuff myself - as I tried to explain in another post above I Iowsided on a roundabout. Clearly the mechanical reason is because I ran out of grip. I think the speed limit was 60 mph so I certainly wasn't close to exceeding that so it wasn't "speed" in that sense. But clearly it was all to do with speed because I was attempting to go too fast for the conditions - had I not been attempting to go fast then I wouldn't have come off. It was rider error but rider error primarily caused by going too fast.

I think the statistics are flawed and are misleading.

With respect to the case of the rider jailed for 9 months it seems to me that the judge was making on example of him not just because of his disregard for speed limits but more that speeding past junctions and pedestrians was a disregard for the safety of others but also to send a signal that riding quickly and posting on the Internet to impress your mates is frowned upon by society.

I agree with the judge that he deserved to have the book thrown at him for such reckless and stupid behaviour. I don't agree with the 9 month prison sentence as I am not sure that will make him see what he did was wrong and it could make it difficult for him to get a job going forward (making him dependent upon the public purse). Someone above suggested that he should have had to get involved with accident victims or perhaps he could have been made to do some voluntary work that exposed him to the consequences of dangerous riding/driving.

[Fleegle]

mckeann said:

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.

This must be the first time you've got angry

I didn't realise there was such a thing as a placid sweaty until I met you and Simon

[poo at Paul's]

Stickyfinger said:

No, but they are quadriplegic.

From a serving fast jet pilot to a wheel chair. Doing 110mph and ended up in the back of a Transit van (thru the windscreen killing the driver on the way) just outside Spalding.

He has to live with that and the death of the driver, the drivers family/kids, as do his wife, his child and family.
he has caused massive grief to many, cost all of us 100's of thousands etc etc.

I am not and never have been one to complain to much about speed limits as I think they are just about well balanced and allow safe (as pos) travel and are perfect for fun/enjoyment.

As an ex biker (guess why) I do think he was very very stupid with the resultant fall out for the 100's of people concerned. You cannot make a law for stupid, but you can reduce the effect of stupid given the chance.
9 months will I am sure save this guy life and the effect the loss of it would have on those 100's effected.


It is unknown who was at fault (?) technically but his speedo was stuck at 110mph.

Edited by Stickyfinger on Friday 28th August 15:22

Sounds like a right bellend.

Presumably a blood relative?

[John D.]

poo at Paul's said:

Sounds like a right bellend.

Presumably a blood relative?

I see what you did there

[mckeann]

Fleegle said:

mckeann said:

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.

This must be the first time you've got angry

I didn't realise there was such a thing as a placid sweaty until I met you and Simon

And breatheeeeeeeee

[LoonR1]

mckeann said:

And breatheeeeeeeee

No. Don't breathe. FIGHT!!!!!

[anonymous-user]

woowahwoo said:

La Liga said:

Chap was sentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. Nothing atypical about it.

A road death, even a single biker, is expensive and takes out a lot of emergency service capability for a fair bit of time.

Rubbish.

Which part and why? Perhaps the latter was too generalised.

A fatal RTC will take out the entire traffic department of most police forces, plus lots of non-specialist units, for a fair bit of time. That capability is usually gone. The impact on NHS / fire is a lot less, although with how busy ambulances are even one + a paramedic car + the possible air ambulance, that may not be too far off for them, either.

[Esceptico]

woowahwoo said:

Dangerous driving has such a broad scope and the sentencing even more so, and so much of it is subjective, comprised of the could-haves and might-haves, that it is not really in accordance with anything. This sentence is not typical, by virtue of that position and by virtue of comparison with other convictions (for dangerous driving). It's another example of heavier sentencing for motorcycle speeding.

?

Do you have any evidence that motorcyclists get harsher sentences for similar speeding or traffic offences?

Are you saying that if a 24 year old had blagged a test drive in an M3, driven at similar speeds, videoed himself driving it and uploaded it onto the Internet that he would have got off more lightly? I have my doubts.

[ORD]

Esceptico said:

Do you have any evidence that motorcyclists get harsher sentences for similar speeding or traffic offences?

Are you saying that if a 24 year old had blagged a test drive in an M3, driven at similar speeds, videoed himself driving it and uploaded it onto the Internet that he would have got off more lightly? I have my doubts.

If anything, the sentence would probably be higher. Those speeds would look even more inappropriate and dangerous in a car.

[black-k1]

Esceptico said:

black-k1 said:

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.

I asked for the statistics to be copied as I thought they might not be useful in highlighting the real causes of accidents. Having seen them I am more suspicious, not less. In my view "slippery surfaces" or "filtering" are unlikely to be the real causes of accidents. It depends on whether you are looking for mechanical explanations or meaningful explanations.
That is crucial for identitying ways of cutting accidents. To illustrate the point consider the collapse of the twin towers. Why did they fall down? The physical reason was because they were hit by commercial airliners full of fuel. That is undeniably true but misses the point because the real, underlying reason was that Al Queida wanted to destroy them as part of its fight against the U.S. Should we try and prevent a similar tragedy by fitting out all buildings with anti aircraft missiles? Or go after the terrorists?

There was a post on here recently about a guy who highsided his bike (on the road). Where would that fit in the categorisation? Slippery surface? Inexperienced rider? Reckless? Possibly all those are part of the answer but if you stand back and look at the situation then the intent of the rider was to go faster than his ability or road conditions allowed. I am not having a go at the rider because I have done similar stuff myself - as I tried to explain in another post above I Iowsided on a roundabout. Clearly the mechanical reason is because I ran out of grip. I think the speed limit was 60 mph so I certainly wasn't close to exceeding that so it wasn't "speed" in that sense. But clearly it was all to do with speed because I was attempting to go too fast for the conditions - had I not been attempting to go fast then I wouldn't have come off. It was rider error but rider error primarily caused by going too fast.

I think the statistics are flawed and are misleading.

With respect to the case of the rider jailed for 9 months it seems to me that the judge was making on example of him not just because of his disregard for speed limits but more that speeding past junctions and pedestrians was a disregard for the safety of others but also to send a signal that riding quickly and posting on the Internet to impress your mates is frowned upon by society.

I agree with the judge that he deserved to have the book thrown at him for such reckless and stupid behaviour. I don't agree with the 9 month prison sentence as I am not sure that will make him see what he did was wrong and it could make it difficult for him to get a job going forward (making him dependent upon the public purse). Someone above suggested that he should have had to get involved with accident victims or perhaps he could have been made to do some voluntary work that exposed him to the consequences of dangerous riding/driving.

You still seem to be struggling with the categorisation. These are contributing factors not (necessarily) the sole cause. Thus your low side could fall into all of these at the same time:

Deposit on road (eg. oil, mud, chippings)
Travelling too fast for conditions
Poor turn or manoeuvre
Driver/Rider failed to look properly
Loss of control
Driver/Rider careless, reckless or in a hurry
Learner or inexperienced driver/rider

(except that only a maximum of 6 can apply to any one event.)

However, it's not for me to justify the approach to accident categorisation that is currently in use. I merely posted what was requested. Given you obviously have a much better way of gathering, analysing and presenting accident statistics (although you've not actually said what that is!!!) I suggest you contact the DoT and let them know.

I'll leave you to it!!

PS The twin towers did not fall down because Al Queida wanted to destroy them as part of its fight against the U.S. Al Queida (or any one else) can "want" as much as they like, it won't make something happen. The towers DID fall down because planes full of fuel crashed into them. Why the panes crashed into them is a different discussion.