Jailed for 150mph headcam footage...

[Tribal Chestnut]

Vipers said:

catso said:

Doesn't necessarily mean there is either though, just because some pencil-neck decides where the line should be doesn't make it right.

I can think of many around here that aren't necessary and many more that really aren't 'applicable' to a bike. ..

Not applicable to a bike, interesting, so only apply to "others". Example?

You could certainly apply the safety argument in some instances to cars, but not bikes, however there are numerous examples that I've come across where there doesn't seem to be a safety element applicable at all, and on other occasions where you'd struggle to use 'safety' as a reason against anything smaller than a bus.

Edit: of course you could always argue that any type of overtake has a degree of risk, so therefore we should all sit in line like good little citizens and just leave for our journey that little bit earlier. Win win! As they say.

Edited by Tribal Chestnut on Sunday 7th February 19:50

[Tribal Chestnut]

trickywoo said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

God there are spome idiots on this thread. I'm out.

Leave him be, he obviously knows his place.

[Vipers]

Tribal Chestnut said:

Vipers said:

catso said:

Doesn't necessarily mean there is either though, just because some pencil-neck decides where the line should be doesn't make it right.

I can think of many around here that aren't necessary and many more that really aren't 'applicable' to a bike. ..

Not applicable to a bike, interesting, so only apply to "others". Example?

You could certainly apply the safety argument in some instances to cars, but not bikes, however there are numerous examples that I've come across where there doesn't seem to be a safety element applicable at all, and on other occasions where you'd struggle to use 'safety' as a reason against anything smaller than a bus.

I can't still understand how it could be safe for a bike to be over the line and unsafe for a car. I don't doubt you have seen some lines which seem illogical.

[catso]

Vipers said:

Not applicable to a bike, interesting, so only apply to "others". Example?

I don't mean not legally 'applicable' (I am well aware of the law) rather, where the line covers a distance that a car might not have time/space to safely pass due to size etc. but a bike could easily and perfectly safely.

I assume you have ridden a bike? if so you know what I mean.

[Vipers]

catso said:

Vipers said:

Not applicable to a bike, interesting, so only apply to "others". Example?

I don't mean not legally 'applicable' (I am well aware of the law) rather, where the line covers a distance that a car might not have time/space to safely pass due to size etc. but a bike could easily and perfectly safely.

I assume you have ridden a bike? if so you know what I mean.

OK makes sense. Havnt ridden bike since about 72, but I do know these days a twist and your doing zillions of leptons.

[Tribal Chestnut]

There was an article in the Evening Standard today about a cyclist who jumped a red light and popped a pedestrian in a coma for a while, got fined just over £1k.

It's as if they are trying to encourage motorcyclists to obscure/lose their plates, not something I could ever condone, mind you.

(the above obviously wouldn't help the doughnut about whom this fred is dedicated)

[cat with a hat]

trickywoo said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

God there are spome idiots on this thread. I'm out.

Indeed, im surpised this forum is filled with so many clueless mongs that blindly follow the signs. Probably the same nobbers that do 60 round a blind bend on a single track road because the sign said so.

[vonhosen]

cat with a hat said:

trickywoo said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

God there are spome idiots on this thread. I'm out.

Indeed, im surpised this forum is filled with so many clueless mongs that blindly follow the signs. Probably the same nobbers that do 60 round a blind bend on a single track road because the sign said so.

Big difference though.
The NSL isn't telling you that you have to do 60.
The solid whites are telling you mustn't cross them save for in the exempted circumstances.

[leighz]

just when you thought a thread was dead...

fascinating programme

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b071gvs3/the-...

tldr - driver kills someone in head on and is convicted of death by careless driving. Very sad. Of interest is the sentence - 12 month ban and 150 hours community service.

[Prizam]

In short, idiots are every ware and a lot of us lash out simply out of frustration.

To get any ware these days is a nightmare. Average speed in the car on the way home is about 15 mph. People joining motorways at 30mph, not looking, on the phone, on facebook. Sitting at green lights....

Its just a waste of my life. So i ride a bike.

Once you overtake you way to the front of the queue you can have looooong sections of completely uninterrupted roads.

(How do people who cause these tailbacks live with them selves? One look in the mirror should tell them they are holding up and inconveniencing lots of people)

My bike is only good for about 140 though.

[e21Mark]

Jailed for speeding, yet this just gets you a suspended sentence.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/eton-pu...

[graeme4130]

clen666 said:

There are plenty of roads where 150+mph is 'safe'.

Without wanting to take sides, this depends on what you consider safe ?
Lets assume this guy is a toe rag, and doesn't check his bike properly and gets a blowout at 150mph high siding himself in the process. A bike travelling in an uncontrolled fashion at 150mph can go a blimmin long way before hitting something. That something could be a family of 4 coming the other way, or a bus stop full of kids, or people sat eating their lunch outside
I've done silly speeds on the roads, but I'm well aware that it's not totally safe, and wouldn't pretend that it is

[clen666]

graeme4130 said:

clen666 said:

There are plenty of roads where 150+mph is 'safe'.

Without wanting to take sides, this depends on what you consider safe ?
Lets assume this guy is a toe rag, and doesn't check his bike properly and gets a blowout at 150mph high siding himself in the process. A bike travelling in an uncontrolled fashion at 150mph can go a blimmin long way before hitting something. That something could be a family of 4 coming the other way, or a bus stop full of kids, or people sat eating their lunch outside
I've done silly speeds on the roads, but I'm well aware that it's not totally safe, and wouldn't pretend that it is

clen666 said:

NoNeed said:

There are plenty of roads where 150mph look safe.


you have no idea of what is ahead on the road it can be anything from a blown out tyre or knocked off wing mirror to dead wildlife.

70mph is the upper limit for a very good reason and while modern machinery may make small adjustments to that OK humans are still human.

Yes and a human could still suffer terrible injuries coming off at 70mph. I understand you will have more time to react to hazards, but then why not drop the limit to 30 everywhere?

That is why I said 'safe' in inverted commas as no matter what speed you at going there will always be variables that can't be controlled.

Edited by clen666 on Sunday 31st January 10:03

[graeme4130]

To get back on topic, this guy was sentenced not just because of his current actions, but his previous form and convictions
He, apparently, had a criminal record as long as his arm, and some of them were related to dangerous driving, and, I believe, one incident of dangerous driving that had resulted in serious injury to another party where he'd narrowly avoided prison previously

[black-k1]

NoNeed said:

There are plenty of roads where 150mph look safe.


you have no idea of what is ahead on the road it can be anything from a blown out tyre or knocked off wing mirror to dead wildlife.

70mph is the upper limit for a very good reason and while modern machinery may make small adjustments to that OK humans are still human.

70mph is the upper limit because Barbara Castle, who didn't even hold a driving license, ignored expert advice to set the limit at 80mph and arbitrarily decided 70mph was fast enough. Your definition of "good reason" certainly differs from mine!

[Tribal Chestnut]

e21Mark said:

Jailed for speeding, yet this just gets you a suspended sentence.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/eton-pu...

That'll more than likely be because he had some filth on Cameron, Osborne, etc.

[Tribal Chestnut]

graeme4130 said:

To get back on topic, this guy was sentenced not just because of his current actions, but his previous form and convictions
He, apparently, had a criminal record as long as his arm, and some of them were related to dangerous driving, and, I believe, one incident of dangerous driving that had resulted in serious injury to another party where he'd narrowly avoided prison previously

In this context the issue is the leniency given to nonces, killers and other properly horrible s, in comparison to this arse.

[graeme4130]

Tribal Chestnut said:

graeme4130 said:

To get back on topic, this guy was sentenced not just because of his current actions, but his previous form and convictions
He, apparently, had a criminal record as long as his arm, and some of them were related to dangerous driving, and, I believe, one incident of dangerous driving that had resulted in serious injury to another party where he'd narrowly avoided prison previously

In this context the issue is the leniency given to nonces, killers and other properly horrible s, in comparison to this arse.

That's very true, but maybe this guy is a poor comparative example