140mph biker

[14-7]

It's over in Biker Banter but surprised it hasn't been in here yet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8704489.stm

I for one seem suprised that he has received a 12 month ban. Apart from a few dodgy undertakes there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with his riding apart from the speed.

• edit

just seen it has been mentioned in the other 150mph biker thread but no seperate one.

Mods, if you want to close this and let the other run it's course then fair enough.

Edited by 14-7 on Wednesday 26th May 22:01

[mybrainhurts]

Don't close it. This is a subject in itself. I'll start...

If the riding depicted here is dangerous, why is it deemed safe for an unmarked police bike, no strobes, no siren, to ride in exactly the same fashion?

[14-7]

I have only looked at the story posted that I have.

It doesn't mention what he has been found guilty of unless someone has another link?

[mybrainhurts]

I'm not talking about the charge.

If he was only done for speeding, the inference is that speeding is dangerous.

If he wasn't done for dangerous driving, was this because, if convicted of this offence, the police rider was also guilty of dangerous driving?

If this were the case, would he have been charged with dangerous driving if filmed from a helicopter..?

[vonhosen]

mybrainhurts said:

If he was only done for speeding, the inference is that speeding is dangerous.

There is no inference that each individual case of speeding is dangerous. There is no requirement to prove any danger to justify prosecution or to convict either.

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

If he was only done for speeding, the inference is that speeding is dangerous.

There is no inference that each individual case of speeding is dangerous. There is no requirement to prove any danger to justify prosecution or to convict either.

You misunderstand me.

There is a law limiting speed. The inference is that exceeding the limit is dangerous.

[vonhosen]

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

If he was only done for speeding, the inference is that speeding is dangerous.

There is no inference that each individual case of speeding is dangerous. There is no requirement to prove any danger to justify prosecution or to convict either.

You misunderstand me.

There is a law limiting speed. The inference is that exceeding the limit is dangerous.

Not each case no. The limit is partly a risk control measure & it defines parameters of reasonable expectations.
You can be prosecuted for safe speeding, simply on the grounds that it is a speed that is outside the defined acceptable parameters.

Many emergency drivers safely speed each day & that isn't considered dangerous. It follows that you could do likewise, only it would be illegal because it is outside the defined parameters you are to perform within.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 26th May 23:49

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

If he was only done for speeding, the inference is that speeding is dangerous.

There is no inference that each individual case of speeding is dangerous. There is no requirement to prove any danger to justify prosecution or to convict either.

You misunderstand me.

There is a law limiting speed. The inference is that exceeding the limit is dangerous.

Not each case no. The limit is partly a risk control measure & it defines parameters of reasonable expectations.
You can be prosecuted for safe speeding, simply on the grounds that it is a speed that is outside the defined acceptable parameters.

Many emergency drivers safely speed each day & that isn't considered dangerous. It follows that you could do likewise, only it would be illegal because it is outside the defined parameters you are to perform within.

You're still not with me. I'm not addressing interpretation of the law.

I mean the raison d'être for restricting speed is that speed is dangerous.

[vonhosen]

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

If he was only done for speeding, the inference is that speeding is dangerous.

There is no inference that each individual case of speeding is dangerous. There is no requirement to prove any danger to justify prosecution or to convict either.

You misunderstand me.

There is a law limiting speed. The inference is that exceeding the limit is dangerous.

Not each case no. The limit is partly a risk control measure & it defines parameters of reasonable expectations.
You can be prosecuted for safe speeding, simply on the grounds that it is a speed that is outside the defined acceptable parameters.

Many emergency drivers safely speed each day & that isn't considered dangerous. It follows that you could do likewise, only it would be illegal because it is outside the defined parameters you are to perform within.

You're still not with me. I'm not addressing interpretation of the law.

I mean the raison d'être for restricting speed is that speed is dangerous.

It's not that speed is dangerous in & of itself, it's that it is a factor in risk & can be dangerous in relation to circumstances. We have to share our roads with others too. We have limits is to restrict one of the risk variables.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 27th May 00:05

[Pothole]

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

If he was only done for speeding, the inference is that speeding is dangerous.

There is no inference that each individual case of speeding is dangerous. There is no requirement to prove any danger to justify prosecution or to convict either.

You misunderstand me.

There is a law limiting speed. The inference is that exceeding the limit is dangerous.

Not each case no. The limit is partly a risk control measure & it defines parameters of reasonable expectations.
You can be prosecuted for safe speeding, simply on the grounds that it is a speed that is outside the defined acceptable parameters.

Many emergency drivers safely speed each day & that isn't considered dangerous. It follows that you could do likewise, only it would be illegal because it is outside the defined parameters you are to perform within.

You're still not with me. I'm not addressing interpretation of the law.

I mean the raison d'être for restricting speed is that speed is dangerous.

It's not that speed is dangerous in & of itself, it's that it is a factor in risk & can be dangerous in relation to circumstances. We have to share our roads with others too. We have limits is to restrict one of the risk variables.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 27th May 00:05

once again, said limits have not been revisited in any meaningful way since the 1960s

[vonhosen]

Pothole said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

If he was only done for speeding, the inference is that speeding is dangerous.

There is no inference that each individual case of speeding is dangerous. There is no requirement to prove any danger to justify prosecution or to convict either.

You misunderstand me.

There is a law limiting speed. The inference is that exceeding the limit is dangerous.

Not each case no. The limit is partly a risk control measure & it defines parameters of reasonable expectations.
You can be prosecuted for safe speeding, simply on the grounds that it is a speed that is outside the defined acceptable parameters.

Many emergency drivers safely speed each day & that isn't considered dangerous. It follows that you could do likewise, only it would be illegal because it is outside the defined parameters you are to perform within.

You're still not with me. I'm not addressing interpretation of the law.

I mean the raison d'être for restricting speed is that speed is dangerous.

It's not that speed is dangerous in & of itself, it's that it is a factor in risk & can be dangerous in relation to circumstances. We have to share our roads with others too. We have limits is to restrict one of the risk variables.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 27th May 00:05

once again, said limits have not been revisited in any meaningful way since the 1960s

They have been looked at on numerous occasions. The conclusions drawn just haven't been what some people want.

[saaby93]

Was it a straightforward speeding offence?
What's the point of speed limits if they're not enforced?
Anyone think he slowed up before the end to check if he'd attracted an unwanted tail before speeding up and taking next slip to confirm?

[skeggysteve]

I saw that BBC article but forgot to mention it on PH.

I thought the bike rider rode very well.
But as a non bike riding person I'd welcome comments from bikers on his 'performance'.

I also thought about the 'unmarked' police bike following him.
If the police bike rider thought it was that 'bad' to be travelling at that speed then why did they (the police bike rider) not stop following?

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

Pothole said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

If he was only done for speeding, the inference is that speeding is dangerous.

There is no inference that each individual case of speeding is dangerous. There is no requirement to prove any danger to justify prosecution or to convict either.

You misunderstand me.

There is a law limiting speed. The inference is that exceeding the limit is dangerous.

Not each case no. The limit is partly a risk control measure & it defines parameters of reasonable expectations.
You can be prosecuted for safe speeding, simply on the grounds that it is a speed that is outside the defined acceptable parameters.

Many emergency drivers safely speed each day & that isn't considered dangerous. It follows that you could do likewise, only it would be illegal because it is outside the defined parameters you are to perform within.

You're still not with me. I'm not addressing interpretation of the law.

I mean the raison d'être for restricting speed is that speed is dangerous.

It's not that speed is dangerous in & of itself, it's that it is a factor in risk & can be dangerous in relation to circumstances. We have to share our roads with others too. We have limits is to restrict one of the risk variables.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 27th May 00:05

once again, said limits have not been revisited in any meaningful way since the 1960s

They have been looked at on numerous occasions. The conclusions drawn just haven't been what some people want.

They WERE revised recently. That's why limits are tumbling in Derbyshire and Cheshire. Government requires local authorities to justify existing limits, or lower them.

Guidelines were set by the Commons Transport Select Committee under Gwynneth Dunwoody. All meeting minutes can be viewed on the committee's website, but don't view if you have blood pressure problems.

Evidence was taken from, among others, Transport 2000, SUSTRANS, Pedestrians' Association, Ramblers, BRAKE, Roadpeace, Brunstrom, Oliver Carsten (Leeds University vehicle speed limiters by satellite control), Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and so on.

[singlecoil]

The speed limits have not been revised upwards to take account of the better dynamic capabilities of newer motor vehicles because the roads have been getting a lot more crowded. I can personally testify that since the '60s roads are very much busier.

[vonhosen]

skeggysteve said:

I saw that BBC article but forgot to mention it on PH.

I thought the bike rider rode very well.
But as a non bike riding person I'd welcome comments from bikers on his 'performance'.

I also thought about the 'unmarked' police bike following him.
If the police bike rider thought it was that 'bad' to be travelling at that speed then why did they (the police bike rider) not stop following?

It would appear that different levels of risk are acceptable depending on who the rider is, what they are doing & why they are doing it.
Has that not always been the case ?
Is that not what exemptions are about ?

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

The speed limits have not been revised upwards to take account of the better dynamic capabilities of newer motor vehicles because the roads have been getting a lot more crowded. I can personally testify that since the '60s roads are very much busier.

But they aren't all crowded all the time.

If someone in 1964 had filtered through a traffic jam at 100 MPH (and yes, there were traffic jams in the 1960s, and the 1860s come to that) it would be no defence for them to say that on average there was less traffic than there would be in 2010.

So to condemn someone doing 90 on a deserted motorway in 2010 on the basis that average traffic levels have increased is illogical.

It's the circumnstances at the time that matter.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

The riding was terrible. Whilst performing a wheelie at 88 he nearly strikes a car then he's in the wrong line going under the underpass restricting his view. Then he's too close to the car in front, then he goes through a stop sign.


Not stopped as procedures exist for stopping with unmarked bikes using marked bikes.

Police rider was hanging back. Maintaining views and didn't perfom the wheelie.

Speed is not dangerous. Only people who fall for soundbites or think they are cleverly showing how stupid the law is maintain that.

Speed is a crash factor. By limiting speeds you reduce the levels of force in any crashes. You may or may not impact on the likelihood of a crash but you will manage the outcome.

As such it's now the case limits exist. Many police drivers are limited to 100 or 20 over the posted limit. Even going to a burglary in progress doesn't justify 88 in a 50 for a police driver.

Limits are outcome controllers. Nothing more.

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

singlecoil said:

The speed limits have not been revised upwards to take account of the better dynamic capabilities of newer motor vehicles because the roads have been getting a lot more crowded. I can personally testify that since the '60s roads are very much busier.

But they aren't all crowded all the time.

If someone in 1964 had filtered through a traffic jam at 100 MPH (and yes, there were traffic jams in the 1960s, and the 1860s come to that) it would be no defence for them to say that on average there was less traffic than there would be in 2010.

So to condemn someone doing 90 on a deserted motorway in 2010 on the basis that average traffic levels have increased is illogical.

It's the circumnstances at the time that matter.

In a moral sense yes, I agree. But the example of a deserted motorway wouldn't apply most of the time, although the illegally high speed might be 'safe' in the opinion of many, the practicalities of enforcing a speed limit that would protect other users, which depended of someone's (be it a policeman's, or the speeding driver him/her/self's opinion) would mean that there would need to be a full scale trial every time a speeder was to be prosecuted. All he would have to do, once the principle of 'safe' speed was established, is challenge the prosecuters to prove that the speeding was actually dangerous in that particcular case. Not really feasible.

[Dr Jekyll]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

The riding was terrible. Whilst performing a wheelie at 88 he nearly strikes a car then he's in the wrong line going under the underpass restricting his view. Then he's too close to the car in front, then he goes through a stop sign.


Not stopped as procedures exist for stopping with unmarked bikes using marked bikes.

Police rider was hanging back. Maintaining views and didn't perfom the wheelie.

Speed is not dangerous. Only people who fall for soundbites or think they are cleverly showing how stupid the law is maintain that.

Speed is a crash factor. By limiting speeds you reduce the levels of force in any crashes. You may or may not impact on the likelihood of a crash but you will manage the outcome.

As such it's now the case limits exist. Many police drivers are limited to 100 or 20 over the posted limit. Even going to a burglary in progress doesn't justify 88 in a 50 for a police driver.

Limits are outcome controllers. Nothing more.

We all used to be told to drive at a speed which allowed us to stop well within the distance that can be seen to be clear (and expected to remain so..etc). The notion of slowing down to reduce impact speeds was only invented as an argument for limits lower than which the 'appropriate speed' principle would justify.

A driving instructor I know is uttterly exasperated with trying to get pupils to slow down to 15-20 when necessary to maintain stopping distance. The problem is that the pupils have all seen the adverts that says that if you hit a child at 30 it's OK and stopping distance is irrelevant.

Lowering speed limits does not necessarily lower traffic speeds in any case.