caught 124 mph in a 50 advice?

[yellowjack]

4rephill said:

yellowjack said:

Jonno02 said:

Drclarke said:

You hateful little man.

How is that hateful? I drive this road. How in the hell is joe bloggs meant to account for a biker coming up their rear at 154mp? If you look, it's all clear, by the time you pull out the biker has appeared and will be half way through the back of your car. Instant fatality for him and a likely one for you.

Let me guess, you're one of these "but nobody was hurt" people? There are times when that's reasonable, but 154mph on a public highway is bloody insane. This isn't 80, 90 or even 100 in a 50, it's 3 times the speed limit.

So you can shove your sanctimonious attitude.

I'm wi' Jonno on this.

So you too cannot read properly?

Troll or not, this thread is based on somebody doing 124mph on a public road - Not 154mph!

A couple of things. Firstly an apology for a massive "quote all" but I think it's OK in this case.

Thing 1 - Jonno has already explained it was a mistake not a typo, so I don't need correcting on that score thanks. Which leads me neatly on to...
Thing 2 - I presumed that Jonno had made a typo. "2" is after all just below "5" on the PC number pad. I also agree with his follow-up statement that the difference between 124 and 154 mph makes next to no practical difference to any outcome.

There's way too much "Think Bike! Think Biker!" and far too little "Bikers! Think!" in this world. One minute 'they' are telling us how terrible it is to ride along and slip over on a nasty diesel spill, or how they find it hard to stay upright on damp white lines, the next minute they're tooling along at somewhere between 85 and 150 mph, sometimes on one wheel, lane splitting, and boasting about "getting their knee down", then they're immediately looking for an "environmental factor" to blame when they pitch off the bike and bounce through a field on the way to a three month stay in hospital.

My old boss did it. Looking for sympathy and a bike friendly lawyer to sue a farmer for leaving mud on the road at harvest time when what he should have done was recognize that there were inherent risks to tooling along at insane speeds (as was his well-known and oft boasted about habit) on narrow rural roads that were chock-full of tractors and combines desperately trying to get the harvest in while the weather played nice. He ended up claiming "no memory of the events that led to him being found in a field 50 feet from his bike" when interviewed by police investigators, and ended up claiming on his insurance for the lot. He was very nearly a fatality too, with family warned that he might not recover at a couple of points during treatment.

Always wanting to blame somebody else is a 's trick. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should even entertain the idea of actually DOING it. And if you go ahead and do something stupid anyway, why then you ought to have taken account of the likely results of it during the risk assessment stage. It may well be "easy to do" 124 mph on a motorbike, but that throttle doesn't wind itself on. It's just as "easy" to NOT twist the thing and match your speed to at least "giving the rest of traffic a fighting chance" speeds. No one expects you to just get into convoy behind cars and trucks, but there are times and places where excess speed is not advisable, and then there are speeds which (on public roads at least) are NEVER going to be regarded as either safe or appropriate by any reasonable person. It's like when you're passed by a biker on urban roads at silly speeds. They moan and groan about being hit too often by traffic pulling out of junctions "without looking" then they themselves decide that overtaking at junctions, or arriving at junctions at silly speeds is just fine and dandy. You simply cannot have it both ways. If you are a motorcyclist concerned about your safety on the roads then ride safely, don't go tooling around in a red-faced state of constant hypocrisy. Hell's teeth man, I worry about "getting done" sometimes when I'm up to 85 mph in lane 2 and I'm far from the fastest car on the road. Yet "everyone is doing it". But when the shutter clicks, and the NIP lands on the doormat the defence of "well everyone was doing it and I wasn't even the worst one" won't wash. When you are the ONLY one doing such silly speeds, and therefore you stand out like the proverbial sore thumb, then you have, IMHO, behaved foolishly and certainly deserve whatever punishment a court sees fit to dish out. There are, after all, published sentencing guidelines available online, so if you want to check you can. Just look up the maximum sentence available to the court, then decide whether it's worth the risk or not. If you decide it's a risk worth taking, then accept the consequences when they bite you on the arse, or if it's not worth the risk amend your speed down to a level at which you are running a risk you are willing to accept.

Just don't be looking for sympathy and advice on loopholes and wriggle-outs from me is all I'm saying. "Hateful little man" suggests venomous hatred. Yet I don't hate the OP at all. I have a VERY low opinion of his behaviour as he described it, which risks the safety of other road users, but that's a very long way from being hatred, or indeed "hateful".

TL;DR ? "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime". Simple.

[Prof Prolapse]

yellowjack said:

Hateful little man things

You clearly have a chip on your shoulder about motorcyclists. You're tarring them all with the same broad brush strokes, and the cries of "prison" are absurd. There's plenty of dheads on bikes, as there is cars, bicycles, and any other mode of transport you choose to name.

As for you comments about 120+mph being inherently dangerous/stupid, it most certainly was in this case (as it is in most circumstances), but the suggestion it always is, regardless of circumstances is ridiculous on a motoring forum. You either don't understand the capability of the machines, or understand the diversity of the roads in the UK.

Same goes for "getting your knee down", which you clearly don't understand. Whilst it's bragging rights for some, it's generally a reflex/moving your weight and/or a gauge of how far you're lent over, and depending on the bike and your riding position you can do it as speeds as low as about 40mph. It's not inherently dangerous.

[anonymous-user]

Drclarke said:

Jonno02 said:

Do you know what. This is one of the few times on PH that I hope this isn't a troll. And I hope you do get a custodial sentence. That's bloody ludicrous speed. We all like to stretch our machines legs now and again, but 154? You need to go inside pal.

You hateful little man.

Hateful?? Maybe. Unable to read? Definitely

[corozin]

cb1965 said:

Drclarke said:

Jonno02 said:

Do you know what. This is one of the few times on PH that I hope this isn't a troll. And I hope you do get a custodial sentence. That's bloody ludicrous speed. We all like to stretch our machines legs now and again, but 154? You need to go inside pal.

You hateful little man.

Hateful?? Maybe. Unable to read? Definitely

With just 4 posts in 1 months PH membership and an OP who has long gone to ground this thread has so much troll in it we should name it Shrek.

[4rephill]

yellowjack said:

A couple of things.....

Thing 1 - Jonno has already explained it was a mistake not a typo, so I don't need correcting on that score thanks. Which leads me neatly on to...

Thing 2 - I presumed that Jonno had made a typo. "2" is after all just below "5" on the PC number pad. I also agree with his follow-up statement that the difference between 124 and 154 mph makes next to no practical difference to any outcome.

A couple of things:

Thing 1: It's not exactly the hardest thing in the World to use the "preview" function on Pistonheads.

Thing 2: In a 50mph speed limit, both 124mph and 154mph are stupid speeds and seriously taking the pss, but one is less than 3 times the speed limit, and the other is over 3 times the speed limit.

I suspect that in reality, there would be some sort of difference to the outcome at being caught between the two different speeds - Length of prison time, length of ban, size of fine.

[Sparkov]

How about 124 mph in a 60 mph limit?

[2wheelsjimmy]

jonobigblind said:

This video has stuck with me since the first moment I saw it.

https://youtu.be/hZCadhDW_i0

Jesus, that last moment.
Horrible.

[Vipers]

Sparkov said:

How about 124 mph in a 60 mph limit?

Why do they chance it. Oh I forgot, a member of the petrol gods and rules don't apply to me brigade. Be interesting when he renews his insurance.

[jith]

Breadvan72 said:

Prison sentences for riding fast are very rare things and there is no chance that prison for riding fast will become the norm.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Friday 27th October 10:10

I'm sorry BV, but in Scotland now that is the norm: incredibly, there are several stated cases to support this, all from Edinburgh.

I am amassing a file of this situation at the moment and now have the time to devote to raising some sort of attention to the seriously gross injustice in jailing anyone for speeding. And pleeeeeease, vonhosen and the like minded, don't even attempt to insult my intelligence by claiming the prosecution is for dangerous driving. It is only that in name; the cases I have studied are utterly without any evidence of dangerous driving, only speed.

When I post on this BV I am sure you will find it very interesting.

J

[AGK]

Sparkov said:

How about 124 mph in a 60 mph limit?

Just up the road. They must have a special gun that only has 124mph on it.

[jm doc]

Vipers said:

Sparkov said:

How about 124 mph in a 60 mph limit?

Why do they chance it. Oh I forgot, a member of the petrol gods and rules don't apply to me brigade. Be interesting when he renews his insurance.

So you never speed. Well done. Otherwise the rules don't apply to you either. Either way what a dkhd

[Mr2Mike]

yellowjack said:

There's way too much "Think Bike! Think Biker!" and far too little "Bikers! Think!" in this world. One minute 'they' are telling us how terrible it is to ride along and slip over on a nasty diesel spill, or how they find it hard to stay upright on damp white lines, the next minute they're tooling along at somewhere between 85 and 150 mph, sometimes on one wheel, lane splitting, and boasting about "getting their knee down", then they're immediately looking for an "environmental factor" to blame when they pitch off the bike and bounce through a field on the way to a three month stay in hospital.

Coming from one of the whiniest cyclists on PH, this level of hypocrisy is breathtaking. You might have set a new world record.

[Vipers]

jm doc said:

Vipers said:

Sparkov said:

How about 124 mph in a 60 mph limit?

Why do they chance it. Oh I forgot, a member of the petrol gods and rules don't apply to me brigade. Be interesting when he renews his insurance.

So you never speed. Well done. Otherwise the rules don't apply to you either. Either way what a dkhd

Of course we all speed, 31 in 30 is speeding. 42 in 40 is speeding and we all do it, but 124 in a 60, not many do that. TBH I stick to the max these days, never had a ticket since 1974, and that was a military vehicle, and dont intend to get one now.

Apart from that, (just polishing my halo) that was the only ticket I have ever had. Your summing up is absolutely correct.

[Black_S3]

Breadvan72 said:

You are worried about going to prison for eight seconds of bad decisions, but are prepared to risk a sentence that is longer and which is for not one but at least two offences of dishonesty (perverting the course of justice and insurance fraud), and lose your bike as well. I suggest that your "logic" is crazy.

Glad to see you posting again

[yellowjack]

Mr2Mike said:

yellowjack said:

There's way too much "Think Bike! Think Biker!" and far too little "Bikers! Think!" in this world. One minute 'they' are telling us how terrible it is to ride along and slip over on a nasty diesel spill, or how they find it hard to stay upright on damp white lines, the next minute they're tooling along at somewhere between 85 and 150 mph, sometimes on one wheel, lane splitting, and boasting about "getting their knee down", then they're immediately looking for an "environmental factor" to blame when they pitch off the bike and bounce through a field on the way to a three month stay in hospital.

Coming from one of the whiniest cyclists on PH, this level of hypocrisy is breathtaking. You might have set a new world record.

[chunder27]

A friend of mine went on a police sort of speed course at Cadwell, was great fun he said, learned a lot, was new to riding and wanted to know some stuff about faster riding for when he toured.

Typically the wannabe Rossi's crowd were there too in their pristine race replica leathers and lovely sports bikes. The first part of the course was a sit down intro and class session. The guys showed everyone a series of pictures of RTA's, the famous one of the bike in the drivers side of the Suzuki Jeep, and a few others, then asked the obvious question. All the wannabe Rossi's typically answered it was the other vehicles fault. And to my mate most were inconclusive, but they were ALL the bikers fault, inflicting life changing injuries or death on every driver of the vehicles involved.

My experiences with bikers are tainted by cretins on sports bikes, kicked mirrors as I failed to realise you were doing 120mph in a 50, sorry mate, so sorry. Idiotic weaving between traffic and then the obligatory shake of the head if you either did not see them quickly or were moved yourself over to see for yourself what was the hold up. They seem to think we all should move over for them and most of the time we do, but sometimes, I want to see what's going on to so get over son.

A few bikers have a holier than thou attitude and they are often the ones riding most dangerously. And you get the vigilantes as you do with pushbikes and lorries obviously.

I would never ride a bike in this country now, too many people over here who can't drive and can't even see cars let alone bikes. I rode for a year and had numerous incidents with other drivers, so realised I was on a hiding to injury, and I was not a fast or aggressive rider.

[rev-erend]

I think the OP has either gotten fed up with this or IS IN JAIL.

[Prof Prolapse]

I think there's a good chance it's him.

I don't know why you'd lie about your bike in this instance, so if he rides a Monster in this area (where the offence was committed) there's only one Ducati garage you'd use, and he responded to a post about them earlier in the year.

Just seems a bit of a way to go to bullst everyone.

[cuprabob]

Prof Prolapse said:

I think there's a good chance it's him.

I don't know why you'd lie about your bike in this instance, so if he rides a Monster in this area (where the offence was committed) there's only one Ducati garage you'd use, and he responded to a post about them earlier in the year.

Just seems a bit of a way to go to bullst everyone.

...and the username matches up with the age of the offender.

[vonhosen]

jith said:

Breadvan72 said:

Prison sentences for riding fast are very rare things and there is no chance that prison for riding fast will become the norm.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Friday 27th October 10:10

I'm sorry BV, but in Scotland now that is the norm: incredibly, there are several stated cases to support this, all from Edinburgh.

I am amassing a file of this situation at the moment and now have the time to devote to raising some sort of attention to the seriously gross injustice in jailing anyone for speeding. And pleeeeeease, vonhosen and the like minded, don't even attempt to insult my intelligence by claiming the prosecution is for dangerous driving. It is only that in name; the cases I have studied are utterly without any evidence of dangerous driving, only speed.

When I post on this BV I am sure you will find it very interesting.

J

It is for dangerous driving/riding, not speeding (look at the offence alleged it's dangerous driving, not exceeding the limit).
It's just that the Scottish courts interpret the 'dangerous' legislation a little differently to E&W & appear to place rather more weight on what could potentially be present on that road instead of what is shown to actually be present. Inappropriate speed can amount to dangerous driving, both above & below the speed limit. The Scottish courts aren't saying it isn't about speed in their rulings, they are saying that the speed performed was so grossly disproportionate that it in itself amounted to dangerous driving/riding on that road at that time.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 1st November 15:11