caught 124 mph in a 50 advice?
Discussion
yellowjack said:
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.
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.
b
h, please. I owned you... Deal with it. vonhosen said:
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.
I'm sorry BV, but in Scotland now that is the norm: incredibly, there are several stated cases to support this, all from Edinburgh.Edited by Breadvan72 on Friday 27th October 10:10
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'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
Please don't take this the wrong way, but the difference between you and I is that you are a conformist, whereas I am a realist. I have utterly no illusions about the misgivings and incompetence of the courts when dealing with motoring offences. I cannot find one single instance in all the years you have been posting on here where you have criticised the system at any level: it would appear you find it perfect, or at least acceptable and requiring no change.
In my experience it is exactly the reverse: it needs gutted from the top down.
J
jith said:
Von, when I said "please don't insult my intelligence" what do you think I meant? I am fully aware what the prosecution was for: is that not blatantly obvious to you? The problem is clearly that of the Scottish courts sitting in absolute ignorance of what is, or is not dangerous. They are rife with political influence and correctness. I have studied this for years and have numerous cases all displaying the same absolute nonsense.
Obviously not though if you keep saying it's about exceeding the limit.It's that in the Court's interpretation of what amounts to a) dangerous & b) far below the standard expected, the driving has satisfied the requirements. You may not agree with their view, but that is pretty much by the by because they are the body being asked to look at it.
There is inherent risk with speed on public roads & they've a view to when that becomes unacceptable risk taking, one that you don't just slip into.
If the Court's are misinterpreting Parliament's intent with the legislation, then it is up to Parliament to make the intent clearer through changing the law.
jith said:
Please don't take this the wrong way, but the difference between you and I is that you are a conformist, whereas I am a realist. I have utterly no illusions about the misgivings and incompetence of the courts when dealing with motoring offences. I cannot find one single instance in all the years you have been posting on here where you have criticised the system at any level: it would appear you find it perfect, or at least acceptable and requiring no change.
Well please don't take this the wrong way but you are talking On this very topic I've repeatedly said that I don't hold with the Scottish Court's interpretation, favouring instead the E&W Court's interpretation.
It doesn't worry me greatly though because it's an easy avoid, I just won't do 124mph in a 50 in Scotland.
moanthebairns said:
DE15 CAT said:
moanthebairns said:
DE15 CAT said:
Entire reply in yank speak, Pathetic.
That was kinda the point....Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff