Discussion
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.
Mods, if you want to close this and let the other run it's course then fair enough.
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
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
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..?
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 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.There is a law limiting speed. The inference is that exceeding the limit is dangerous.
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.There is a law limiting speed. The inference is that exceeding the limit is dangerous.
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
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.There is a law limiting speed. The inference is that exceeding the limit is dangerous.
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.
I mean the raison d'être for restricting speed is that speed is dangerous.
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.There is a law limiting speed. The inference is that exceeding the limit is dangerous.
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.
I mean the raison d'être for restricting speed is that speed is dangerous.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 27th May 00:05
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.There is a law limiting speed. The inference is that exceeding the limit is dangerous.
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.
I mean the raison d'être for restricting speed is that speed is dangerous.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 27th May 00:05
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.There is a law limiting speed. The inference is that exceeding the limit is dangerous.
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.
I mean the raison d'être for restricting speed is that speed is dangerous.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 27th May 00:05
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?
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?
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.There is a law limiting speed. The inference is that exceeding the limit is dangerous.
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.
I mean the raison d'être for restricting speed is that speed is dangerous.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 27th May 00:05
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.
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.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?
Has that not always been the case ?
Is that not what exemptions are about ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff