254kmh biker is a lunatic, say police
Discussion
Oh no they can't prove a god damn thing.
Examples of "blagging it".
So you go to a bike meet, leave an advert on your bike, and set up a test ride for a prospective buyer. Mobile phone records? nah, lost my phone. They phoned a call box. Wrote me a letter. Left a postit note on the screen. Followed me home. Met me down the pub...
You name it, there are ways round it.
Let's get serious now;-
No way on earth can this be disproved. Sorry, but CPS are a bunch of idiots for not prosecuting those 2 blokes who KILLED that 73 year old, so how can they even think to force this issue?
Madcop, you are a decent bloke by the sounds of it, and I (and I'm sure everyone else) values your opinions immensely... but in this country we are innocent until PROVEN guilty !
Sadly more effort is put into nicking speeders than drug users and real crims. We all know the 2 reasons why so I won't state 'em again.
Take it easy.
rgds, Carl.
Examples of "blagging it".
So you go to a bike meet, leave an advert on your bike, and set up a test ride for a prospective buyer. Mobile phone records? nah, lost my phone. They phoned a call box. Wrote me a letter. Left a postit note on the screen. Followed me home. Met me down the pub...
You name it, there are ways round it.
Let's get serious now;-
No way on earth can this be disproved. Sorry, but CPS are a bunch of idiots for not prosecuting those 2 blokes who KILLED that 73 year old, so how can they even think to force this issue?
Madcop, you are a decent bloke by the sounds of it, and I (and I'm sure everyone else) values your opinions immensely... but in this country we are innocent until PROVEN guilty !
Sadly more effort is put into nicking speeders than drug users and real crims. We all know the 2 reasons why so I won't state 'em again.
Take it easy.
rgds, Carl.
hertsbiker said:Sadly more effort is put into nicking speeders than drug users and real crims.
I think the police in this country have become more of a money making company than a service , they pick on speeders because its easy prey whereas you cant make money out of a mugger, murderer ,unless they are doing 40 in a 30
Lads this thing was not in the UK, and if you have ever dealt with the West Oz cops you will know this fella is shagged. Think victorian attitudes to crime and you are there, I actually got a police caution from crossing the road without waiting for the pedestrian lights to flash... imagine that in london!!!
there would be about 6 million arrests a day!!
As as for speeding I would say there cops there place it on about the same par as murder, this fella is not going to be able to get away with this one.
there would be about 6 million arrests a day!!
As as for speeding I would say there cops there place it on about the same par as murder, this fella is not going to be able to get away with this one.
You name it, there are ways round it.
Let's get serious now;-
No way on earth can this be disproved. Sorry, but CPS are a bunch of idiots for not prosecuting those 2 blokes who KILLED that 73 year old, so how can they even think to force this issue?
Madcop, you are a decent bloke by the sounds of it, and I (and I'm sure everyone else) values your opinions immensely... but in this country we are innocent until PROVEN guilty !
Carl you are still missing my point.
Whether they are guilty or not is immaterial at the time the incident occurs. What will happen is that if the Police have reasonable cause to suspect, they can now arrest and detain you for 24 hours while they further investigate. Even if they cannot find the evidence to charge and prosecute an offence,does not make the arrest and detention unlawful.
Sadly more effort is put into nicking speeders than drug users and real crims. We all know the 2 reasons why so I won't state 'em again.
Take it easy.
rgds, Carl.
Again you are wrong about the amount of effort being placed on the priorities of the Police.
Speeders are easy to catch because there are so many of them. They come to the officer who is standing at the roadside without invitation. He only has to have (in real terms) an inexpensive piece of equipment to detect many offences that come to him. There do not need to be ( in real terms) many of them doing it. He does not have to plan, research and rescourse anything other than local complaints from residents and areas where high accidents rates are prevalent.
Real crime though has a vast amount of effort and rescourses thrown at it. The reason why the Police are not as successful in dealing with these offenders is that they are more careful about what they do (unlike speeders) They do not commit their crime and carelessly fall into a Police trap (well some do). They are also not committing crime in the same relative time periods that drivers speed. A prolific offender may commit 3 crimes a day but they will take only a couple of minutes, sometimes seconds,to execute and cannot be predicted easily in location or time.
A person driving a vehicle will however at some point forget about where they are and how fast they should be travelling, or deliberately commit the speed offence for prolonged periods where they can because they are late or having fun.
To catch a serial shop lifter, burglar or mugger requires a number of officers, a great deal of research and planning and to a certain extent, a good deal of luck.
To catch 100 speeders requires 1 person, requires very little time, a small amount of technical equipment and no luck.
I have spent many hundreds of unproductive hours in the back of unmarked strike vans with groups of 10 or more officers, waiting for a criminal offence to occur. This happens in Police operations all over the whole country, it is just that the public do not see this side of Police work.
Look at the amount of time and rescources that have been thrown at the dreadful murderes of children in the past few years. There has been a huge investigation countrywide, into paedophile activity and indeed Europe by the British Police service.
The law covers a huge amount of topics, The criminal law a vast number more than the road traffic act.
Compared to resources that are allocated to speed offences, speed detection pales into insignificance.
I have to say this because it is true even though I may well get flack for it. The majority of people that slag off the Police because of the efforts they spend in making the roads safer, are doing it because it doesn't suit them. They don't like it because either their fun or their business can be affected by the regulations. Much the same as the burglar and mugger doesn't like the laws on Theft. However there are percentage wise, a huge difference in those that engage in Theft and those that engage in speeding.
Speeders try to avoid detection through mechanical devices such as laser jammers etc.
Do you not think that muggers and burglars employ similar tactics to avoid capture exactly the same as the speeder (although in different ways)?
Please don't think that Police are concentrating all their efforts on the motorist. It is a very small section of the work that Police do and a very small amount of rescources are allocated to doing it. It just happens to catch a lot of people who are either careless or deliberate but there!
have to support you there madcop, I think you guys are caught between a rock and a hard place these days. It seems politicians need you to return results/statistics to prove your effectiveness and run the force as a business, meanwhile senile judges and inadequate laws undo the work put into an arrest. I'm sure you and many others would sooner show a presence on the street than book speeders (which is mainly done by grey one eyed bandits anyway)
here here madcop, well demonstrated. keep up the good work.
may I raise a public perseption point that may be the cause of carl et al being angry at ; many feel speeding is a very small immaterial crime, compared to real theives, speeders dont feel they are breaking the law in comparison to a shoplifter, but then again they havent (yet) killed someone or had a relative killed, whereas, if they had, they may feel stronger about slowing others.
Also many havent been so starving hungry, that to steal a mars bar from a multibillion pound woolworths also doesnt feel like a true bad crime.
perception. it depends where your looking from.
but in calrs defence, I have watched many roads have there limits lowered, that have no need for it.
may I raise a public perseption point that may be the cause of carl et al being angry at ; many feel speeding is a very small immaterial crime, compared to real theives, speeders dont feel they are breaking the law in comparison to a shoplifter, but then again they havent (yet) killed someone or had a relative killed, whereas, if they had, they may feel stronger about slowing others.
Also many havent been so starving hungry, that to steal a mars bar from a multibillion pound woolworths also doesnt feel like a true bad crime.
perception. it depends where your looking from.
but in calrs defence, I have watched many roads have there limits lowered, that have no need for it.
Dazren said: Hmmmmm
People who speed may kill someone, so ban speeders.
People who are poor may shoplift, so ban poor people from supermarkets?
I think I understand, maybe.
DAZ
>> Edited by Dazren on Monday 14th October 16:05
1)Problem is Dazren, where do your priorities lie?
A few dead people?
2)Loss of profit for a Supermarket chain?
Which is more acceptable?
I think if it was one of your nearest and dearest, I would know the answer
The other problem with your idea is that not all speeders kill people (some do)
Not all poor people steal (some do)
That is why there is legislation to cover everyone so the risks are lessened by fear of punishment.
1)Problem is Dazren, where do your priorities lie?
A few dead people?
2)Loss of profit for a Supermarket chain?
Which is more acceptable?
I think if it was one of your nearest and dearest, I would know the answer
The other problem with your idea is that not all speeders kill people (some do)
Not all poor people steal (some do)
That is why there is legislation to cover everyone so the risks are lessened by fear of punishment.
Hi Madcop
My priorities obviously lie with people. I was merely drawing a logical parallel.
As someone who four years ago spent two days not knowing if he was going to walk again due to an accident caused by a drink driver, I can confirm I am keen to see the number of road accidents drop.
If the police at the instruction of the government are going to dish out justice to "prevent" accidents, lets see it dished out to all parties.
I hear statistics all over the place but can someone provided me with the figures on how many pedestrians were charged with putting motorists lives at risk when stepping into the road without looking (A break down of drunk and sober culprits would be useful).
I am also keen to know what happened to the green cross code? I learn't it when I was young, are children taught it today?
I'm sorry madcop, but it seems to me that motorists are being victimised to some extent because individuals can't take responsibility for their own actions (numpty drivers, pedestrians, drunks, drug users etc).
It's almost as if all motorists have to drive like snails to make allowances for people who can't drive or concentrate and so shouldn't have a license anyway. The reason to keep these dangerous numpty drivers on the road of course is the amount of tax fleeced from them. The governemnt certainly do not wish to loose a portion of their motoring taxes and then have to pay out and improve public tranport capacity to transport these numpties about.
Rant over
DAZ
PS - didn't mention my favourite class of idiots: bloody mobile phone users so engrossed in their conversations, they must subconciously believe traffic flow will magically stop for them when stepping into the road without looking.
If the police at the instruction of the government are going to dish out justice to "prevent" accidents, lets see it dished out to all parties.
If and when the blame lies with the non motorist, then no action (criminal) is taken against the driver.
Would you be prepared to pay an insurance premium to be a pedestrian or cyclist or indeed for any children you may have to be a pedestrian or cyclist?
Would the public be prepared to accept offences of careless/dangerous walking, particularly for those who may be physically or mentally inadequate (children for one example)?
Until it is compulsory to have some sort of liability for being a person, then those that hoof a ton of metal about will be solely responsible for any compensation applicable to anyone else who may be injured as a result. This is purely a voluntary activity ( no one makes a person drive ) and therefore if you feel you don't want to be subject to the possibility of a claim for injury, regardless of your liability in that incident, then don't drive any vehicle.
The choice is a simple one, I accept that it is unfair but life isn't fair, get used to it!
I hear statistics all over the place but can someone provided me with the figures on how many pedestrians were charged with putting motorists lives at risk when stepping into the road without looking (A break down of drunk and sober culprits would be useful).
You may think this sort of contributory factor is not recorded. It is. In all injury accidents there is a double sided Pro forma to complete with contributory factors to the accident itself and to the injuries caused.
One of the questions asked is 'pedestrian in road heedless of traffic' another is 'pedestrian crossing within 100 meters of pedestrian crossing' there are many more in relation to cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians. Alcohol is also a contributory factor asked in relation to injured pedestrians and cylists.
If you wrote to the local authority they would no doubt be able to furnish you with the appropriate figures.
I am also keen to know what happened to the green cross code? I learn't it when I was young, are children taught it today?
The Green Cross Code is taught to all children at school. If you have children, you will accept that they are not as focused on personal safety as (some) adults are. The desperation to be first in the queue on the other side of the road or to chase a much treasured toy overides the thought processes that should be tantamount in self preservation. All the teaching in the world will not stop a child focused on another more important activity in their own eyes. If you have children, you will know exactly what I mean.
I'm sorry madcop, but it seems to me that motorists are being victimised to some extent because individuals can't take responsibility for their own actions (numpty drivers, pedestrians, drunks, drug users etc).
If they are numpty drivers, then they will be subject to the same liabilities that everyone else driving is subject to. That is if they are at fault then they will pay the price if involved in a collision. If they are careless in their observation when going through a speed trap, they will be caught exactly the same as anyone else who isn't a numpty
. The motorist has a choice to be a motorist. Often a pedestrian or cyclist doesn't have that choice. Therefore why should they be subject of a liability just for being alive and getting from one place to another.
It's almost as if all motorists have to drive like snails to make allowances for people who can't drive or concentrate and so shouldn't have a license anyway.
People do not have to drive like snails. They just have to drive with sensible restraint.
The numpties that you refer to have passed the same test as everyone else to be qualified to drive their cars. Some do not have any pride in how they do it. Some are less competent than others. Some do not even like driving.
Why should they be bannished from the roads because of these particular traits. The car, you will accept, is really the only viable method of convenient and in some cases essential mobility for people. Why should they lose that right just because they are considered in some way to be inadequate?
Who would assess the amount of numptieness?
Do you never have a moment when you could be consiered a numptie?
Would it happen when you were being assessed?
The reason to keep these dangerous numpty drivers on the road of course is the amount of tax fleeced from them. The governemnt certainly do not wish to loose a portion of their motoring taxes and then have to pay out and improve public tranport capacity to transport these numpties about.
Rant over
The amount of tax is nothing whatsoever to do with it. If you look at Govt Policy, they are trying to get people to not use cars, therefore less in fuel revenue etc. I am sure that the Govt would love to be able to spend so that public transport was clean, efficient, cheap and above all safe. Therefore reducing the amount of traffic generally with all the benefits that they percieve may come along with it.
The Mobile phone topic is another one entirely!
If you don't want to be victimised by Govt Policing policy as a Motorist, then become a numptie, obey the traffic laws at all times, or sell the car and catch the bus
Hi madcop.
Thanks for the extensive comments. I'm having problems putting my comments in the appropriate sections so I'll have to just comment in the established order. (sorry!)
I just want all people to be aware that roads are dangerous places. I'm not sure that pedestrians are as aware of this as motorists. There is no right and wrong but issuing tickets to inconsiderate pedestrians may act as a catalyst for the "inattentive" pedestrians to look where they are going. It's not enough to just constantly have a go at the motorist.
I may be ill informed (it happens occasionally), but don't some American states have a charge of "Jay Walking"?
Thanks for pointing out that life isn't fair, but I know that! (Listen to me in the pub on a friday night)Doesn't mean I have to be happy about it though.
Your points about the questions asked after an accident ie heedless pedestrians or drunk etc. Are interesting to me and I am sure other PHers following the thread. Thanks for the tip on contacting the local council.
I take your point about excited kids (brother got run over when he was 6 chasing a football, survived OK). This doesn't explain the actions of the adults though. It also doesn't explain why we have the safest roads in europe but one of the highest rates of children getting knocked over. In addition to this in and around Bristol I never see mobile speed traps near housing, parks, schools etc. We keep getting them hiding behind walls and bushes on A roads "zapping" cars from behind, observation doesn't even come into the equation. This has been especially more prolific since they've chosen to paint all of their fixed gatsos yellow and increase their "traffic safety" budget.
I know two people who've had cyclist crash into their cars going too fast, both cars sustained bodywork damage, and in both instances the cyclists legged it. Why shouldn't they be subject to the same liability? Wether a person is a pedestrian, cyclist or motorist they should not be immune from the consequences of their actions.
A long time ago I was on 9 points for eighteen months (All hidden portable units on in my opinion inappropriate limits). I drove to the speed limit precisely. 3 months into this period going through a recently reduced limit a queue of about 20 cars built up behind me. The car behind decided to overtake whilst going around a blind left hander. To avoid him colliding with an oncoming lorry I had to mount the pavement to give Mr Moron the space he needed. Inappropriate speeds can cause frustrated drivers to carry out dangerous manouvres. (Following this I had a sign across the back window saying be patient, driver on 9 points, A barrister advised me that 10% of the BiB would have a sense of humour breakdown so take it out. I did!)
Government policy not to use cars on social or eco grounds are a con to justify taxation. If the total tax taken from motorists were to say drop by 10%, I can guarantee you that the remaining 90% will have to make up the difference.
Aha Mobile phone users, I spy something we totally agree on!
I do not drive dangerously, but If I ever fall victim to a 6 month toting up ban, me and my tax pounds are buggering off abroad.
Cheers
DAZ
Motorist, Cyclist and Pedestrian
(In no particular order).
Edited to say bollox, just missed Coupling and The Office on BBC2 whilst writing this.
>> Edited by Dazren on Monday 14th October 22:44
Thanks for the extensive comments. I'm having problems putting my comments in the appropriate sections so I'll have to just comment in the established order. (sorry!)
I just want all people to be aware that roads are dangerous places. I'm not sure that pedestrians are as aware of this as motorists. There is no right and wrong but issuing tickets to inconsiderate pedestrians may act as a catalyst for the "inattentive" pedestrians to look where they are going. It's not enough to just constantly have a go at the motorist.
I may be ill informed (it happens occasionally), but don't some American states have a charge of "Jay Walking"?
Thanks for pointing out that life isn't fair, but I know that! (Listen to me in the pub on a friday night)Doesn't mean I have to be happy about it though.
Your points about the questions asked after an accident ie heedless pedestrians or drunk etc. Are interesting to me and I am sure other PHers following the thread. Thanks for the tip on contacting the local council.
I take your point about excited kids (brother got run over when he was 6 chasing a football, survived OK). This doesn't explain the actions of the adults though. It also doesn't explain why we have the safest roads in europe but one of the highest rates of children getting knocked over. In addition to this in and around Bristol I never see mobile speed traps near housing, parks, schools etc. We keep getting them hiding behind walls and bushes on A roads "zapping" cars from behind, observation doesn't even come into the equation. This has been especially more prolific since they've chosen to paint all of their fixed gatsos yellow and increase their "traffic safety" budget.
I know two people who've had cyclist crash into their cars going too fast, both cars sustained bodywork damage, and in both instances the cyclists legged it. Why shouldn't they be subject to the same liability? Wether a person is a pedestrian, cyclist or motorist they should not be immune from the consequences of their actions.
A long time ago I was on 9 points for eighteen months (All hidden portable units on in my opinion inappropriate limits). I drove to the speed limit precisely. 3 months into this period going through a recently reduced limit a queue of about 20 cars built up behind me. The car behind decided to overtake whilst going around a blind left hander. To avoid him colliding with an oncoming lorry I had to mount the pavement to give Mr Moron the space he needed. Inappropriate speeds can cause frustrated drivers to carry out dangerous manouvres. (Following this I had a sign across the back window saying be patient, driver on 9 points, A barrister advised me that 10% of the BiB would have a sense of humour breakdown so take it out. I did!)
Government policy not to use cars on social or eco grounds are a con to justify taxation. If the total tax taken from motorists were to say drop by 10%, I can guarantee you that the remaining 90% will have to make up the difference.
Aha Mobile phone users, I spy something we totally agree on!
I do not drive dangerously, but If I ever fall victim to a 6 month toting up ban, me and my tax pounds are buggering off abroad.
Cheers
DAZ
Motorist, Cyclist and Pedestrian
(In no particular order).
Edited to say bollox, just missed Coupling and The Office on BBC2 whilst writing this.
>> Edited by Dazren on Monday 14th October 22:44
ok, so 24 hours of silence, or denying it. Then a civil writ taken out for wasting my time.
If CPS can't work out how to convict 2 dangerous killer-idiots, then why should we worry about a 'pants' story being beleived or not?
In this country we have a great tradition of civil disobedience when it comes to ridiculous laws. One day we will have one about driving laws.
C
If CPS can't work out how to convict 2 dangerous killer-idiots, then why should we worry about a 'pants' story being beleived or not?
In this country we have a great tradition of civil disobedience when it comes to ridiculous laws. One day we will have one about driving laws.
C
Accept that kids are on a different wavelength so cross the road without stopping but, 1) why do they look at you with a stare and a sneer then walk slowly towards you instead of getting out of the road and 2) why is it that the fastest cars around my estate are the parents of the kids playing?
All the teaching in the world will not stop a child focused on another more important activity in their own eyes. If you have children, you will know exactly what I mean.
Whilst true parents DO have a responsibility for their childs safety, certainly at the age group you are describing my mother made me wear reins as I got older I held her hand and so on. The driver is often blamed for accidents which are not their fault. For example the driver that was blamed for hitting a 6 year old at 11 o'clock at night on a dual carriageway.
The motorist has a choice to be a motorist. Often a pedestrian or cyclist doesn't have that choice. Therefore why should they be subject of a liability just for being alive and getting from one place to another.
A cyclist does have a choice. They do not have to ride a bike on the road. IMHO if you ride something on the road you should have to pay tax for it. Also I have often seen cyclists ride through red lights, ignore predestrian crossing etc. Perhaps if some liability was brought into place the number of bike accidents would drop.
People do not have to drive like snails. They just have to drive with sensible restraint.
The numpties that you refer to have passed the same test as everyone else to be qualified to drive their cars. Some do not have any pride in how they do it. Some are less competent than others. Some do not even like driving.
Why should they be bannished from the roads because of these particular traits. The car, you will accept, is really the only viable method of convenient and in some cases essential mobility for people. Why should they lose that right just because they are considered in some way to be inadequate?
THis is where the driving test is inadequate. They should lose the right to drive if they are inadequate. Driving is a privilege not a right. It is a very odd licencing in that you can pass a test at 17 and not have to prove your competance again until you are 70.
The point that should be made is that the "safety measures" being taken are not targetting the numpties. They are targetting speed at places which are poorly judged or even lowered limits. I have never seen a camera outside my local school, numpties that I get stuck behind at 40mph on the NSL country road go past the school at 40mph whilst I slow down. Yet that numpty wil never get caught because the school hasn't been targetted. The local dual carriageway away from all the schools has been though (good safety measure that!
) The fact is madcop (and I'm not blaming you on this) is that the govt. are pushing speed kills as a mantra so they can justify raising revenue. Hence the positioning of speed cameras where sensible people will break the limit.
If they really were into getting more public transport then they could. Certainly in my area the buses cost MORE than the car.
eg £1.50 to travel 6 miles, if 4 people go in the car it costs £6.00 on the bus to go to town and back, and we have the incovenience of being restricted on times. I have some friends that a live in the city and it costs them over a pound to travel less than a mile by bus to the local supermarket and back (of course if you take the bus you're also restricted to about 4 bags of shopping.)
I often think that the govt. public transport policy is similar to their tobacco policy ie make the "right noises" but ensure you don't do too much to reduce the tax gained.
i nearly had some prick on a mountain bike pile in to the side of me on the kwack last night , yes i did pull across in front of him but did he have lights ? No , did he have anything reflective on ? No all black , if cyclists want to use the road make them have lights as standard and fine them heavily if they dont after all if i had hit this prat i would have been my fault (i was very tempted to turn round and give him a 
)
(i was very tempted to turn round and give him a )
dennisthemenace said: i nearly had some prick on a mountain bike pile in to the side of me on the kwack last night , yes i did pull across in front of him but did he have lights ? No , did he have anything reflective on ? No all black , if cyclists want to use the road make them have lights as standard and fine them heavily if they dont after all if i had hit this prat i would have been my fault
No it wouldn't have been your fault. If he had hit you he would have been at fault and would, more than likely, have been reported for no lights on his bike which is an offence. as is no reflectors front and rear as is failing to maintain the braking system as is riding on the footpath.
If he had been injured though, that would not have stopped him claiming against your insurance. the insurance company would most likely tell him to poke his claim as he was not complying with the law.
Even if he had lights fitted and they were not lit, a scientist at the forensic Lab would be able to tell if they were on at the time of impact if they were broken.
Because there is such a paltry fine attached to riding without lights on a bike, and the fact that accident contributory factors attributed to this offence are small, there is no Govt thrust to curtail it (no cash benefit for the treasury) Also the main offenders are kids between the ages of approximately 12 to 17 years of age.
It really p!sses me off when I stop these type of offenders and tell them to walk. Some don't even bother to stop, just continue after giving a scowl as though I should be dealing with something much more important until I shout at them.
The problem is that those that cycle without lights like those who ignore speed limits or any other motoring or criminal offence for that matter, think the law is stupid, don't agree with it and therefore complain like hell when they are caught and dealt with.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff