Friday 16th February 2007

YouTube biker faces court

Wheelie video to be used as evidence

---

They're watching too...

Don't post your driving exploits on YouTube.

One biker did and is now facing a driving ban after he filmed himself speeding at 100mph and posted the clip on the Web TV site. It's the first case of its kind.

The rider, from Burnham-on-Sea in Somerset, is alleged to have identified himself as he because he left the camera running as he left his front door. A camera mounted behind the windshield of his 180mph Yamaha R1 shows him pulling wheelies and riding past a school and housing estate.

One of the drivers Parrott passed recognised him from the YouTube video and posted a message on the site, according to the Mirror.

The Jeep driver said: "Unfortunately I am one of the cars he passed that day doing a phenomenal speed and pulling a wheelie. I didn't see him until he was by my side, he was very close as well and the slightest drift to the right on my part and it could have been a bit rough."

Avon and Somerset police spotted the video and have sent a file to the CPS as evidence. According to the story, dangerous driving charges will be brought within the next few weeks.

Let that be a lesson...

• The Mirror: Biker faces court

[owenb]

Digital evidence, surely - whats to say the video hasnt been tampered with? - i dont see how they can accept that as evidence in court. (Unless they've beaten a confession out of him on the basis of this )

[smele]

I see a plan here. Find a where your enemy lives with a similar bike car and park it in their driveway and do the video from there.

[lostusernamedamn]

Spies are everywhere, it started with neighbourhood watch, the government encourage you to 'phone a special line in case you "suspect" someone of benefit fraud, there will be more non-jobs created watching to see if you smoke where you've been told not to, they have the biggest DNA and fingerprint database in the world, the toughest gun laws in the world while crime is rampant and now they're sniffing around the internet looking at home movies. It's pathetic.

[GingerNinja]

owenb said:

Digital evidence, surely - whats to say the video hasnt been tampered with? - i dont see how they can accept that as evidence in court. (Unless they've beaten a confession out of him on the basis of this )

I was thinking the same - his lawyer/solicitor must have been truly truly dire if he let them use this as a valid piece of evidence.

[morebeanz]

It hasn't gone to court and charges have YET to be brought. Still that wouldn't be newsworthy if they made it clear would it!

[Sporting Bear]

I see schools out

So we have an idiot that's a danger to other road users, mostly likely a male, and we know he's an idiot because he's provided his own evidence - only a idiot would do that

You should just hope that you or anyone else doesn't run into him or he run into you or anyone else

How would you feel then, would you still support him and be against those that try to adjust his behaviour?

I'm all for people who want to endanger their own lives but without risking the lives of others

[sprinter885]

re-arrange following words- plonker stupid.

[FourWheelDrift]

If you can't supply home CCTV as evidence to burglaries and vandalism, how can this be any different?

Edited by FourWheelDrift on Friday 16th February 13:25

[MitchT]

I'm surprised it's taken this long to happen. I wonder if Polish Adam's exploits will mysteriously vanish from YouTube in the next few days?

[thelemming]

Yes, the guy is an idiot.

However how does this differ from the footage collected on the various "drivers from hell" etc programs.

I posted about one of those that set my blood boiling some time ago on SP&L and the general consensus was that the police werent interested for some reason.

So what's changed?

[NDT]

He deserves whatever he gets, if only for being so f**king stupid.

[GingerNinja]

Whether he deserves it or not is another matter. Didn't the police try and get Kate Moss for cocaine possession/use based on the video of her in the recording studio, but dropped it due to lack of evidence?

I'd hope this ends the same way.

[RichHL]

Idiot. I only hope he's not wearing his helmet when they throw the book at him.

[m3evo2]

FourWheelDrift said:

If you can't supply home CCTV as evidence to burglaries and vandalism, how can this be any different?

Edited by FourWheelDrift on Friday 16th February 13:25

Exactly

[cdt]

Anyone know the timescales involved between the video being filmed and the police being informed?

As I'd always believed that you had to have a notice of intended prosecution within 2 weeks of the alleged offence? This was from a discusion on a popular legal forum.

[designer]

Anyone got the link to the video? Cant exactly discuss it until I have seen the 'evidance'

[patently]

Sporting Bear said:

So we have an idiot that's a danger to other road users, mostly likely a male, and we know he's an idiot because he's provided his own evidence - only a idiot would do that

You should just hope that you or anyone else doesn't run into him or he run into you or anyone else

Re the issue as to "how can this be ok when we can't use our CCTV to convict a burglar", surely the mistake is that we can't use CCTV, not that the police shouldn't prosecute this idiot.

[nightmare]

patently said:

Sporting Bear said:

So we have an idiot that's a danger to other road users, mostly likely a male, and we know he's an idiot because he's provided his own evidence - only a idiot would do that

You should just hope that you or anyone else doesn't run into him or he run into you or anyone else

Re the issue as to "how can this be ok when we can't use our CCTV to convict a burglar", surely the mistake is that we can't use CCTV, not that the police shouldn't prosecute this idiot.

totally agree.....same with the Kate Moss comparison and any other retard who brakes a law in a such a way to lay themselves open to getting caught. He's as much a retard for videoing himself in an identifiable manner as for doing stunts by schools. If his judgement is that sh*te then he shouldn't be doing wheelies either!!

[road_terrorist]

thelemming said:

Yes, the guy is an idiot.

However how does this differ from the footage collected on the various "drivers from hell" etc programs.

I posted about one of those that set my blood boiling some time ago on SP&L and the general consensus was that the police werent interested for some reason.

So what's changed?

What seems to have changed is that there is a 'witness' (guy in the car who claims to have seen it all) to corroberate the circumstantial evidence offered by the video clip. Either way it's a case built on shakey ground so I'd be suprised if the prosecution gets very far or the guy wimps out and confesses. They would have to prove it was actually the correct guy who is on the bike at the time, there is strong circumstantial evidence (ie him leaving his front door at his house) but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been someone else riding his bike, though I would need to see the video to make sure, if he is clearly able to be identified, along with his speedo and the video contains no cuts or editing then he will have a more difficult time. If the video is edited they will have a very hard time prosecuting, unless they get a warrant to search is home and find original video tapes, in which case he could be a bit screwed.

Either way he is a moron for identifying himself and his home so easily, even if it wasn't the cops after him a criminal or similar could also locate the house and know he had stuff like a bike, computer and camera worth stealing.

[hedders]

patently said:

Re the issue as to "how can this be ok when we can't use our CCTV to convict a burglar", surely the mistake is that we can't use CCTV, not that the police shouldn't prosecute this idiot.

It's hardly a 'mistake' though is it, the system is crooked.