The Scottish biker caught speeding [Archive] - SV650.org

Spiderman

30-10-09, 11:25 AM

yet daily they let off with a caution little a-holes who they catch carrying knives :roll:

A guy with a bike, controlling it at speed is far more of a danger to the general public that a group of drunk teens with knives, great.

C'mon Widepants, lets go a mugging and a battering, at least we know the jails will be full of bikers if on the off chance they decide to bang us up.

And recetnly i heard that one of the scum who was found guilty in the whole Baby P thing has had his sentence cut to just 6yrs. This is the scum who is also accused of having raped a 3yr old.

Give me strength, please lord.

hindle8907

30-10-09, 11:26 AM

poor bloke i feel sorry for him . i know he broke the law and if you do the crime you gota do the time ... but 9 months is harsh.

and with an haircut like that i bet hes going to get fingered lol .

plowsie

30-10-09, 12:17 PM

poor bloke i feel sorry for him
I don't, he's from C0ckburnspath. Haha C0ck :lol:
[/immature]

You ride that way, you take the risk. Punishment is a bit hefty though.

grh1904

30-10-09, 12:32 PM

yet daily they let off with a caution little a-holes who they catch carrying knives :roll:

Why do people say "letting off with a caution.

In order for a caution to be administeredm the suspect must fitst fully admit the offence at an interview at the Police station, secondly have no previous convictions for that or similar/kindred offences.

The caution was designed to free up the courts, ie somone with no previous convictions who was NEVER going to get a custodial sentence can be dealt with more effectively in this way.

Spidey - not a dig at your post, but used our comment to highlight a point.

Spiderman

30-10-09, 12:47 PM

Why do people say "letting off with a caution.

In order for a caution to be administeredm the suspect must fitst fully admit the offence at an interview at the Police station, secondly have no previous convictions for that or similar/kindred offences.

The caution was designed to free up the courts, ie somone with no previous convictions who was NEVER going to get a custodial sentence can be dealt with more effectively in this way.

Spidey - not a dig at your post, but used our comment to highlight a point.

Dont worry, i can take digs if they are aimed at me ;) Even tho this wasn't.

I guess the reason is that this current rabble of fraudsters that call themselves a Govt said that it will be an instant 5yrs inside for anyone caught carrying a knife. A hard stance to be a deterrent to all was their plan and policy so to throw that line out there and then not actually jail anyone who carries and could easily use a knife is just wrong, hence the "softer" option of a caution really gets most people backs up imho.

Sally

30-10-09, 01:05 PM

I actually think that's too fast on the road...

I understand the draw of extreme speed, and I enjoy it as much as my 33bhp will allow, but aren't corners much more fun than 160+ in a straight line?

Scoobs

30-10-09, 01:09 PM

I actually think that's too fast on the road..

Pah! What do you know.

;)

Sally

30-10-09, 01:12 PM

Hence my 33bhp comment Scoobs... :)

It really depends if it was a one off, or he goews around at speeds like that all the time, completely different story...

plowsie

30-10-09, 01:26 PM

Hence my 33bhp comment Scoobs... :)

It really depends if it was a one off, or he goews around at speeds like that all the time, completely different story...
'It was a one off officer, I just wanted to see how quick I could go'

;)

Sally

30-10-09, 01:27 PM

Not to the police obviously..

So no one seems to think that 166 mph is taking it too far?

I don't as long as it was on a long safe straight with no other cars..

But wheres the fun in that? ;)

Dicky Ticker

30-10-09, 01:32 PM

There is a lot of difference between doing 100mph and 166mph in a straight line

Believe me

yorkie_chris

30-10-09, 01:36 PM

Why do people say "letting off with a caution.

In order for a caution to be administeredm the suspect must fitst fully admit the offence at an interview at the Police station, secondly have no previous convictions for that or similar/kindred offences.

The caution was designed to free up the courts, ie somone with no previous convictions who was NEVER going to get a custodial sentence can be dealt with more effectively in this way.

Spidey - not a dig at your post, but used our comment to highlight a point.

Because it's nothing that will worry said scrotes or affect their behaviour in the slightest. A slap on the wrist with no sting to it. Thus, let off.

On another aside note, how many people have been given cautions without knowing that was them admitting fully to an offence there was little to no chance of a conviction of (i.e innocent?), and have had that on their records and thus seriously affected careers etc.

454697819

30-10-09, 02:06 PM

there is a guy somewhere who was banned for life in the UK from owning another bike was years and years ago

Dave20046

30-10-09, 02:15 PM

Bloody Scotts

petevtwin650

30-10-09, 02:27 PM

Not to the police obviously..

So no one seems to think that 166 mph is taking it too far?

I don't as long as it was on a long safe straight with no other cars..

But wheres the fun in that? ;)

Believe me Sally, going at around those speeds is a huge buzz. Not as rewarding as getting a set of bends perfect but fun nevertheless.

But riding at those speeds for any length of time will almost certainly end in tears. Twisties is where the must fun is :D

scooby2102

30-10-09, 02:52 PM

Accordign to the article, they caught 20 other motorists doing over a ton on that stretch of road last year, but there's no mention of any accidents. Sounds like a relatively safe spot for speeding, and a bit of a gimme for anyone whose performance targets are based on catching speeding motorists.

yes keith, its a safe bit of road in my view

about 20 mins from my home, you can stand at either end of it and can see the other end no problem, probably about a mile and half long straight with a slight slope at the Edinburgh end

oh......and........there's some trees and a laybye where the old bill catch you

as mentioned in another thread, the guy got 9 months for it, exactly the same stretch as the woman who killed the poor guy and seriously injured his young son in Glasgow recently

law is a wee bit messed up if you ask me !
.
.

30-10-09, 02:53 PM

scooby2102

30-10-09, 02:57 PM

Now compare this with our Scottish friend. This is a different jurisdiction - South Australia - but nonetheless if anyone can explain how this is just then please post up:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26266666-29277,00.html

aye Ed, its totally messed up, wonder if judges would be so lenient if it was their own son or daughter that was killed

Stu

30-10-09, 02:57 PM

Yea, as Keith says. I just dont understand why speeding is seen as such a bad thing!!! How is it anywhere near as other jail-able offences!? Sigh!

Just getting beyond a joke tbh!
Speeding is NOT jailable.
It was the muppet admiting* to Dangerous Driving that got him put inside.

*Not saying that he wouldn't have been convicted of DD had he fought it

dyzio

30-10-09, 03:23 PM

Not to the police obviously..

So no one seems to think that 166 mph is taking it too far?

I don't as long as it was on a long safe straight with no other cars..

But wheres the fun in that? ;)

Remember this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8259142.stm

Yes Sally, it's too far, but has the biker done any harm to anyone? The problem is the sentence, he got the same as the woman who caused someone's death.

Sosha

30-10-09, 04:28 PM

Years Ban
Large fine.
Job done.
Or not.

Red Herring

30-10-09, 04:45 PM

I always think it's a little bit hypercritical when the police charge dangerous driving based on speed alone, especially when most self respecting traffic officers are nudging 150mph in their patrol cars on a daily basis. I'm not saying it's OK to do these speeds, I just think there should be some additional evidence to support a charge of DD, for example a blind brow/bend or some potential danger that could not have been dealt with at that speed.
If we are saying that driving at those speeds is dangerous regardless of skill level or circumstance then there is no legal exemption for the police either.

shonadoll

30-10-09, 04:58 PM

I think it's harsh, but he was going way too fast for the road, IMO. For every biker that has good judgement, you have another **** who wants to try that in a less suitable place than this guy apparently was.

phil24_7

30-10-09, 06:02 PM

Why do people say "letting off with a caution.

In order for a caution to be administeredm the suspect must fitst fully admit the offence at an interview at the Police station, secondly have no previous convictions for that or similar/kindred offences.

The caution was designed to free up the courts, ie somone with no previous convictions who was NEVER going to get a custodial sentence can be dealt with more effectively in this way.

Spidey - not a dig at your post, but used our comment to highlight a point.

I have received 2 cautions for the same offence, and was offered a third, again for the same thing, cautions are a joke, designed to hit targets and get a conviction of sorts, without having to work for it.

They work out really well for the people committing the crimes, thank god!

phil24_7

30-10-09, 06:06 PM

phil24_7

30-10-09, 06:06 PM

Sally

30-10-09, 06:36 PM

Believe me Sally, going at around those speeds is a huge buzz. Not as rewarding as getting a set of bends perfect but fun nevertheless.

But riding at those speeds for any length of time will almost certainly end in tears. Twisties is where the must fun is :D

I understand yes now and again... I do like (alot) going fast, but limited by the restriction.

I did say, if it was a one off, whats the likelihood of him getting caught? He must have been doing that for an extended and numerous amounts of time. But that's only a presumption.

Of Davenumbers, its Scot's, not bloody Scott's. :)

Dave20046

30-10-09, 09:23 PM

I understand yes now and again... I do like (alot) going fast, but limited by the restriction.

I did say, if it was a one off, whats the likelihood of him getting caught? He must have been doing that for an extended and numerous amounts of time. But that's only a presumption.

Of Davenumbers, its Scot's, not bloody Scott's. :)
oops sorry thought his name was scott pervert
I agree, I'd guess he was a habitual high speed(speed)er - can't really complain at being collared though he's a moron if he doesn't understand the risks and as said he did admit to dd](*,)

jail terms ridiculous though

ianofbhills

30-10-09, 09:44 PM

I find this totally horrendously ridiculous. There absolutely must be more to the story then that. Did the guy have previous history, had he been banned for a similar offence or something before.

He got 9 months in prison and a 5 year driving ban! :confused:

wtf very very harsh.

shonadoll

30-10-09, 09:57 PM

Wideboy

30-10-09, 10:03 PM

C'mon Widepants, lets go a mugging and a battering, at least we know the jails will be full of bikers if on the off chance they decide to bang us up.

yeah im getting a bit skint and cant pay the rent plus Christmas is coming up, could do with a roof over ma head for a few months, robbing an old lady will be easy enough though and i reckon they'll let me keep the money

bad time to mention I've had 157mph on a R1? allegedly :cool:

Wideboy

30-10-09, 10:09 PM

ahhh spidey blud we can keep da moneyz and dat yeh and we'z can do ****y jobs in the nik and get bear green for it init...... and i reckon i can clamez benifitz for ma kids and **** azwell........

](*,)

Red Herring

30-10-09, 10:10 PM

The police do high speed training though, before they can do that.:confused:

Hence my argument that the circumstances in which the speed is used should also be considered, and not just the speed itself. 50mph down a crowded high street at 3 in the afternoon has more potential to harm someone and is therefore more "dangerous" than doing 150mph up a deserted motorway, but when was the last time you heard of someone getting locked up for that?

Dave20046

30-10-09, 10:10 PM

The police do high speed training though, before they can do that.:confused:
So what if someone more qualified (if that's possible via rospa + iam) does it? Or an ex copper? Bet the punishment would be the same.

TEC

30-10-09, 10:12 PM

.... There absolutely must be more to the story then that. ....

Yes there was

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8208958.stm

Add to that the bit about fastest speeder up here and the judge was just going to make an example of him and yeah I thought it was a bit harsh as well

boot

30-10-09, 10:14 PM

I know someone who was pulled over, after having clipped a kerb in excess of 100mph, among various other driving offences that I believe would all result in a suspension from driving, however, to the best of my knowledge, has never lost his license.

Lozzo

31-10-09, 12:08 AM

Speeding is NOT jailable.
It was the muppet admiting* to Dangerous Driving that got him put inside.

*Not saying that he wouldn't have been convicted of DD had he fought it

I'm glad I read through this thread before commenting, because this is exactly what I was going to point out.

Remember folks - if you're caught doing big mph, cough to the speeding but most definitely plead not guilty to Dangerous Driving. DD can get you banged up, speeding can't.

Red Herring

31-10-09, 09:28 AM

Never cough to anything at the roadside, and if you get an NIP/Summons make sure you get full disclosure (all their evidence) and seek good legal advice before coughing to anything in court. (I'm talking proper speeding here, not those namby pamby tickets you get from "Safety Camera" Partnerships).

yorkie_chris

31-10-09, 10:08 AM

Never cough to anything at the roadside,

Can you give us a clue how the conversation would go, and an idea of what not to say?

Dave20046

31-10-09, 10:17 AM

Just claim ignorance as usual and never admit to anything or let them twist your words into incriminating you. Trying your best to do this and not be a ********'s the hard part :)

Red Herring

31-10-09, 10:30 AM

Can you give us a clue how the conversation would go, and an idea of what not to say?

It would very much depend on the circumstances of the stop but as a general rule don't admit to any speed or agree to one quoted by the police (That's not the same as argue with them, just don't agree to anything).

For example one of the most common lines used by the police is, "Do you know how fast you were going"? My reply would be "Yes I've a pretty good idea but what really matters is how fast you think I was going".
That's just cheeky enough to possibly appeal to any sense of humour they might have but of no use evidentially by them, other than to counter any allegation of driving without due care which is the first thing they will throw back of you if you reply "No, I wasn't paying attention to the speedo".

If they start asking you more questions about your speed then it's best to come out directly and say to them, "Look, if you are looking to prosecute me then I've been advised to say nothing at this time so if you don't mind I'd like to follow that advice". That sends them two messages. Firstly it tells them you are a little switched on and they won't be able to bully you into accepting something they can't back up with evidence (yes, it does happen), secondly it offers them an easy out without losing face as they can then tell you they only intend to give you advice, in which case accept it but still don't make any admissions!

If they do tell you they are going to prosecute you then don't say anything further about the allegation. Don't offer any explanation (I was late, its' a nice dry road, my wife is having a baby etc etc...) but obviously do give all your details if asked. If they offer you a ticket take it (but still don't admit to anything, some coppers will tell you that if you admit it they will give you a ticket, if not they have to take you to court. It's rubbish, the only reasons they can have for not giving you a ticket are the speed is to high (I'll come back to this) you have to many points, or you refuse to produce/surrender your licence). Taking a ticket is not a cough, you have 28 days to consider your position/seek advice before paying it and if you take the ticket at the roadside there is a good chance the copper will write very little in his pocket book, which might prove useful later. Argue and fight him and I guarantee he will write war and peace in there...
Now the dilemma....sometimes you were doing really high speed and you know it, and the copper offers you a ticket if you'll cough to a lower speed (you'd be amazed how many drivers get clocked at 99mph on a motorway). What do you do, cough and take the three points, or hold out and risk a ban in court.....sorry I can't help you there, do you feel lucky punk, well do you?:D

Dave20046

31-10-09, 10:33 AM

Top advice!

Stu

31-10-09, 12:07 PM

Yes top advice, but all I can add is my 2 experiences when being humble & apologetic and may as well admit, grovelling got me
1. completely let off for overtaking a car on a single carriageway with a Police car on blues & twos behind me that I hadn't seen (because I didn't look), and
2. High speed filtering on a Dual carriageway (claims of leaving the Police car at 120 - result fixed penalty with 110mph written on it.

Lozzo

31-10-09, 01:13 PM

Can you give us a clue how the conversation would go, and an idea of what not to say?

A simple "I don't wish to comment at this stage" would be good enough. Say nothing at all that may give them something to work on. Be polite and give name/address etc and answer questions regarding ownership of the bike, but make no coments about potential offences.

shonadoll

31-10-09, 01:16 PM

So what if someone more qualified (if that's possible via rospa + iam) does it? Or an ex copper? Bet the punishment would be the same.

If rospa did high speed motorbike riding...,then level playing field.

trumpet

31-10-09, 03:53 PM

A FORMER soldier mowed down his ex-partner's best friend in his car in a fit of temper.
He was given 20 weeks in prison, suspended for two years, with 150 hours unpaid work and must pay £200 compensation and £250 costs.
lancs telegraph.17 Oct 09
fair enough speeding is dangerous

Milky Bar Kid

31-10-09, 04:09 PM

I have seen a few different articles on this. Knowing how the Scottish system works, I can't see that he would be jailed unless there are other circumstances surrounding this, ie, previous convictions for like offences.

Although at first glance, and from the limited info released in the media, it does seem harsh, if he has been done for similar things in the past and has clearly not learned his lesson, then no, I deem it to be a suitable punishment.

People talk about youths with knives getting "cautions" in England, they don't exist here and would always be put before the court. However, my point is, yes, a knife is lethal weapon if used in the wrong manner. Same can be said for the bike though.

This guy was clocked at 166 mph. While I will grant you that it was a straight piece, and relatively safe piece of road, this guy has apparently had no high speed training and probably would have had no idea how to handle the bike if something had went wrong. He also probably wasn't looking far enough ahead in the road to have time to react to any other vehicle around him.

Perhaps this guys jail sentence will make him think when he gets his licence back. He might have second thoughts about doing such a silly speed on a public highway again, and perhaps, that might just be the difference between life and death for someone.

Bluefish

31-10-09, 04:26 PM

This guy was clocked at 166 mph. While I will grant you that it was a straight piece, and relatively safe piece of road, this guy has apparently had no high speed training and probably would have had no idea how to handle the bike if something had went wrong. He also probably wasn't looking far enough ahead in the road to have time to react to any other vehicle around him.

re high speed trg, he probobly gets that every time he goes out on the bike, and as to he PROBABLY wasn't looking far enough ahead, how do you know that or is it just a guess, as to road users around him, at 166mph i doupt there were any. ;)

yorkie_chris

31-10-09, 05:05 PM

This guy was clocked at 166 mph. While I will grant you that it was a straight piece, and relatively safe piece of road, this guy has apparently had no high speed training and probably would have had no idea how to handle the bike if something had went wrong. He also probably wasn't looking far enough ahead in the road to have time to react to any other vehicle around him.

Speculation?

Also, I'm not sure how a bike handles any differently at 150+ than at any other speed...

Though the fact he was caught suggests his obs left something to be desired :-P

fastdruid

31-10-09, 06:01 PM

I thought it was pretty standard in Scotland to double charge, ie cough to the speeding or we do you for DD. Obviously he didn't cough to speeding and got done on the DD charge.

There is case law (google for the Milton case and appeal, the Police officer who did ~150mph 'acclimatising' himself to his car) that says excess speed does not automatically = DD and that experience can be taken into account, not sure how useful that is north of the border though.

Druid

Nelson

31-10-09, 06:02 PM

This was in my area of policing, so although I wont go into details, there is a fair amount of speculation in your above posts.

He was only caught because he tried to turn round further down the road, presumably to zoom back down the same stretch. To be fair, he was caught by a marked police car, who weren't exactly hiding!

General discussions with my colleagues (including the roads policing officers that reported the offence) have been along the same lines as yourselves regarding the unduly harsh sentence, people robbing old grannies getting less etc etc, so you're not alone there, and what you have to remember is that it's not up to the police what sentence a person gets, its up to that particular Sheriff on the day.

Personally I think he was given poor legal advice regarding the offence by his lawyer, and he will be appealing about the sentence. I also think there was some deal done regarding the guilty plea, which although that sentence has been given, he will serve a very short time in pokey before being released, perhaps on a tag. Time will tell.

I will also say to the poster above who said it's hypocritical of officers to fix people for these speeds when they do it every day, that they don't do it every day, and if they do, they must have a damn good reason for it. I know of several officers within our force that are being summonsed for speeding, having been charged by their bosses, purely off the evidence of their in-car tracking systems showing the speeds and them not being able to justify it! They also have to do about 12/13 weeks full time training to be allowed to do these speeds, so it's not exactly done on a whim...

Nelson

31-10-09, 06:06 PM

I thought it was pretty standard in Scotland to double charge, ie cough to the speeding or we do you for DD. Obviously he didn't cough to speeding and got done on the DD charge.

You can't have two bites of the apple at charges, and you certainly cannot say "admit the speeding or we'll charge you with a S.2". That's a definate no no for officers and not fair to the accused. Police will always charge with the more serious offence, its then up to the lawyers to argue the toss with the PF.

JamesMio

31-10-09, 06:16 PM

I know that road very well, there's absolutely nowhere for a marked police car to hide, if he wanged it past at 166mph without seeing them, then more fool him.

That said, noone died, noone even got hurt, it's a nothing offence in my eyes in comparison to the many many things that go unpunished these days.

Red Herring

31-10-09, 08:29 PM

I will also say to the poster above who said it's hypocritical of officers to fix people for these speeds when they do it every day, that they don't do it every day, and if they do, they must have a damn good reason for it. I know of several officers within our force that are being summonsed for speeding, having been charged by their bosses, purely off the evidence of their in-car tracking systems showing the speeds and them not being able to justify it! They also have to do about 12/13 weeks full time training to be allowed to do these speeds, so it's not exactly done on a whim...

That would be me then. The point I was trying to make, and obviously didn't make very well, is that speed alone cannot, or should not, lead directly to a charge of dangerous driving, and I attempted to quantify this by saying that police officers regularly do those speeds yet in the eyes of the law do so safely. What you have done is rather conveniently added fuel to my argument by saying that officers have to have a good reason for doing it (I don't see how that makes it safer, it just helps justify the risk to society) and that they have special training. The training is relevant because it helps the officer decide when and where it is safe to drive at such speeds, and that is exactly my point. It is not just the speed that makes it dangerous, it is the time, place and manner that it is used that makes the driving dangerous and I would have liked to see more evidence of this to help justify the sentence imposed.

Nelson

31-10-09, 10:41 PM

That would be me then. The point I was trying to make, and obviously didn't make very well, is that speed alone cannot, or should not, lead directly to a charge of dangerous driving, and I attempted to quantify this by saying that police officers regularly do those speeds yet in the eyes of the law do so safely. What you have done is rather conveniently added fuel to my argument by saying that officers have to have a good reason for doing it (I don't see how that makes it safer, it just helps justify the risk to society) and that they have special training. The training is relevant because it helps the officer decide when and where it is safe to drive at such speeds, and that is exactly my point. It is not just the speed that makes it dangerous, it is the time, place and manner that it is used that makes the driving dangerous and I would have liked to see more evidence of this to help justify the sentence imposed.

Frankly, the speed alone is dangerous, no arguments about it. 166 mph is the best part of 75 metres per second. Somebody pulling out of a side road would not expect to see anyone appear that fast and anybody who had room at normal speeds to overtake, would not expect to see a distant spec of a biker appear on the horizon at a speed 3 times the expected pace. It is dangerous, how you can argue that it is not, is beyond me. If he didn't see a marked Volvo estate, how could he have seen any other obstacles in the road? Also bearing in mind that any crash at these speeds will almost certainly cause a fatality adds to the danger.

Police drivers of course have to justify any actions they do, and they also have to drive to the conditions around them. They also have high performance, very well maintained cars, and the aid of bright blue warning lights and loud sirens as well as reflective paintwork decals, something a biker would not have. They wouldnt have caught the biker, as they could not have travelled at that speed, had it not been for the fact that he stopped further down the road! If the driver had been driving on a suitable road, with no other hazards or other contributing factors, he would not be guilty, or would certainly have a good case to argue, such as the circumstances in this case -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1508943/Driving-at-150-mph-not-dangerous-says-judge.html

Obviously the evidence provided was enough to liable that charge, then for the PF to continue with it, the biker to plead guilty, and ultimately for the Sheriff to impose that penalty. Whether we agree with it or not is irrelevant - we are not in possession of the full circumstances. For all you may know, the offence occurred at the busiest time of the day on a busy trunk route, with numerous other cars in the area. Also bearing in mind the speed was an average speed over the best part of a mile, speaks volumes.

If the police were to travel at the speed for no reason (as in the case of our friend the Biker), in the same circumstances - "Just out for a drive" then they too would also get the book thrown at them, training or not!

appollo1

31-10-09, 10:52 PM

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and i think that anyone doing those speeds on a public road should be punished severly (sp).

I know that road and there are a few great straights on it where i have in the past gone over the speed linit in the cage but i chose to do that and as any time i am out if i am speeding and get caught then it is my fault and i will have to accept the concequences.

Red Herring

31-10-09, 11:02 PM

Nelson

01-11-09, 02:05 AM

Nelson, was there a side road that someone could have pulled out of, was there any other traffic on the road that may have posed a hazard, was the marked Volvo really at the side of the road? I'm not disputing that doing these kinds of speeds is potentially dangerous, what I'm saying is we would like to know why it was dangerous in this particular example rather then a blanket "150 plus is dangerous". If you are saying that these speeds are dangerous regardless of circumstance then that would include police vehicles wouldn't it. As far as I am aware blue lights, sirens and hiz viz paint jobs don't provide a force field around the police vehicle.

Well, police drivers don't just crank it up to 166 for the hell of it do they? I doubt their vehicles would even reach that speed. Not on that bit of road in the same circumstances. If a police driver was to do that, he would get charged in exactly the same manner.

Blue lights sirens, and Hi viz vehicles will alert other road users to their presence from a distant and help minimise they potential danger. A biker is somewhat less visible.

Fact is, he's been pleaded guilty, so he admits it was dangerous. Speculation isn't going to change that. Case closed. Done. Dusted. Next!!

fastdruid

01-11-09, 02:28 AM

Well, police drivers don't just crank it up to 166 for the hell of it do they? I doubt their vehicles would even reach that speed. Not on that bit of road in the same circumstances. If a police driver was to do that, he would get charged in exactly the same manner.

Well they might but claim they were 'acclimatising' themselves with the car...

..and be found not guilty, where it gets more interesting is after DPP appeals

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/242.html

(emphasis mine)

Mr McGuiness argued that, in the light of all the facts and circumstances found, the district judge had to, and plainly did, ask himself whether he was sure that the prosecution had proved its case. He has found that the prosecution failed to do so. He submitted that to adopt the approach that Mr Lawson invited us to do (in other words to find that driving at twice the speed limit is per se dangerous) is tantamount to taking the question of the standard of dangerous driving away from the tribunal of fact. He submitted that Mr Lawson's submission is wrong in principle. Speed is one of a number of circumstances which has to be taken into account. As was said in Howdle v O'Connor, to which I have already referred, excessive speed alone is not a basis for convicting of dangerous driving.

and

I decline to find, as Mr Lawson invited me to do, that if an accused drives at speeds twice the limit allowed, he must be convicted as a matter of law of dangerous driving. That would mean that any driver of an emergency vehicle, driving at twice the speed limit, whatever the road conditions, however much warning was given to other road users, would be guilty of dangerous driving per se. That cannot be right.
In my judgment, having borne in mind the observations of other courts in other jurisdictions which were helpful although not binding, speed alone is not sufficient to found a conviction for dangerous driving. It has to be a question of speed in the context of all circumstances. It is not for this court to attempt to lay down hard and fast rules that driving at X-times any particular speed limit is so excessive as to amount to dangerous driving per se. That would be an impossible and inappropriate task.

Pretty clear (at least in England) that (very) excessive speed while most likely to be DD is not automatically DD.

That is not to say this wasn't DD, I don't know the facts, just that I (and case law) disagree that speeding is automatically DD.

Druid

fastdruid

01-11-09, 02:43 AM

You can't have two bites of the apple at charges, and you certainly cannot say "admit the speeding or we'll charge you with a S.2". That's a definate no no for officers and not fair to the accused. Police will always charge with the more serious offence, its then up to the lawyers to argue the toss with the PF.

I think that should be you _shouldn't_ (as per Middleton V Bath although again no idea if it applies to Scotland), plenty of examples such as the dual S. 172 / Speeding charge (and CPS have been told off for that) but as an example I've heard of cases where it's put up before the court as:

You did drive dangerously
or
You did speed
or
You did drive without due care and attention

and from the person concerned

ALL THREE possible charges will be put before the judge. You will be forced to defend all three and the PF will pursue all three. A legal aide lawyer will land you with either the due care or the speeding which you will be forced to accept or the PF will pursue the more serious dangerous driving which can be easily proven in most circumstances.

Druid

Nelson

01-11-09, 02:57 AM

Well they might but claim they were 'acclimatising' themselves with the car...

..and be found not guilty, where it gets more interesting is after DPP appeals

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/242.html

(emphasis mine)

and

Pretty clear (at least in England) that (very) excessive speed while most likely to be DD is not automatically DD.

Druid

Again, thats up for a jury or judge to decide whether that officer had a reason for doing those speeds. The news story I posted above also confirms that for non-police drivers.

PC Milton obviously got charged in the same manner as any other driver would. Then it's up to the courts to decide, like I also mentioned above.

Driving at speed is a perishable skill that drivers lose if they do not practice. Police drivers do have a need for that speed, where as ordinary members of the public do not. There has to be provisions in place for that practice, but then again, the provisions have to allow for the safety of everyone involved.

Overall, I would not expect any police driver to drive at 150mph for the hell of it, as was the case for this biker, and if any police driver did, I would support a similar charge!

A few years ago there was a police Inspector who ran his forces driving school, charged with speeding on the M9 at 120mph or so in a marked vehicle. Although he wasn't charged with dangerous driving, presumably because of the circumstances around the speed, he was found guilty of speeding and banned and fined after the court rejeceted his excuse that he was testing the road for future routes. So we get treated just the same as everybody else does, on duty or not.

Going back to this biker situation, the circumstances in the case were obviously proven as the biker pled guilty! He accepts that driving in that manner was dangerous, by the combination of the speed and the circumstances in which it was done. I hardly think he could say he was "acclimatising himself" with the bike. :rolleyes:

Nelson

01-11-09, 03:11 AM

I think that should be you _shouldn't_ (as per Middleton V Bath although again no idea if it applies to Scotland), plenty of examples such as the dual S. 172 / Speeding charge (and CPS have been told off for that) but as an example I've heard of cases where it's put up before the court as:

You did drive dangerously
or
You did speed
or
You did drive without due care and attention

and from the person concerned

Druid

172 and Speeding are seperate offences and can be liabled together without issue! The two bites of the apple come in where two charges are liabled for one offence. Exactly the same as if someone committed a housebreaking by smashing a window to gain access before pinching stuff from inside. You couldn't then charge with a Vandalism and a Housebreaking - it's just a housebreaking.

I've no idea what goes on down south, but there's no way we'd charge anybody with section 2 AND section 3 for the same offence!

In short, its nowt to do with the police. It's the PF having a bargaining session with the lawyer of the accused.

Milky Bar Kid

01-11-09, 04:50 AM

I think that should be you _shouldn't_ (as per Middleton V Bath although again no idea if it applies to Scotland), plenty of examples such as the dual S. 172 / Speeding charge (and CPS have been told off for that) but as an example I've heard of cases where it's put up before the court as:

You did drive dangerously
or
You did speed
or
You did drive without due care and attention

and from the person concerned

Druid

That is nonsense. As Nelsons says, certainly in Scotland and I would imagine same in England as it's still the RTA, there is NO WAY you will be charged with both a 2 and a 3! It just wouldn't happen.

A section 2 (DD) would be libelled as it is the more serious charge, the PF can then chose to proceed with the 2 or drop it to a 3 (careless). It would not be competent to charge someone with both a 2 and 3 for the same incident.

Red Herring

01-11-09, 07:54 AM

Fastdruid's a spoil sport, I'd been keeping the PC Milton case in reserve...

I think people are confusing noble cause with risk management. Noble cause (the justification for doing something) does not reduce the risk, it simply makes the risk more acceptable, ie: it was worth taking the risk because the consequence of me not doing so would have been worse. Police officers do have a noble cause, but they are trained never to allow it to over ride safety. Their risk management around the speeds they regularly do comes from their judgement and their skill (and I do concede that the ancillary equipment fitted to police vehicles does impact on this) and as the PC Milton case shows you can take away the operational need yet the skill and judgement (at least with regard to the actual driving) remain. My argument is very simple, I believe that every driver is entitled to that standard of proof/evidence if they are to be convicted of dangerous driving.

For the record I think PC Milton was a complete To55er. What he did was totally unacceptable, he broke every written (and unwritten) rule around police driving and as a consequence not only bought the reputation of the police into disrepute but led to the do gooders thinking up a whole bunch of rules and regulations just so they can say they have taken action to stop it happening again.

Kilted Ginger

01-11-09, 09:59 AM

For layman i think the issue here is not if the speed was excessive as it obviously was, he also admitted to dd for which the custodial has been impossed but for the apparent injustice. The woman in glasgow who killed the biker and disabled his son was a joke. This was the 6th time she had been charged with driving without a licence, road tax and insurance, someone explain how a driving ban will stop her doing it again??
First time fine££, second time big fine£££ third time obviously lesson not learned has to be jail time. the courts sheriffs involved in her previous sentencing should feel responsibility for the fatality they allowed to happen.

I am becoming more and more jaded with the legal system in this country, I have huge respect for the police doing an impossible job in increasingly different circumstances the courts however are a joke.

I watched one of the "reality" cop shows and a the officers were arresting 2 drunk guys for fighting ( after several warnings and advice to move on) someone else ran over and punched the sargent in the face. Unprovoked assault on a police officer £80 fine.... you could just imagine the scummies rubbing their hands thinking onl £80 for punching a copper brilliant.

I apologise now if i upset anyone with these comments but this country is becoming a joke, run by the loud minority, paying criminals compensation because they had to clean their own toilets in prison???

There is a big case atm where a kiddie fiddler ring has been uncovered, involving kids as young as 3 MONTHS! wtf. sorry a bullet is too good for these people, we need to move past the "criminals have rights" no they dont, forget whether or not its against the law things like that are against nature and frankly the perpetrators need to be removed from the gene pool.

Liberal lefties please leave, crime needs punishment not kid gloves!

Stu

01-11-09, 08:56 PM

Going back to this biker situation, the circumstances in the case were obviously proven as the biker pled guilty! He accepts that driving in that manner was dangerous, by the combination of the speed and the circumstances in which it was done.
I really wish you would not hold this view.
Nothing has been proven other than this guy is a muppet when it comes to plea bargaining.
I can only surmise that he plead guilty in an attempt to mitigate his sentence, but ended up getting shafted.
So it proves nothing other than he had poor legal advice.
Apropos nothing, did Andy Green get convicted of Dangerous Driving for doing 763 mph? :-k

Nelson

01-11-09, 09:09 PM

I really wish you would not hold this view.
Nothing has been proven other than this guy is a muppet when it comes to plea bargaining.
I can only surmise that he plead guilty in an attempt to mitigate his sentence, but ended up getting shafted.
So it proves nothing other than he had poor legal advice.
Apropos nothing, did Andy Green get convicted of Dangerous Driving for doing 763 mph? :-k

There isn't really much he could argue to prove that it wasn't dangerous.
Wish all you want, that's my view. Now foxtrot oscar please :thumbsup:

yorkie_chris

01-11-09, 09:20 PM

phil24_7

01-11-09, 09:33 PM

I believe that's called a Glasgow kiss!

SV-net

01-11-09, 09:37 PM

The fella was a plank for this speed on a public road. End of!

Red Herring

01-11-09, 09:40 PM

I believe that's called a Glasgow kiss!

I'm sure he didn't mean that, such things are usually a sign that someone has run out of any constructive argument and that surely can't be the case...

Red Herring

01-11-09, 09:41 PM

The fella was a plank for this speed on a public road. End of!

True, but he wasn't convicted of being a plank, he was convicted of dangerous driving.

Nelson

01-11-09, 10:22 PM

You're saying because he admitted guilt then the circumstances were obviously dangerous? Even though some local yokels on here have said it's a long wide open straight?

You can't go around telling people to foxtrot oscar when people ask you to clarify a slightly contradictory viewpoint, in person it can occasion a headbutt to the nose.

You're forgetting I am a yokel! it is a long wide open straight, but its not exactly the M6 toll road! There are several turn offs to farms and houses and a layby about half way along. There are towns/villages at each end of the straight. An average of 166.25mph over 0.7 miles is dangerous!! The biker accepts that - how people on here can still be speculating that it was not dangerous is beyond me!

The FO was said with an appropriate smiley I thought to show it was tongue in cheek. My way of saying "end of discussion". If it was meant in anger, I would have used this one - :smt097

:jocolor:

Nelson

01-11-09, 10:25 PM

Its the bit between West Linton and Dolphinton - here

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=55.732813,-3.355465&spn=0.083896,0.264187&z=13

Stu

01-11-09, 10:33 PM

There isn't really much he could argue to prove that it wasn't dangerous.

But in reality, nothing happened! No one was injured. I could say he didn't so much as hurt a fly but there probably were a few bugs on his windshield.
Therefore in those exact circumstances, as it turned out. It was not dangerous!

Nelson

01-11-09, 10:48 PM

But in reality, nothing happened! No one was injured. I could say he didn't so much as hurt a fly but there probably were a few bugs on his windshield.
Therefore in those exact circumstances, as it turned out. It was not dangerous!

Right. So just because nothing happened it isn't dangerous?

So we should all be able to drive around at warp speed until something does happen, and only then has it become dangerous? Braking distances for these machines will be monsterous should something unexpected happen!

These are from Autocar 2004

100mph to a standstill in seconds:

Caterham R500: 3.60
Porsche 911 GT3: 4.00
Ferrari Enzo: 4.08
Mercedes Benz SLR Mclaren: 4.22
Peugeot 206 GTi: 4.39
Aston Martin DB9: 4.42
VW Toureg V10 TDi: 4.52
Subaru Impreza WRX: 4.64
Honda Civic Type R: 4.64
Vauxhall Senator 3.0i: 5.43
Suzuki GSXR-1000: 5.63

I hate to think what it is at 166.

yorkie_chris

01-11-09, 10:56 PM

You're forgetting I am a yokel! it is a long wide open straight, but its not exactly the M6 toll road! There are several turn offs to farms and houses and a layby about half way along.

Someone asked that earlier and noone responded, with that in mind I'd agree it was dangerous.

I hate to think what it is at 166.

A scary distance with that too.

I wouldn't say he deserves to be sent down for the speeding itself, the stopping to turn round and have another go at it definitely says he deserves it!

If it was 166 in most other circumstances I would probably think "nice one".

ethariel

02-11-09, 12:23 AM

I used to think silly speeds were a bit of a laugh, one day up at Box Hill, a traffic copper managed to put it into perspective in a way that it really hit home to me.

Would you do 70 to 100 in the local supermarket carpark on a saturday afternoon? Then why do it on the M25 or elsewhere?

It just made me think, hammering round a track at 140/150 is fun, most folks going pretty much as fast in the same group. However going 50+ faster than 99% of the other traffic on a road........

Well I dont know about you, but i'm mortal (and getting older and take an awful lot longer to heal than i used to).

-Ralph-

02-11-09, 12:46 AM

Stu, do you honestly believe what you are saying or are you just arguing for the sake of it mate? Lets have some kid point a gun at another kid and pull the trigger. The first kid can't hold the pistol still when is kicks so the bullet goes over the second kids head. But nothing happened and noone got killed so in this case it wasn't dangerous?

166mph is dangerous anywhere except a racetrack or an empty motorway. There is property entrances, field entrances, minor junctions and all sorts on every country A road, but I dont think anybody has metioned that it's a two way road and you have traffic coming the other way. Two tonnes of metal passing 10 feet to the right of that biker at a closing speed of at least 226 mph FFS! That plus the possible invasions from left or right, or the branch thats fallen from the tree above, or ... , could go on forever with that list! Anyone who tries to argue that anything over (IMO) 140mph on a public A road is not dangerous, needs their f***** head examined.

Milky Bar Kid

02-11-09, 03:03 AM

stu, do you honestly believe what you are saying or are you just arguing for the sake of it mate? Lets have some kid point a gun at another kid and pull the trigger. The first kid can't hold the pistol still when is kicks so the bullet goes over the second kids head. But nothing happened and noone got killed so in this case it wasn't dangerous?

166mph is dangerous anywhere except a racetrack or an empty motorway. There is property entrances, field entrances, minor junctions and all sorts on every country a road, but i dont think anybody has metioned that it's a two way road and you have traffic coming the other way. Two tonnes of metal passing 10 feet to the right of that biker at a closing speed of at least 226 mph ffs! That plus the possible invasions from left or right, or the branch thats fallen from the tree above, or ... , could go on forever with that list! Anyone who tries to argue that anything over (imo) 140mph on a public a road is not dangerous, needs their f***** head examined.

+1111111

Red Herring

02-11-09, 07:43 AM

It's nice to see that Nelson is finally coming round and providing some evidence as to why 166mph on that road is dangerous, ie: the farm entrances, the layby, the possibility of oncoming traffic. I think I'd still need some information around the view available into these junctions and the presence of other traffic to convict. I agree you don't have to wait for something to happen for driving to be dangerous, but you should at least be able to show that it there was a reasonable possibility it could have happened.

ps: If a bike rider doing 60mph hits a car coming the other way that is also doing 60mph the end result from the impact is pretty much the same as if the rider had been doing 100, or even 166, it's just the degree of deadness that varies...

keith_d

02-11-09, 08:01 AM

Suzuki GSXR-1000: 5.63

I hate to think what it is at 166.

Stopping distance is roughly proportional to the square of the speed. So, it doubles from 70 to 100mph, and again from 100 to 140mph. A quick calculation gives him about 6.5 times as much braking distance at 166 as at 70mph. So you've got to look a long way ahead at high speeds.

-Ralph-

02-11-09, 09:08 AM

ps: If a bike rider doing 60mph hits a car coming the other way that is also doing 60mph the end result from the impact is pretty much the same as if the rider had been doing 100, or even 166, it's just the degree of deadness that varies...

I wasn't thinking about any of your posts, I can see that your trying to debate the legal justification for the DD charge. I'm pretty sure (?) as a policeman you'd agree that 166 is dangerous on any A road, even if only to the rider himself.

It's not the degree of deadness that makes oncoming traffic dangerous, if your dead your dead, it's the increased likelihood of that death occurring. Bikes don't change diretion very quickly at that speed, so if you find yourself on wrong side at 243 ft per second, and theres a whole list of possibilities that can make that happen, then your travelling towards oncoming traffic very quickly for probably the best partof 1000 ft.

Also it doesn't really matter if theres a spot where traffic can emerge or not, or how good the view down the road is, because unless the rider knows that section intimately and knows for sure there is no danger points (ie: he walks down it every day), at 166mph he can't see (tunnel vision sets in), he can't process information or react, never mind actually stop, without a huge distance being covered. So there could be a side road, but by the time the rider even becomes aware of it, he's alreeady passed it, it's already too late to do sweet FA if a car did pull out of it. At that speed on an A road, survival is only down to luck, and whatever way you cut it, that has to be dangerous.

Quedos

02-11-09, 10:11 AM

I

Also it doesn't really matter if theres a spot where traffic can emerge or not, or how good the view down the road is, because unless the rider knows that section intimately and knows for sure there is no danger points (ie: he walks down it every day), at 166mph he can't see (tunnel vision sets in), he can't process information or react, never mind actually stop, without a huge distance being covered. So there could be a side road, but by the time the rider even becomes aware of it, he's alreeady passed it, it's already too late to do sweet FA if a car did pull out of it. At that speed on an A road, survival is only down to luck, and whatever way you cut it, that has to be dangerous.

at the end of the day he broke the law on an inappropriate stretch of road and got caught. Harsh maybe - but i'm glad he did get put away because i wouldn't want to be the unfortunate cage driver that stumbled upon him doing those speeds.
Am i selfish - definately - of hes off the roads then good. as for the debate round other cases and what does and desn't get prosecutued/get jail etc etc - is irrelevant
just always remember there is three sides to every story - the two sides and the truth.

-Ralph-

02-11-09, 10:39 AM

I think 9 months jail was a silly sentence unless he had already been banned or something. A long or lifetime ban and massive fine would have been appropriate.

Speedy Claire

02-11-09, 11:04 AM

I can`t understand why he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving? A harsh sentence yes but in my opinion he shouldn`t have been doing that speed in the first place.

Did this guy have family? if so was he considering how they would be able to manage financially without his absence for the rest of their lives?

At least he`s still alive to be doing a prison sentence rather than a sentence in a wooden box!

Stu

02-11-09, 11:24 AM

Stu, do you honestly believe what you are saying or are you just arguing for the sake of it mate?
Yes I honestly believe that simply doing 166 should not equal a case of DD nor it equaling 9 months inside and 5 year ban.

I don't know the road nor the biker's abilities so it may very well have been justified and the sentence appropriate. But from the reporting it looks like it is purely down to the actual number of the speed which I don't agree with for all sorts of reasons (which RH seems to have been more eloquent at expressing)

Personally speaking I think I would reserve that amount of speed for a dual carriageway with a proper central reservation and slip roads only. So for the road it happened on it could well have been dangerous, but there was no reporting that 166 was Dangerous in the circumstances.

hindle8907

02-11-09, 11:26 AM

5 year ban and big fine would of been enugh unless he has re-offended in this case would deserve it but 9 months in prison is harsh .
The ban would of got him off the roads it didnt need a prison sentence ontop to do that.
But now mabe some of the power rangers will think twice before hitting speeds like that on puplic roads and it will save someones life.

But at the end of the day if your going to brake the law there is allways going to be concequences and in this case the concequences was big.

squirrel_hunter

02-11-09, 01:26 PM

Also it doesn't really matter if theres a spot where traffic can emerge or not, or how good the view down the road is, because unless the rider knows that section intimately and knows for sure there is no danger points (ie: he walks down it every day), at 166mph he can't see (tunnel vision sets in), he can't process information or react, never mind actually stop, without a huge distance being covered. So there could be a side road, but by the time the rider even becomes aware of it, he's alreeady passed it, it's already too late to do sweet FA if a car did pull out of it. At that speed on an A road, survival is only down to luck, and whatever way you cut it, that has to be dangerous.

At 166mph tunnel vision sets in; could you claify this please as I have never heard of tunnel vision being caused simply by speeds attainable on the road?

Red Herring

02-11-09, 01:28 PM

I just believe that speed should always be appropriate for the circumstances. I'm not trying to suggest that 166mph was an appropriate speed for this stretch of road, I suspect that might be pushing credibility a little, however I do think anyone who wants to say it was dangerous should be able to quantify that with more than just figures. I don't suppose many people think 40mph is very dangerous, however I can easily paint a picture of a busy high street with parked cars and pedestrian movement where 40mph could be as potentailly fatal as 166mph on an open A road, yet most would moan if they were even given a ticket!

Biker Biggles

02-11-09, 01:30 PM

At 166mph tunnel vision sets in; could you claify this please as I have never heard of tunnel vision being caused simply by speeds attainable on the road?

And does the advanced police training contain an antidote that prevents this condition happening,thus making high speed safe for them?;)

-Ralph-

02-11-09, 04:31 PM

At 166mph tunnel vision sets in; could you claify this please as I have never heard of tunnel vision being caused simply by speeds attainable on the road?

I can't clarify that one I'm afraid, it's just something rightly or wrongly that I believe to be true, I'm happy to stand corrected on it if somebody credible wants to correct me. It's the kind of detail that I'll leave the star trek smart ar$es to argue about. I've heard of superbike riders being inflicted by it, but that could of course be pub chatter. I don't do 166mph myself. Google is your friend! These scientist type guys found it necessary to study the deteriorating useful field of vision as a result of speed, they should know what they are talking about so I'd think it would be attainable on the road.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0W-4CTN1XG-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1074308061&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=aa40d35bd268d2ef73a453cf8bf80146

I've heard it on good authority that TGV train drivers suffer from it (my wife is French and several of her villagers work for TGV locally), they habitually travel at 200mph, and their field of peripheral vision is generally open fields very wide and slow moving. If your immediate peripheral vision consists of a road lined with trees, hedges, road signs and lots of other things flashing past you 10-20 feet away, I'd imagine it would set in at a much lower speed. But hey, I'm no f****g expert in the field so what do I know? If you want the answer, buy the report.

ArtyLady

02-11-09, 04:51 PM

Boy oh boy!.....I'm sure glad I'm just a bimbling old granny! :smt023

Red Herring

02-11-09, 05:06 PM

I think it's fair to say that when driving quickly you do become quite focused on what's in the distance, however I'd dispute the expression "Tunnel vision". I couple of years ago a member of one of our local IAM groups joined me at work for the day and asked why when driving quickly on the motorway I commented more on the traffic in lanes one and two than I did on what was in front of me in lane three. I explained that the traffic ahead of me would either get out of the way, or brake, either way I could see it coming and there was a predictability about it. If however a vehicle in lane one were to move unexpectedly it was likely to displace something in lane two into my path, and if that were to happen when I was quite close there may not be time to avoid it.
I guess what I am saying is that it is not what is directly in front of them that tends to cause problems for people who try and go quickly on the roads, because that is normally where they are looking. It's the potential for danger to move into their path that they often overlook, and therefore don't allow for.