Chap caught speeding

At a good rate of knots - 165mph apparently - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-165mph.html

Anyway, in the article, it states "Prison sentences cannot be imposed for an offence of speeding."
That surprises me. Would the police have to show that someone was driving dangerously for someone to be jailed? If I was doing stupid speeds (80mph+... ) at 5am but I could show that there was no other vehicles for miles around, would that mean the worst I could get would be a ban and fine?

pretty much.

You shouldn't be put in prison for speeding though. Nor should you get a ban or fine for speeding if there is nothing around imo.


However, if he now goes out and drives without insurance, he'll get a warning, a little fine another warning, a warning and a warning.
That's the kind of thing people should go to prison for...

Originally Posted by saucysaunders

You shouldn't be put in prison for speeding though. Nor should you get a ban or fine for speeding if there is nothing around imo.

I can see what you're saying but how would you know nothing was around?
If someone could say that there was nothing around when they started speeding and then someone pulled out of a side road in front of them, surely the roads would be carnage?

[Biker Biggles]

There were other vehicles around(he overtakes them on the video)and he claimed to have a "brain injury"and was unable to recall the incident.Both of those would have suggested a dangerous driving charge I would have thought but he was not charged with anything more than speeding.Dont know why not.
Poor journalism too.How can you have an average speed of "up to" anything or of "between 140 and 165".An average is a specific figure not a range.Its probably all a made up story anyway.

[jambo]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

in the article, it states "Prison sentences cannot be imposed for an offence of speeding."
That surprises me.

This may be the case but I'm surprised he wasn't charged with something else. A quick search for "Speeding biker jailed" throws up a few cases that sound similar, in each case the jail term has been for dangerous driving or similar, with the speed being a major factor in securing the conviction.

Jambo

[ChrisCurvyS]

WTF - so this scumbag with his driving record gets off running from the police at 165mph in a two-tonne piece of metal with a £515 fine, despite goading the judge and saying he's going to do it again.

I know sometimes bikers do have a victim mentality with stuff like this but FFS - plenty of bikers have been jailed for much less.

Wasn't that Scottish guy caught doing silly speeds on a bike (highest recorded speed camera reading I think) jailed?

[Littlepeahead]

My friend's father was jailed for killing a biker as death by dangerous driving. He fainted at the wheel after just having taken his wife to hospital where they had been told that she had a terminal illness. He wasn't speeding but he veered into the middle of the road. Witnesses to the event said that the motorcyclist was speeding and had overtaken several vehicles at speeds far in excess of the speed limit shortly before the accident. This was in Epping Forest where wildlife and kids on bikes coming out of the cycle tracks are always a risk.

Nothing can change that my friend's father killed someone, but he never set out to do so. He wasn't driving at excessive speed, he simply suffered a blackout with tragic consequences. However if the biker had lived I wonder if the outcome might have been different? Perhaps if he hadn't been going so fast and overtaking at way over the speed limit he might have been able to avoid a car veering across the road. We shall never know. But it does sometimes seem that those who willfully drive/ride putting themselves and others at risk get away with more than those who are the victims of a genuine accident.

That's a sad case for all concerned Clare tbh, IMO that should've been a lesser careless driving charge, no intent, accidental, out of his control etc etc

Originally Posted by specialone

That's a sad case for all concerned Clare tbh, IMO that should've been a lesser careless driving charge, no intent, accidental, out of his control etc etc

To me that is an accident - it wasn't intentional, it wasn't a calculated risk that turned out bad (unless he had v high/low blood pressure etc), he had no knowledge that he might feint.

As for the guy in the article, it doesn't seem out of character so as Jambo says, why was he not charged with something else?
Oh well, there will always be differences.