Rider caught by front-facing camera

Originally Posted by rigor

I'm slightly more concerned by the fact they charged him with Dangerous Driving, for removing a hand from the controls, eeek, I'm an evil criminal!!

Depends - it quotes him as doing up to 105mph - if he takes is hand off to stick two fingers up to the camera at that speed in an urban / suburban area it seems mighty dangerous to me. Got what he deserved IMO. This kind of stuff helps justify the proliferation of speed cameras.

[Bluepete]

Only a 12 month ban for all those offences is very lenient IMO! I've known a lot worse (and a lot less too)
The man is a plonker.

Ive been tempted to do it, the main thing that put me off is if it becomes too 'popular' they'll crack down and do something stupid like make us put reg plates on the front...

[northwind]

I've no sympathy, but the level of proof seems pretty deficient in this case... They've shown it was probably him, but not proved it. Someone else could have the same bike and leathers, and loads of BMWs have the same aux lights. Unless he's confessed I imagine he'll be appealing...

Originally Posted by northwind

I've no sympathy, but the level of proof seems pretty deficient in this case... They've shown it was probably him, but not proved it. Someone else could have the same bike and leathers, and loads of BMWs have the same aux lights. Unless he's confessed I imagine he'll be appealing...

You were reading a different article to me then.

Only 3 BMW's in his area, only one of those with the additional lights by the mirrors. Proof that it was his bike.

Speeding offence, owner should specify who the driver was (or a list os possible drivers). He probably fell foul here. The jury threw out the dangerous driving, finding him guilty of careless driving (slightly lesser charge). He admitted to 9 counts (IIRC) of speeding.

Just a tad unlucky for having such a unique bike IMO.

He's a bloody idiot and gives other bikers a bad name.
Now if he had done it on a bike with no insignias on it as well as no plate and only done it a couple of times, I might have been a little sympathetic towards him.
Plus it would have been better if he had saluted rather than giving the V's.
Love it when smart a*ses get what they deserve.

[Stu]

On first reading I thought he deserved what he got for being a plonker, but the reply comments in the article were quite interesting and supportive

Lock him up and throw away the key - damn protesters, next thing we know he'll be refusing to pay his council tax and crossing the road before the green man shows.

- Rod, Hull
Another dangerous criminal dealt with, we can all feel safer now, right?

- Stan, Expat
What is the point of prosecuting these people? Let's face it: a motorcyclist who drives dangerously does not live too long. Ergo, this guy was not driving dangerously.

He was only making a political point and the powers that be have gone out of their way to slap him down for 'speaking up'.

If many more did what this guy has done we'd all end up with number plates bolted to the front of our bikes.

Just because there were only 3 of the bikes in the area it doesnt mean that someone else could have the same bike and leathers from a different area. There isnt really any proof there. If someone wearing a blue hoody robbed a shop and the police went round arresting everyone with a blue hoody the jails would be full. As for 'making a political point' I hear that an old tyre and some petrol is much more effective

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Baph

Only 3 BMW's in his area, only one of those with the additional lights by the mirrors. Proof that it was his bike.

That's proof? 3 bikes, according to BMW (and presumably the DVLA) in his area... assuming the databases are up to date, and that every owner has their bike on the BMW database, which is unlikely. And this speeder doesn't have to be local, that's a huge presumption. Additional lights on tractors- since I assume is was a GS- are very common, and there's a couple of makes which basically rule the market. How many bikes have to be in the area before it stops being proof? 5? 10? 50?

I don't doubt that he did it, but from what I've read they've not proved that at all, they've just established that on the balance of probability it was him. That's never been enough under UK law, and never should be.