Petition concerning speeding fines for motorcyclists

Originally Posted by hovi5

why is it only for bikes? & not cars?

Please read the thread and the information in the link.

[mattSV]

Originally Posted by hovi5

why is it only for bikes? & not cars?

Because all detectors have been tested and approved specifically for use on cars (in theory ), and not all have been tested and approved for bikes

Glad to see you're still around Alan, was worried you'd bought a Honda .

Originally Posted by AlanSv

As to the idea of you knowing better than anyone else.. I don't agree.

Now I wasn't saying that I know better than everyone else, just that I consider my judgement better than some of the idiots in power, nothing more. I believe that speed limits are there as a guide and should be given a degree of respect, but not slavishly adhered to. If experience plus intelligence don't allow you to make a reasonably sound judgement, then you're heading for trouble at some stage.

Perhaps it's your IAM hat that's doing most of the talking, because I have no problem remembering both us side by side exceeding speed limits by some considerable margin. Now if you don't walk the walk, then perhaps talking the talk isn't such a reasonable thing to do.

I'm having quite a good day.


.

Originally Posted by mattSV

The petition is not about removing speed limits for motorcycles - it is about ensuring the technology used to check the speed of bikes is accurate - I fail to see what is ******** about that .

I have no issue with getting done fairly and squarely.

The onus is on the police to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were exceeding the speed limit. If they tell you that you have exceeded the speed limit via a NIP then most people will just accept it and 'take it on the chin'.

I want to ensure that if/when I am caught, that they have used detectors which have been tested on motorcycles and proved to be accurate, so I know that if they tell me I was doing 43 mph in a 40 limit then it is a true and accurate statement.

Independent tests so far have shown that on occasions some of the detectors used are not always accurate. As a principle I do not think that is right to be prosecuted using evidence that may not be accurate so I have signed the petition.

Bottom line - if you are happy to get done by potentially faulty or unproven technology then don't sign it.

i refused to do so! fought and won!

they could not prove beyond reasonable doubt!

I can't see this petition getting anyone anywhere, although as I have nothing to loose and something to gain, I have signed it.

Pete

Speed cameras giving false readings (especially on smaller targets - eg bikes) has been known about for years - it is all to do with the strongest bounce signal being the one that is considered the actual target vehicle speed - fine in theory but when you can get bounces off other vehicle on the same road - going in either direction, the results can be pretty inaccurate.

Now the fact that it has been known about for years, shows that government is going to use them accurate or not - and they will justify it on safety grounds which is very difficult to argue against.

Sadly this petition will not make any difference - the only way to do that is to protest any false speeding allegation in court and win - get enough of those and case law may be set, forcing the government to do the right thing.

The problem will then be the issues surrounding bikes being above speeding law!

Originally Posted by mattSV

Independent tests so far have shown that on occasions some of the detectors used are not always accurate. As a principle I do not think that is right to be prosecuted using evidence that may not be accurate so I have signed the petition.

Are we talking about the Michael Clark (not the cricketer) tests on Trevor McDonald?

[21QUEST]

Well I've got a little story for some folks.

Going down a stretch of road making good progress when I sighted a hair dryer pointing in my general direction , down a gear or two with a bit of left right swerve.

I was not flagged down but got an . I had just put on on of those bicycle speedos things and had only estimate the wheel circumference. Didn't have time to do a proper measurement. I decided I'll ask the copper if he could check my speed if I did a U turn and came back down again. I live on the edge, me

Answer emm... and I kid you not, it's a bit difficult getting a good reading or something along those lines when it comes to bike. It wasn't mega busy and it was a clear day.

What I'm hearing from that is that even the Police officers know the reading from some equipment is unreliableat at best when used on bikes. That being the case, I'd say it's unfair for an unreliable reading to be used as a basis for a conviction. Funny(or not?) though when you think the same officer has probably done someone for doing Xmph going from the reading of said equipment .


Cheers
Ben

Originally Posted by jonboy

Can anyone hear some sheep baa-ing?

The government is (in theory) an elected body to do our bidding, and if the majority of voters don't want speed cameras then they ought to go. As for riding at an appropriate speed, how dare you be so damned patronizing. Appropriate to what? to the speeds set by some spotty herbert who's a Guardian reading cyclist? Thank you, but no — what I deem appropriate is based on years of motoring experience.


.

Personally, what I deem as an appropriate speed is based mostly on adrenaline and caffeine...

[mattSV]

Originally Posted by mpaton2006

Are we talking about the Michael Clark (not the cricketer) tests on Trevor McDonald?

I reserve my right to not answer that question, for fear of incriminating myself