The Scottish biker caught speeding

Originally Posted by keith_d

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 !
.
.

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...-29277,00.html

Originally Posted by Ed

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...-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]

Originally Posted by ThEGr33k

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]

Originally Posted by Sally

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/...st/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.

Years Ban
Large fine.
Job done.
Or not.

[Red Herring]

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.

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.

Originally Posted by grh1904

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!

Originally Posted by Red Herring

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.

+1