Anyone heard the news?

[Scotty]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...nd/8329590.stm

The usual judicial over-reaction : Nine months of stir is a bit steep for riding a bike a bit fast - what would he have got if he'd stolen it, maybe a £50 fine and 20 hours community service? Nice easy target, but proper crims, the scum and filth that make people's lives a misery by stealing, robbing, raping, molesting, swindling (yes, MPs are amongst the worst of them all >) and properly hurting people get away scot-free by comparison - where is the true justice? :-/

[igbell]

Oh Scotty dont even get me started on the little ****s that get away with things that to me I think they should have either there hands chopped off or sent to the hang man......

[Ducatista]

Playing devils advocate to a degree - but we all know that 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Just because other people get away with things, doesn't mean that bikers should be able to behave recklessly.

Of course the law should be applied fairly to all road user and punishments should be proportional.

However 166 in a 60 limit is more than a "bit fast" scotty.
Come off it.
It's way too fast to be in control and taking everything in considering there's old people, learners, pedestrians, cyclisat etc. out there.
My mum's only in her 60's and she lives in a 30 zone.
She struggles to get across the road on foot in a 30 zone.
Not everyone has fighter pilot reactions or can move lightning fast.
Fine for the track, but that's downright reckless on a public road.

I do agree that 9 months seems a bit harsh and that other people get away with worse things.
But a custodial sentence and a ban seems quite appropriate to me.
The ban can't be relied upon on it's own because many people just ignore them anyway.

What sort of impression do you think 166 gives to non-bikers?

[Roll_on]

Reckless it was aqnd punishment should have been metted out but when drunk drivers who kill ony get 6 months this does seem a bit over the top. It does seem that bikers seem to get double the punishment of car drivers.

[Ducatista]

I agree that it appears out of balance on the face of it.

But unless any of us went to all the court cases and heard all the evidence then we don't know the full story do we?
We only know what the journos decide to print so I think we have to bear that in mind.
It would be very easy to form a false opinion just by reading what editors have decided will sell papers.

[furry-TLR]

Problem with UK courts is there is no consistency between them most of the time...they have guidelines on what to hand out but it's upto them to decide what they give to people...they may of felt in this case they needed to make an example of this person to others.


How their guidelines work...

Anything over 1.5 times the speed limit and your looking at a ban...(between 1-3 months)...over twice the speed limit then your looking at a serious ban (1 year +) and potentially jail time as well.

So on that basis the sentence he got was inline with their guidelines.


I agree in many cases the sentences for theft etc are often too soft...however the difference with this biker doing 166 in a 60 is the real potential to kill himself and others...which would equate to murder.


I'm not going to preach about him being in the wrong etc...as I'm not squeaky clean and nor are many others on here I'm sure...You just need to always remind yourself it's you who has to live with the consequences of your actions so ride appropriately to the conditions/situations presented to you at the time.

[Scotty]

It's way too fast to be in control....

Au contraire Ducatista, had he been out of control he'd surely have crashed?
I'm not advocating that he should escape without any punishment, but a 9-month sentence and 5-year ban is way more than drunk drivers get, and their actions are just as consciously committed and surely far more dangerous than his?
The penultimate sentence of the article states that "Last year more than 20 motorists were caught travelling at more than 100mph on the Dolphinton stretch of the A702" so it's seen by many road users as a decent enough place to do high speeds on - not legally obviously, but were it blatantly unsafe, they wouldn't choose to do it.

All I'm saying is let the punishment fit the crime - read your local paper or watch the news or the traffic cop fly-on-the-wall programmes to see how lightly everyone else gets treated in comparison... :

[Ducatista]

and their actions are just as consciously committes and surely far more dangerous than his?

On what basis to you say that?
What's the evidence for your judgement of the relevant dangers?

If I was driving a car I think I'd rather take my chances with a drunk driver than a speeding motobike getting in my driving seat.
At least it's a blunt instrument.
I honestly think I'd stand a better chance.

[Snowy]

Maybe the question is not was he in control of his bike, but was he in control of everything or everyone else that may have wanted to, and have the same rights to use, the same piece of tarmac at the same time? He was lucky not to kill himself or, more importantly, anyone else. It had nothing to do with any skill or judgment on his part - just luck.

I can't comment on the sentence as I don't possess the necessary knowledge or experience to do so.

[furry-TLR]

You mentioned drink driving...

That instantly carries a minimum 1 year ban and jail time(normally)...but for them it gets worse. (Normally most judges hand out a 2-3 year ban and 3-6 months in the cell unless dangerous driving is also chucked into the mix)

The drink driving ban you receive would stay on your licence for 11 years I believe it is...and virtually no-one will insure you unless you've got a very deep pocket...also with that on there you'd be amazed how many people won't give you a job either!

I personally don't know the road myself it could be dead straight for miles...but like Beemerman says your not the only one on it and you have no control over other road users + other variables like wildlife/road condition/weather etc.

On a final note, I almost died this year doing a 1/3 of that speed avoiding what I believed to be someone putting me at risk...several good friends of mine almost witnessed my death...there's a fine line on a bike between being safe and in control and being in a whole world of ****...if your doing 166 and someone/something else is about to cause injury to yourself what chance would you have to get out of it alive?

PS: If you instantly crash at 70mph or more you would instantly die from internal organ damage as you stop but they all keep accelerating towards the front of your body and get in effect liquidised...Worth keeping in mind next time you decide to nail it up a piece of road.

PPS: That pic Ducatista posted was of a car that without looking just pulled out into the road I believe just as the bike was about to cross their path...I don't know what speed he/she was doing (looks like a VFR400 they are good for 120 ish), but they had no chance at all and found the rider INSIDE the car with the driver and a passenger I believe.