122mph biker who rode with son jailed.

[jbsportstech]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7918212.stm

I spent the first 3 years driving this road and max power once listed it as excellent racing/fast driving road. I can't believe with a unprotected pillion (14 yr old son) he rode in the rain at that speed.

[Ian]

outrageous

[MAG man]

He had the book thrown at him because he endangered the child. Had the kid not been on the bike I doubt that he would have been jailed. I live in North Devon and know this road well.

Some say that a 6 month custodial sentence is excessive but consider this; had he held his son out of a train window at 122 mph we would consider a 6 month sentence lenient. The sons lack of protective gear shows a lack of concern for the boys welfare. My son is 14 and I ride a blackbird, easily capable of 122 mph. I would never travel at that speed with my son on the bike. He is not allowed on the bike without a bare minimum of: helmet, jacket gloves and boots. Additional safety gear consists of bike trousers with armour, kidney belt and spine protector.

[Red Herring]

Perhaps those that are so critical of this incident would like to expand on the circumstances slightly for me. Having watched the video I'm aware it appears to be a fairly straight single carriageway road, there is some opposing traffic after the rider passes the camera, and from the position of the following white hatchback i suspect he had just completed an overtake, there do not appear to be any nearside hazards although I stand to be corrected by anyone who knows the road, the rider has a fairly central position in his lane away from the oncoming vehicles and he appears to roll off the throttle in good time for the approaching left hand bend. The road surface is wet.

I'm not convinced that the speed alone, even supported by the presence of the pillion, justifies the charge.

[jbsportstech]

I also know the road well as I went to east devon college and had a long term gf at chulmleigh so spent the first two years on my driving career on this road.

I know someone who was caught at 17 on the loxbeare section doing 122mph in a car on their own at 5am in the morning and they got 4 month ban £800 fine this was 1999 and the 2 year 6 point rule was on its way in and they where lucky.

[Big Err]

I'm not convinced that the speed alone, even supported by the presence of the pillion, justifies the charge.

True, not unless you make a mistake or some one else who doesn't expect you to be travelling at double the speed limit does a manouevre that results in a collision which would probably result in serious or fatal injuries.

A bit like the guy who 'possibly' fell asleep at the wheel and came off the road. Not a problem unless coming off the road means landing on the East Coast Mainline infront of a High Speed Train.

[Red Herring]

Was there any evidence that he was likely to make a mistake, or that there was another road user who may make a maneuver in front of them. I appreciate that not all the information gets reported in the press but I would have thought they would need to show that there was a real possibility of something happening rather than it just might.

When was the last time someone who fell asleep and run off the road was charged with dangerous driving. If the case quoted is the one I am thinking off (The Landrover towing the trailer) then I seem to recall there was substantial evidence that he knew he was in no condition to be driving.

[Big Err]

When was the last time someone who fell asleep and run off the road was charged with dangerous driving. If the case quoted is the one I am thinking off (The Landrover towing the trailer) then I seem to recall there was substantial evidence that he knew he was in no condition to be driving.

Going OT here. But yes there was evidence to support that he may have not been in a fit state to drive, but no the driver never admitted to it and I guess he's the only one who really knows?

[MGF]

Was there any evidence that he was likely to make a mistake, or that there was another road user who may make a maneuver in front of them. I appreciate that not all the information gets reported in the press but I would have thought they would need to show that there was a real possibility of something happening rather than it just might.

The test is whether or not it is obvious to a careful and competent driver that his riding was dangerous. If the legislation used the term 'serious risk' similar to recklessness then I think what you say is relevant. It wouldn't be enough to say 'if' he made a mistake but that he was 'likely' to make a mistake.

As it stands the test of dangerousness appears to have quite a low threshold once you have passed the high threshold of 'far below a competent and careful driver'.

In fact I would go as far as to say that if you meet the first threshold, in practice, you are unlikley to be saved by the second. Hence charging and prosecuting practice.

As a matter of law grossly excessive speed is insufficient for dangerous driving however as a matter of fact it almost certainly is.

[Gareth]

As a matter of law grossly excessive speed is insufficient for dangerous driving however as a matter of fact it almost certainly is.

I suppose it is a matter of definition - what is grossly excessive?

If you mean above the prevailing speed limit by a large margin then I would disagree with your assertion, since we know it is possible for police drivers to be trained to such a standard that allows them to drive safely at high speeds, (whether or not the training is sufficient these days).

On the other hand if we mean much too fast for the circumstances, then, well, it's a statement of obviousness.

The trouble with the viewpoint of a 'careful and competent driver' is that they probably don't have the training, experience or skill to enable them to travel at high speed safely, so really aren't in a position to judge the actions of another driver where high speed is the only aspect of the driving to be considered.

Finally, and what prompted my reply, is the thought that peaks of very high speed are rarely a problem providing there is sufficient variability in speed and the driver is reacting to the changing view by appropriately varying the speed. The problem is sustained high speed without consideration of whether this is safe.

[MGF]

By 'as a matter of fact' I am referrring to what the finders of fact (the Court) are likely to conclude rather than whether or not, by closer analysis and use of technical knowledge we might come to a different conclusion.

The definition is framed in such a way as to discourage such analysis and in practice once the first test is satisfied, it appears to me, that the second one is pretty much satisfied too.

A 'does it appear dangerous to you?' test appears to be sufficient for a conviction of dangerous driving which is why I oppose the use of custodial sentences to deal with such offenders. (I am not saying in the instant case that the offender shouldn't be punished, I am questioning the appropriateness of the sentence for the crime).

RH appears to be suggesting that we should apply a stricter test for charging or prosecution which in my view is an indication that the offence is too wide in its scope having regard to the potential consequences for the offender.

[jbsportstech]

Well 122mph is over double the limit on that road as it has two lane sections in places but its is not a dual carriage way.

I think in some respects he was unluckly that he was video'ed by a safety camera van as the road has 3Nr gatsos from memory had he been caught on one of those he like the person I know who was caught in car would of had a ban and fine. Its the fact the video footage shows the conditions etc that is the nail i the coffin in my mind, although he failed to see the van which are normally in the very visable stopping areas (Although I can't be sure where the van was positioned in this instance) if it was in one of these his observations where poor as you wouldn't of kept on acclerating but the noise of this is what caused the operator to video him in the first place.

[Red Herring]

RH appears to be suggesting that we should apply a stricter test for charging or prosecution which in my view is an indication that the offence is too wide in its scope having regard to the potential consequences for the offender.

Once again you are so much better with words than me...

I do think that the current approach to what is and what isn't dangerous driving relies to much on what an average motorist thinks (and by that I include most of CPS) rather than on the view of someone who may actually be an expert in the field. This is particularly relevant when it involves an area of motoring in which the average motorist may have little or no experience, and in that I include motorcycling and some aspects of police driving.

Had. for example, that motorcyclist been a police advanced rider engaged on a surveillance job instead of some punter out with his son would jb hold the same view?

[jbsportstech]

@RH

That would rather depend on whether he had a high viz advertisement for the IAM or ROSPA....LOL


On a serious note Police advanced or civilian unrestricted licence holder going 122mph in what appear on the video to be quite wet conditions seems to have certain risk element (IMO) I was mearly sugesting had it just been a gatso picture would CPS gone for dangerous regardless of my view as to whether its a sound for police advanced rider or civilian. I would suggest no he would of been infront of a magistrate got a ticking of a 1 year band with £ few hundred fine and would not be on this board on the front of the express and echo.

I have learnt my lesson with police driver bashing now and won't be doing anymore.

[zadocbrown]

Surely the problem is not whether the driving 'looks dangerous'. The problem is: what is a 'careful and competent' driver? And what is the 'standard' expected?

In practice it appears this is interpreted as meaning an 'average, law abiding' driver. Most of whom I would not personally consider to be particularly careful, never mind competent. Certainly not to the extent that I would consider their views to be a suitable basis for sending someone down.