Dad of the year

cheets64 · 2 Mar 2009 at 12:50

QBitOscillation said:
The thing is that getting up to 122 on a bike only takes sec so in reality it could have just been a quick blip on the throttle.

Obviously his whole journey wont be at 122.

Cheers.

So it only takes a second to press a trigger on a gun so you could say it that if I shot you it was just a blip and my finger slipped. :rolleyes:

You dont just speed to 122 mph because of whim, the lad would have been scared to death if his dad just opened up the throttle, the kid is probably use to those speeds still doesn't make it safe or good parenting.

Fr0dders · 2 Mar 2009 at 12:51

still deserves the sentence imho

if he'd been on his own, in the dry he wouldnt have been reported by dangerous driving.

QBitOscillation · 2 Mar 2009 at 12:53

cheets64 said:
So it only takes a second to press a trigger on a gun so you could say it that if I shot you it was just a blip and my finger slipped.

You dont just speed to 122 mph because of whim, the lad would have been scared to death if his dad just opened up the throttle, the kid is probably use to those speeds still doesn't make it safe or good parenting.

Why are you talking about guns ?

A bike is not intended to kill, a gun is. :rolleyes:

It might have been perfectly safe to ride at 122 if the road was clear and straight, just for a moment. Im sure he wasnt riding at 122 for hrs, it must have been a blip.

Fireskull · 2 Mar 2009 at 12:54

cheets64 said:
So it only takes a second to press a trigger on a gun so you could say it that if I shot you it was just a blip and my finger slipped.

Ive tried to stay out of this thread because theres so much crap being thrown around but that comments crap lol, comparing a bike to a gun lol? if all bikes were really as dangerous as you are making out bikes would have been banned 20 years ago!

Guy is an idiot for a starters taking his son out without proper gear, have myself just got my new gf all kitted out as I wont even go 5 mins down the road without full protection nevermind when I take her on the back, and if it was my own son hell id even get him some kid's lethers

He is being made an example, that and because he had a kid on the back.

Inface he is the opposite of most 'Organ Donors' as you call them, most idiot bikers are scared to hell of the rain and think anything over 20mph in the rain and they will fall off.

cheets64 · 2 Mar 2009 at 13:01

I posted the gun analogy because of how ignorant QBitOscillationblip analogy was.

TheCrow · 2 Mar 2009 at 13:04

Just like the judge, if you lost control it would have become a missile....hmmm no it would just become a bike out of control the same as losing it at any speed.

[TW]Fox · 2 Mar 2009 at 13:04

I do not ride a bike, I have never ridden a bike and I've no idea what a bike is like at high speed so unlike everyone else in this thread I'm going to reserve judgement.

Nebzor · 2 Mar 2009 at 13:05

[TW]Fox;13601012 said:
I do not ride a bike, I have never ridden a bike and I've no idea what a bike is like at high speed so unlike everyone else in this thread I'm going to reserve judgement.

A non-biker with a sensible head on his shoulders when it comes to motorcycles. Bravo!

Justintime · 2 Mar 2009 at 13:09

I never speed or do dodgy manouveres with kids onboard, not that i like the little brats, just don't need the grief if something happens

rsatd · 2 Mar 2009 at 13:27

In the end he was doing at least twice the speed limit (assuming 70), so should only really be done for that, riding in the wet is no more dangerous then riding when its sunny. Saying that I tend to ride slowly in the wet just because its a bit harder to see what is on the read ahead. But otherwise given experience it is not much different, and seeing as he put it "riding since I was a lad", does give him a fair amount of experience... I am pretty sure he knows how to handle a bike in the wet.

Not saying he shouldn't be punished, simply saying he should only be done for going over the speed limit. If they want people to wear more then just a helmet, they need to make a law about it. Otherwise many people especially in summer ride in a t-shirt and shorts. End of the day the latter is failure in the law.

atpbx · 2 Mar 2009 at 13:30

Fireskull said:
He is being made an example, that and because he had a kid on the back.

Inface he is the opposite of most 'Organ Donors' as you call them, most idiot bikers are scared to hell of the rain and think anything over 20mph in the rain and they will fall off.

No dude, he is being made example of because he is an Idiot.

Its that simple.

atpbx · 2 Mar 2009 at 13:31

rsatd said:
In the end he was doing at least twice the speed limit (assuming 70), so should only really be done for that, riding in the wet is no more dangerous then riding when its sunny.

Yes it is, its a lot more dangerous.

Fr0dders · 2 Mar 2009 at 13:34

atpbx said:
No dude, he is being made example of because he is an Idiot.

Its that simple.

no its not

being reported for consideration of dangerous driving for purely speeding is almost unheard of.

Look at the case of the 1up ( i think ?) on pistonheads who got 6 months for dangerous driving.

What did he do ? he disabled a biker for life in a horrific crash. Difference is for the case in question, nobody crashed, nobody was hurt.

yet he received the same fait ???

there is no continuity in the sentencing in england, and thats because its up to the magistrate. The biker in question obviously came across a magistrate who decided to make an example of him, and probably took offence to him having his kid on the back

theres no doubt in my mind, if it wasnt for the kid on his back, he wouldnt have got reported for dangerous driving.

Fireskull · 2 Mar 2009 at 13:47

atpbx said:
No dude, he is being made example of because he is an Idiot.

Its that simple.

Yea im not doubting hes an Idiot he is lol! but as above he is being made an example off, that woman who ran a red light recently and killed a biker she got practically nothing really for what she did!

atpbx · 2 Mar 2009 at 13:48

MrLOL said:
no its not

being reported for consideration of dangerous driving for purely speeding is almost unheard of.

Look at the case of the 1up ( i think ?) on pistonheads who got 6 months for dangerous driving.

What did he do ? he disabled a biker for life in a horrific crash. Difference is for the case in question, nobody crashed, nobody was hurt.

yet he received the same fait ???

there is no continuity in the sentencing in england, and thats because its up to the magistrate. The biker in question obviously came across a magistrate who decided to make an example of him, and probably took offence to him having his kid on the back

theres no doubt in my mind, if it wasnt for the kid on his back, he wouldnt have got reported for dangerous driving.

This is the law as to what constitutes dangerous driving.

1. the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and
2. it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous

I'm in total agreement with point two, I've never had points and I've never had a at fault accident, and I've been riding for 17 years and i think its dangerous, he puts his son at unnecessary risk for no reason.

He has been reported for grossly excessive speed, nearly twice the speed limit, in the wet, with a minor, without proper protective gear.

He qualifies under almost every category.

There is no defense for him, its open and shut, there is no reason for him to be doing it, he's got caught, he is going down.

I speed as much (if not more) than any of you (on my private runway) the difference being between me and this Idiot is I don't do it where i am likely to get caught, and i dont do it in a fashion or manner that would leave me open to prosecution.

clv101 · 2 Mar 2009 at 13:48

rsatd said:
In the end he was doing at least twice the speed limit (assuming 70), so should only really be done for that, riding in the wet is no more dangerous then riding when its sunny.

Of course it is.

Fr0dders · 2 Mar 2009 at 13:52

atpbx said:
He qualifies under almost every category.

BugOne on here got reported for 116mph

Granted this was in fair weather, but he only got prosecuted for speeding.

So which of the two factors, the wet and the child, took it past careless driving and into dangerous territory ?

Fireskull · 2 Mar 2009 at 13:52

Isnt over 120 classed as dangerous driving by law?

Anybody else agree at least helmet, protective jacket and gloves should be made a legal requirement?

Totality · 2 Mar 2009 at 13:52

As a biker myself I was about to respond to all the people with the "This is a typical biker" comments with a big middle finger. I ride all the time and don't ride reclessley so no, this is not "typical" biker thanks very much :mad:

As for the riding itself, I was about to say that 122mph on a bike on a huge open empty motorway isnt that fast so 6 months is a little out of order but then I saw the picture! He's not on an empty motorway at night or something similar, but on a normal A-Road in the wet approaching a blind corner, so yes, he is an idiot.

Going at 60mph around a corner in the dry on a bike is dangerous enough normally incase a tractor is doing 10mph or a line of traffic is sitting still (but thats the risk you have to accept as part of biking). At 120mph in the wet you'd have no chance at all of stopping in time at all and I'd never do it so can't sympathise with him really. I still don't agree with the jail term as you see it all the time on "Road Wars", etc with a chav giving a high speed chase that gets off with community service or a driving ban even though they dont have a licence.

They really need to just standardise the punishment for such offences and stop giving bans to some people and jail terms to others. I still dont understand why people in high speed chases with police who get caught dont even get jail terms, whereas speeding motorists who get caught by a camera can be jailed :confused:

atpbx · 2 Mar 2009 at 14:02

MrLOL said:
BugOne on here got reported for 116mph

Granted this was in fair weather, but he only got prosecuted for speeding.

So which of the two factors, the wet and the child, took it past careless driving and into dangerous territory ?

Thats the point.

I would quite happily do 120mph (and faster) in the right conditions, I wouldnt do it on a busy dual carriage way in the wet with my inappropriately attired 14 year old son on the back, because it isnt safe.

See where the problem lies?