130mph web video biker is jailed

div0 said:
So a truck is heavier, and so automatically more dangerous?! As I thought, not really a 'fact' at all then :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well yea thats really common sense no? something that weights more is going to take longer to stop, its heavier so its going to make one hell of a mess when it hits a car, but saying that there have been quite a few occasions where a bike has split a car in two.

Im sure some clever people on here could work out the forces involved with weight, speed, momentum etc..

Theres been plenty of times on those police shows where lorries have lost control or failed brakes and taken out 10+ parked cars, and on the same shows with bike accidents they only just move 1 car, these are just crappy examples but to me its kind of obvious something bigger even going slower will cause more damage.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;12732822 said:
Nobody is saying it's acceptable - or at least, nobody with a brain. We are merely suggesting the punishment does not fit the crime.
Click to expand...

Without knowing the exact details of the case it's hard to know whether it fits the crime or not, imo.

While I agree that simply driving at 130mph is not inherantly dangerous, and so a prison sentance could be seen as harsh, particularly when compared to other offences.

However, there could be other factors that influence the decision. For example does the fact that he filmed himself, give any indication to his 'motives' for driving so fast. Perhaps it could be seen as evidence of him not just driving quickly to make good progress while the road was clear, but an indication that his speed was based on a simple desire to see how fast he could go, or how far he could push things towards a limit?! Possibly considered, more reckless than simply just speeding.

I'm purely speculating, as I have no idea of the case, or the laws surrounding it - but to sweepingly say that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, is possibly wide of the mark, imo.

[QUOTE='[TW]Rarely, for example, are people who try to evade police in their cars and swerve into oncoming traffic ever jailed..[/QUOTE]

Again I can't really comment on the accuracy of 'rarely', but I'm happy to agree that there will be at least some cases where this is true. But there are plenty of stupid 'punishments' handed out to people - such as 'banning' people who are either uninsured, already banned, or don't even have a licence in the first place. Many of these people will have no problems with driving while 'banned'. So what is the point of this punishment? Generally all it serves to do is make it less likely for the offender to comply with the full laws in future, as the ban usually means that their insurance premiums will be higher.
 
Flukester said:
??, explain how traveling at 130 makes you a organ donor ?
Click to expand...


On a winding country road with oncoming traffic? You honestly what me to explain that ?

Don't get me wrong, right place right time, nowt wrong with speed but even a MotoGP rider wouldn't be that daft on a public road with oncoming traffic around every corner.

He's a silly sod who is lucky he isn't dead yet, but on the flipside there will be a number of lives he will save *when* he comes a cropper.

Common sense, not brainwashing.
 
Give the police this video and tehy will go to all lengths to catch the "criminal"

give the police a video and fingerprints of chavs stealing your car and it will be fed through the nearest shredder.
 
div0 said:
So a truck is heavier, and so automatically more dangerous?! As I thought, not really a 'fact' at all then :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes it is, the kinetic energy of a truck hitting something at that speed is many, many times bigger, you're better off being hit probably by a bike at 130 mph than a big truck at 30/40 mph. You do know some trucks weigh up to 40 ( EU rules for non exceptional cargo) or more tons ( 50 tons in the NL trucks may weigh without being classed exceptional convoy) ? It's like comparing being hit by a bird and an elaphant...
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;12732907 said:
I think his point is that if you pull out in front of a 50mph truck you'll suffer more injury than if you pull out in front of a 130mph bike.
Click to expand...

I was perfectly aware of the point he was trying to make - but to pass off his opinion as 'fact' is incorrect, no matter how 'obvious' he seems to think it is.

Fireskull said:
Well yea thats really common sense no? something that weights more is going to take longer to stop, its heavier so its going to make one hell of a mess when it hits a car, but saying that there have been quite a few occasions where a bike has split a car in two.

Im sure some clever people on here could work out the forces involved with weight, speed, momentum etc..

Theres been plenty of times on those police shows where lorries have lost control or failed brakes and taken out 10+ parked cars, and on the same shows with bike accidents they only just move 1 car, these are just crappy examples but to me its kind of obvious something bigger even going slower will cause more damage.
Click to expand...

These things do have a bearing on the outcome of any accident and the damage caused, however they give no real indication of how likely an accident is likely to occur. So you passed off a flippant comment, as 'fact'.
 
snowdog said:
Yes it is, the kinetic energy of a truck hitting something at that speed is many, many times bigger, you're better off being hit probably by a bike at 130 mph than a big truck at 30/40 mph.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that needed explaining. :p

How 'dangerous' something is, is not just determined by the damaged cause if an accident occurs. But also by how likely it is that an accident will occur. This is the point he failed to realise when claiming his 'fact'.
 
div0 said:
I was perfectly aware of the point he was trying to make - but to pass off his opinion as 'fact' is incorrect, no matter how 'obvious' he seems to think it is..
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure, I'm pretty confident most other people consider the laws of physics to be 'fact'.
 
[TW]Fox;12733241 said:
I'm not so sure, I'm pretty confident most other people consider the laws of physics to be 'fact'.
Click to expand...

The chance of an accident occurring is not a law of physics... I think it's pretty much logical to assume the chance of an accident happening at 40 mph is lower than at 130 mph with an average situation...
 
[TW]Fox;12733241 said:
I'm not so sure, I'm pretty confident most other people consider the laws of physics to be 'fact'.
Click to expand...

snowdog said:
The chance of an accident occurring is not a law of physics... I think it's pretty much logical to assume the chance of an accident happening at 40 mph is lower than at 130 mph with an average situation...
Click to expand...

;)

[TW]Fox;12733271 said:
I don't engage in debate on rational subjects with you snowdog :p
Click to expand...

:p
 
[TW]Fox;12732585 said:
Jail is a ridiculous punishment for a victimless crime. There is no denying the guy is infact a weapons grade plonker and he should be punished. A significant fine and a 12-18 month driving ban would do the trick.

But lock him up? With people who murder others?

Ridiculous, frankly.
Click to expand...

This is correct.
 
I'm going to regret this for the rest of my life but I agree with F... I just can't bring myself to say it :(

Joking aside the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Thankfully he didn't kill anyone so based on his (as legally defined) excessive speed what do we want to achieve from this ?

The punishment should be an attempt to educate and correct his behaviour while reinforcing to others that it is not acceptable to do 130+ on the public roads and upload the video to YouTube, it should however be just and not unjust on the basis of making an example of him.

Community service benefits society. A large fine benefits society. Banning him from being on the road for a significant period of time benefits society. Sending him on 12 week all expenses paid holiday for society to foot the bill doesn't benefit society at all.

Snowdog, logic doesn't dictate the the odds of an accident increase with speed, it does dictate that the time a person has to react to a situation decreases with speed.
 
Last edited:
Pug said:
not trying to be cool :confused:

Just stating a fact 130mph on a bike (even an R6) is as easy as blinking. You can stop as easily, too...
Click to expand...

cant most modern 1 litre bikes make it from 0-100-0 faster than a lot of cars can do 0-60?

I might be completely wrong though, thought i red it somewhere.

On topic, jail is just plain stupid. Big fine + 12-18month ban would have been enough
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom