Ask your guide dog..... - the video is there! - I just double checked incase they'd removed it
How cheeky
Seems it is a work internet filter thing. I clicked on the link on my phone and the video is there.That moment when you clock the van...
- Thread starter Muffin`
- Start date
How cheeky
Seems it is a work internet filter thing. I clicked on the link on my phone and the video is there.
I don't think the overtake was too bad really, straight road, good conditions, some risk due to pedestrians and learners but not that much really, however it was clearly illegal and should've been punished fairly heavily.
But reaction when seeing the van took it from 'just' speeding (which presumably would've got him a 1+ month ban at a guess) to careless/dangerous driving, by that point it's far too late (the LTI 20:20 has a range of 1 mile, that was ~0.3 miles), hence the ultimate, and deserved, punishment.
EDIT:
As above, the range on those things is huge, slow down fine but stamping on the brakes and going from the 80-90 he was at after completing the pass down to 23 which seems to be much slower than the traffic he'd just overtaken is clearly dangerous...
But reaction when seeing the van took it from 'just' speeding (which presumably would've got him a 1+ month ban at a guess) to careless/dangerous driving, by that point it's far too late (the LTI 20:20 has a range of 1 mile, that was ~0.3 miles), hence the ultimate, and deserved, punishment.
EDIT:
As above, the range on those things is huge, slow down fine but stamping on the brakes and going from the 80-90 he was at after completing the pass down to 23 which seems to be much slower than the traffic he'd just overtaken is clearly dangerous...
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 14,064
- Location
- France, Alsace
I'd rather overtake the bikers quickly than be stuck behind them, as novices, they're more unpredictable so I think passing them is exactly what I'd do.
Locking up fairly close to them wasn't good mind, but you'd do the same if you saw a van sitting there.
Locking up fairly close to them wasn't good mind, but you'd do the same if you saw a van sitting there.
I find it far more likely he just wasn't prepared for the speed turbo issues or not - can see from the video just how quickly it picked up speed and just how quickly it shed it - he was already backing off pretty sharpish before he reacted to the speed van.
I wouldn't go as far as calling him a dangerous driver - if he'd been passing a single car on its own it would have been a different situation - I still think those speeds in that context were completely unnecessary however and increasing the chances if something did go wrong of it having a more tragic outcome.
Last edited:
^^ This.
I don't buy he didn't appreciate how quick it accelerated, it's his car & he'd be we'll aware of its capability.
We've all done similar to a greater or lesser extent, but to hit that speed in that environment - pedestrians around plus group of learner riders who could have done something unpredictable - imo is pretty poor, especially in a car that his own brief admitted had a brake fault.
Speeding imo is fine when done under the correct circumstances having given it due consideration first, seems to me the driver did neither.
I'd have little issue with it had he been on an empty road.
We've all done similar to a greater or lesser extent, but to hit that speed in that environment - pedestrians around plus group of learner riders who could have done something unpredictable - imo is pretty poor, especially in a car that his own brief admitted had a brake fault.
Speeding imo is fine when done under the correct circumstances having given it due consideration first, seems to me the driver did neither.
I'd have little issue with it had he been on an empty road.
60-23mph braking would have been carried out in the last few metres, he would have traveled more than enough distance in the 113 - 60 braking zone.
Evident in the video is a large gap between the front bike and him
Rofl... Is that you're final answer? Or would you like to ask the audience?
So what you're saying is it's perfectly acceptable to slam on the brakes and lock the car up in the veiled hope you might avoid getting done for speeding, regardless of what is happening around you?
The overtake was at best mis judged, at worst just plain stupid. He's made up a ccok and bull story about a supposed engine fault to try and bull****e the judge, who quite rightly has had none of it. The overtake I could possibly forgive, quick car, short blast and gone. Locking the thing up in the middle of the road to try and avoid being done for it, just man up and take the points, it's not like he's short of a few bob. I'd put money on it if the camera had not been there he'd have leathered it as hard as he could straight down the road.
Last edited:
Video isn't great for judging the distances involved, the angle and field of view gives almost orthographic projection (not sure what the proper technical term is for it in photography).
Also anyone thinking what he did is safe and thinking it was a normal over take and he would have slowed down after, he once took a few friends of mine out in his porsche down my village and got upto 150MPH on a long straight but it has a lot of roads which lead onto it and anyone could have pulled out.
Must try harder.Rofl... Is that you're final answer? Or would you like to ask the audience?
So what you're saying is it's perfectly acceptable to slam on the brakes and lock the car up in the veiled hope you might avoid getting done for speeding, regardless of what is happening around you?
The overtake was at best mis judged, at worst just plain stupid. He's made up a ccok and bull story about a supposed engine fault to try and bull****e the judge, who quite rightly has had none of it. The overtake I could possibly forgive, quick car, short blast and gone. Locking the thing up in the middle of the road to try and avoid being done for it, just man up and take the points, it's not like he's short of a few bob. I'd put money on it if the camera had not been there he'd have leathered it as hard as he could straight down the road.
I'm not denying that.
My point is that the safety camera was actually the cause of the most dangerous thing that occurred within the event.
But that's not true really is it. The camera didn't make him do the overtake, it didn't press his foot on the accelerator or brake. He did all that, it just caught him bang to rights and he panicked. Or are you saying so long as you don't get caught you can drive how you like, regardless of anyone else?
Sorry I don't mean to keep jumpin on you're answers. Just trying to understand why you don't think he's done anything wrong??
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,224
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Nothing wrong with his overtake, the road was clear, the conditions good; car was more than up to the job.
If the camera van wasn't around he would have plodded on after the overtake, however due to him seeing the camera van he rightly or wrongly slammed on, that's the dangerous bit.
If the camera van wasn't around he wouldn't have slammed on.
I'm sure the Biased Broadcasting Corporation rub their collective hands with glee when they can print a story about evil, dangerous motorists.
Despite the worthless comments from the Lincolnshire Road Safety Pratnership, he was actually quite unlucky. It was perhaps a bit quick, but the actual overtake was fine; plenty of room given to the bikes, minimal amount of time spent on the wrong side of the road.
Despite the worthless comments from the Lincolnshire Road Safety Pratnership, he was actually quite unlucky. It was perhaps a bit quick, but the actual overtake was fine; plenty of room given to the bikes, minimal amount of time spent on the wrong side of the road.