Yes, sorry, I was using humour for rhetorical effect. I forgot that your world is black and white.
In my case it wasn't illegal and it wasn't dangerous. Again, you do yourself no favours.
Totally OT - Biker jailed for doing 122mph
- Thread starter The Maestro
- Start date
Now then, sarcasm.
Aging is to do with both of course, and also as I said, different for different people which you don't seem to have acknowledged.
There are people of around my age who are in quite advanced stages of deterioration, and others who have already reached their natural death years before. And then there's the opposite, and I'm fortunate enough to come from a family of very long lived active people, mainly dying at around 90 or more. For example my father was fully active and cared for himself, cooked, cleaned and shopped right up to 3 days before his death at almost 90, and with his alert brain he could easily stand his ground in a political argument with anyone throughout his old age. When at 75, two years older than me, he was still a duty lifeguard at the local swimming pool, illustrating very vividly just how different people can be.
.
Not wanting to upset anyone but I have to agree with Bode on this one. Regardless of what anyone says here exceeding the speed limit is dangerous. Agreed, it is more dangerous to do 40mph in a 30 zone, outside a school at 3pm, than it is to do 100mph on the M3 at 1am. BUT it is still dangerous, illegal and irresponsible. No matter what your skill level is. I mean, police officers can exceed the limit, only when it is needed, and they have got a car equiped with extra signals.
Now the worlds best drivers, F1 drivers, rally drivers, advanced instructors, and traffic officers themselves aren't superhuman, and they are not above the law. Fact of the matter is they have to abide by it like all of us.
If you really want to drive fast, go to a track. It's safer.
On the flip side I do agree that you can be just as dangerous driving slowly. My mother taught me one thing once I passed my test, and it has stuck in my head ever since. "Always assume everyone else on the road is a moron." And it's true. That way you can't go wrong.
Now the worlds best drivers, F1 drivers, rally drivers, advanced instructors, and traffic officers themselves aren't superhuman, and they are not above the law. Fact of the matter is they have to abide by it like all of us.
If you really want to drive fast, go to a track. It's safer.
On the flip side I do agree that you can be just as dangerous driving slowly. My mother taught me one thing once I passed my test, and it has stuck in my head ever since. "Always assume everyone else on the road is a moron." And it's true. That way you can't go wrong.
Better tell the Germans then. They don't have this fixed 70 limit on there autobahns and much higher speeds there are quite normal.
Time for some education.
The 70 limit was not introduced for any safety reason whatsoever.
It was introduced at the time of the early 1970s Arab oil crisis as a fuel economy measure.
.
Looks like Im in the minority too (for a change) in saying that I also think that driving at these speeds in any vehicle is dangerous.
If no-one is injured, then I dont believe it should be a custodial sentence, but it is extremely dangerous whatever the skill or training of the driver/rider is.
I cant help thinking of that poor family that were all killed when a car travelling at 120mph went into the back of them on the M6 a month or so ago. The driver was in a Mercedes, and I'm sure he felt that he was driving safely too.
Too many people treat the roads as their personal race track, its not. If you are going to use the public roads you should use them responsibly and legally, considering the effect your having on others safety as well as your own.
If you want to drive in anyway illegally, you should be on a track, thats the law and its the law for a reason.
If no-one is injured, then I dont believe it should be a custodial sentence, but it is extremely dangerous whatever the skill or training of the driver/rider is.
I cant help thinking of that poor family that were all killed when a car travelling at 120mph went into the back of them on the M6 a month or so ago. The driver was in a Mercedes, and I'm sure he felt that he was driving safely too.
Too many people treat the roads as their personal race track, its not. If you are going to use the public roads you should use them responsibly and legally, considering the effect your having on others safety as well as your own.
If you want to drive in anyway illegally, you should be on a track, thats the law and its the law for a reason.
And the reason is fuel economy as I said above John, nothing whatsoever to do with safety.
A pity so many memories are so short, it was only 38 years ago, and there are plenty in here old enough to remember that.
The UK national 60 mph limit and the USA's national 55 mph limits were also introduced for the same reason in the first half of the 1970s, all nothing to do with safety.
It's the health and safety nanny state brigade who have perverted those limits into supposed safety ones.
.
Yep, those signals sure make it safe every time. I need to get me some.
Not long ago, a police officer drove at 159mph down the M54, about ten miles away from me. See this link. The court aquitted him, concluding that he was not driving dangerously.
Those who claim that travelling at 120mph is dangerous 'per se' are misguided, simplistic and plain wrong; not just in my eyes, but in the eyes of the law. It is stark-staringly obvious that there is nothing inherently more dangerous in driving at 160mph than driving at 30mph, it depends entirely upon the context.
With apologies for being a bit strident, but it is more than irriating when someone gets jailed (jailed for goodness sake!!) because even intelligent people such as judges are incapable of spotting basic flaws in hopeless arguments.
The need to save fuel was that we had petrol rationing when the Arabs cut back supplies. At that time there was no oil from the North Sea, Alaska, Venezuela and Nigeria. We were all totally dependent on the Arabs.
If you don't believe what I say, look it up, don't make sarcastic remarks about the government and taxation.
.
Please don't tell me what to say. Last time I checked sarcasm wasn't illegal. People have said a lot worse on here. I found it hard to believe that that is the main reason that our speed limits are in place. You are right though, many moons ago that may have played a part in the original setting of speed limits, but I think it's a rubbish excuse for justifying blatant law breaking. I was being sarcastic as I am sure that was the reason in the first place, but it sure as hell isn't the reason now.
I think that it is more dangerous to drive at 120mph. You may think the opposite, but thankfully the british judicial system agrees with me.
I think that it is more dangerous to drive at 120mph. You may think the opposite, but thankfully the british judicial system agrees with me.
I'm not telling you what to say Grumpy1, just asking you not to cast aspersions on what I posted with sarcastic remarks.
I haven't posted anything ill mannered in this discussion. I respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it and I wouldn't slight it in that way.
The original economy legislation is still in place and has never been repealed or reworded. It's just being interpreted for other purposes, not those that parliament agreed at the time it was passed.
I agree it can be more dangerous to drive at 120 mph than 70 mph, but it can also be more dangerous to drive at 70 mph than 50 mph.
.
I haven't posted anything ill mannered in this discussion. I respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it and I wouldn't slight it in that way.
The original economy legislation is still in place and has never been repealed or reworded. It's just being interpreted for other purposes, not those that parliament agreed at the time it was passed.
I agree it can be more dangerous to drive at 120 mph than 70 mph, but it can also be more dangerous to drive at 70 mph than 50 mph.
.
The days when roads were quiet are long gone, it doesn't really matter what time or where you are travelling now- and most roads don't have a minimum speed. Speed should be used appropriately whether it is 20mph or 120mph. At 120mph you don;t have much time to react to a vehicle travelling ar 50mph overtaking a slow lorry. Those travelling at illegal speed will be the ones using mobile phones, or resetting the radio/changing the cd because they believe they are safe drivers.
Sorry but it is not safe these days for most of the time in the majority of circumstances. As well as illegal. Whatever the reason the speed limit was set for no longer matters, the whole system is different now.
How about a maximum 55mph limit.
Not so. As examples from my regular driving, the western half of the M27 to the M3 junction is often positively eerie between 2 and 4 am weekdays when driving there completely alone. The same goes for the A 35 from the Crossways junction well into the A31 eastbound. The heavy traffic problems often result from the 24 hours of the day not being used.
I agree, and I wouldn't be driving at 120 mph in the sort of traffic conditions you mention, but no-one will convince me that 120 mph is unsafe on the right road when not near other traffic.
I've already posted that I exceed limits and reserve all my concentration for the road. Accordingly as posted I never use any form of in car entertainment including radio, and I would never have a switched on phone in a car either. Therefore your sweeping statement isn't true.
.
Last edited:
Bode, you are incorrect. If the main reason for me being on this forum was to 'plug my bike,' then I would have stayed well away from a lot of / perceived controversial topics - which I clearly haven't
. I am here because I genuinely believe that electric bikes can and will make a difference to society and will happily partake in discussion about them. had you read my previous posts, like you suggested I did with PED-AL, this would have been obvious.
I particularly like this forum because most claims that are made on here are, or can be substantiated and the claims that cannot, are often shot down, leading to greater accuracy and less spin by those inclined to do so.
For example: Try claiming that a 'Panansonic crank drive' bike can't climb a hill and that you are so staunch in your belief that you wouldn't even bother trying it - then see how many people on here who own or have ridden one and know otherwise, will jump on you.
Remember, alot of people who joined have stated that they did so because of the valuable and ACCURATE information that they were able to gleen because of other members actual experiences with various products or manufacturers, or existing members technical prominence in certain fields.
back to the topic - in my view, what he did was stupid, no question about that and he should be punished. A 6 month custodial though, on the face of it, to me seems a little harsh when you consider that far worse crimes have been perpetrated wherein the offenders received a very much lighter sentence.
The Times Online has some interesting quotes from the judge and the rider.
================
As Bennett pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, Judge Phillip Wassall told him that he would serve at least half his sentence as a warning to others.
He said: "Had you lost control of your motor cycle it would have become a missile, causing a serious accident and probably the death of at least one person.
"The aggravating feature of this case is that you had your 14-year-old son on the back of the bike. He was on a contact visit from your estranged wife and your lack of responsibility is almost unbelievable when considering the impact any accident would have had on her and her family as well as your family.
"This was so dangerous that I cannot ignore it or avoid an immediate prison sentence and I have to send out a message to others.
"At the time you were doing 122 miles an hour in a 60 [mph] limit, the road was wet and you were on a bend. If you had burst a tyre or someone coming the other way had pulled out, you would have lost control of the bike."
David Sapiecha, for Bennett, said that his client had been riding motorcycles for more than 30 years and had not been drinking or taking drugs. "The dangerous aspect of the motoring was the speed and the fact that he had his son with him.
"It was an out-of-character offence over a short distance and his behaviour that day was unusual.”
Bennett had boasted that his 1300cc Suzuki was one of the fastest motorcycles on the road.
"I hold my hands up. I was doing 122 mph on that road and that was dangerous, especially with my lad on board. But it had started to rain and I pulled back the throttle."
================
Biker Robert Bennett jailed for taking son on 122mph ride in rain - Times Online
================
As Bennett pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, Judge Phillip Wassall told him that he would serve at least half his sentence as a warning to others.
He said: "Had you lost control of your motor cycle it would have become a missile, causing a serious accident and probably the death of at least one person.
"The aggravating feature of this case is that you had your 14-year-old son on the back of the bike. He was on a contact visit from your estranged wife and your lack of responsibility is almost unbelievable when considering the impact any accident would have had on her and her family as well as your family.
"This was so dangerous that I cannot ignore it or avoid an immediate prison sentence and I have to send out a message to others.
"At the time you were doing 122 miles an hour in a 60 [mph] limit, the road was wet and you were on a bend. If you had burst a tyre or someone coming the other way had pulled out, you would have lost control of the bike."
David Sapiecha, for Bennett, said that his client had been riding motorcycles for more than 30 years and had not been drinking or taking drugs. "The dangerous aspect of the motoring was the speed and the fact that he had his son with him.
"It was an out-of-character offence over a short distance and his behaviour that day was unusual.”
Bennett had boasted that his 1300cc Suzuki was one of the fastest motorcycles on the road.
"I hold my hands up. I was doing 122 mph on that road and that was dangerous, especially with my lad on board. But it had started to rain and I pulled back the throttle."
================
Biker Robert Bennett jailed for taking son on 122mph ride in rain - Times Online
It might sound that way, but the video shows that he was doing nothing like that speed going into the bend, the minimal angle of lean alone showing it. Nearer 60 mph.So he had slowed down to 122 mph for the wet bend!
.
Last edited:
I am glad to have seen some support for my point of view about the dangers of excessive speed.
I was beginning to feel that I was surrounded by a bunch of Jeremy Clarkson clones, which is strange on an e-bike forum.
I was beginning to feel that I was surrounded by a bunch of Jeremy Clarkson clones, which is strange on an e-bike forum.
Of course, and almost by definition, excessive speed is dangerous. Nobody has disputed that.
The question raised is instead concerned partly with the relationship between speed and context, not with the issue of speed 'per se', partly with the extent to which parents can make decisions for their own children without state interference, partly with whether people on two wheels get a raw deal, and partly with the legitimacy of a custodial sentence in this type of case.
Yet because what you write contains no indication that you understand the issues, and because you continue with what you intend to be ad hominem attacks, it is very hard to move the discussion forward.