Not speed cameras this time

Tim Woodall said:

news.bbc.co.uk3068731.stmOpen ↗

"Osborne, who has now sold his motorbike and travels to work on a bicycle..."

"The only mitigating factor is that is appears to be a single incident."

Horlicks, IMO.

James

--
homepage.ntlworld.comDscf0632.jpgOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Tim Woodall said:

news.bbc.co.uk3068731.stmOpen ↗

"Osborne, who has now sold his motorbike and travels to work on a bicycle..."

"The only mitigating factor is that is appears to be a single incident."

Horlicks, IMO.

This too...

"Mr Rogers said Osborne's "grossly excessive" speed was just a short burst to overtake a lorry and
insisted he had not been racing with Bolger."

Assuming the lorry was doing 50-60 on an A road, 157 and 148 seem remarkable fast bursts just to
pass a lorry.

Colin

Colin Blackburn said:

This too...

"Mr Rogers said Osborne's "grossly excessive" speed was just a short burst to overtake a lorry and
insisted he had not been racing with Bolger."

Assuming the lorry was doing 50-60 on an A road, 157 and 148 seem remarkable fast bursts just to
pass a lorry.

Stuck throttle, obviously. Whether this was due to a problem with his hand or with the part of the
brain that controls the right hand is unknown.

James

--
homepage.ntlworld.comDscf0632.jpgOpen ↗

Colin Blackburn said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Tim Woodall said:

news.bbc.co.uk3068731.stmOpen ↗

"Osborne, who has now sold his motorbike and travels to work on a bicycle..."

"The only mitigating factor is that is appears to be a single incident."

Horlicks, IMO.

This too...

"Mr Rogers said Osborne's "grossly excessive" speed was just a short burst to overtake a lorry and
insisted he had not been racing with Bolger."

Assuming the lorry was doing 50-60 on an A road, 157 and 148 seem remarkable fast bursts just to
pass a lorry.

Not really. One of those bikes is capable of 190mph and will only require a flick of the wrist to go
from 70 to 150 in a few seconds. It's actually very easy to find yourself doing silly speeds without
noticing. He'd have only been in 4th gear (out of 6).

I know the dual carriageway in question and may have ridden it at similar speeds and it's pretty
safe. I agree with banning them for it but I do think a custodial sentence is extremely harsh.
Especially when Alistair Stewart only gets a ban and fine for being 3 times over the DD limit.

I've just heard on the radio about a chap being charged with dangerous driving for doing 116mph in
his car in a 40 zone in Dudley. I await the outcome of that one with interest. IMO those sort of
speeds in an NSL can be safe but in a 40 zone are taking the [censored].
--
"We take these risks, not to escape from life, but to prevent life escaping from us." ***** replace
'spam' with 'ben' to reply *****

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:05:28 +0100, Colin Blackburn <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Assuming the lorry was doing 50-60 on an A road, 157 and 148 seem remarkable fast bursts just to
pass a lorry.

Not really. One of those bikes is capable of 190mph and will only require a flick of the wrist to
go from 70 to 150 in a few seconds. It's actually very easy to find yourself doing silly speeds
without noticing. He'd have only been in 4th gear (out of 6).

I'll rephrase it. [They] seem remarkably fast bursts just to pass a lorry when it would have been
possible to do so within the speed limit.

I am not suggesting for one minute that those sorts of speeds aren't possible and that sort of
acceleration isn't possible. By admitting that they accelerated up to those speeds to pass a vehicle
which they could have passed within the speed limit is to admit to not exercising full control over
their vehicles. If it is very easy to find yourself doing those sorts of speeds without noticing
then you should not be in control of such a vehicle.

Colin

Colin Blackburn said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:05:28 +0100, Colin Blackburn <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Assuming the lorry was doing 50-60 on an A road, 157 and 148 seem remarkable fast bursts just to
pass a lorry.

Not really. One of those bikes is capable of 190mph and will only require a flick of the wrist to
go from 70 to 150 in a few seconds. It's actually very easy to find yourself doing silly speeds
without noticing. He'd have only been in 4th gear (out of 6).

I'll rephrase it. [They] seem remarkably fast bursts just to pass a lorry when it would have been
possible to do so within the speed limit.

I am not suggesting for one minute that those sorts of speeds aren't possible and that sort of
acceleration isn't possible. By admitting that they accelerated up to those speeds to pass a
vehicle which they could have passed within the speed limit is to admit to not exercising full
control over their vehicles.

Why is not exercising full control of their vehicle? Just because they choose not to obey a law
doesn't mean they're not in control. IME, to ride a bike like that at those sort of speeds you need
to be very much in control and careful.

Quoted message said:

If it is very easy to find yourself doing those sorts of speeds without noticing then you should
not be in control of such a vehicle.

You've never ridden a superbike have you? Even opening the throttle a crack results in extreme
acceleration.

Anyway, they knew full well what speed they were doing, and they were doing it intentionally as most
riders of bikes like that will. They just got caught doing it and are suffering a punishment that is
out of proportion to their crime, IMO.
--
"We take these risks, not to escape from life, but to prevent life escaping from us." ***** replace
'spam' with 'ben' to reply *****

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:40:09 +0100, Colin Blackburn <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am not suggesting for one minute that those sorts of speeds aren't possible and that sort of
acceleration isn't possible. By admitting that they accelerated up to those speeds to pass a
vehicle which they could have passed within the speed limit is to admit to not exercising full
control over their vehicles.

Why is not exercising full control of their vehicle?

They weren't controlling their speeds. Seems pretty clear.

Quoted message said:

You've never ridden a superbike have you? Even opening the throttle a crack results in extreme
acceleration.

How does this excuse their behaviour? It sounds to me from what you say that there is a case for
superbikes not being permitted on public roads.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, they knew full well what speed they were doing, and they were doing it intentionally as
most riders of bikes like that will. They just got caught doing it and are suffering a punishment
that is out of proportion to their crime, IMO.

So you are suggesting that they lied in court then?

Colin

Colin Blackburn said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:40:09 +0100, Colin Blackburn <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am not suggesting for one minute that those sorts of speeds aren't possible and that sort of
acceleration isn't possible. By admitting that they accelerated up to those speeds to pass a
vehicle which they could have passed within the speed limit is to admit to not exercising full
control over their vehicles.

Why is not exercising full control of their vehicle?

They weren't controlling their speeds. Seems pretty clear.

Controlling your speed is not the same as obeying a speed limit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You've never ridden a superbike have you? Even opening the throttle a crack results in extreme
acceleration.

How does this excuse their behaviour? It sounds to me from what you say that there is a case for
superbikes not being permitted on public roads.

The logical end to that is prevent any vehicle from exceeding 70mph. Still wouldn't stop someone
doing 70 in a 30 zone.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyway, they knew full well what speed they were doing, and they were doing it intentionally as
most riders of bikes like that will. They just got caught doing it and are suffering a punishment
that is out of proportion to their crime, IMO.

So you are suggesting that they lied in court then?

They pled guilty to dangerous driving. I hardly see that as lying.

FWIW, I'm not having a dig directly at you Colin, I'm just sick of this whole 'speed is bad' thing.
Speed by itself isn't, inappropriate speed and dangerous driving are, and IMO 150mph down that dual
carriageway in light traffic conditions isn't dangerous. Dangerous and illegal are not the same
thing, and people seem to confuse them.
--
"We take these risks, not to escape from life, but to prevent life escaping from us." ***** replace
'spam' with 'ben' to reply *****