VTR1000.ORG

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7918212.stm

What sort of knob would take their child out without even gloves!

hey stratman i totaly agree and just read the report and it say no protective clothing, so more than no gloves, he should be done for attempted manslaughter, how can anyone do that with their own son
carl

The most affective way to turn petrol into noise without the side affect of horse power

Timbo wrote:What sort of knob would do 122 with one of his kids on the back? Answer - the same sort of knob that would take his kid on the back without the right gear? Bet your butt the helmet was a poor fit too.

He deserves 6 months.

I so agree. Well said

yes the blokes a complete and utter tw@, yes he deserve's everything he got, would the same punishment had been handed out it he was driving his car, NO but as stated in some of the papers he was riding a missile!!! seen people get less for nicking a car and running folk over! :mad2

marravtr wrote:seen people get less for nicking a car and running folk over! :mad2

Well said Marra

Like the to55er who killed my mate in December 07 - not a nicked car but the end result was the same - £215 in fines, court costs, a meagre contribution to the victims fund and 8 points which meant he had to re-sit his test - Big Deal



Well having seen the police video footage, I must say it looks very suspicious .......

Was it just me or did that not look anything like 122mph?

Perhaps it was a funny angle or a trick of the light, but that looked like a reasonable bend he was heading into with running lights (didn't notice any brake light unless it was on when bike came into view) - where was the lean? He went through there almost bolt upright!

Anyone know that stretch of the A361?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7865197.stm

Think I'd have been getting some expert witnesses in for that one and get the feckin police equipment checked.

I in no way condone him taking his son on with minimal if any protective wear nor taking him at that speed (if indeed it was 100+ mph)

IMO nil or limited protective clothing for rider or pillion regardless of age is stupid and should be made an offence not necessarily endorsable, but some sort of action should be taken.

Never mind feckin airbag jackets! getting all bikers to wear a 'minimum' amount & safety standard of dress would be difficult enough to police - unfortunately.

Makes me cringe when I see idiots with no regard for their own well being out in shorts, tee & trainers no matter what speed they're doing, 30mph is enough to scar you for life if you're lucky!

IMO even jeans should be a no no unless they've got additional protection ie dragging jeans.

Did you notice that half way through the film of the bike the word "error" appears at the bottom? What sort of error would that be? If someone wants to count the number of white lines he passes over a given time it should be quite straight forward to work out his speed.

RedStormV wrote:
Well having seen the police video footage, I must say it looks very suspicious .......

Was it just me or did that not look anything like 122mph?

Perhaps it was a funny angle or a trick of the light, but that looked like a reasonable bend he was heading into with running lights (didn't notice any brake light unless it was on when bike came into view) - where was the lean? He went through there almost bolt upright!

I couldn't agree more with you Graeme, that footage looks nothing like the speed the camera shows

I was also under the impression that you can't get a true reading when other vehicles are in the line of fire from the camera

A good point Rich about that "error" on that footage

Well said Marra

I do agree about the lack of protective clothing, that is just plain stupid

Chris.

What, so if he wasn't doing 122 (which no-one really has any evidence to disprove) then what speed would be acceptable to take your 14 year old on the back withour protective clothing or even gloves? 80, 60, 50 ? He deserved nicking just for that, although there is no minimum requirement for safety wear save for helmets.

The courts always come down heavy on bikers that is true - describing the bike as a missile that IF he had lost control COULD have MAYBE caused death (to paraphrase the words of the judge). Can't believe that a car driver doing the same speed would have been sent down.

Stratman wrote:What, so if he wasn't doing 122 (which no-one really has any evidence to disprove) then what speed would be acceptable to take your 14 year old on the back withour protective clothing or even gloves? 80, 60, 50 ? He deserved nicking just for that, although there is no minimum requirement for safety wear save for helmets.

Errr - think I said

RedStormV wrote:I in no way condone him taking his son on with minimal if any protective wear nor taking him at that speed (if indeed it was 100+ mph)

And

RedStormV wrote: IMO nil or limited protective clothing for rider or pillion regardless of age is stupid and should be made an offence not necessarily endorsable, but some sort of action should be taken.

Not quite sure what you're getting at

What speed is safe or sensible to go at on your own? or with a pillion of any age whether related or not?

This is surely something determined by the rider at the time, taking into consideration numerous factors, not least and in no particular order:

Age and experience of both the rider and if carried, the pillion
Condition of the bike itself
Prevailing weather conditions
Condition of the road surface
Prescribed speed limit for the road
Other roads users
Visibility

A small but not exhaustive list.

Didn't spot the 'error' message on the footage, and like the point about the other vehicles.

Did anyone see the BBC 'reconstruction' of what it 'might' have looked like at 122mph on the same stretch of road, by 'speeding' the film up (surely slowing it down filmatographically speaking) ?

What a load of tosh! - unless of course they were trying to show someone 'watching tennis' as they sat on the back of the bike perhaps!

Can't recollect ever seeing a youtube video from helmet or other 'fixed' cams that looked like that at speeds in excess of 130mph.
Very poor journalism IMO - just 'sensationalism' to give 'us' an even worse name than 'we' may already have after this story!

If its true what he did, then its truly unacceptable, but I think the jail sentence has more to do with vilifying the biking community than any sort of suitable punishment.

As always, altogether too much emphasis on what people do/think than punishing them when the consequences of their actions lead to disaster.

Stratman wrote:What, so if he wasn't doing 122 (which no-one really has any evidence to disprove) then what speed would be acceptable to take your 14 year old on the back withour protective clothing or even gloves? 80, 60, 50 ? He deserved nicking just for that, although there is no minimum requirement for safety wear save for helmets.

sirch345 wrote: I do agree about the lack of protective clothing, that is just plain stupid

Chris.

I think I made my thoughts clear on that too

Jaglifter wrote:If its true what he did, then its truly unacceptable, but I think the jail sentence has more to do with vilifying the biking community than any sort of suitable punishment.

IMHO opinion, you've hit the nail on the head

Chris.

Agree with most posts. At the end of the day you could argue this topic to the death...

Speed is "just" at factor in it all. It's the risks that are more relevant imo. Agree with Graeme-conditions, traffic volume, weather etc could have had a lot of effect on what could have/did happen.

In saying that, the simple fact of the matter is the guy had his son on the back without appropriate gear on at "speed" (whatever speed that might have been...)

This has obviously angered a lot of people that are not bikers (bikers alike too), and again, giving the biking community a bad rap. We all get enough hassle as it is-be it through the media, Police, anti speed campaigners, men in blow up jackets on the bcc, bla, bla, bla-that I find this guys actions quite stupid. It just gives more fuel for these organisations/individuals to make every bikers life that bit less enjoyable, not to mention the fact he put his own son at risk

Said it when this came up last time, deserves the proverbial book as he had his kid on the back at 122mph in the wet!!!!
Richard!!!! did he loose his licience too?? if so thats his car gone as well lol

Jim.

He did admit to riding at 122 mph.