Maybe if his pair of brian cells had a small 'post-ride' meeting they would have concluded that viewing and editing the video might have been a good idea. Personally I hope he gets banned and they turn the bike into paper clips.
A man has been accused of driving his motorcycle through a built-up area at over 100 miles per hour, filming the ride and posting the footage on the internet. Jeremy Parrott, 37, of Somerset, was questioned by police after they saw the video on YouTube. The film shows a Yamaha R1 superbike driving through traffic, squeezing …
If you had never committed an offense then the police would never have harassed you in the way they did. The nuts and bolts of it are..........tough luck son, you got caught, so you'll pay the price. The roads would be a safer place without idiots like you.
Ian (off-road/on-road biker for +20yrs).
There's a clear problem with the balance of what police should bother about and not bother about.
Clearly this man (or woman) did a journey and didn't injure anyone. Still, every day, we see people reading maps, talking on the phones, reading the paper, putting make up on, etc etc.
I bet you that this person was 100% focused on the road and had extreme road-awareness. Speeding in 30mph areas isn't nice, but at the same time a speed limit is only a mathematical limit set to the lowest common denominator (school-run-mother-with-4-kids-in-the-back-with-no-interest-in-the-car-and-putting-on-make-up-whilst-answering-the-mobile-phone???), sadly it's policed like a religion. Common sense and skill need not be applied.
I'd rather see the police's efforts put on tailgaters, red-light-runners, stop-sign-ignorers, "I-didn't-look-you"s, etc.
I agree that he should have edited the video, tho'!
Just remember; speed doesn't kill - but the sudden lack of speed can.
"Speeding in 30mph areas isn't nice, but at the same time a speed limit is only a mathematical limit set to the lowest common denominator"
If the rider had hit a pedestrian , a cyclist, another motorcyclist or even possibly a car at that speed he would have likely killed someone.
Have you not seen the stats? At 30mph a pedestrian hit by a car has a c80% chance of living. At 40mph it's c10%.
The speed limit isn't just about what it is theoretically possible to control but about limiting the damage when something goes wrong.
This guy shows whats wrong with the roads these days.
So far today in the 130 miles i have driven I have had a lady on the school run knock one of my mirrors with her 4x4 because she would not wait as the highway code says she should, I have had a van nearly drive in to the side of my car as he came out of a side road, a bmw x3 fly past over taking me on the wrong side ignoring the solid white lines nearly hitting a police car comming the other way.
this is a normal days motoring for me and I look forward to some one else trying to hit my car on the way home!
"If anyone knows of individuals involved in speeding they should contact police."
I don't know about the UK, but in Canada the police flatly refuse to bother with any reported vehicular infractions. You can phone in a report of spectacularly dangerous driving, complete with licence plate number, and nothing will happen.
It's just too much work for guys who would rather sit around with a radar gun at the bottom of a long hill and pick off the dupes who don't see them early enough.
Apart from the amazing stupidity of the rider posting a picture of his house and street to GooTube, it's hard to work out what the fuss is all about if you actually watch the vid. He wasn't riding particularly fast in town. He overtook a couple of cars. And he had a brief burst of acceleration to about 95 on an open road with good views and no turnings before braking for the next bend. And he made a fairly pathetic attempt at a small wheelie. So "road past a school" and "at speeds of up to 100mph" were two separate incidents. But that doesn't sound so dangerous and wouldn't sell newspapers.
I find that guys "speeding at 'x' miles per hour does more damage" comment very annoying. Just like those adverts (such and such chance I'll die at 35mph, such as such change I'll live at 30mph).
Personally when I'm driving I like to seriously spank it everywhere I go. If people aren't waving frantically at me from the pavement shouting "slow down" then in my opinion I've failed.
Now when I'm a pedestrian what I tend to do is look both ways before crossing the road, not cross right on a bend and also listen out for vehicles. It's amazing how little I've been hit by speeding traffic! I feel I really must spread the word, I know it's a very tricky concept! :o)
Quite frankly whenever I see some idiot step right into the road without looking I don't think “If I was going slower maybe I could better avoid this poor fellow” - I'm more of the thinking “If only I was going a bit faster I could rid the world of this arse”
"I bet you that this person was 100% focused on the road and had extreme road-awareness. Speeding in 30mph areas isn't nice, but at the same time a speed limit is only a mathematical limit set to the lowest common denominator"
If you crash in to me doing 100 when you should be doing no more than 30 , I'll kill you.
Your attitude to road safety is, quite frankly, appalling.
Many drivers don’t consider the variables affecting ability of pedestrians to predict their actions; the major factor in this is driver behaviour – specifically the speed of approach. Your driving at unexpected, unreasonable and excessive speeds leaves pedestrians, especially the young or those who have little driving experience (unlike yourself), no real chance of being able to reliably judge your time of arrive at their position. If you are speeding: their tending to cross when they shouldn’t is your doing.
Have you ever tried crossing an NSL dual carriageway?
Pavements are for pedestrians, roads are for everyone!
THIS IS THE REASON WHY IT IS 30 – THINK!
The biker, whoever they are, deserves jail.
Smeggy – supporter of safespeed.org.uk
That's where we disagree, the road is for vehicles.
If you're walking in the road when I'm driving, then prepare to be picking bits of my car out your body for the next few months. I may even swerve to ensure a "clean hit".
Quite frankly driving in London I'd have to say pedestrians "are" idiots. The amount of times you see:
- Step into the road
- Look the wrong way down the road
- Look the right way down the road
- <Shock> there's a car there!
Maybe if I'd borrowed Richard Hammond's rocket car for the day you may be able to use the excuse "I didn't see him coming" - Of course I'd want a thorough safety inspection of it first, I hear those things are dangerous.
“That's where we disagree, the road is for vehicles”
The law recognises the right for pedestrians and cyclists to use any road at any time (except motorways), so long as they are not causing an obstruction (the latter part applies to all road users).
Deliberate failure for you to give way to, or do your utmost to avoid, a pedestrian in your path will lead you directly to jail.
Perhaps pedestrians are ‘idiots’, but it is your lawful duty to ensure they are not fooled into making idiotic judgements.
If you don’t like it, then move to America where jaywalking is an offence and traffic light is king; you’ll find you’ll be going a lot slower there.
I pray you hit a large oak tree before you hit a pedestrian.
As for everyone else, please drive safely – safely for all road users not just yourself.
Well of course my definition of "in the road" is that they're causing an obstruction. I mean if they're just walking by the side of the road (if there's no pavement for instance) then I'd probably just clip them with the wing mirror --- Nothing serious, just to warn them.
Now you mention it I do actually live in America now. I barely leave any survivors when I'm out in my humvee.
I'm with you mate, “safe speed”. I rarely go over 150mph, unless I'm in a hurry.
P.S. Are you aware of the term “tongue in cheek”?
A pedestrian accidentally walking out in front of a vehicle because the driver didn’t give them a chance to reliably judge the situation correctly, can hardly be viewed as causing an obstruction (where’s the intent/neglect?).
Your first sentence in the matter doesn’t come across very t-i-c; I can only hope it was (I've debated with many drivers of that persuasion). I had guessed you were joking with your second post!
Roads are for everyone and you must not exceed the 30 limits within urban areas, even if you think you can drive faster safely (unless you have a flashy thing that goes nee-naw loudly to warn others of your unusual actions).
Of course I can view it as causing an obstruction. And I immediately take them out of the gene pool, as I hope any honest hard working patriot would.
However I would like to say that reversing over them to 'finish the job' just isn't the British thing to do.
I'm certain I can drive safely at extreme speeds in a 30mph zone, I'd be absolutely fine. The pedestrians however, I couldn't guarantee it. But you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.
I'm available to give lectures, just let me know a week in advance. Although I'm very punctual! ;o)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020