Motorcyclist given 39 points!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The guy's an idiot and the rest of society deserve to have him off the roads until such time as he learns to drive in an appropriate manner.
 
He was banned for 18mths plus the 39points.

I wonder how they arrived at 39? Will they all expire at the same time? If so, surely 9 would have done and had the same effect.

Personally I would have banned him for 10yrs. Still I guess insurance will be a bit more difficult to get, not that that would stop some poeple......
 
Wont his license come back clean after the ban is complete? Thats how I understand it works.

As for insurance, I doubt it'll make much difference to his policy, it is afterall only a few speeding offences and its likely only one will show on his license.

£600 pound fine? I got more than that for one speeding offence on the motorway.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how they arrived at 39? Will they all expire at the same time?
He received six points for each speeding offence and an extra three points for driving without proper control. As he's been disqualified (presumably under the totting up rule) I believe that when he receives his licence back it will be "points free", but stand to be corrected on that.
 
Okay, I accept that something needed to be done, that's fine. an 18 month ban seems okay, could have been longer but 18 months is still a fair whack.

but why 39 points? what purpose does it serve giving him so many? won't they all expire at the same time?

and a £600 fine?! I got fined £450 for a CD10 years ago and that was an accident!

dave
 
Just watched the video, I assume he thought he would be ok on a forwrad face camera and I bet thousands of bikers are, but when you wear a 1 of 2 imported jacket you do increase the probability of getting caught, I assume it was his speed which caused the coppers to do some old fashioned police detective work, had he been doing 50 he may have got away with it,
 
Theoretically he got 39 points using the totting up system.

He only needed the 12 to lose it.

In reality, he has not got any as he now has no licence.

Probably the media glorifying the matter on a 'no news day'
 
Did I read that right?? ... 80 in a 30 zone??

Lifetime ban......... debate please:devil:


I'm the first to moan about the speed limits on all 'decent' roads been reduced. But that exess is suicidal....or should that be man slaughter??
.
 
................

A few muppets make all bike riders look bad.


Ade

Ade. Very true. I used to be an off road biker but, Living in this area, it's difficult to maintain a posotive approach.
I'm sick of swerving and braking to avoid head on collisions with the minority.
It's like most things though - just a minority.

Most are decent riders.

.
 
I hope they crushed his bike?

Why crush a perfectly lovely bike because the owner is a nob-head?!!!

Give it to me instead! I'll love it and clean it and ride it at the speed limit.......Honest!!
 
Did I read that right?? ... 80 in a 30 zone??

Lifetime ban......... debate please:devil:


I'm the first to moan about the speed limits on all 'decent' roads been reduced. But that exess is suicidal....or should that be man slaughter??
.
83mph in a 30 zone, I wonder what punishment a driver could expect for travelling at 180mph or perhaps 200mph on a motorway?

I accept some folks will start prattling on about one law for one etc etc but 83mph in a 30mph speed area is either dangerous, or the speed limit is incorrect. I am, sick and tired of modern legislation that demands we have to take into consideration a person's state of mind or any other legalistic jargon designed to acquit the guilty. For a member of the public to be travelling at such a crazy speed in a built up area is crazy, or ............... dangerous. This person should have been charged with dangerous riding and had the book thrown at them. I fear this article merely acts to advise speeding motor cyclists to wear common, off the peg gear. It looks like in some of the shots this loon was wearing jeans and trainers?

regards
John
 
I have to say ...

This 30 zone he was doing 80 on in the pictures was a dual carriageway with what appeared to be a clear unrestricted view of the road ahead. It certainly didnt look like an urban environment and I suspect that this dual carriageway used to have a far greater higher limit in the past.

On a modern sports bike on that particular road with clear weather and traffic conditions, 83mph doesnt strike me as necessarilly being dangerous. Sure it has the potential to be but I wouldnt want to say definately without seeng what the rider could see from his vantage point.

For sure he was being a bit of an idiot doing this in front of the camera but dangerous? Not necessarily so.
 
I have to say ...

This 30 zone he was doing 80 on in the pictures was a dual carriageway with what appeared to be a clear unrestricted view of the road ahead. It certainly didnt look like an urban environment and I suspect that this dual carriageway used to have a far greater higher limit in the past.

On a modern sports bike on that particular road with clear weather and traffic conditions, 83mph doesnt strike me as necessarilly being dangerous. Sure it has the potential to be but I wouldnt want to say definately without seeng what the rider could see from his vantage point.

For sure he was being a bit of an idiot doing this in front of the camera but dangerous? Not necessarily so.
me said:
but 83mph in a 30mph speed area is either dangerous, or the speed limit is incorrect
At speeds above a certain percentage of the legal limit be that 100% or maybe even 150% then I think it should be down to the defendant to prove their actions are not dangerous.

I have also commented about reviewing speed limits and I said this as it appears to be a dual carriageway, but............. If this is a dual carriageway, in a town or city and does not have barriers, then I don't care how good the equipment is..... If this was during the time of day when children, or any other person is liable to do the unexpected, then there is NO mitigation. Those types of speeds are dangerous.

I have NO idea if a 30mph limit is the correct for that stretch of road but the rider knew the limit and made a decision. His choice, his actions.

John
 
I agree with your comments John.

From the news article it suggests the speed was very dangerous but it strikes me that it might be a safer road to travel at 80mph than THIS one.

At 80mph, bikes like this feel like they are going at a snails pace. Stopping from said speed could be done as quickly as say... an old beetle or Morris minor at 40mph. If the posted limit at one time was 50 or 60 then the unassuming chap wearing a flat cap in his moggy minor a few years ago might actually have presented more of a danger than our modern day power ranger.
 
Last edited:
it strikes me that it might be a safer road to travel at 80mph than THIS one.

What you don't see in that photo is the long straight road leading upto those corners.
Presumably if the dual carriageway is a 30 limit, it's an urban road, asopposed to a country one.
 
Presumably if the dual carriageway is a 30 limit, it's an urban road, asopposed to a country one.


Thats the point, we cant see what lay ahead on that road from the news clip. It may have been urban and it may have had some dangers ahead... the problem is we dont know as we can only see a small amount of the scene behind the rider. For all we know it opened up to a long open straight stretch of dual carriageway in a non urban environment in which case, 80mph wouldnt seem so unreasonable.

The above posted link it can clearly be seen there are significant dangers ahead for a multitude of reasons. No-one in my mind can justify 104mph on that road, regardless how long or straight the preceeding roads were. The dangers are clear and the driver should have reduced speed earlier.
 
Last edited:
For all we know it opened up to a long open straight stretch of dual carriageway in a non urban environment in which case, 80mph wouldnt seem so unreasonable.

I didn't say I condoned the 104mph, but the picture was deliberately misleading.
If the dual carriageway became an open countryside A road, would it be a 30 limit and would it have a camera at the end of the limited area.? Unlikely.
Anyone know the exact location.?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom