Speeding Motorcyclist

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
You should worry - up here, on narrow roads, it's the tractors doing 100mph you need to worry about!
But seriously, the number of bunches of flowers on roadsides here do tell their own story. If only it was reliably the lads driving their missiles that got killed, rather than innocent bystanders.....
 
I don't know why but I think there is something fishy about the vid. First of all why did the Police allow the rider to ride at speeds far in excess of the speed limit. Why didn't the rider see the car stick so close to him? Also the Police made some dodgy manoeuvres to keep up with him. I think the Police were just as guilty of negligence letting him carry on for so long!

Phil

"Instead, the rider was safely tracked using unmarked cars and an unmarked motorcycle in order to gather evidence to support a prosecution." Edited to add, this was totally unjustified. After he had broken the speed limit for the first time he should have been stopped and arrested.
 
Phil. in the article it explains that they were acting on information from
residents and motorists. The guy was doing this on a regular basis.
They followed him on an unmarked motorcycle they feared giving chase
would have made him ride erratically and even more dangerously :shock:
 
Tom, he may have been driving dangerous, but at times he was only doing 30mph, they could have stopped him then. If he did try to escape, why not just visit him at his home address and arrest him there? The article did not say that the bike was reported stolen. As I say just my thoughts :D

Phil
 
I have to agree Phil the motorcycle policeman did exactly the same as the motorcyclist infront,unmarked no flashing lights no siren no warning!
On his commentary everything seemed to be exagerated.Also in my opinion he must have been provoking the motorcyclist in front by being so close.
I was once caught speeding in my younger days :oops: and when the (absent) officer's report was read out in court i thought they'd got the wrong man :shock: :lol:
 
It's tractors doing 10 mph that you have to watch for around here!
One young member of the NFU claims a world record of 69? cars stuck behind him.

Roy.
 
filsgreen":2pxhjh3q said:
Tom, he may have been driving dangerous, but at times he was only doing 30mph, they could have stopped him then. If he did try to escape, why not just visit him at his home address and arrest him there? The article did not say that the bike was reported stolen. As I say just my thoughts :D

Phil

Looking at it another way...if the police had received reports that he was consistently doing hugely excessive speeds then they need to gather the evidence. Pointless following him with blue lights flashing as he'd simply slow down. Equally pointless just doing him for, say, 45mph in a 30 limit...they wanted to remove him from the roads for a good period which makes sense IMO. And again no point in knocking on his door as there is no evidence that he was actually the person riding the bike.

To be honest, I think it's a great shame that no car driver opened his door as this pillock was blasting past.
 
RogerS":19krnquu said:
filsgreen":19krnquu said:
Tom, he may have been driving dangerous, but at times he was only doing 30mph, they could have stopped him then. If he did try to escape, why not just visit him at his home address and arrest him there? The article did not say that the bike was reported stolen. As I say just my thoughts :D

Phil

Looking at it another way...if the police had received reports that he was consistently doing hugely excessive speeds then they need to gather the evidence. Pointless following him with blue lights flashing as he'd simply slow down. Equally pointless just doing him for, say, 45mph in a 30 limit...they wanted to remove him from the roads for a good period which makes sense IMO. And again no point in knocking on his door as there is no evidence that he was actually the person riding the bike.

To be honest, I think it's a great shame that no car driver opened his door as this pillock was blasting past.

Your point that it is no use knocking on his door as there is no evidence of him riding the bike doesn't really hold water Roger. It is up to the rider to prove that it is not him. Also, this dangerous ten minutes of evidence collecting could have resulted in multiple fatalities. After fifteen seconds of footage he was clocked doing 108mph, how much more evidence do they need? In my opinion the Police were no more than agent provocateurs.
 
Phil, they prosecuted for a lot more than speeding I should think.
Without this sort of evidence he may have gotten a far more lenient ruling
by arguing that the speed was only momentary well within the capabilities of the machine etc.
I am quite sure if the Police had an easy option they would have taken it, as to identifying the rider although there is an obligation to give up the information regarding the rider it is always going to be open to abuse when the persons face isnt visible.
 
filsgreen":s24v3tyq said:
It is up to the rider to prove that it is not him. Also, this dangerous ten minutes of evidence collecting could have resulted in multiple fatalities. After fifteen seconds of footage he was clocked doing 108mph, how much more evidence do they need? In my opinion the Police were no more than agent provocateurs.

Wrong!

It must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Another classic case of a little knowledge and a poor understanding of the law being a dangerous thing.
 
I think this one's a difficult call really. Clearly the rider needed to be stopped before there was an RTA, but equally the 'boys in blue' needed the evidence to do so, which meant the unmarked police bike had to break regs as well. I'm glad in the end that he was stopped and that nobody got hurt.
Fwiw, I think Argee might give us the definitive answer - Rob
 
I've no personal knowledge of the case, but I've watched the clip carefully, I know the road well and have the following points:

1) From the article: "The method of riding was considered so extreme by investigating officers from the Sussex Road Policing Unit that normal topping procedures were not considered appropriate. Instead, the rider was safely tracked using unmarked cars and an unmarked motorcycle in order to gather evidence to support a prosecution."

Unlike a car, the options for stopping a motorcycle are severely restricted in comparison. HOSTYDs (Hollow Spike Tyre Deflation Systems or "stingers") can't be used and "boxing in" tactics with such a small and quickly-accelerating vehicle are of no practical use.

2) "Also the Police made some dodgy manoeuvres to keep up with him. I think the Police were just as guilty of negligence letting him carry on for so long!"

What would you have had them do instead - ditch him? Driving a marked police vehicle at high speed in safety requires an extremely high level of training and skill, but to do the same in or on unmarked vehicles raises the bar even higher, as the "marked and visible" element disappears for other road users. Only the best of the best drive/ride such vehicles at high speed and this would have been a planned follow, not someone who "just happened" to be on patrol. The briefing for this type of operation would be comprehensive and - above all - would have concentrated on public safety.

Trained police drivers are exempt from the National Speed Limits in certain circumstances. This situation qualifies.

3) "Also in my opinion he must have been provoking the motorcyclist in front by being so close."

It would seem from the background of the case that this motorcyclist didn't need provoking at all - he was stupid and reckless enough all by himself.

4) "... he may have been driving dangerous, but at times he was only doing 30mph, they could have stopped him then."

You've clearly not tried it. Someone with high levels of adrenalin flowing would take scant notice of a marked car in those circumstances, let alone a plain one. The risk of him doing something even more reckless is then increased greatly. Officers know when and when not a stop will/will not have the greatest chance of success.

5) "Looking at it another way...if the police had received reports that he was consistently doing hugely excessive speeds then they need to gather the evidence. Pointless following him with blue lights flashing as he'd simply slow down. Equally pointless just doing him for, say, 45mph in a 30 limit...they wanted to remove him from the roads for a good period which makes sense IMO. And again no point in knocking on his door as there is no evidence that he was actually the person riding the bike."

Absolutely.

6) "I am quite sure if the Police had an easy option they would have taken it, as to identifying the rider although there is an obligation to give up the information regarding the rider it is always going to be open to abuse when the persons face isn't visible."

Correct, on both counts!

7) "It is up to the rider to prove that it is not him."

(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—

(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and

(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

(3) Subject to the following provisions, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty for failure to comply is 6 penalty points.

8 ) The commentary shows that the police rider was asked if he was "still comfortable" with the follow. This is standard practice and in the reply the rider states that the offending rider was "fast, but not very competent, especially bend assessment." This can be seen in the differing lines of approach taken on numerous occasions. It may be thought that an "incompetent" rider is easier to stop than a more competent one, but if the demonstrated behaviour is lacking, the risks increase.

About 2½ minutes into the video, the offending rider becomes aware of being followed. He then seems to turn the journey into a competition.

9) "Clearly the rider needed to be stopped before there was an RTA, but equally the 'boys in blue' needed the evidence to do so, which meant the unmarked police bike had to break regs as well. I'm glad in the end that he was stopped and that nobody got hurt."

I saw no clear opportunity for the (solo) police motorcyclist to stop the offending rider safely, with any real chance of success. "Road blocks" are prohibited tactics nowadays and - unlike the movies - people tend not to get up again after falling off at those sorts of speeds. He was arrested the following day, if dates from the article are to be believed. I would have thought that he would have been followed to conclusion of journey, then arrested once he'd dismounted - at least, that's what I'd have done.

Sorry for this lengthy post. I've tried to look at it from all sides, but this "summary" won't please everyone, of course.

Ray.
 
Been riding big, powerful bikes for a good while (27 years)....
and so far - accident free. [-o<

Like most who ride, i 'enjoy the capabilities of the machine' on occasions - I admit..sometimes a little beyond the law, its fair to say.

and for any who have not ridden a bike... nothing you have ever experienced on 4 wheels compares, unless you get into the mega-mega supercar bracket ... the power and acceleration on tap is awesome, and capable of 'biting you in the bum' at the drop of a hat, if not quicker.

I did a riding course with the 'Rozzers' a few years ago, called 'BIKESAFE' and it was a very good experience... Police riders giving one-to-one instruction, / Observed rides etc...
& something that has 'stuck' with me was what one of the officers said...
which was (something like) " what we have a problem with, isn't speed per se .... but more accurately the inappropriate use of speed", -- and that certainly looked to be pretty 'inappropriate'.

The thing that sticks out to me in the video is the 'blind faith' that the rider puts in every other road user there... those are the people who are going to kill you ... the car turning right with a late ( or no ) indicator.. the car pulling out from behind a lorry to overtake it, in the oncoming lane, -- and the rider(s) road position to ensure his visibility to such a car, indeed vehicles doing similar in the lane in which you (as the rider) are already travelling ... and so on etc etc.

That bloke has a lot more faith in every other road user than I've ever had.
Some of the cars he's passing could be driven by a kid two weeks through their test... or an old dearie who perhaps should have packed up driving some years hence, or worse still by someone still half-sozzled from the night before, or stoned out their tree on a variety of chemicals.
Notwithstanding the 'legal' aspects of it... I can't get the 'disregard' for your own life.. never mind that of others, in a situation such as this.
. As is written in a number of places.. " Death is but a heartbeat away".
... there's no great need to open the door for him, prematurely. :shock:
 
Any "normal" road user (although breaking the law in the first place) would STOP for a siren/blue light including the offender.
The footage you see on police camera action e.t.c are all criminals who speed off e.g.banned drivers,robber's and kids.
Is there a safer way than to chase a speeding vehicle several miles,yes there's got to be.
Prosecuting him for say 100mph in a 60mph zone would have proberbly learnt him enough of a lesson.

Argee you say he needed no provication, yet later on you say the offender seems to turn it into a race!
sort of like " there's a bloke up my **** here i'll show him how fast i can really go!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top