I thought the most dangerous bit was when he crossed 2 lanes suddenly to leave the motorway. You can see the lorry braking to avoid him.
On my last speed awareness course I asked if I was in the inside lane of a 3 lane carriage way driving at legal speed (don't laugh) and came across someone in the middle lane going under the speed limit did I have to move from lane 1 to lane 3 then back to lane 1? And what if lane 3 was full of vehicles going faster than me? Mr Speed Awareness said it would be down to the individual officer to decide to pull me or not.
A2 into London every morning middle lane full of idiots who are scared of driving on carriageways. Outside lane full of white vans lorries and speed freaks shouting at everyone to get out of the way. Me and all the calm people laughing at them on the inside lane making good progress harming no one. Priceless. The standard of driving in this country is nothing short of shite.
that was the only bit that concerned me. you can only assume the rider kicked off or didn't suck the coppers cock the way he likes it.
I suspect that Mr Speed Awareness was dodging the question. There is some sensible discussion from Honest John here: Can I undertake on the motorway? | Ask Honest John | Honest John I don't think there is an excuse for pulling someone in if they do not change lanes "deliberately to undertake", don't break the speed limit, with the lanes to the right blocked with slower traffic, and if the undertake is done without a dangerously large difference in speed. I think the unfortunate biker probably fell foul on more than one aspect, and not turning up in court was most unwise. That said, it should be the job of a court to dish out an appropriate punishment based on the facts that are available (although there will obviously be extra costs if it has gone to court rather than being dealt with as a fixed penalty); the idea of "throwing the book" does not sound right to me.
perhaps Pete should tell you about Courts prosecution policies and protocols......remember the cops just present the evidence The court decides guilty or not and what penalty!
The problem isn't that he failed to show to plead his defence, more that he wasn't there to wipe his brow to show he was in distress...
There will be an element of increasing the punishment for wasting the court's time by not bothering to turn up, and rightly so in my view.
OK, 'throwing the book' is a colloquial expression. It might mean something like this: 1. Often a fixed penalty is issued for a simple offence like speeding. If the defendant does not accept that fixed penalty, and wants to go to court, there might be added multiple or more serious changes (e.g. due care and attention, etc). 2. If a defendant pleads guilty, thereby saving a lot of court time and public money, he can usually expect to get one-third off the sentence he would have otherwise got. If he pleads not guilty but is found guilty after trial, he does not get the third off. 3. If a defendant pleads guilty he may be able to put forward mitigation, show contrition, offer restitution, etc. If convicted after pleading not guilty, contrition is obviously not available and it is more difficult to argue mitigation convincingly. 4. If there has been a hearing, the costs of that hearing will usually be awarded against the guilty party. If a prosecutor has gone to court to prosecute and a police officer has attended to give evidence, both being taken off other duties for the purpose, and the defendant does not even bother to turn up, the Mags are more likely to award full exemplary costs against him (instead of just nominal costs). 5. By not attending, the defendant has obviously deprived himself of the chance of arguing mitigation of any kind, thus can expect to get at least the full sentence (meaning the entry point for that offence in the relevant Sentencing Guideline), and possibly there might be aggravating factors which the defendant is thus unable to deny.
Well my two penny worth is I committed a motoring offence but not on bike I was in my car, its a bizarre roundabout with 2 sets of lights, I wasnt concentrating and went through the red light, nearest set to me was red the 2nd set was green, I just did not see the first set. I was on nine points I got a letter and I pleaded guilty by post as I was caught on camera. I recieved a letter saying post plea not acceptable I had to go to court. Original letter said fine was £250, I went to court thinking the reason I was invited was because they wanted to ban me, I turned up and pleaded my case about the bizarre lights set up and that I need car for work as I travel a lot doing business miles and my office is 25 miles from home. I got given 2 points to take me to 11 and fined £125, a lot of people say its to harsh but I think I got away ligtly. That was magistrates in Chichester.
There are far too many sleepy heads/ idiots hogging the middle and outside lanes disrespectfully nowadays. Wasn't there a law passed a few ago about road hogging? To me someone who is sat in the middle or outside lane should be prosecuted for driving 'without due care and attention'. Could even be classed as dangerous driving, depending on there speed. Especially when lanes 1 or 2 possibly both are empty. It simply boils my pi55. The police probably saw it as an aggressive move I guess, then when he had to pull over it was done so dangerously too. Sometimes better the Devil you know, than the 1 you don't.
It is a double edged sword the motorist can't win. If I drove on the motorway according to the law they would nick me for lane hopping, pull out to overtake the slow twat in the inside lane then there is another pratt in front of you in the middle lane so to the outside lane it is, once your past that car back to the middle and if the inside is clear you pull in there, 10 seconds later you are repeating that same sequence of moves and so it goes on up the M25, M40, M42, M6 , if I sit in the outside lane I am wrong, if I sit in the middle lane I am wrong. If I undertake I am wrong so what the fuck am I meant to do ? NOT DRIVE? catch a train everywhere? If I had been in the same position as that biker I probably would have done exactly the same and the same could be said for about most bikers. It is an instant judgement call you see a gap and as a biker you process that judgement call very quickly. Most of us know the capability of our machines and know that if you went for it you will make it. The only person he cut up was the lorry, and I have a good idea of went through his head when the blue lights went on. "Shit I best pull over toot suite or they might try and nick me for evading capture" We are hated by the majority of road users for a couple of reasons 1. Jealousy, in heavy traffic we bimble on through leaving them behind 2. Fear, back in the 60's mods n rockers fighting and looting at every seaside resort on bank holiday Mondays. We have probably had that bad boy image since long before then.. So it don't matter whether your a dock worker or high city roller once you don those leathers and sit astride two wheels we are all seen as being the same "SCUM" by the general populace. No matter how clean and shiny your bike and leathers are, the general populace view us as hairy arsed lunatic morons with no brain cells.
What you also don't know from this video is whether the bike had been sitting behind the car for several miles and, exasperated by the car not pulling over, eventually decided to undertake it, or whether it immediately undertook the car as soon as it caught up with it. There is a difference in my view.
I don't think being frustrated by another road user garners much sympathy from the police or the Courts. Nope, from the video, this situation is exactly what it seems to be. The biker was either unlucky, if the cop car was unmarked, or entirely unobservant and thereby dangerous, if the cop car wasn't. The manoeuvre was relatively safe, of itself. The traffic configuration was such that the car that the biker "undertook" wasn't moving into the middle-lane any time soon as there was no gap for it. The car in the middle lane showed no indication, nor had it space, to accelerate either within its own lane or into the 3rd lane. As such, the cars that were involved were static with respect to the traffic flow and, barring alien attack or other unanticipated eventualities, they were neutral hazards in the operation. There are far more dangerous "undertakes" - the car is in the 3rd lane with the middle-lane clear, is the most obvious of these - but the biker was bang to rights w.r.t. the letter of the law. The fact that he didn't do anything any more dangerous than sitting behind the car in Lane 3 would have been, is neither here nor there (unless it was obviously a cop car behind him, then he's a numpty). The law is the law and as we know, cops are just ordinary people with an ordinary understanding of what's in front of them (albeit they are meant to be trained to "see" more).
Just watched that video again and the angle is a bit poor. It would appear that the car he undertook was just keeping pace with the traffic in the middle lane and not actually overtaking which I believe is against the law so why wasn't the car driver fucking nicked for lane hogging
I wonder, was the car driver nicked? It would have been beside the point of the video though and would only have confused the pinheads*. *that's us, by the way.
