PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Biker banned for dangerous drving
andy_foster
post Tue, 31 Mar 2015 - 02:14
Post #1


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



http://essex.police.uk/news_features/homep...after_reac.aspx

QUOTE
Motorcyclist banned after reaching speeds of 148 mph

A motorcyclist who weaved in and out of traffic at speeds up to 148mph with a pillion passenger on board has been banned from driving for 15 months.

Paul Roberts was filmed by an Essex Police motorcyclist as he rode south on the M11 reaching the highest speed ever recorded in the UK by a rider carrying a passenger. The footage can be seen above.

Roberts, 43 of Malkin Drive Lane, Harlow, who runs a taxi firm in London, was riding to work on his Kawasaki ZZR 1400 with a friend as passenger on Friday September 12, 2014.

He joined the M11 at Hastingwood and was seen and followed by Pc Paul Hills who was involved in a motorcycle safety operation on the motorway.

A video camera on Pc Hill’s bike recorded events as Roberts weaved in and out of traffic across all three lanes. At one point he is seen riding through a narrow gap between a lorry and a car.

Roberts was eventually stopped near Chigwell and later summonsed for dangerous driving.

He admitted the offence and appeared for sentence at Chelmsford Crown Court on Monday March 30, 2015.He was also ordered to do 120 hours community service, told to take an extended re-test and to pay £460 costs.

Sgt Nick Edwards said: The levels of harm to which Paul Roberts subjected himself, his pillion passenger, the public and my officer are just beyond comprehension.

“These speeds are for race tracks not public roads. This riding behaviour will not be tolerated on Essex roads and the Court have clearly recognised the consequences of the riders actions in the punishment that has been awarded. The Essex Police Casualty Reduction Section continues to focus on targeting drivers and riders that through their actions pose the greatest risk of harm to themselves and other road users.”

Sgt Edwards said that Pc Hills and other Essex Police motorcyclists were carrying out a specific operation targeting motorcycle commuters using M11.

This was in a direct response to complaints from members of the public about inappropriate filtering between lanes by motorcyclists and a high number across the county of serious road collisions involving motorcycles.


However, if you watch the video, it seems that PC Hill drove at pretty much the same speed, and performed the same manoeuvres. If Roberts was driving dangerously, then so was Hill.


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V  « < 5 6 7  
Start new topic
Replies (120 - 134)
Advertisement
post Tue, 31 Mar 2015 - 02:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mattd
post Mon, 4 May 2015 - 20:08
Post #121


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,238
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Member No.: 50,335



QUOTE (TonyS @ Fri, 1 May 2015 - 13:13) *
QUOTE (Mattd @ Thu, 30 Apr 2015 - 19:18) *
However back to your original point calling this a pursuit...it isn't and doesn't meet the definition.

Not intending to fan flames, but what's the difference? I mean how do you (the Police?) define "Pursuit" and how would you define this activity? I think there may be a difference between formal Police terminology and a layman's language.


A pursuit would be where the subject has failed to stop when directed and is aware of the direction to stop...in this instance it doesn't appear any attempt has been made to stop the rider and he doesn't appear he is aware of the police presence until the he is signalled to stop which he then does without delay. I get your sentiment though about the difference potentially in terminology.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Mon, 4 May 2015 - 20:18
Post #122


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,235
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (Mattd @ Mon, 4 May 2015 - 21:08) *
I get your sentiment though about the difference potentially in terminology.


Which is exactly what I was eluding to in a previous post when I said you were being pedantic, to us non police of the community it was indeed a pursuit wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 4 May 2015 - 20:20
Post #123


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



The only eluding was by rider 1.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Mon, 4 May 2015 - 20:22
Post #124


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,235
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 4 May 2015 - 21:20) *
The only eluding was by rider 1.


Unfortunately for him not nearly enough eluding tho
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 5 May 2015 - 04:00
Post #125


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Mattd @ Mon, 4 May 2015 - 21:08) *
A pursuit would be where the subject has failed to stop when directed

In Police parlance, yes, in plain English, no.

QUOTE
PURSUE
verb (used with object), pursued, pursuing.
1. to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase.
2. to follow close upon; go with; attend:
Bad luck pursued him.
3. to strive to gain; seek to attain or accomplish (an end, object, purpose, etc.).
4. to proceed in accordance with (a method, plan, etc.).
5. to carry on or continue (a course of action, a train of thought, an inquiry, studies, etc.).
6. to continue to annoy, afflict, or trouble.
7. to practice (an occupation, pastime, etc.).

Numbers 1 and/or 2 would seem to cover it.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mattd
post Tue, 5 May 2015 - 17:49
Post #126


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,238
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Member No.: 50,335



I canst imagine why I would think that the police definition would apply....when referring to a police stop... cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Tue, 5 May 2015 - 20:46
Post #127


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,235
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



Matt please just remove you police hat for a minute and take a look at what we can all see. A pursuit !
However with your hat back on and officially it's not a pursuit then why on earth was it necessary for PC Dangerbike to ride in such a manner when he could quite easily have caught the offender with normal police driving?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 6 May 2015 - 05:34
Post #128


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Mattd, it was a pursuit in English, the Police definition is for your own classification of how its recorded its not a definition anyone else gives a hoot about, so to the public at large it was a pursuit even if the officer didn't have to comply with the requirements of a Police defined pursuit.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mattd
post Sat, 9 May 2015 - 08:42
Post #129


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,238
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Member No.: 50,335



I'll ignore the above for the sake of not totally derailing the thread , I disagree sorry to say but appreciate I am in the minority.

Out of interest then those who are prepared to ignore training and experience....do you feel police pursuits are ever justified then? Should the public not be willing to accept that the police will do dangerous things as a matter of course, minimising the risk by training, as a matter of public policy.

Anecdotally one force went very public a few years ago to say that they would never persue any vehicles. The result was a massive increase in theft of MV, car key burglary, ram raids etc
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sat, 9 May 2015 - 11:01
Post #130


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



It is the law which ignores training and experience, for reasons of practicality over justice.

As a matter of policy, for the police to put innocent members of the public at risk, if it can be acceptable to do so, there has to be some necessity which is at least proportionate to the problem they are seeking to solve or prevent.

Or to put it another way, how expensive would a stolen car have to be to justify killing an innocent member of the public whilst chasing it?



--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Sat, 9 May 2015 - 15:51
Post #131


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,235
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (Mattd @ Sat, 9 May 2015 - 09:42) *
I'll ignore the above for the sake of not totally derailing the thread , I disagree sorry to say but appreciate I am in the minority.

Out of interest then those who are prepared to ignore training and experience....do you feel police pursuits are ever justified then? Should the public not be willing to accept that the police will do dangerous things as a matter of course, minimising the risk by training, as a matter of public policy.


Matt yes you are ignoring some of what's been said. your taking things completely out of context and even twisting what some of us have said.
I don't recall anyone saying any high speed chase is unacceptable.
As i said before there are a plethora of police chase/pursuits on the box every day hardly any involve "dangerous" actions. In fact jn many i would say the driving was conservative and still ended with an aprehention!!. I think with your training it is perfectly reasonable to say a high speed chase can be achieved without particular danger to the public.
In the instance we are discussing here I think the police rider fell very short of any regard to other road users in the way he rode. He could easily have achieved the stop by safe and textbook police driving.
Ref my previous comment about riders spooking drivers, my friend was taken out on the m25 by exactly that after he was undertaken by another bike, the car he passed then panicked and braked hard taking my mate off on a trip down the tarmac.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fedup2
post Sat, 9 May 2015 - 17:22
Post #132


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,343
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Member No.: 10,873



There will always be sub standard drivers,unfortunatly the UK seems to be breeding them.What happened to your mate wasn't a result of being passed on the nearside,but lack of obs,very poor vehicle control and its debatable if they should be on a road at all.
Things unexpected will happen,its everyones responibilty to make sure you can deal with them in a way as to not endanger others. I suspect your mate wasn't prepared for eventuality either.
I suspect if you changed the Police rider for your mate,it would have been a different outcome.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Fri, 15 May 2015 - 22:05
Post #133


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,235
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (fedup2 @ Sat, 9 May 2015 - 18:22) *
There will always be sub standard drivers,unfortunatly the UK seems to be breeding them.What happened to your mate wasn't a result of being passed on the nearside,but lack of obs,very poor vehicle control and its debatable if they should be on a road at all.
Things unexpected will happen,its everyones responibilty to make sure you can deal with them in a way as to not endanger others. I suspect your mate wasn't prepared for eventuality either.
I suspect if you changed the Police rider for your mate,it would have been a different outcome.


Don't think I explained properly. Bike undertakes both my mate and the the car in front. Car panics, brakes hard and mate collides with car. Undertaking bike rides into distance.
My point being as in a previous post, that other drives can get spooked by first bike and the next one can cop the brunt of it, biker cop had no need to pass through gap between lorry and car and in my opinion was a highly unprofessional and dangerous thing to do. I doubt his intensive training would have suggested such a manoeuvre was any else but.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 20 May 2015 - 14:16
Post #134


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



So the driver who caused the accident panicked and braked when he had no need to, so DWDCA, your mate was too close to stop safely so also DWDCA, that is how you have now described it twice, while the biker perhaps should not have been undertaking, that is not a defence by either car driver to their own failings.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Wed, 20 May 2015 - 21:15
Post #135


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,235
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



Yes thanks for your observation which is totally irelevant to the point I was making. For your information the point was that undertaking between cars can be ficking dangerous as it can spook drivers.
In this case rider I didn't pass between cars but PC Dangermouse did (well between a car and a lorry actually) he should have been on the same charge!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 5 6 7
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 17:57
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here