Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Motorcyclist jailed - 122mph spurt with 14-year-old son (UK)

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Farab, Mar 3, 2009.

  1. Found this, thought you guys may appreciate it, click link for short video clip imbedded in original article.


  2. You can smack a bloke and get less than that.

    Still, his young bloke on board...
  3. You can kill a motorcyclist 'by accident' and get a suspended sentence.
  4. Sorry to flog the horse but there was no accident - no one was injured, the boy is fine! Jail time??? The world is fcuked.
  5. According to an article in the Age today raping a four year old girl also doesn't get you time in prison!? I guess speeding on a motorbike is a whole other level of evil...
  6. Just watched the clip. If thats 120 MPH im a monkey ass. Lucky if that was 90 MPH. Firstly looking at the rider and pillion fully upright in the rain and gaging movement by the roadside. I am surprised that this was not contested in court!
  7. The land of the Fogbreather is a land of insanity… and it's the direction this country is headed if the people don't make their voices heard.
  8. do what you want in your own time but having a young kid on the back is pretty irresponsible imho

  9. Yes, they have managed to give a working, tax paying person and as far as we know an average joe like you and me, a criminal record that has / will basically ruin or at least change his life, for WHAT exactly?!?!

    All I want to know is, when is the "pendulum" going to swing back?
  10. That clip is slowed down by at least 50%. Look at the car wipers for a start. He may also have seen the cop car by the time he is in the distance (brake lights are on).

    As for jail, possibly over the top, but he was doing at last 100% over the speed limit. In the rain. Approaching a corner. And with a child on the back.
  11. yes. very naughty. lots of potential for something bad to happen. but the fact is that nothing did happen. I'm sure the lesson would have been equally well learnt with a stiff fine and a suspension
  12. +1 to that, jails seem to only house speedster now :( which is probably a good thing as i think i need a new wide screen tv :LOL:
  13. I am not saying anything otherwise. But following that logic, the only time jail is needed is for when something has already gone badly wrong. In other words, as punishment.

    Isn't that the same as shutting the door after the horse has bolted? It's ok to go as fast as you like, as long as you don't hit anyone?

    To put things into perspective. He was doing 195kmh in a 100. In the rain, with a child on the back, approaching a corner. If he is prepared to do that and rationalise it, what do you think he'd do with a suspension?

    You're not the first person to suggest that a fine and a suspension would work better. But when they're handed out then people complain about how unfair that is and how a really big fine would be better. But when a really big fine is handed out, then people complain that it's excessive.

    FWIW, I really don't think jail is appropriate. It has all the negative results, very few positives and will impact this man for a long time to come. But at what point DO you think it's appropriate to jail someone, if ever? Only after they've had the accident? And isn't part of the criminal justice system also a deterrent? Unfortunately someone has to be the test case and the 'example', but this will surely make someone else reconsider where and when they chose to have a fang.
  14. I'm going to stick my head out and say 'yes!'

    The disincentive to going as fast as you like is that WHEN/IF you hit and kill someone the penalties would be so severe that it would act as a deterrent to people doing so.
  15. Where would you draw the line? Would this principle apply to all criminal areas or just the bits that might affect us?
  16. okay - take speed. The limits on our roads are legal maximums that we are allowed to drive up to under ideal conditions. I'm a trained and licensed road user and by definition you trust me to use my judgement as to when those conditions are ideal. You trust me to use my judgement that when conditions are less than ideal I will drive SLOWER than the legal maximum to remain safe.

    why don't you trust me to use my judgement and occasionally travel FASTER than the legal maximum if I believe it is safe to do so?

    I don't believe a custodial sentence is EVER appropriate for a simple speeding offence where nobody has been hurt and no property has been damaged. By all means throw the book at me if something goes wrong and I do end up hurting someone or damaging something, or if I'm stupid enough to keep getting caught, but until I do, then please do me the courtesy of treatingme like a responsible adult and not a naughty child.

    I think I believe this should apply to all areas. If actual violence, injury or damage has occurred then throw the book at me. I include in this the threat of violence/damage because I believe that injury can include fear, loss of confidence and other non-physical effects. I also include financial damage/injury etc in this, what I do not include is POTENTIAL violence/damage/injury/cost

    and by the way by 'you' I obviously don't mean 'you' or anyone here. I mean 'them'
  17. Ironically the father probably would have had less jail time for smacking the kid around and actually hurting him. Stupidity should not equal jail, have judges given up on community service sentances??
  18. A simple speeding offence? 195kmh in a 100kmh zone, in the wet is never a 'simple speeding offence'.

    I, like you, also don't think that jail is an appropriate punishment. But 'appropriate' seems to be relative depending on who is being punished. There was outrage here a few months ago when a respected NR received a mandatory suspension for a speed more than this bloke and in better riding conditions . Yet here, because this bloke has been jailed, a suspension is deemed appropriate?

    I somehow think that whatever sentence this man was handed it would be thought by many to be excessive.

    When I exceed the speed limit, I do so in full knowledge of the possible consequences. It sets an upper limit on what I am prepared to do and where I chose to do it. I suggest that the simple knowledge that in doing so I am at risk of losing both my licence, my bike and potentially my liberty is having exactly the effect that the law makers intended.
  19. I think you're referring to this story
    The New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) will appeal against the two-year suspended sentence given to a man who raped a four-year-old girl in the state's north.

    The 24-year-old man pleaded guilty in a Sydney court last month to breaking into a house north of Grafton and sexually assaulting the girl as she slept in 2007.

    He was allowed to walk free from court last month, after spending at least 14 months in remand awaiting his trial.

    State Attorney-General John Hatzistergos says the DPP will argue that the sentence is manifestly inadequate.

    "The maximum penalty that is available for sexually assaulting a child under the age of 10 is 25 years. The standard minimum sentence is 15 years," he said.

    "It's important that those signposts are kept in mind because that reflects the strong abhorrence that the community has to crimes of this nature."

    Shadow attorney-general Greg Smith SC also spoke out against the sentence this morning.

    "I just can't understand what possesses someone to give such a light sentence," he said.

    Earlier today, a spokeswoman for the DPP said the department was waiting for remarks from the sentencing judge and would consider an appeal within the next few weeks.

    I think this is what's p!ssing everyone off, the massive variation in sentencing. One bloke speeds and goes to jail, another bloke breaks into a house, rapes a child and gets a lesser sentence. There is something seriously wrong with this, and I think it emphasizes just how much govts ramp up speeding as it's a valuable source of revenue for them.
  20. What if he was doing 195km/h in his CAR, with his son sitting next to him? Would he still go to jail? I don't think so, although the traffic offence would be exactly the same. :roll: