Six months imprisonment for motorcyclist caught riding at 120mph.

I don't know, and that's the problem. If I had access to the full police video as used in evidence then I'd suggest that if the speed was very transient (and big bikes can go from 70 to 120 and back again in very few seconds) then the period for which life was endangered was also very short and so the offence of speeding should be adequate in itself as no significant danger was posed to life or limb.

If Bennett had been constantly pushing to maintain 3 figure speeds through out the whole ride (and taking consideration of the wet road and the fact that the child was not in safety clothing) then maybe a harsher sentence is due. I'm still not totally sure about prison though - perhaps this should be reserved for when an accident actually occurs.

The fact that the child was not wearing safety clothes is actually interesting as the law does not actually require their use. The law SHOULD be changed so that leathers or Kevlar suits are mandatory, as is the case with a crash helmet.

If you were to travel the A361 North Devon link Road from M5 Jct 27 to Barnstaple (where it joins the A39 Atlantic Highway) during the high holiday season you will see countless hundreds of clueless drivers in clapped out Escorts and Astras heading down to their Westward Ho! caravan digs. Their kids are unrestrained, the tyres are crap, the driving is atrocious and accidents commonplace. They're known locally as Grockels. The really offensive term is Emmets (Hayley1 will verify this :) )

Yet none is locked up. Is this because all these horrific moving traffic offences are taking place within the posted speed limit perhaps?

this is true if we had full access to the evidence it would be easier to come to a conclusion but we dont so lets focus on the clip they released. 122mph in wet conditions approaching a bend you can not deny the fact he was endangering himself, son and other road users in doing this i dont care how experienced he is this is dangerous/potentially fatal (i know this is what ifs again)

and this is true why arent leathers mandatory?? the same as air bag jackets?? are the government trying to reduce the amount of riders by not making them wear the best equipment for them???
 
Others have said similar things. I'd like to think that the government is not acting in this way but anything is possible. It would be very silly though because it totally conflicts the current obsession with Co2 emissions. And bikes are fantastically clean compared to cars in that respect simply because they're so much lighter and need much less fuel to shove 'em around.

Thinking through it again I wonder if the reason that, when passing sentence, the judge focussed upon the speed rather more than he did upon the clothing issue is because it's not illegal to ride or pillion in civvies. Perhaps if he'd chosen to give more consideration to the clothing then it could have been challenged by Bennett's defence.

Clearly it's plain silly to ride without leathers but unfortunately there is no such summary offence of 'being silly'.

As you said, with a full video we might see this in a very different light. Perhaps he approached the bend at 122mph and wiped off sixty of 'em before commiting to the bend. This is all supposition but if this were the case then it would shed a very different light and flavour onto the case.

Now, I wonder where we would stand in relation to the Freedom Of Information Act 2005 if we applied for the full video to be released into the public domain? I imagine that the justice system would possibly have to comply.

Unless, of course, the government subversively passed yet another little revision to the Act that made it unlawful to ask for the full video to be released. Possibly under the missive that it would 'Not Be In The Public Interest.' This is a favourite one at the moment. It's censorship by any other name. Or dictatorship in the making??
 
Last edited:
im not very good with law but isnt dangerous driving/riding more of an offence than speeding???
 
Yes, it certainly is considered as being more serious.

Yet it seems that the judge has directly his scorn upon the speed whilst passing sentence, perhaps because it's less likely to see the defendent furnished with safe grounds for appeal.

Dangerous driving/riding is very subjective. As I said earlier, were we all to have access to the full video it might become apparent why the judge presiding over the case hearing chose to focus upon speed.

Speeding is a summary offence and it takes little more than a corroborated reading on a Home Office Approved and suitable calibrated instrument to secure a conviction.

The legislation governing the use of speed measuing equipment is quite precise.

The equipment must have been calibrated suitably, in accordance with its HO Type Approval Certificate.

The Police Officer or other nominated person (ie. CSO) must have been trained and have been certificated to use the equipment in accordance with it's maker's and HO type approval. This includes selection of suitable site for the measurement of speed, amongst other requirements.

The operating officer is not allow to engage it subterfuge; that is to say, engineer a situation such that drivers might be required to speed as a reult of his choice of placement. Neither is the officer allowed to position himself covertly, so he can't dangle upside down from the overhanging branches of a nearby tree, for example.

There are many more rules, and I'll dig out a link to all of them in case anyone is interested. It's a very very long read, mind.

It's unclear as to whether the evidence was gather by recording equipment contained in a patrol car (marked or unmarked doesn't matter). If it was then the drivers MUST be apprehended at the roadside and a Verbal NIP (notice of intended prosecution) MUST be administered correctly.

If the evidence was gathered by roadside stationary equipment then the police have a duty to deliver a NIP, by post, within 14 days of the alleged offence. There is, however, some freedom here. If it takes 'em 3 months to track down then owner/rider then that is allowable.

Was the video taken a view of the front or the back of the bike. Consider this - bikes don't have front number plates so did the officer swing around with the handheld equipment to record the plate? If so the the whole siting/usage process might be questioned and therefore the quality of evidence recorded might be open to debate.

There are many possibilities here. And access to the video might be enlightening.

But, my friends, I doubt we're ever gonna see it.
 
in my opinion HDI... the camera proves absolutely nothing. There are no lines on the road to prove the speed he was going, so to me, I don't think that they would have had so much to stand up in court with, however, not being so 'familiar' with the law.. I don't know :)
 
in my opinion HDI... the camera proves absolutely nothing. There are no lines on the road to prove the speed he was going, so to me, I don't think that they would have had so much to stand up in court with, however, not being so 'familiar' with the law.. I don't know :)

The camera evidence we've seen does not seem to amount to being substantial enough to secure a successful prosecution. But we have not seen the whole video recording. Assuming it was acquired in compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act then we perhaps have to assume that it (the evidence) was sufficient to secure a conviction.

Indeed, judgement was entered against Barrett and he has been sentenced.

What I'm questioning is whether the charge is actually valid. He was apparently charged with commiting the offence of endangering the life of a minor yet when sentence was passed the judge made significant reference to the speed at which he was riding, having set aside the other issue of the child not being in full protective clothing.

We would all like to see the case notes released to the public domain, if for no other purpose than clarity of information.
 
I am considering doing exactly that. What we need to consider is the terms under which we'll have applied to the clerk to the justice to release them. As we're not related to the defendant (who's already been found guilty) it might be difficult.

Read my previous post where I refer to The Freedom of Information Act 2005.
 
Last edited:
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
obi_waynne UK MOT's extended 6 months General car Chat 1
herb which nearly new car upto 6 months old ??? General car Chat 11

Similar threads


Please watch this on my YouTube channel & Subscribe.


Back
Top