Telly Alert: Tonight (Tues) BBC1, 9.30pm - Traffic Cops
 

Traffic Cops BBC1 09.30

...."documentary reveals how motorbike riders are able to avoid detection
and bring death and destruction upon others"

Not like it's going to be bias or anything...

...any guesses on what the quoted best ever top speed will be?

I'm going for 204mph...

Woops, guess it was a bit more than predicted, somewhat sobering in parts.

jesus....
 

that was nasty...

biker crashed killed his new g/f.was drunk and smoked sum weed.got 6 and a half years.Plus the bikes brakes were screwed.
another idiot giving bikers a great name.****.

anyone notice the ford focus driver wearing a ducati shirt?he was bleeding well calm knowing that he had been involded in a fatal accident.

Was very depressing.

that bloke that got pulled on the motorway could have begged for ever

made i chortle

I'd like one of those 160mph Bandit 600s the copper kept talking about. Don't think I'd fancy the drum-brake version though, the way he kept going on about brake shoes...

Anyone on a powered two wheeler is "easy meat" in more senses than one. It only takes one or two "incidents" to prevoke a big backlash for any minority group. Anyone remember the backlash on UK handguns? A nutter shoots some people and the next minute hand guns are up for a ban.
It only takes a few headbangers to get a whole group tarred with the same brush. You won't remember the 100 bikes that you saw riding couteously, just the one that nearly took yer door mirror off at 120mph as they weaved through the traffic.

Today's reporting about WHO and road deaths is a another classic case. Anyone see Steve Berry on the morning news?, he actually put up a pretty good defence to the bikes are death traps brigade.

The most disturbing aspect of this "story" this morning was that WHO were saying that policies that might encourage people on to powered two wheelers shouldn't happen! They cited congestion charging as one example!


A biker will almost invariably come of worse than a a car or truck in a crash. Its a fact of life. Unless some noew technology come along that can change that fact then the nanny state is gonna get us.

Ray

Don't even start me on handguns! I was an FAC holder, firemarms instructor and had a firearms dealership. I used to enjoy shooting as much as I enjoy riding bikes and I had the good fortune to meet some great people along the way. I really resent the fact that the government can take such draconian action on the grounds of "safety" when in reality they just drive the nutters (that exist in every walk of life) underground.

For the record I can not imagine pain greater (physical or otherwise) than losing a child, or any loved one, in such an incident and I have deep sympathy with the people who were touched by the events at Dunblane, Hungerford and any other such incident here or elsewhere........but........the reality is that if someone wants to commit such an act they will do so whether they have legal access to weapons or not and what the goverment did was not the answer IMHO.

PS. I don't want to hijack this thread but the gun reference touched a nerve. I am putting my coat on as I type.

Didn't the Dunblane bloke actually have legally licenced firearms, so the banning of hand guns wouldn't have prevented it anyway?

I'm sure I read that somewhere...

With regard to that programme,give it a rest!
At the end of the day the bloke on the bike was riding at a totally inapropriate speed for the location(immaterial of the speed limit),
was overtaking against solid white lines(remember the more paint, the less speed)
and had no brakes.
Whether its a 160mph bandit or a 100mph bandit, i would suggest the only difference is a matter of how much you want to mash your girl friend by, and probably more importantly, innocent members of the public, that could so easily of been you or I!

Actually, they never said what speed he was doing, so he may well have been within the limit for all we know.

I agree that the guy was as stupid as you can be - drink, drugs and bikes DO NOT mix.

But in all honesty, unless you've personally travelled that road you cannot say whether those solid white lines are justified.

The problem with many councils that mark up the roads, and the speed limits, do so in such a nannying way that where there is sometimes plenty of opportunity and vision to overtake, you will still find solid white lines.

Also it was never explained exactly where the car and bike were when the collision happened - for all we know the bike had been overtaking perfectly safely, but had then pulled in as other cars approached. The guy in the car may have been changing a cd, lighting a fag, picking his nose even, and swerved into the bike. Again, this was never explained in the program so much of it is left to us to assume.

I also found it interesting that the accident investigator talked about witnesses putting the speed of the bike at "about 80mph" when any good investigator should know that smaller objects appear to be travelling faster, especially motorcycles with much greater accelleration than a car. It's funny how the police will take witness words for estimates of speed in cases like this, yet when it comes to estimating your own abilities we're always told that we're in no position to do so because we're not trained observers.

All I'm pointing out are the inconsistencies in the "fully qualified and experienced" accident investigator's comments - Bandit 600s do not do 160mph nor do they need brake shoes.

There are also far too many un-answered questions in relation to the facts of the accident for anyone who had merely watched that program to understand exactly what happened on that day and who was at fault.

This doesn't negate the seriousness and terrible outcome of the accident, but we must remember to keep things in perspective.

Yes i aggree about the speed, i dont believe it was said, although there are formulas for working it out from a variety of means, not least the rather extensive striations left by the bike.
When will we understand that whether right or wrong speed limits, white lines are there! " its allright your worships, ive assessed the road, and the white lines are indeed wrong, it was safe to overtake!" yeah right, your going to get off with that one. If they are there, you have to, 1) accept what they are trying to tell you, 2) abide by them!
We did see the impact marks on the car, with the damage to the offside rear, and the extent of the 'punt' that put it towards the post. Both damaged vehicles, the st170 and the bike, were travelling in the same direction.
Witnesses, we all know that two people will watch the same thing and give completely different stories, but you still have to listen to what they say. ps, dont get so hung up on your own abilities.
Where did it say it was a 600 bandit? as they did it as a 1200 aswell, i bet one of those could get near to that figure.

He was found guilty, and got 61/2 yrs. A jury (made up of the public) obviously had no doubt who was in the wrong.

In my humble experiences, all im trying to say is that there is a fine line between having "a moment" and what ends up as total carnage.

That may be a key to why such large perameters are put on things like speed limits and white lines?

I agree entirely Andy, but the point is still valid that it's difficult to make an informed decision without knowing all the facts.

As for it being a 600 Bandit - it said so on the tail unit!

As much as I can see both points of view here, the sad facts that the bike rider had been drinking and using a controlled substance together is a convincing enough argument I think.

Didnt they say he also had the spare set of brake pads still in the box 'ready to fit' - so he must of known his brakes were worn at the very least.

I have to say I think the penalty was still harsh - having to live with the fact of killing a girlfriend is unimaginable enough.

I missed the beginning of the prog but thought it was good to see the cops as 'real people' for a change - not just robots following a programme.

Most seemed genuinely focused on saving lives and reducing accidents. I even managed a laugh at my own recent events when the camera cop at the end admitted to having 3 points on his licence.

End of soap box session - honest !!!

Didn't see the programme but....

Anyone riding a bike or driving a car whilst under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances can't really have any complaints, and to do it with a pillion (I assume his gf was on the back?)... Don't know about you lot but I become the most careful rider out there if I've got my girlfriend on the back. If I'm on my own, make a mistake and get hurt, well that's my responsibility, but taking risks with someone else's life? No thanks.

Actually, I thought that this particular bit was very hypocritical of that particular policeman.

Wasn't he the one at the start of the program that said "if we reduce our speed by 1mph we will save X number of lives" or some other meaningless quote but then sat there laughing that he had been caught speeding himself?

Not exactly the best example to set if they really think that SPEED KILLS!!!!111!!!seven

I'm sorry to upset anyone but 6.5 years for that was a joke. He should have got life in my book. As motorcycle riders we know how vulnerable we are when fully alert let alone when we have substances in our bodies that are proven to impair reactions and judgement.

The bloke got off very lightly in my book. Shame the same couldn't have been said for his poor pillion.

I have no allegiance when someone takes the p1ss. I would still chin a 'compatriate' in a helmet if he risked my life too much through selfish, idiotic and downright dangerous riding as much as I would a car driver.

Still a fact of life that we as motorcyclists are blanketed and deemed to be reckless roadusers regardlesss of how the majority of us ride or how many courses we've been on to improve our skills.

These types programmes just grab the worst examples and glorify them. The same is seen on property programmes where they geefully show complete idiots lose thousands. 'We' as a race don't want to see steady, 'prudent' programmes. 'We' want to see the obscure, out of character activites or so TV producers would have you think.