Safe Speed Forums

I have split this from this Thread Here SafeSpeedv2.
Allow me to quote the Judge again, here ...... and Barry Brittain's response ...I guess it's a good thing that the judge did not choose to set aside the jury's decision and render an independent verdict, seeing as he completely disagrees with them and Mr Brittain.

So, were it not for the jury, the gist is that the Judge believes that no one is capable of making the assessment[s] that Barry Brittain made. That seems to make sense, when you consider that Judge Robin Onions will NEVER EVER intentionally cause one wheel to leave the ground, and will probably try to keep all four wheels touching the road at all times.

This is a case where I'd submit that the Judge should be subject to a 'voir dire' process.

In the alternate, it would be quite interesting the day Barry Brittain became a traffic court Judge ...

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

I think the Judge is saying that he agrees with the Not Guilty verdict and I think he is referring to BB's 'practicing phrase' that yes get skilled to allow for things but do so safely - he might even be being a little tongue in cheek and referring to the cameras that saw him. Was he perhaps saying 'it's not worth the bother of a Court Case by practicing on the street'.
If he is saying that as we never know when something may happen, so don't bother practicing and improving skills then I agree that is not a good policy.
I am not sure the Judge can set any verdict aside in the UK. What makes you think the judge was bias ? He might just have been trying to strike the fear of God into him. BB would have to do a lot of study and work to become a Judge!

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Hmm, on the one hand, he's saying that a reserve of skill is worth having (and since no one is born with it, it must be developed and maintained) ... on the other hand, he's saying don't nurture this reserve where ANYONE can see you - either now or later.
If he's saying it's not worth the bother of a Court Case, then he's contradicting himself, and making it not quite crystal clear that he disagrees with the jury.Based on what the Judge said, I think he disagreed with the jury and either chose not to enforce his disagreement, or could not enforce it, but got in his dissenting opinion.
A man who will probably never ride a motorcycle, much less ride with BB's competence and/or confidence, could not possibly strike fear into anyone of BB's ilk, except fear of the judicial process. The rest of the jury heard the Judge, however, and would feel much more threatened by his words, especially since I doubt most of then can ride as well as BB.Yes, he would.
I meant two things by this statement:
1) that I cannot imagine anyone with BB's level of competence and confidence with the motorcycle having any time to become a Judge, thus he cannot truly understand the Judge's dissenting opinion, since it comes from a mindset that cannot really make sense of BB's mindset
2) that I cannot imagine a traffic court Judge possessing enough competence and confidence with ANY motor vehicle to plainly and completely agree with that jury; such Judges would be quickly weeded out of the system.
If he is also implying that the license to operate any sort of motor vehicle does not confer the license to use one's judgment as to which codes can be bent or broken for the purpose of improving one's judgment, then how is that different from saying,
"Just follow the rules as written. Any use of your judgment can be used against you in a court of law."?

And by the way, doesn't that also sound a lot like some of the posters here who argue that the posted speed 'limit' is always right?, and that 'you' cannot possibly be right if 'you' ever exceed it for any reason?

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

"I fully agree with the Jury's decision" seems to be a curious way of expressing dissent from that decision.

The Judge is agreeing that in the circumstances there was no evidence of dangerous or careless riding but that he is of the opinion - one I share - that a public road is an inappropriate place to practice stunt riding because of the possibility of the unexpected happening. If some passer by had been killed or injured I suspect that the verdict would have been different

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I agree that public roads are no place to take risks with other peoples lives.

This harps back to the other recent thread here on SS about how testing your limits makes you a better driver/rider. The drawback is that in finding your limit you could come to harm. In fact, unless I’m missing something, it’s not until you keep pushing and eventually lose control that you could say you have truly found your limit. All the excellent wheelie riders I know have at some point come off as they practice this art and I could argue it was more luck than judgement that they survived to become so good.

As a biker and occasional wheelie-popper myself I don’t push it to anywhere near my limit, mainly because at my age I don’t bounce so well but also I see what happens to the riders when it goes wrong - and sometimes their pillion too. One lady rider at a biker venue some time ago gave her bike a fistful when pulling away and went on the wrong side of the road on the back wheel out of control head-on into a HGV. (I could mention the pub and place, but I won’t).

To this day there is a random police presence during the spring/summer months pulling experienced riders for doing what they are very good at but I agree with the police for doing this; it’s the wrong time and place to be showing off. Shame for the biker but imagine how the HGV driver feels and the witnesses to it!

To most people, certainly most drivers with no biker experience, a wheelie is always dangerous and is regarded as black and white, (just like speeding), but this simply is not the case. By definition, as soon as the front wheel leaves the road it is a wheelie. But during hard acceleration I can easily keep the front wheel only an inch off the ground or just ‘pattering’ the road for seconds as the power is delivered. I don’t regard this as any more dangerous or noticeable than hard acceleration, (where the wheel does not leave the tarmac), but should I get done for it on a public road because it's classed as a wheelie? Once again a traf pol is best placed to assess any danger, if any, not a dumb camera!

Most peoples’ perception of a wheelie is probably somewhere over about a 30 deg angle, but if you know what you’re doing it’s not a problem and it’s not at all dangerous ‘in the right circumstances!’ I also believe if he is doing it somewhere safe or private it’s his choice to take that risk, just like a track day.


Safe riding everyone...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Even in a public place wether it is safe or not depends if there are others around or likely to be around. If there were wide open spaces around, where he could clearly see otheres would not suddenly appear, what is the problem?

It is a bit like people who say that exceeding the speed limit is dangerous because a child may step in front of you. But what if there is no child around and you can clearly see there will not be a child around or anybody else for that matter? I could show you several roads like this in Hampshire, that have been reduced to 30mph limits that have good vision and wide open spaces each side of the road.

It all gets back to

Risk = (speed x surprise/space) x (objects x impact speed )

as so clearly put by Stephen Haley in Mind Driving.

Does anyone else get the feeling, from the emphasis that the bike could not exceed the speed limit in 1st gear, that this was the major aspect of the not guilty verdict, rather than any real assessed risk or otherwise.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Sir - me sir


This is exactly what I have been saying whynot and exactly what you are up against!

The mentality of the ‘Coalition Of Drivers Proposing Ignorant Enforcement Conquers Education’ or ‘Codpiece’ for short is that you can never know what is safe even if you’re the only living thing around for miles but yet a posted sign somehow always does.

A Codpiece is so desperate that he will do or say anything no matter how ridiculous or absurd rather than admit that the circumstances dictate what is safe more than a speed limit ever could.

If I said I was on completely open ground with no-one in view they would still say "what if you hit a child parachuting down from an errant Cessna".

They’re pathetic and they are not interested in real road safety!

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

He doesn't have the power to do that.

Really? then why did he say


The judge also said which seems to be in accord with the comment by Mr Brittain that

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Amid all the fuss about the not guilty verdict for the dangerous driving charge it is worth looking at the not guilty verdict to the DWDC charge.


DWDC is defined as driving which falls below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver. Nothing about good drivers (however that is assessed ) being allowed to do things the rest of are not allowed to do. If the press report is correct Mr Brittain performed wheelies while sitting on the tank of his motorcycle with his legs hanging over the handlebars. A question for the bikers among us - can you ride a motorcycle to the standard expected of a careful and competent driver while sitting on the tank, with your legs dangling over the handlebars and with only one wheel in contact with the ground? If you can, why isn't everybody doing it?

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

No for sure, but when you are up in court and feel the truth isn’t going to be enough, (and who amongst us doesn’t feel that’s becoming the norm these days), I’m sure very few of us wouldn’t try and mitigate the situation by seeming contrite in some way.

So if it were me I’m sure I would also say “In hindsight perhaps I could have chosen somewhere more suitable.” By which I bet he was thinking “Somewhere they didn’t see me and just leave me the hell alone!”. I would probably call myself a complete arse if it helped, even though only myself ever stood to get hurt. And there's the rub - Who was he hurting and who did he ever stand to hurt?

There is too much control and interference in our own lives IMHO.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Lots of law is based on a generic risk that may not apply to a specific situation. The obvious ones of interest to this forum being the requirement for a driving licence when a good many people drive safely without ever having passed a test. Another would be the drink drive laws. We had one over christmas who was stopped because his rear number plate was so dirty it couldn't be read. The police followed for some time while doing a PNC check and saw nothing wrong with his driving. They stopped him to tell him to clean the plate and he fell out of the car when they opened the door. two and a half times the limit.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

I know you’re not taking sides Fisherman, just talking Law, but I would say I take a more simplistic view of things.

For instance, there’s a race track thing near to me in a park. I don’t know what it’s called but you know those runways built for cyclists which look like a giant ‘U’ shape? I was watching some cyclists who were skilfully speeding down the slope a year or so ago and doing acrobatics and wheelies in the area with absolutely no protective wear. They reach quite some height I can tell you!

Now as far as the difference in danger is concerned there isn’t any between those cyclists and the biker except that the biker has a licence and as such can be held to account. Actually, as I understand, the biker was alone whereas there were several cyclists performing their stunts and on-lookers too. So I could argue they were putting themselves in more danger than the lonely biker doubtless wearing his protective gear.

So it seems to me all too often that a driver’s licence is a just licence to print money for the Government and the law isn’t flexible enough to differentiate between safe or unsafe, right or Might. As mentioned, he could easily have been looking at a jail sentence.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I suspect the point is that the stunt cyclists (for want of a better phrase) voluntarily put themselves at a high level of risk and can chose not to do so. If you watch a rugby match you will see people being tackled and knocked to the ground in a manner that would see the assailant jailed if it happened in the street with an unwilling victim.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

To bring you up on a point here; the standard is one expected of a careful and competent driver (rider) riding normally, if an individual on trial is capable of maintaining this standard, whilst undertaking further tasks that this "average" rider/driver could not, it does not automatically mean that their riding/driving falls below the required standard. Surely this is the very justification of advanced police drivers being "safe" to take risks that the "average" driver is expected not to.

Given that, thankfully, DD and DWCA are still subjective measures, rather that strict-liability box-ticking, then more than just the act(s) performed must absolutely be taken into account.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

There isn't anything in the act - Road Traffic Act 1988 section 2 for dangerous driving and section 3 for DWDC - that mentions while driving normally although, through custom and practice, that was usually a consideration. The current advice courts get with regard to to drivers who hold some kind of advanced training is the case of R v Bannister TLR 24.8.09. To save people the trouble of looking it up, this case states that the level of training a defendant has, for example a police advanced driver, is not relevant to the matter of whether or not he or she was driving dangerously. Interestingly, the guidelines give inexperience of the driver as a "factor indicating lower culpability".

As you pointed out they subjective tests thus giving a wide range of discretion to courts.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

The bottom line is that he was pulling wheelies on an industrial estate at low speed.
Doing the same outside a school would have seen him walking for a while, or even basking in fluorescent light at her majesties pleasure.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

I would assume though, that this would have been at night or weekend when the industrial estate was free of workers/joe public. He was after all seen on cctv, not by a real person as far as I can make out.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

That doesn't follow.
Most people would not notify the police. Most people do not bother to do anything if someone is being assaulted.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing