Throttle-happy biker caught at speed on the A2 in Kent
Lewis Matanle, 38, from Marine Crescent, Whitstable, was clocked by a speed camera at 146mph – the highest recorded by a mobile camera in the county.
Matanle was piloting his Suzuki GSX-R750 on October 6 last year, when his speed was recorded at more than double the legal limit.
Yesterday, Matanle was disqualified from riding or driving for two years, fined £400 and ordered to pay £50 costs by Ashford magistrates.
OK, so it's a bit fast.
But all these speed traps are going to do is encourage people to register their vehicles in a different name!
In my opinion, they should be concentrating more on the more dangerous "illegal activities" that motorists take part in, such as "driving without due care", tailgating, no MOT or insurance etc. but then again, you cant raise money as easily from actually having the traffic police do their job instead of a camera trap!
Posted: 05/08/2008 at 12:00
Posted: 05/08/2008 at 12:04
Posted: 05/08/2008 at 12:16
Posted: 05/08/2008 at 12:19
rubbercowboy wrote (see)
I have an alleged offence against me doing 120mph on a 60 road - what is the likely outcome if prosecuted? Did this guy not get done for dangerous driving also?
Did you do it?
Posted: 05/08/2008 at 12:24
Posted: 05/08/2008 at 12:57
RUBBERCOWBOY - Easy, Tiger. Start by getting yourself a good lawyer - one who specialises in motoring offences. Google it for starters. Ask your local brief frankly and forcibly - will they get you representation that has a cast iron rep in motoring offences? Don't be fudged, schmoozed or fobbed off. You want the best. If they are, and they cost more, pay it. It will be worth it. Be confident - why were you doing 120? Presumably because you felt entirely safe. Would a police driver ever do 120 or even more, in a national limit, where they felt safe? Damn right. So, is that dangerous? Apparently not. Speeding is not necessarily dangerous driving. Remember your experience and expertise - was it dangerous? Why on earth would you be doing that?
Good brief. Play the game. Get a result. It's what the law is there for - to protect you, not oppress you.
Posted: 05/08/2008 at 12:58
"It's what the law is there for - to protect you, not oppress you"
Posted: 05/08/2008 at 13:22
It's the risk you run i guess. Thing is, Most of the guys i know who are disqualified still ride most weekends , just without a plate. The plod around this part dont really care too much about bikers unless its a traffic car.
Posted: 05/08/2008 at 13:36
Posted: 05/08/2008 at 13:44
As far as I am aware (but I'm sure some of our friendly plod will correct me) when you are notified that they intend to prosecute you, the officer should tell you what you are being charged with. I was stopped for 111mph in a 70 and the officer told me that I would not be prosecuted for Dangerous Driving.
Posted: 05/08/2008 at 14:22
Posted: 05/08/2008 at 14:41
the big fairy, my 750 would do 177
but seriously though, we all know what the speed limit is, no point in complaining when we get caught
Rubbercowboy, i agree with what mario says above and what you have intimated, get the best possible legal, if you think it was fair cop govenor to the speeding, but think with your experience and the road in question was safe then dont except dangerous driving unless every other trick has been tried
good luck to you, it could be many of us
Posted: 05/08/2008 at 15:37
Posted: 05/08/2008 at 15:44
Posted: 05/08/2008 at 16:52
damn i just wish the best for the guy
Posted: 06/08/2008 at 07:07
The natuare of the offence for which you have been reported is partially dependent on how you were captured and then the circumstances of, in your case, speeding.
Eg, was it an officer who witnessed you speeding through rush hour traffic, lane splitting like a good un or a Gatso Bastard Camera which just went off when you went past.
I would expect any good brief to ask for production of the latest calibration and servicing certificates for the camera in question and also that the image has not been enhanced in any way. Cameras are type certified by Home Office to very specific tolerances.
Also, why doing 120 ? were you being chased by a psychotic Porsche driver, family member just been taken to hospital ? Or just thrashing the shite out of your hairdryer and became object fixated on the speedo and didn't see the camera.........?!?
If the job goes to court then CPS can vary the charges there, either to add, or replace the initial offence as a reviewing lawyer sees fit.
Given the magnitude of what you could be facing FatBoyTim's advice is very sound.
In addition to facing a possible ( but unlikely ) custodial sentence the judge can also order seizure of your bike if they're feeling grumpy.
If you have genuine grounds then you've nothing to lose, but don't be tempted to try and bullshit a bullshitter....
Posted: 06/08/2008 at 09:39
Posted: 06/08/2008 at 10:05
Gutted! A few more mph, say 160 and the camera might not have even picked it up.
Posted: 06/08/2008 at 10:56
I got done in my car for 118 on a motorway. 25 day ban and £250 although this was a long time ago.
Posted: 06/08/2008 at 12:52
DJ Mawds wrote (see)
146mph?Gutted! A few more mph, say 160 and the camera might not have even picked it up.
Yes it would have.
I cant remember what the speed limit is for a camera, but even if its only 140ish, then you will still have been caught on one of the photos. The other photo will show an empty road, but this would just show that you were travelling at a rediculous speed, and you probably would get done for dangerous driving.
Posted: 06/08/2008 at 16:15
That's why I put a smiley in there.
Posted: 06/08/2008 at 16:20
Posted: 06/08/2008 at 19:21
That's why I put a smiley in there.Chill winston!
Posted: 07/08/2008 at 11:53
Mario McMillan wrote (see)
RUBBERCOWBOY - Easy, Tiger. Start by getting yourself a good lawyer - one who specialises in motoring offences. Google it for starters. Ask your local brief frankly and forcibly - will they get you representation that has a cast iron rep in motoring offences? Don't be fudged, schmoozed or fobbed off. You want the best. If they are, and they cost more, pay it. It will be worth it. Be confident - why were you doing 120? Presumably because you felt entirely safe. Would a police driver ever do 120 or even more, in a national limit, where they felt safe? Damn right. So, is that dangerous? Apparently not. Speeding is not necessarily dangerous driving. Remember your experience and expertise - was it dangerous? Why on earth would you be doing that? Good brief. Play the game. Get a result. It's what the law is there for - to protect you, not oppress you.
What a complete load of crap.
The law on speeding doesn't differentiate on the safety or otherwise of doing it - it's just a clear cut law.It's black or white, simple as.
Everyone knows that and hey, you know what, even magistrates do too.
Try the "I was safe so I should be let off" one on them and you'll get the book thrown at you -
1. for speeding and 2. for thinking you're above the law.
I've never seen such bad advice on speeding.
Posted: 07/08/2008 at 12:07
Posted: 07/08/2008 at 12:18
I have learned that speed alone is not dangerous in the eyes of the law so it comes down to other factors.
Good for you - I bet Mr Loophole is worrying that all his clients will now defect to you
Posted: 07/08/2008 at 12:45
Possibly - nice ass by the way.
Posted: 07/08/2008 at 13:33
The bloke only did one thing wrong
He got caught
Posted: 07/08/2008 at 15:13
Of course he'll probably get done for speeding, that's not what I was discussing. Rubbercowboy was concerned about a possible DD or RD offence. The circumstances need to be taken into account and the burden of proof is higher.
And I know exactly what I'm talking about as I have been through two similar situation. Both times, the prosecution realised there was very little chance of making a DD charge stick. One was reduced to DWDC then thrown out in court. The other was withdrawn completely. Both times, the defence counsel's arguments were pivotal. Speeding can be dangerous, reckless and even a contributory factor in manslaughter. But speeding per se is not dangerous driving and a good brief can argue that case compellingly.
Posted: 08/08/2008 at 00:12
Posted: 08/08/2008 at 06:32
Become a fan of Visordown
Follow us on twitter
Other Immediate Media Sites
Our eCommerce Platform
© Immediate Media Company Ltd 2012. This website is owned and published by Immediate Media Company Limited. www.immediatemedia.co.uk