Caught @ 160 mph

[Exupnut]

Speeding motorbike rider clocked at 160mph in Cambridgeshire
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-37086235


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bretty]

I reckon these speed camera readings are always a bit dubious.

I do a bit of shooting in my spare time and from that perspective, that's some shooting to be able to hit a moving target at 160mph.
Is that the actual police photo? What is the second number on the radar device? Meters?
Some time ago a policeman showed me one of these laser readings  and it gave speed and a distance at which the speed was taken. If that says 376m that's a hell of a shot at a 160mph target, even tripod mounted or handheld, imagine the wobble/error there must be in that measurement at that distance.

Like I say, I shoot a lot on the range and with a lot of people, mainly air rifles and pistols in the UK, but also handguns and rifles when I'm in the states. Even 75% of competent shooters would struggle to hit a stationary motorbike front on at 50m. Let alone a moving one at any sort of range.

I wish my laser range finder acquired moving targets out to that range.

That's mental! Anyway, I might be ranting and not really know what I am talking about, but aiming at and hitting something isn't like you see in the movies, no matter what you are using.
 

[Frosties]

So the old bill were sitting in a lay by and caught up with him in half a mile. Errrrr, I think not.

[Bretty]

...Because at 160mph you cover half a mile in 11.25seconds.

Although more likely, the biker slammed on the anchors the moment he saw the police car (which would have been too late as they would have already clocked him) and he pootled past them doing 30mph with his fingers crossed while simultaneously crapping his pants. We've all done it. 

[Skippernick]

So the old bill were sitting in a lay by and caught up with him in half a mile. Errrrr, I think not.

Ha, that was exactly my reaction. Unless of course they accelerated to 320mph in a couple of seconds. So then now who is the speeder.

[Skippernick]

I reckon these speed camera readings are always a bit dubious.

I do a bit of shooting in my spare time and from that perspective, that's some shooting to be able to hit a moving target at 160mph.
Is that the actual police photo? What is the second number on the radar device? Meters?
Some time ago a policeman showed me one of these laser readings  and it gave speed and a distance at which the speed was taken. If that says 376m that's a hell of a shot at a 160mph target, even tripod mounted or handheld, imagine the wobble/error there must be in that measurement at that distance.

Like I say, I shoot a lot on the range and with a lot of people, mainly air rifles and pistols in the UK, but also handguns and rifles when I'm in the states. Even 75% of competent shooters would struggle to hit a stationary motorbike front on at 50m. Let alone a moving one at any sort of range.

I wish my laser range finder acquired moving targets out to that range.

That's mental! Anyway, I might be ranting and not really know what I am talking about, but aiming at and hitting something isn't like you see in the movies, no matter what you are using.
 

I think you'll find its set on a spot in the distance and then as a vehicle passes through it it pings them. Otherwise if it was that bad it wouldn't be admissible in court.

[Freck]

I was always under the impression that these types of cameras weren't type approved for bikes because of the inaccuracies involved (laser reflection, not hitting a flat surface etc)


I suppose he'd be banged to rights at that speed though. No doubt that he was doing over 70. 

[Exupnut]

I'd like to see streetbudgie keep up with that fukka on his 600 ;-)

[Flooky]

Yeah the filming might be a bit blurred, 

[dazza]

Can you imagine the title....."Self righteous biker with head up own arse chases down speeding biker eating a banana at 160 MPH" 

[Skippernick]

now now ladies, don't hide behind a computer and be bitchy.

[Streetbudgie]

I'd like to see streetbudgie keep up with that fukka on his 600 ;-)

Probably could as mine is an FZ1S 

[Exupnut]

I'd like to see streetbudgie keep up with that fukka on his 600 ;-)

Probably could as mine is an FZ1S 

Oops ....says 600 under your avatar

[Streetbudgie]

So it does, hadn't noticed that.

It must have come over from the previous forum, I never got my post count moved though.

[Val]

Can you imagine the title....."Self righteous biker with head up own arse chases down speeding biker eating a banana at 160 MPH" 

Using full set of silver cutlery and a china porcelain plate mounted on his windshiled  the culprit still manages to keep his eyes and visor firmly on the road 

Widesperad discussion in the known forums is still ongoing is that even safe...for filming 

I have everything under control FZ1S has been used here...

The operator of the said youtube video insist Yamaha profesional equipment has been used and no kittens has been harmed during the shooting, except small patch of banana puree on M25 fast lane 

[joebloggs]

I reckon these speed camera readings are always a bit dubious.

I do a bit of shooting in my spare time and from that perspective, that's some shooting to be able to hit a moving target at 160mph.
Is that the actual police photo? What is the second number on the radar device? Meters?
Some time ago a policeman showed me one of these laser readings  and it gave speed and a distance at which the speed was taken. If that says 376m that's a hell of a shot at a 160mph target, even tripod mounted or handheld, imagine the wobble/error there must be in that measurement at that distance.

Like I say, I shoot a lot on the range and with a lot of people, mainly air rifles and pistols in the UK, but also handguns and rifles when I'm in the states. Even 75% of competent shooters would struggle to hit a stationary motorbike front on at 50m. Let alone a moving one at any sort of range.

I wish my laser range finder acquired moving targets out to that range.

That's mental! Anyway, I might be ranting and not really know what I am talking about, but aiming at and hitting something isn't like you see in the movies, no matter what you are using.
 

I know the road he was caught on, its straight as a Die, unless he was weaving it wouldn't have been hard to track him.

Pretty dumb for slowing really, should have took his chances at out running them, he was already facing a years ban, huge fine and a prison sentence so not much else to loose. 

[pete786.u]

According to what was reported about a driver caught doing 154mph in his car (posted on here a few weeks ago) as long as there is no accident involved and he is tried in a magistrates court  it is an offence that doesn`t carry a custodial offence and only about a six month ban  plus points and a fine.