Trowbridge man has admitted speeding (From This Is Wiltshire)

Dawid Borkowski? Good old Wiltshire name.

Send him back. The countrys over populated enough with wrong doers !

old 'arry wrote:
Dawid Borkowski? Good old Wiltshire name.

maningless, boring ad irrelevant.

Only luck he did not kill innocent people, a long driving ban would be good but all too often people carry on driving. Perhaps seeing some footage of the damage that speed has done to others may be an idea.

just shows lack of respect for the law ,he should jailed, and IF an immigrant deported

melkshamwizard wrote:
just shows lack of respect for the law ,he should jailed, and IF an immigrant deported

So all speeders should be jailed?

Mrs Donnyfly wrote:

melkshamwizard wrote:
just shows lack of respect for the law ,he should jailed, and IF an immigrant deported

So all speeders should be jailed?

read again ,i said also lack of respect for the law ,meaning not attending court

melkshamwizard wrote:

Mrs Donnyfly wrote:

melkshamwizard wrote:
just shows lack of respect for the law ,he should jailed, and IF an immigrant deported

So all speeders should be jailed?

read again ,i said also lack of respect for the law ,meaning not attending court

I've read it several times now and it's still not clear that's what you meant. As for not attending court, there could be any number of reasons why he didn't.

melkshamwizard wrote:

Mrs Donnyfly wrote:

melkshamwizard wrote:
just shows lack of respect for the law ,he should jailed, and IF an immigrant deported

So all speeders should be jailed?

read again ,i said also lack of respect for the law ,meaning not attending court

He is not obliged to attend the court hearing for a speeding offence so I can not see how this disrespects the law in any way.

OhThisIsFun wrote:
Send him back. The countrys over populated enough with wrong doers !

back where?

Out comes the stereotypical WT Reader casual racism card again... well done for lowering the tone again.

Speeding offence on a motorcycle, in a national speed limit area, away from homes and on wide roads... I can give you one guess on who'd be the biggest loser if that went wrong. He was hardly riding past a school at chucking out time, flailing a broadsword from a bike with Boudica Spikes attached to his wheels.

Just because he was not going past a school does not mean he would not of ended up killing innocent families with kids in another vehicle, should he of carried on and possibly had an accident. I do not care where he comes from, these are the speed limits stick to them or pay the consequences.

redrum wrote:
Just because he was not going past a school does not mean he would not of ended up killing innocent families with kids in another vehicle, should he of carried on and possibly had an accident. I do not care where he comes from, these are the speed limits stick to them or pay the consequences.

It's also quite possible that he could have had an accident whilst going within the speed limit and wiped out a car full of innocent children.

He was driving like a pratt with complete disregard for others. I don't care if he wants to risk his own life. Let him do so on a track - with people who accept the risks they take on that track. If he IS involved in an accident on a highway due in part or whole to his excessive speed - (and more than twice the limit is a tad excessive) let's hope the only death, if there is one, is his.

"Out comes the stereotypical WT Reader casual racism card again... well done for lowering the tone again."
......said DaveH.
.
I don't think it is stereotypical - the odd one or two maybe.

redrum wrote:
Just because he was not going past a school does not mean he would not of ended up killing innocent families with kids in another vehicle, should he of carried on and possibly had an accident. I do not care where he comes from, these are the speed limits stick to them or pay the consequences.

Appalling grammar - I shall attempt to make it more acceptable.

Just because he was not going past a school does not mean he would not have ended up killing innocent families with children in another vehicle; should he have carried on and possible had an accident. I do not care where he comes from, there are speed limits, stick to them or accept the consequences.

That's the best I can do.

medievalvillager wrote:

redrum wrote:
Just because he was not going past a school does not mean he would not of ended up killing innocent families with kids in another vehicle, should he of carried on and possibly had an accident. I do not care where he comes from, these are the speed limits stick to them or pay the consequences.

Appalling grammar - I shall attempt to make it more acceptable.

Just because he was not going past a school does not mean he would not have ended up killing innocent families with children in another vehicle; should he have carried on and possible had an accident. I do not care where he comes from, there are speed limits, stick to them or accept the consequences.

That's the best I can do.

Oops.

medievalvillager, appalled at some grammar, attempted to make it more acceptable. no need ...it was accepted by the forum which does not validate grammar.

notscot wrote:

medievalvillager wrote:

redrum wrote:
Just because he was not going past a school does not mean he would not of ended up killing innocent families with kids in another vehicle, should he of carried on and possibly had an accident. I do not care where he comes from, these are the speed limits stick to them or pay the consequences.

Appalling grammar - I shall attempt to make it more acceptable.

Just because he was not going past a school does not mean he would not have ended up killing innocent families with children in another vehicle; should he have carried on and possible had an accident. I do not care where he comes from, there are speed limits, stick to them or accept the consequences.

That's the best I can do.

Oops.

Oops indeed - seems my best was not good enough - I did of course mean "possibly" - and to "beetawix" - it would appear that the forum is happy to accept spelling mistakes too - oops!

medievalvillager, I did not say the forum was happy to accept spelling mistakes, bad grammar etc. I don't think a forum is capable of attributes such as happiness (unless referring to the people that make up the forum).


This mechanical forum does not reject idiotic phrases like 'could of'' therefore they are acceptable and are acceptable

medievalvillager wrote:

notscot wrote:

medievalvillager wrote:

redrum wrote:
Just because he was not going past a school does not mean he would not of ended up killing innocent families with kids in another vehicle, should he of carried on and possibly had an accident. I do not care where he comes from, these are the speed limits stick to them or pay the consequences.

Appalling grammar - I shall attempt to make it more acceptable.

Just because he was not going past a school does not mean he would not have ended up killing innocent families with children in another vehicle; should he have carried on and possible had an accident. I do not care where he comes from, there are speed limits, stick to them or accept the consequences.

That's the best I can do.

Oops.

Oops indeed - seems my best was not good enough - I did of course mean "possibly" - and to "beetawix" - it would appear that the forum is happy to accept spelling mistakes too - oops!

It just wasn't necessary, was it?

Bunty Hoven furnished....(He is not obliged to attend the court hearing for a speeding offence so I can not see how this disrespects the law in any way.)


nice one Bunty

Maybe he did not have to attend court, but then what was his excuse for speeding, maybe they shoould be made to atrtend to explain why people find the need to do speeds like that . Also he should have is license taken away and made to redo his CBT and resit his test so he does understand the rules of the road.

trowbridge52 wrote:
Maybe he did not have to attend court, but then what was his excuse for speeding, maybe they shoould be made to atrtend to explain why people find the need to do speeds like that . Also he should have is license taken away and made to redo his CBT and resit his test so he does understand the rules of the road.

I am sure he understands the rules, he just chooses to ignore them. If people did not feel the need to do speeds (sic) like that then Ferrari, Aston Martin, Lamborghini etc etc would go out of business.
If you feel that cars and bikes should have be electronically limited to 70 MPH perhaps you should contact your MP.

Bunty Hoven wrote:

trowbridge52 wrote:
Maybe he did not have to attend court, but then what was his excuse for speeding, maybe they shoould be made to atrtend to explain why people find the need to do speeds like that . Also he should have is license taken away and made to redo his CBT and resit his test so he does understand the rules of the road.

I am sure he understands the rules, he just chooses to ignore them. If people did not feel the need to do speeds (sic) like that then Ferrari, Aston Martin, Lamborghini etc etc would go out of business.
If you feel that cars and bikes should have be electronically limited to 70 MPH perhaps you should contact your MP.

Who's saying that vehicles and bikes should be limited to 70mph?
People here are generally stating that they hope he gets the book thrown at him for travelling at TWICE the speed limit on a road used by others.
There are places he can go to ride like that legally. Too much effort to organise? Involves thinking about others - tad difficult, maybe.
Unless of course he can guarantee that his recklessness will result in harm only to him, when it all goes wrong.

notscot wrote:

Bunty Hoven wrote:

trowbridge52 wrote:
Maybe he did not have to attend court, but then what was his excuse for speeding, maybe they shoould be made to atrtend to explain why people find the need to do speeds like that . Also he should have is license taken away and made to redo his CBT and resit his test so he does understand the rules of the road.

I am sure he understands the rules, he just chooses to ignore them. If people did not feel the need to do speeds (sic) like that then Ferrari, Aston Martin, Lamborghini etc etc would go out of business.
If you feel that cars and bikes should have be electronically limited to 70 MPH perhaps you should contact your MP.

Who's saying that vehicles and bikes should be limited to 70mph?
People here are generally stating that they hope he gets the book thrown at him for travelling at TWICE the speed limit on a road used by others.
There are places he can go to ride like that legally. Too much effort to organise? Involves thinking about others - tad difficult, maybe.
Unless of course he can guarantee that his recklessness will result in harm only to him, when it all goes wrong.

So its going twice the speed limit that's the problem, so what percentage of the speed limit is it acceptable to do? perhaps 133.3% would be OK, then what about reaction times? older people should have a lower limit. Then if you have a bad cold or are feeling off colour the limit for you should also be lowered until you are fully recovered. Some vehicles have better brakes. Then if the road is wet... and so on.
All situations are different and it depends on a lot of different factors as to what speed is reasonable at the time.

Bunty Hoven wrote:

notscot wrote:

Bunty Hoven wrote:

trowbridge52 wrote: Maybe he did not have to attend court, but then what was his excuse for speeding, maybe they shoould be made to atrtend to explain why people find the need to do speeds like that . Also he should have is license taken away and made to redo his CBT and resit his test so he does understand the rules of the road.

I am sure he understands the rules, he just chooses to ignore them. If people did not feel the need to do speeds (sic) like that then Ferrari, Aston Martin, Lamborghini etc etc would go out of business. If you feel that cars and bikes should have be electronically limited to 70 MPH perhaps you should contact your MP.

Who's saying that vehicles and bikes should be limited to 70mph? People here are generally stating that they hope he gets the book thrown at him for travelling at TWICE the speed limit on a road used by others. There are places he can go to ride like that legally. Too much effort to organise? Involves thinking about others - tad difficult, maybe. Unless of course he can guarantee that his recklessness will result in harm only to him, when it all goes wrong.

So its going twice the speed limit that's the problem, so what percentage of the speed limit is it acceptable to do? perhaps 133.3% would be OK, then what about reaction times? older people should have a lower limit. Then if you have a bad cold or are feeling off colour the limit for you should also be lowered until you are fully recovered. Some vehicles have better brakes. Then if the road is wet... and so on. All situations are different and it depends on a lot of different factors as to what speed is reasonable at the time.

So - if it's a clear, dry day, loads of light - it's fine to do more than double the speed limit?
No - it isn't - he was travelling on a road limited to 60mph. He got caught travelling at 128mph. He gets prosecuted. At over 120mph the percentage over the speed limit is irrelevent (Idon't know anyone who'd want to trot into court with THAT kind of percentage hanging over them!)
Travelling at that speed - a rider wouldn't be seen by anyone pulling onto the same road until he was just a few yards away - the road would have appeared clear - then the numpty on the bike kills them. Clever. Same with idiots in cars (who usually have less road skills than bikers).
Like I said - nothing wrong with power and speed. In the right place. This wasn't the right place for 128mph.
Yes - each situation is different - but the speed limit was 60mph. And twice the limit on an ordinary road, risking OTHER people's lives, isn't reasonable.

notscot says...
11:17pm Wed 17 Oct 12
So - if it's a clear, dry day, loads of light - it's fine to do more than double the speed limit?

I have not said in any of my posts that traveling at more than twice the speed limit is fine.

"All situations are different and it depends on a lot of different factors as to what speed is reasonable at the time."
That was the part that I (mis?)interpreted as the green light for 128mph on a 60mph controlled road.
That I found unreasonable.
I take it you didn't mean that - and you don't condone this fool's actions?