For speeds of 102 and 111 mph in a 60mph zone, are fines and penalty points appropriate.
The guidance to magistrates for anything over 30mph in excess of the speed limit is a period of disqualification.
Despite relying on their licences for work, should these offenders not have been given a rather sterner warning with a short sharp shock?
Back in the early 1990s I was pulled over for speeding in a car in similar circumstances. I had a clean licence and relied on my company car to carry out my work travelling in excess of 30,000 miles a year.
My employer even wrote to that effect yet it did not stop me receiving a three week ban. It caused anguish and, had it been any longer, I stood a real chance of losing my job. As it was, coming at the beginning of the year, I was able to take a bulk holiday but had precious little time off during the rest of the year.
It served as a warning and, I am pleased to say, my driving habits changed for the better and I have not received any endorsements since - not due to luck but better driving judgement.
The one element that I notice here is the size of the fines. I paid a total of £90 including court costs whereas these guys got away without a ban but at financial cost and I do wonder whether the option to ban is tempered by the appealing thought of fines swelling the coffers. Is this finances taking over from real punishment that has a lasting effect or is the financial penalty deemed to be a greater incentive to drive more appropriately in the future? I would have thought if both these gentlemen had sold their bikes then the financial penalties would not have been particularly harsh but I know the threat of losing one's job is enough to sober up most people.
Does the punishment fit the crime? - in this case I don't think so. And most importantly I doubt it will have as great an impact as a short sharp shock would have done.

Andrew Osmond
Sidney Chase, Ingham