Wheelies at speed on highways

jjdwoodman wrote:

Loco:
You have a good point, and since you're up to six now, I guess I'll match and try to seriously address it.

I would infer simply by common sense that Fla. does have a reckless endangerment law on the books and this bill is proposed to simply add language to that effect which speaks specifically to the reckless behavior of some motorcyclists, removing any need of interpretation by a judge. If this is the case, the proposed new bill is redundant and therefore unneccssary. There are few if any judges who would not interpret reckless endangerment to include 120+ wheelies. It should not be passed.

If that inference is wrong, Fla. has no wreckless endangerment laws. In that case this bill only addresses very specific examples of wreckless behavior on a motorcycle, and is VERY far short of addressing a much bigger problem as it does not say anything about any other form of motor vehicle or even other types of behavior such as riding with passengers too small for safety. It is far short sighted. It should not be passed.

So my take on this is that there is a law in place and it is judgement with common sense? Common sense almost always ends up as personal interpretation. A judge is no better at this than you or me so when confronted with such a decision we are most likely swayed by things that are less common or sensible and more personal. The use of “common sense” as a rule pretty much throws all law including the 10 commandment and the bill of rights right out the window. Why are they needed? It is because without them someone is going to do something against them and state that law or the lack of it is on their side. Common sense being the term interchangeable with common loophole. I do not like government infringement on rights any better than anyone else. I also fail to see where this is an infringement but more of a protection of rights. The right to drive the roads in relative safety. But in citing the propensity of some to ride with too small children I think you hit the nail on the head. Because of our stupidity we have a need to spell out what is permitted and what is not. Keep in mind we are talking about a very narrow scope of intended law here. But not so narrow as not needed. If it is enacted by most states as it does seem the consensus thinks it must then be needed (common sense?). If not then conspiracy theory crops up. To me that is just a little ridiculous. So if my take is right the law should not be enacted on because it does not go ALL the way of addressing dangerous behavior? It would certainly be a monumental order to write that legislation. But do we want to not write sensible legislation because we cannot encompass all? I would be hard pressed to be sold on that. What I think is do what you can is better than throwing up your hands and doing nothing. Now this IS all on the premise that FLA had no such law on the books or had a very simple one that was easily circumvented.


As far as several have mentioned siezing property. This is my view: (not worth that much)
My interpretation of most states' actions is that

1. Citizens purchase license to Operate vehicles on Government owned roads according to Government policies. This is fair enough. I you don't like the state traffic laws you have the option to drive only on private property where they do not apply.

2. Citizens purchase license to POSSESS state owned property such and vehicles and guns. That's a bunch of crock! But it is the only way a Government entity can lawfully sieze property from a citizen. (not a felon, who has forfieted rights as a citizen) Citizens are protected against unlawful search and siezure. (supposedly)

I don’t understand that the government owns the road. We own the road. The government to maintain the roads and ensure the rules are being observed for the good of all of us. We are the government. We paid for it lock stock and barrel. Taxes. We, being all of us. We get a license because we have demonstrated a knowledge of the rules (that we commonly as a people establish) of the road and affirm we will adhere to these rules. I put seat belt rule up there with the helmet law. If you want to raise the stakes of dying in an accident so be it but don’t think fore a minute it doesn’t affect me. It does. My insurance rates goes up because of it. Not much if you think about it but it is a negative impact on me for your choice.
Unlawful search and seizure are certainly not rights but what constitutes unlawful is the debatable point. What makes the search lawful is what needs definition. There will always be people using the law to their advantage on both sides of the law and on both sides of what is right. The law is not always right. Nor is it always wrong.


I may sound like a big windbag here,
My sails are certainly not waffing here either.

but seriously we are quickly and willingly selling our rights to freedom from an oppressive government because we are unwilling to fulfill our responsibilities of self government. (If it's not illegal, then it's okay.) If we ask our state or federal government to take care of the poor, take care of the criminals, insure our financials (eg. farm subsidies, control price of gas, etc.), the only way such a large body of people can be governed by such a few people is to take away individual freedoms from the government to that all may be equally governed. This is not a new thing, it is long in coming, and most of us are happy with and rely on our government to control our neighbors and largely provide for us!



I agree. Some claim their rights to total freedom and wish to do away with oversight. If we were not human that may be possible. We need oversight. We need common sense. But individually we cannot define what is or what is not common sense. Besides most people who complain about too many laws are the ones who have issues with a specific one or two. What we do in public should not be confused with what we do in private unless what we do in private will affect the public.

Today is the time to begin to live as if we do not want to be nor are oppressed. If you know someone who drives wrecklessly, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to INDIVIDUALLY do something about that person! (end rant)

:woohoo:

I’m not sure what you mean by that. I think I am getting dense. By do something what would you do to a 120mph wheelie popping squid.
Then what would you do if that person was your best friend or his son?
How about a stranger that slides his machine into your family?
These things get a little hazy as different scenarios present themselves. I am no better than anyone else and if they take out my family and the Big G has no recourse I will. But my wish is the law has the teeth and uses them. I’d rather not take a life in retribution or for any reason. If a law stops one wheelie popping nut from doing the unthinkable I’ll say my taxes were well spent.
I think we are not that separated in wants or beliefs. After all we all just want to be safe and enjoy this life.
:silly: :woohoo:

violentvintagecycles wrote:

I grew up in New York, currently live in Jersey.

As did/do I (on both counts). In my opinion the reckless riders reflect badly upon me. A few years ago a guy came down my small, quiet, residential street on a crotch rocket and failed to negotiate a slight bend and wound up, bike and body, on my nighbor's lawn. A little damage to his bike, no damage to his body. I had gotten my KZ200 so recently at that point that some of my neighbors didn't even kow I had started riding. More than a few of them looked at me pretty sideways for a few weeks after that incident until they realized I wasn't going the be the ass the other guy was.

violentvintagecycles wrote:

I grew up in New York, currently live in Jersey. I believe the laws in both these states is twice the speed limit you lose your bike, your license and your freedom..
As for stunts, wheelies, etc, i forget the exact wording, but it was/is something like "illegal display of power".. ( got caught doing a burnout), and this was probably 20 years ago..
I agree with the opinion that lawsa are enacted to protect the public, but in reality, the only one thats gonna get hurt is the guy who ends up sliding across the pavement.. Kinda like the seatbelt law, the only one thats gonna get hurt by me not wearing it is me, so leave me the hell alone..
Reality, if a cop sees someone pulling a wheelie at 120, that guys gonna get pulled over, new law or not, and it is at least a reckless/careless driving, (4points), hefty speeding fines, (also 4 points or more). Speed limit is 65 on most of the major highways these days, so you would have to be doing 130 to be doing double, but very possible these days..

Monday of this week in Clearwater, Florida There was a horrific accident where the rider was stunting at over 100 mph and t-boned a Chevy Suburban. The driver of the Chevy DIED ALSO, the Suburban was hit so hard it flipped over on its side, that is a very heavy truck my friend, The idiotic riders with very little expierence on the bikes of today that are ready for the race track off the showroom floor are a recipe for disaster. The rider is not always the ones who die, as in this case. Keep the handle bars up and ride safe.

P.S. as of 1-10-2008 there was 3 deaths in Tampa, Florida due to exessive speeds on motorcycles on the PUBLIC roads here.

i'm 20 and get the urge to crank every once in a while.

thats why i have an extended swingarm, so i don't do wheelies, i enjoy ignighting the rear tire more than lifting the front.

hhhmmmm
www.break.com/index/wheelie-showoff-goes-bad.html

I hope this isn't wearing too thin on you guys!

Locozuna, again a well thought and well put response. Thanks for your time and effort and for some things to really think over.

I believe all our laws are enforced by interpretation, and that by neccessity. Even the founding fathers tried to very carefully word the Bill of Rights in an effort to balance between having things stated so broadly that they give great latitude in the interpretation or having things so specific that it must either leave many things unaddressable or the interpreter (judge) must by neccessity redress the law and thus encroach on the system of checks and balances by effectively rewriting the law to address what is not at all spoken of in that law.

In that spirit of carefullness, I do not personally feel that what I understand of this wording is a good balance. If Fla. has no laws concerning the endangerment of other people's safety by reckless behavior or by willing neglect, I think the bill should be modified to be more broad in scope. If they do exist, then I feel the extra language unduly binds the interpretor.

Please do not misconstrue me saying we SHOULD not need certain laws with we DO not need them.

What would I do to a squid? It he were my kin, I would chew him out, hide his keys, break his leg, anything to save his life. (though I think the latter is extreme.) The biggest reason squids ride like they do is because they ride with squids. Most of us shun them. But if they DID ride with one of us we'd say "Hey dude, that ain't cool!" in stead of "Whoah, righteous, dude!"

As an example let's say a bill was proposed saying "It's illegal to point a gun toward another person when hunting" Completely unneccessary because most people don't give a kid a gun and just say "Have at it!" Kids are supervised, by and large, and adults are glad to do it, knowing they are protecting their right to bear arms. (I know that kind of over simplified, but give me the benefit for argument's sake.) When a young man goes out to buy a Hayabusa, that's not the case. They are not taught safety or responsibility.

So then the burden of enforcing "stupid" laws falls from the peers of that man to the police officer who either gets lucky and manages to catch him or is called upon to clean him and any innocents up off the pavement. The wrecks we hear about don't happen in front of cops! It is neglect on our part to expect them fix this problem alone, and stupidity to think they can. Because they can't, if the burden is left to them alone, the only effective thing they can do is regulate the companies who produce the product so they will no longer be available to the public. Now we as a whole have lost a priviledge because we would not collectively and individually work to preserve that.

You are 100% correct... the things like roads that are paid for out of taxes do and should belong to the whole of the people, aka the government.

My view is that if any person, either individually or collectively include a government body take property that was not paid for out of taxes but rather belongs to an individual, that is and should be considered theft.

Thanks for you time, and I looks forward to your response(s). GOD bless America! and you guys too! :lol:

jjdwoodman wrote:

I hope this isn't wearing too thin on you guys!

Locozuna, again a well thought and well put response. Thanks for your time and effort and for some things to really think over.

I believe all our laws are enforced by interpretation, and that by neccessity. Even the founding fathers tried to very carefully word the Bill of Rights in an effort to balance between having things stated so broadly that they give great latitude in the interpretation or having things so specific that it must either leave many things unaddressable or the interpreter (judge) must by neccessity redress the law and thus encroach on the system of checks and balances by effectively rewriting the law to address what is not at all spoken of in that law.

In that spirit of carefullness, I do not personally feel that what I understand of this wording is a good balance. If Fla. has no laws concerning the endangerment of other people's safety by reckless behavior or by willing neglect, I think the bill should be modified to be more broad in scope. If they do exist, then I feel the extra language unduly binds the interpretor.

Please do not misconstrue me saying we SHOULD not need certain laws with we DO not need them.

What would I do to a squid? It he were my kin, I would chew him out, hide his keys, break his leg, anything to save his life. (though I think the latter is extreme.) The biggest reason squids ride like they do is because they ride with squids. Most of us shun them. But if they DID ride with one of us we'd say "Hey dude, that ain't cool!" in stead of "Whoah, righteous, dude!"

As an example let's say a bill was proposed saying "It's illegal to point a gun toward another person when hunting" Completely unneccessary because most people don't give a kid a gun and just say "Have at it!" Kids are supervised, by and large, and adults are glad to do it, knowing they are protecting their right to bear arms. (I know that kind of over simplified, but give me the benefit for argument's sake.) When a young man goes out to buy a Hayabusa, that's not the case. They are not taught safety or responsibility.

So then the burden of enforcing "stupid" laws falls from the peers of that man to the police officer who either gets lucky and manages to catch him or is called upon to clean him and any innocents up off the pavement. The wrecks we hear about don't happen in front of cops! It is neglect on our part to expect them fix this problem alone, and stupidity to think they can. Because they can't, if the burden is left to them alone, the only effective thing they can do is regulate the companies who produce the product so they will no longer be available to the public. Now we as a whole have lost a priviledge because we would not collectively and individually work to preserve that.

You are 100% correct... the things like roads that are paid for out of taxes do and should belong to the whole of the people, aka the government.

My view is that if any person, either individually or collectively include a government body take property that was not paid for out of taxes but rather belongs to an individual, that is and should be considered theft.

Thanks for you time, and I looks forward to your response(s). GOD bless America! and you guys too! :lol:

Right on could not have said it better myself

Boiled down I agree on 95% of it and I say well said too. But I do disagree with your assessment on taking his property. (this happened)If my neighbor is outside shooting a family of squirrels with a lets say even a 25 caliber pistol and I ask him to stop cause I fear for my kids and animals and I have explained to him that it is against the law to discharge his weapon within 100 yards of my house. He says go F yourself this is my land and I will do as I please. I will ask the authorities to take his gun or if they don't I will and we will go through the legal system. I do believe there are many instances where your property can and should be confiscated especially if it is being used in a unlawful harmful way or potentially harmful way and he refuses to see the light. I do say give them 1 strike, but one strike only...this isn't baseball. I can't make the difference out of someone wheeling down a public road or in a public place and someone shooting a gun off in public. The results have the potential to be the same. In my world take the gun take the cycle. Sell them and fix a road. It'll make my day! Apologies to Dirty Harry!
Great discussion!

I understand about public safety. noone wants to see anyone killed, anytime.. Buttt... Im willing to bet there are more ppl killed each year from falling coconuts than a bike slamming into their cars.. (about 150 ppl killed a year from coconuts). What i cant see is how riding without a helmet is legal.. How many ppl are killed each year because of this non-law? I was recently in florida for a little while, and i couldnt believe the number of riders without helmets..
Second, if they pass this law, its not going to be restricted to "wheelies on the highway". There is not going to be a "height requirement" for how high the front wheel has to be before getting your bike impounded. How many of us has taken off at the light only to have your front wheel leave the ground by a couple inches?
What about the kmart parking lot at 2am? Not a soul around, will my bike get impounded if i decide to screw around with a few wheelies?
I do agree with most of you, the 120 fly-bys on a wheelie are dangerous as hell, but if you cant stop them from doing it now with speeding and reckless driving laws, whats going to be the difference with a new law? Whats going to happen when you put together a bike you been working on for years, take it up the block, and your neighbor calls the cops because she/he saw your front wheel leave the ground? Enforce the laws we have and we wont need a new one.

Number of motorcycle deaths per year, U.S.:
• 1997—2,116
• 1998—2,294
• 1999—2,483
• 2000—2,897
• 2001—3,197 (some NHTSA lists show 3,181)
• 2002—3,244
• 2003—3,661 (some NHTSA lists show 3,714)
• 2004—4,008
• 2005—4,553

So really it’s doubled in less than 10 years. I don’t think coconut deaths have doubled in that time.
It most likely has to do with more bikes on the road and the fact that dangerous behavior has gotten media attention. From You-Tube to stunt rallys you got people proving their balls are bigger than their brains. And they are hailed as role models and celebs. On You-tube even the crashes are looked upon by many as rights of passage if not people just passing.

I have been riding a very long time and have never lofted a front wheel without knowing or meaning to. I don’t know why anyone would have to without it being a showoff stunt and in that case, well, you are on your own. I also think the watcher would know pretty much if you intended it or not unless you have Mama Cass hanging off the back end of the bike holding a kegger.
If you’re doing wheelies in Kmart parking lot at 2 am I would guess that would be up to Kmart seeing that it is private property. My take is if I owned a parking lot I would not want you doing it. Because of liabilities and the fact that if you are alone and wipe out I hope someone is there to call for the sirens. Chances is your family will most likely sue Kmart saying they allowed you to do it. I will say that is exactly how I taught kids to drive. An empty parking lot. But we were not stunting and maybe the owner of the parking lot STILL would not be happy with me. I understand his point.

Now as for your OWN private property…go for it. You and only you will be responsible for you. As it should be.

You have some pretty f uped neighbors to call on you if they see you lift the front wheel. They are pretty stupid too. It could get you talked to but as far as getting you in trouble they would have to prove it. Other than that it is hearsay.

Locozuna wrote:

Number of motorcycle deaths per year, U.S.:
• 1997—2,116
• [edited for brevity]
• 2005—4,553

So really it’s doubled in less than 10 years. I don’t think coconut deaths have doubled in that time.
It most likely has to do with more bikes on the road and the fact that dangerous behavior has gotten media attention.

More bikes on the road, yes, but also more cage drivers on their mobile phones! Would be enlightening to know how many of those deaths were caused by cage drivers who were at fault while on their phone.

I've nearly been whacked twice in the last 9 months by some moron in a car who ran a red light while yakking on their phone. Both times an adult driver, not a teenager. Now I make double-damn sure the cross traffic has stopped before I venture out into an intersection.

I'll go for that! There are more and more things to do behind the wheel every day other than pay attention and drive! And speaking of confiscating property If a driver using a phone, texting, eating, putting on makeup or doing anything but driving ever creams me or any of my family I want their car, house and any ice cream they have in their freezer. There is too much frivolous suing going on but that is just a tax on stupidity! But you're not going to do anything about it without laws. There is no getting around that. I like ice cream too.:whistle: