Wheelies at speed on highways

Locozuna wrote:

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.
.

i think a big explanation of the large rise in m/c deaths in the USA is the repeal of mandatory helmet laws in the USA:

'In the three years after Florida repealed a law requiring riders to wear helmets, motorcycle deaths increased more than 81 percent statewide compared to the three years before. And the deaths of riders younger than 21 nearly tripled, the study found.'

from here:
www.sptimes.com/2005/08/09/State/Motorcycle_deaths_ris.shtml

i feel sorry for the harley davidson crowd who are conditioned to think looking cool overrides common sense. one of my HD buddies calls my wife 'roborider' cause of all the protective gear she wears but, at the same time he's mocking her, i get the sense he feels conflicted.

Post edited by: duncan, at: 2008/01/14 19:42

Some entertaining reading on the new ontario anti-streetracing/anti-stunting legislation:

US tourist with an amusing but painful story:
forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3542017

18 year old races unmarked police car (lol)
www.genzel.ca/2008/01/05/only-tards-race-unmarked-cars/

A summary of the legislation:
www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/about/bill203.htm

The actual wording of the legislation:
www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_070455_e.htm

My impression is that the ontario govt really got everyone's attention with this new legislation. Most people I talk to seem to agree with it, and say they'll never go 50 kph over the speed limit again. Most guys just don't want to risk having their car/bike immediately impounded.

Locozuna wrote:

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!

Point well taken but I think you could agree to this:

Case in point, your neighbor's gun. Although your neighbor is using his property illegally and perhaps dangerously, the property still belongs to him.

For the immediate safety of his peers his property may be impounded at his expense pending a formal investigation and perhaps prosecution. If he is eventually convicted of a felony count in relation to his property he may be required by the courts to sell his property because it is illegal for a convicted felon to own or possess a firearm. But his property may not be taken from him permanently without compensation. It may not be sold and the proceeds withheld from him. It is his property.

In the case of an auto: A person who is an immediate threat to others on the road may be immediately required to stop operating his vehicle publicly or if he is involved in a crime and is under arrest his vehicle is abandoned on the road. His vehicle may then be impounded at his expense unless he can arrange acceptable towing of his own. An impound may ask the courts to award the value of his vehicle if abandoned at the impound for a reaonable time in compensation for services rendered only if the owner will not pay for those services. But the state cannot be involved in the impound process. It is a conflict of interests.

The property may not be sold otherwise.

The owner is morally, legally and financially reponsible for his actions and may thus be bound. So in this instance his operator's license may be revoked and if his operates without license he may be criminally charged. Or if the case warrants, he may be immediately charged. But his property remains his lawful possession.

Another example: In Oklahoma if a person is caught or suspected of poaching his guns and his vehicle may be immediately CONFISCATED, not IMPOUNDED. This is even without the burden of proof, and the law which allows this also leaves the interpretation so loose that it is not even restricted to expreme cases! That's totally outrageous!

I hope this clarifies my position.
I like ice cream too!:lol: :lol: :lol:

I dont like any of the confiscation laws, in no way should the govt, or state be able to take anything from any legal person in the USA,
If one of the idiots gets caught way over the speed limit or doing something stupid, then hell yes haul his ass to jail impound the bike take his lic, if he has one to start with.

I just recently had on of my guys pulled over, he didnt have his lic with him, had his green card, cop hauled him in impounded his car, he has insurance and a lic but didnt have it with him, real pain in the butt, he was pulled over for not having the plate on the front of the truck. I told him to get his crap fixed before he comes back to work.
So there is a law that they can enforce if they want to,

Helmet laws, I wear one when I ride, but I dont think its the job of the state to tell me I have to I also dont like seat belt laws, its my car, my life leave me be, to me its a money grab bag for the city and state.

In the end tell this goofy law maker to protect our borders, stop the drugs comming in, put and keep the real law breakers in jail

jjdwoodman wrote:

Point well taken but I think you could agree to this:

Case in point, your neighbor's gun. Although your neighbor is using his property illegally and perhaps dangerously, the property still belongs to him.

For the immediate safety of his peers his property may be impounded at his expense pending a formal investigation and perhaps prosecution. If he is eventually convicted of a felony count in relation to his property he may be required by the courts to sell his property because it is illegal for a convicted felon to own or possess a firearm. But his property may not be taken from him permanently without compensation. It may not be sold and the proceeds withheld from him. It is his property.

In the case of an auto: A person who is an immediate threat to others on the road may be immediately required to stop operating his vehicle publicly or if he is involved in a crime and is under arrest his vehicle is abandoned on the road. His vehicle may then be impounded at his expense unless he can arrange acceptable towing of his own. An impound may ask the courts to award the value of his vehicle if abandoned at the impound for a reaonable time in compensation for services rendered only if the owner will not pay for those services. But the state cannot be involved in the impound process. It is a conflict of interests.

The property may not be sold otherwise.

The owner is morally, legally and financially reponsible for his actions and may thus be bound. So in this instance his operator's license may be revoked and if his operates without license he may be criminally charged. Or if the case warrants, he may be immediately charged. But his property remains his lawful possession.

Another example: In Oklahoma if a person is caught or suspected of poaching his guns and his vehicle may be immediately CONFISCATED, not IMPOUNDED. This is even without the burden of proof, and the law which allows this also leaves the interpretation so loose that it is not even restricted to expreme cases! That's totally outrageous!

I hope this clarifies my position.
I like ice cream too!:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes I am on board with this. It is just due process. Also it gives the momo the chance to see where his campaign of terror is headed (grin)(poetic license) and to change directions before a serious consequence happens. Fair is fair! BUT what certainly is not fair is your Oklahoma scenario. If this is true has it not been challenged? Even as a constitutional interpretation? I share your outrage! Suspicion is never grounds for legal action. Even those who go to judges for search warrants must legally define the suspicion as to where when and how those suspicions came about and they are pretty specific in when and how those searches are carried out. It's pretty much dot the i's and cross the t's to get one. It's a might easier today with Homeland Security and the Patriot Act but that does not usually affect the common man and even that is receiving increased scrutiny when it comes to reducing individual rights.
Another point to it all is if he really hurts one of your family you take his property in civil court and having a couple of convictions against him doesn't hurt your case. Just make sure to keep the peacemaker loaded and handy. World is full of nuts afterall!
Got any Pistachio?