Motorcyclist clocked at 193 mph on NY highway - in the rain!

[Dauntless]

It's pure and simple self-centred hedonism and indulgence ... putting others at risk with no benefit to them and only your own self pleasure in mind.

Wow, I'll take it. Er, I mean, bad Physics. Bad, BAD Physics.

Sounds like we're going to have to restrict SOMEONE to a safer mode of transporation.

[flathill]

Luke is saying
stick to what we used to believe

When fools were young
Juve way of life
What we r saying is your gonna die for your government


Dont hate the player
Fcuk the game
Player for life

[Arlo1]

Make scouting pass on section of road with all concrete barriers for a few miles, no on ramps or off ramps in the wall lined section. Scouting pass looks for debris in road, obviously cops camping or other vehicles on the side of the road etc.
Take off ramp and ride back to the beginning of the road you scouted. Pull over and wait a few minutes to ensure any potential traffic has cleared the section.

Go for rip, briefly attain kinetic energy of a small SUV for a few seconds, slow before the next area with a break in the concrete walls.

That's a typical procedure for doing 190mph these days. Years ago I would just wait until it looked clear and hit it, now I like to make a scouting pass. Blame it on getting old I guess. Lol

I'm going to have to agree with lfp's sentiments in this thread.

If someone does cause damage or harm at multiples of the speed limit, their punishment should be multiplied by the same factor that they exceeded the limit. This would make people think twice about behavior like this but it wouldn't push us deeper into the police state. If they don't cause damage or harm, no real crime has been committed so no punishment is warranted. The "what if" police are totally out of control and the laws they're supporting violate both common law and common sense.

+1

[dingoEsride]

sico wrote:It's pure and simple self-centred hedonism and indulgence ... putting others at risk with no benefit to them and only your own self pleasure in mind.



Wow, I'll take it. Er, I mean, bad Physics. Bad, BAD Physics.

Sounds like we're going to have to restrict SOMEONE to a safer mode of transporation.

Image

I don't think sico was talking about luke more likely the 193mph loony and I doubt even luke would do the same, come to think of it my brothers bike maxed out at 265km which converts to only 165mph,
btw do like that safe transportation gif

[DR.REMULAK]

i wish my e bike did 193 mph

[VoKuS]

Jesus Luke! You're McDonalds arguement is a tad flawed. I can choose to eat burgers, clog my arteries and kill myself.

Xanda, what about McDonadls eating lard tubs that quote "pass out" or "have heart attacks" on the freeway and plow in to other drivers...

Try again...

[veloman]

If you've ever tried to cross a road or even just one lane (left turn) while traffic is moving considerably over the speed limit, you understand how difficult and dangerous the speeding vehicles are making it. Yes, they may be in full control and not causing an accident, but they are making the general state of the roadway dangerous by going fast.

Ever move into the left lane on the highway to pass a slower car in the middle lane, and have a car/motorcycle fly up on you from behind because they are going over 100mph and they weren't in sight when you began your maneuver?

The moment you do anything that is not normal on a roadway you are creating a distinctly more dangerous situation. It doesn't matter if it's speed or swerving, or stopping.

So yes, I disagree with you Luke.

Laws like speed limits are in place to PREVENT people from doing dangerous things, to prevent accidents. Just because you can go 190mph many many times without incident doesn't make it safe. If truly no one is around, then go for it, that's sort of a different story. But I can tell you how often I see someone blasting around (car/truck) because they think no one is around and it's safe, but people are around. I had a pickup truck pass me at 120mph while I was cycling on a neighborhood road. He didn't hit anyone, but he sure increased my stress levels and anxiety, as well as the walkers I met a minute later who I talked to. So now I have to factor in cycling on that road in the future because I know it's likely to attract that kind of driving (it's flat and straight). There's a lot of other consequences that happen, even if there wasn't a wreck. So take for example the 190mph riders on the highway - let's say that people see this becomes common. There may not be any wrecks, but other roads users are starting to factor in these wildly speeding riders, maybe some people won't take the highway or go another route because of it.

There is a line to be drawn somewhere, I'd say it's a lot lower than triple the speed limit.

[Dauntless]

Hear that, Mr. Physics, he thinks you'd NEVER ride the way you said you did.

[John in CR]

... other roads users are starting to factor in these wildly speeding riders...

Good, because that means the speeder is actually making the highway safer. People won't take other routes, the change that would take place is that drivers pay more attention to the road and their surroundings.

I'm with Luke on this. The guy gets caught speeding, so give him a speeding ticket like anyone else. Don't steal his property and treat him like a criminal. Those using cell phones while driving are the ones acting in a far more negligent and reckless manner, and as statistics prove, the greater good would be served by the police focusing in that direction. Instead they feel the need to rise to the challenge of hunting and bagging the fast biker.

No harm, no real foul, and the only foul you guys can come up with is essentially the speeder startling a driver if he's riding so fast in traffic, but the story makes no mention of this. Weak drivers or distracted drivers startle people much more, myself included, when they almost cause an accident, yet the cops aren't on a mission to catch them, and when they are caught they probably just get off with a warning if no real harm was done.

This whole thing has the foul stench of mandatory helmet laws where those who are misguided confuse risk in the event of an accident with actual risk, and the focus ends up placed in a direction that wastes taxpayer money instead of one that actually works toward the greater good.

John

[veloman]

... other roads users are starting to factor in these wildly speeding riders...

Good, because that means the speeder is actually making the highway safer. People won't take other routes, the change that would take place is that drivers pay more attention to the road and their surroundings.

John

90 in a 60 zone is one thing, but 193mph is just absurd, I'm sorry.

No driver can in anyway pay enough attention to accommodate the dynamics of a 190mph object on their road.

Are you saying you wouldn't mind sharing the roads with motorcycles that go triple your cruising speed?

[Timma2500]

A friend of mine's older brother had the gruesome job of picking up the severed limbs of a Hayabusa rider some years ago after he came to grief on a country road outside of town.
Turns out the rider had been on a ride with a friend that they had done regularly before.

This one particular day, the lead rider came over the crest of a very slight hill at well over 200kph (in a 100kph zone) only to discover an older couple pulling out of a side street, crossing the road toward him with a trailer in tow. Rider sees the car, no time to respond due to his excessive speed and light front end from the crest of the road and plows into the rear end of the car near the trailer hitch.

The bike ends up in hundreds of pieces, the rider ends up in pieces leaving a family without a father and husband. His riding buddy is left in shock, the old couple are in severe shock and no doubt left feeling guilty thinking they caused it all. Add to that if the bike rider's insurance didn't pay out and the old couple weren't insured, they may have been left without transport.

All of this because one selfish asshole desides to use a public road as his own private racetrack with no regard for other people's safety.
Had i been in that car instead of the old couple and the rider survived the initial hit, i'd have f*cken killed him myself for putting my saftey at risk

It really surprises me that with all the highly intelligent people on this forum, that some are still trying to defend the actions of that 193mph idiot who could easily have caused the same situation as the one i've just described... wow

Paul

[liveforphysics]

That would be a perfect example of doing it wrong. Speeding over blind hills with cross streets = fail.


There are thousands of similar examples of doing it wrong.

You don't see many examples of doing it right, because the only result that happens is a smile on the face of the rider.

[ebike_user]

No matter how wet or hard one gets 'bout it.
Driving on a public road everyone falls under the same rules as every one else.
At least the guy wasn't selling crack or pimping 10 yr olds.

[John in CR]

... other roads users are starting to factor in these wildly speeding riders...

Good, because that means the speeder is actually making the highway safer. People won't take other routes, the change that would take place is that drivers pay more attention to the road and their surroundings.

John

90 in a 60 zone is one thing, but 193mph is just absurd, I'm sorry.

No driver can in anyway pay enough attention to accommodate the dynamics of a 190mph object on their road.

Are you saying you wouldn't mind sharing the roads with motorcycles that go triple your cruising speed?

All irrelevant. The known speeder risks life and limb doing a community service by making the roads safer, because he forces drivers to pay closer attention. It's no different than the common obstacles in the road here making me safer riding my bikes on the road, because drivers here must pay closer attention than stateside.

I've even noticed that my riding has made all cyclists safer in my area. I don't ride crazily, but when I first moved here more eager drivers had to stop themselves as they started to pull out in front of me, since they we're used to something looking like a bike coming at car speeds. Now that they've seen me around, it's much less common for drivers to need to stop short, and they wait more patiently, so they're paying closer attention.

[mdd0127]

I used to go fast pretty often......really fast. In the proper circumstances that is.

I passed a cop at 180mph once........on purpose! He didn't catch me

In all of those times going that fast, I never had one close call. Why? Because we scouted the roads. We had friends with CB's. We used straight roads with excellent visibility and no places for side traffic to get on.

I'm not arguing that it's always safe to go fast. My argument is that it shouldn't be legal for anyone to give out speeding tickets if no damage to persons or property is done. As John in CR so eloquently put it, "No harm, no foul".

Anyone that advocates the ability of the authorities to give tickets out for things like seatbelt infractions, helmet laws, speeding, running red lights, tag violations, etc......anything that doesn't actually cause harm, should create a new country, call it Nazi Germany, and move there.

We can still have those laws in place and use them to determine the severity of the punishment for someone caught, ACTUALLY causing harm or damage, but prosecuting someone for what could have happened is not constitutional, not valid under common law, and just not a good thing to do.

Maybe they should give tickets to people that get into romantic relationships???? Because there's a pretty good chance someone's going to get hurt, startled or have property damaged that way!

[veloman]

The problem is that most people will f up. Since they know they won't get a ticket for running a light, speeding, they will do it all the time and eventually they will f up and it will happen a lot more often. People will die because of other's mistakes (a lot more often than now).

You give way too much credit to the average person. This goes beyond just traffic laws.


I hate stopping at empty stop signs, I think it's BS. Same with a red light and no one is around. Again, I think there is a line to draw somewhere in the middle of all this. And 193mph in the rain on a public road is on the 'don't do it' side of that line IMO.

This is ridiculous. If you think no one should get a traffic ticket if there wasn't a collision, then do you know how dangerous the roads would be? It'd be a battlefield with people hitting each other left and right. Cyclists would get killed daily. Walking near a street would be deadly too. You better get in a dump truck if you want to get around and not die.

Do I believe there are asinine traffic laws - hell yeah.

Do I believe no one should get a ticket for running a red light and nearly running me over?

Again, if you think no harm is done if there isn't a collision, you are clueless. You have no idea what I deal with.

With that logic, you must be okay with cars passing you at 6 inches distance, eh? You probably think the 3 foot passing law is wrong too? Do you want your kids biking on the street where it's legal for a car to pass them as close as possible. But no harm is done if there wasn't an accident.

This is incredibly surprising coming from an ebike forum. What poor logic.

[Arlo1]

The problem is that most people will f up. Since they know they won't get a ticket for running a light, speeding, they will do it all the time and eventually they will f up and it will happen a lot more often. People will die because of other's mistakes (a lot more often than now).

You give way too much credit to the average person. This goes beyond just traffic laws.


I hate stopping at empty stop signs, I think it's BS. Same with a red light and no one is around. Again, I think there is a line to draw somewhere in the middle of all this. And 193mph in the rain on a public road is on the 'don't do it' side of that line IMO.

This is ridiculous. If you think no one should get a traffic ticket if there wasn't a collision, then do you know how dangerous the roads would be? It'd be a battlefield with people hitting each other left and right. Cyclists would get killed daily. Walking near a street would be deadly too. You better get in a dump truck if you want to get around and not die.

Do I believe there are asinine traffic laws - hell yeah.

DO I believe no one should get a ticket for running a red light and nearly running me over? WHAT THE F*** are you thinking?

Again, if you think no harm is done if there isn't a collision, you are clueless. You have no idea what I deal with.

Dude its actually counter productive! Meaning the more laws they cram down our thoughts the more we as a society tend to obey and forget how to think for ourselves actually making for dumber people! If there was no limit would I drive pinned every ware Hell no I would drive how I do now. I would be able to pass a semi in time though because I would be allowed to accelerate rather then getting in a head on because the only passing lane for 200km is ending in 500 feet and IM beside a semi who is going 85km in a 90 zone and a SUV is behind me boxing me in so yup I will just go 90 because its the LAW and I will hit the oncoming traffic head on and DIE just so I don't break a LAW.

[veloman]

Dude its actually counter productive! Meaning the more laws they cram down our thoughts the more we as a society tend to obey and forget how to think for ourselves actually making for dumber people! If there was no limit would I drive pinned every ware Hell no I would drive how I do now. I would be able to pass a semi in time though because I would be allowed to accelerate rather then getting in a head on because the only passing lane for 200km is ending in 500 feet and IM beside a semi who is going 85km in a 90 zone and a SUV is behind me boxing me in so yup I will just go 90 because its the LAW and I will hit the oncoming traffic head on and DIE just so I don't break a LAW.

So basically, the roads will only be safe for those like you who choose to ride high performance vehicles. If we have no speed limits do you know how dangerous it would be for someone trying to cycle or ebike( real ebike, not motorbike). Walking across street would be a gamble.

You are right there are instances where it is unsafe to obey the law. that does not make it logical to throw out the law all the time. That's why police should use discretion. Don't bother the ebiker going 25mph safely, but yeah, maybe the hot shot doing 85mph through town needs to get a ticket.

[bigmoose]

... Meaning the more laws they cram down our thoughts the more we as a society tend to obey and forget how to think for ourselves actually making for dumber people! ....

I'm going to sound like a real conspiratorial loony on this one; but what I fear is that they are passing so many laws that within their first five years of life my Grandchildren will all be potential felons and me along with them... then our lives will degrade to answering the question: "Papers, where are your papers... Oh, you are an enemy of the state... stand over there..."

[liveforphysics]

No matter how wet or hard one gets 'bout it.
Driving on a public road everyone falls under the same rules as every one else.
At least the guy wasn't selling crack or pimping 10 yr olds.

Actually, people just choose to make the decisions they make as they go. Everyone. Always.

No amount of arranging dots of ink on paper in rule/law books has the ability to control the speed of vehicles, or the position their foot or hand takes on the throttle. Rules/laws are like a radio station broadcasting at some frequency. Many people choose to tune in and go along with it, as it's the easiest no-free-thought "society" accepted path through life. Others recognize the frail illusion doesn't have any sort of control over the experiences they choose to have as humans, and the radio stops even being able to tune that station in if they wanted to hear it.

Life is simple. Seek experience and embrace it. I choose to always try to improve my own experience, and the experience of others.

[Arlo1]

Dude its actually counter productive! Meaning the more laws they cram down our thoughts the more we as a society tend to obey and forget how to think for ourselves actually making for dumber people! If there was no limit would I drive pinned every ware Hell no I would drive how I do now. I would be able to pass a semi in time though because I would be allowed to accelerate rather then getting in a head on because the only passing lane for 200km is ending in 500 feet and IM beside a semi who is going 85km in a 90 zone and a SUV is behind me boxing me in so yup I will just go 90 because its the LAW and I will hit the oncoming traffic head on and DIE just so I don't break a LAW.

So basically, the roads will only be safe for those like you who choose to ride high performance vehicles. If we have no speed limits do you know how dangerous it would be for someone trying to cycle or ebike( real ebike, not motorbike). Walking across street would be a gamble.

You are right there are instances where it is unsafe to obey the law. that does not make it logical to throw out the law all the time. That's why police should use discretion. Don't bother the ebiker going 25mph safely, but yeah, maybe the hot shot doing 85mph through town needs to get a ticket.

Its all relevant and for me I use common sense and not laws to guide my life. SO Example. I will drive ~50-80 in the 60 zones Yes that's right at times lower... Because I do whats safe but effective. I watch and slow for blind corners and slow even more for children! I just had a high school couple playing last week on the side walk and the girl pushed the guy in the road RIGHT in front of me I was watchign them frock around the whole time and Knew to hover my foot over the brake. I used my eyes as a judgement for safe speed not the gauges and its a good frocking thing because one look away he would have been dead. But instead my common sense had me hammer the brakes and as the abs kicked in I let up a touch to let the brakes work better! I stopped with him 1cm from my bumper and got out and asked if they were OK and he got up and ran away! My GF was a white as a ghost but its all good. The fact that I bought a light weight car with good performance goodies incl the brakes and then I proceeded to make it better with good pads and braided lines etc so I could go fast basically SAVED a guys life.
So to conclude driver Du diligence is far more important then a frocking sign telling you what you are allowed to do!.. I will not go 260 in a residential area but I might out in Alberta where you can see for ever. That's just top speed of the srt4 the roadrunner tops at 175mph! And as I said before bikes are my life but because the government is a piece of shit I will not buy one to ride on the street!

[Arlo1]

... Meaning the more laws they cram down our thoughts the more we as a society tend to obey and forget how to think for ourselves actually making for dumber people! ....

I'm going to sound like a real conspiratorial loony on this one; but what I fear is that they are passing so many laws that within their first five years of life my Grandchildren will all be potential felons and me along with them... then our lives will degrade to answering the question: "Papers, where are your papers... Oh, you are an enemy of the state... stand over there..."

This brings me to another big problem HOW THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW ALL THE LAWS? There is so many. Like in vancouver its a bylaw "no parking in allyways" or somethign like that my coworkers wife got a ticket for. And some states Anal sex is ilegal and I think there is a state oral is ilegal
They or better WE need to make it simplier!

[mdd0127]

The problem is that most people will f up. Since they know they won't get a ticket for running a light, speeding, they will do it all the time and eventually they will f up and it will happen a lot more often. People will die because of other's mistakes (a lot more often than now).

You give way too much credit to the average person. This goes beyond just traffic laws.


I hate stopping at empty stop signs, I think it's BS. Same with a red light and no one is around. Again, I think there is a line to draw somewhere in the middle of all this. And 193mph in the rain on a public road is on the 'don't do it' side of that line IMO.

This is ridiculous. If you think no one should get a traffic ticket if there wasn't a collision, then do you know how dangerous the roads would be? It'd be a battlefield with people hitting each other left and right. Cyclists would get killed daily. Walking near a street would be deadly too. You better get in a dump truck if you want to get around and not die.

Do I believe there are asinine traffic laws - hell yeah.

Do I believe no one should get a ticket for running a red light and nearly running me over?

Again, if you think no harm is done if there isn't a collision, you are clueless. You have no idea what I deal with.

With that logic, you must be okay with cars passing you at 6 inches distance, eh? You probably think the 3 foot passing law is wrong too? Do you want your kids biking on the street where it's legal for a car to pass them as close as possible. But no harm is done if there wasn't an accident.

This is incredibly surprising coming from an ebike forum. What poor logic.

You can't argue with thoroughly brainwashed but I guess I'll try one more time.

So, let's say that the speed limit is 65mph but the cops can't give you tickets for speeding alone. Instead, if you do get in an accident at speeds above the recommended speed limit, your penalty is muptiplied for every x miles per hour that you are exceeding it by. So, the speed limit is 65 and you get in a wreck. It's determined that you were going 65 and it's determined that you're responsible for the damages, which could be thousands of dollars, which your insurance will likely pay for. Let's say the same accident happens but you're going ten over. You're automatically at fault, since you were speeding, your insurance company pays the damages as if you were going 65, and you, personally, are responsible the multiplied fine amount. A portion goes to your victim, and a portion goes to the enforcement system. This would definitely make people think twice about exceeding the speed limit but would not penalize them if they chose to do so and didn't hurt anyone.

Run a stop sign when no one's around= no ticket. Run a stop sign and cause a crash=automatically your fault, and huge ticket.

You could substitute drinking and driving instead of going ten over. The cops couldn't put you in jail and take your car because you happened to blow over some arbitrary limit, but were probably ten times more alert and skilled than the 90 year old lady or the 16 year old putting on makeup, texting, and driving at the same time, but if you got in an accident, it would become your fault and since you were drinking, the fines would be increased drastically.

If laws like this were implemented, the penalty for messing up would much more drastic than the laws we have now, causing people to think about their actions and take their responsibility of driving very seriously but it would make it so that people that were doing something that "might have" hurt someone can't be fined for something that didn't happen.

Make sense yet?

[regmeister]

Often the law or regulation creates more problems than they claim to solve. There is always unintended consequences.

I find myself driving down the road looking for the next photo radar site, instead of concentrating on driving and watching for pedestrians like I would be otherwise. I finally figured out how to disable my seatbelt alarm though.

I think it was George Carlin who said steering wheels should have a big spike pointed at the drivers chest. That would make the roads a whole lot safer. Why don't we do that?

[Chalo]

So, let's say that the speed limit is 65mph but the cops can't give you tickets for speeding alone. Instead, if you do get in an accident at speeds above the recommended speed limit, your penalty is muptiplied for every x miles per hour that you are exceeding it by. So, the speed limit is 65 and you get in a wreck. It's determined that you were going 65 and it's determined that you're responsible for the damages, which could be thousands of dollars, which your insurance will likely pay for. Let's say the same accident happens but you're going ten over. You're automatically at fault, since you were speeding, your insurance company pays the damages as if you were going 65, and you, personally, are responsible the multiplied fine amount. A portion goes to your victim, and a portion goes to the enforcement system. This would definitely make people think twice about exceeding the speed limit but would not penalize them if they chose to do so and didn't hurt anyone.

How do you propose to determine how fast someone was moving after the wreckage has come to rest and their victims have already died? At that point, why does it matter anyway? We want to deter people from driving unsafely/irresponsibly in order to prevent accidents, not just to punish people after they've already done what we were trying to prevent.

I think speeding more than 50% over the posted limit should be a crime equivalent to assault with a deadly weapon (non-aggravated, no battery), because that's what it is. It's shooting at other road users without hitting them, throwing punches without connecting. When it results in a crash with other road users, then it should constitute aggravated assault, attempted homicide, or homicide. Speeding way over the limit on an open public right of way should be treated as intent to commit harm.

But being a driver in a crash with any fatalities should relieve you permanently of your driving responsibilities-- no questions asked, no fault presumed. That would just take you out of the driving pool whether you're a pathological risk taker, inattentive, drunk, easily flustered, epileptic, narcoleptic, unlucky, or afflicted with a Gypsy curse. In a practical sense, it doesn't matter to the rest of us why you were in a fatal crash-- and if it really wasn't your fault, well, the other driver is either dead or also out of the driving business. You get to enjoy a life free of the stress and expense of driving a car, and the rest of us are probably a little bit safer for it.

Cars aren't sacred or special, they are just dangerous machines like any other. If you kill someone with a chainsaw or a forklift or a shotgun and it's not obvious whether you meant to do it or who was at fault, you might not face criminal prosecution, but you sure won't be operating that thing the next day at work like nothing happened. Why we let people drive after they screw up hugely, often repeatedly, makes no logical sense.

Chalo