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

[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

[John in CR]

Veloman,

I don't think even LFP said don't give the guy a ticket, but just give him the speeding ticket. You can't steal his vehicle and throw him in jail, because no harm was done...to anyone.

I wouldn't doubt that the news story left out a key bit of info, like the guy really was headed to the hospital because his girlfriend went into labor or a close friend was seriously injured and dying or whatever. I can't imagine someone choosing to ride that fast in the rain without some real sense of urgency.

[regmeister]

There's a push in Alberta right now to allow cops to seize vehicles for 50km/h (31MPH) over. They'll be Judge, Jury and Executionor all in one. Its an obamanation.

It's already the law in BC, and at 40km/h.

They are trying to ram it through on the heels of a recent and particularily heinous accident. So far we don't even know the whole story re: what really even happened. It will probably prove to be a number of causes.

[mdd0127]

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

I'm sorry that some of you just don't get my point.

@ Chalo & Veloman & anyone else that thinks OK to be punished for what you "might" have done.

Enjoy your prison camps.

[liveforphysics]

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.

If I go to a public place, say a park or whatever, and look to see it's clear ahead, and nobody is near by to hit, and then shadow-box by myself for a bit, would you also make this assault? I can certainly kill with my hands, would it be assault with a deadly weapon?

If you're going to make speeding assault with a deadly weapon, whom did you assault to press the charges?

Can I declare operating an SUV or pickup to be assault with a deadly weapon? It kills somewhere between a hundred to a thousand times more innocent folks after all, and it's 100% preventable.

If you start creating real harms in exchange for no-harm-dones, you're the one harming the world.

Also, as it is, the penalties for reckless driving etc are so great, nobody I ride with will ever consider stopping for police, because rolling the dice on running simply makes more sense than the ridiculously large penalty of stopping. Make this penalty even more absurd, and you're just putting more folks eluding the police on the roads, which IMHO has been the most dangerous on-public-road experiences I've personally encountered (on the race track is the only place I've been in more dangerous situations in a vehicle).

[Dauntless]

[Matt Gruber]

i think there is merit to POINTS against your record if there is an accident only.
The fine is bad enough, but to add points raises insurance costs for 3-5 years. which is really just a bigger fine.
i didn't read the story, what was the fine for 193?
thanks!

[Chalo]

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.

If I go to a public place, say a park or whatever, and look to see it's clear ahead, and nobody is near by to hit, and then shadow-box by myself for a bit, would you also make this assault? I can certainly kill with my hands, would it be assault with a deadly weapon?

If you're going to make speeding assault with a deadly weapon, whom did you assault to press the charges?

Can I declare operating an SUV or pickup to be assault with a deadly weapon? It kills somewhere between a hundred to a thousand times more innocent folks after all, and it's 100% preventable.

If you start creating real harms in exchange for no-harm-dones, you're the one harming the world.

Also, as it is, the penalties for reckless driving etc are so great, nobody I ride with will ever consider stopping for police, because rolling the dice on running simply makes more sense than the ridiculously large penalty of stopping. Make this penalty even more absurd, and you're just putting more folks eluding the police on the roads, which IMHO has been the most dangerous on-public-road experiences I've personally encountered (on the race track is the only place I've been in more dangerous situations in a vehicle).

This is why our motor vehicles (cars in particular) need to drive themselves, within their safe envelopes of control; and it's why they should be on rails, so they stay where they're supposed to and don't waste a lot of energy.

We've already given away most of our public quality of life to pavement, parking, exhaust, noise, and safety hazards. High performance motorcycles do better on parking and pavement requirements and arguably safety hazards to non-users, but they do worse in noise and pollution and safety hazards for riders and passengers. But having already given so much away just so that any moron can jet around as well or poorly as he likes, why in the world should we give the rest away by allowing people to turn up the danger, noise, and pollution another order of magnitude for no more benefit than their own moto-masturbation?

Chalo

[veloman]

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!

You and a few others are an exception. The problem is that without rules, idiots will run amok doing stupid things left and right. You are right drive due diligence is more important. I just don't give that many the credit of them exercising it. I see dangerous stuff every day, marginally within the law. If we take away speed limits and let people run red lights, it's just going to be so much worse.

[veloman]

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?

I agree the penalty for messing up should be higher for reasons you just stated.
It's a separate issue than what I was saying though. I still don't want cars passing me really closely. Stress is real and even if there isn't a collision, harm is done.

[Arlo1]

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!

You and a few others are an exception. The problem is that without rules, idiots will run amok doing stupid things left and right. You are right drive due diligence is more important. I just don't give that many the credit of them exercising it. I see dangerous stuff every day, marginally within the law. If we take away speed limits and let people run red lights, it's just going to be so much worse.

I might be but I have driven the way the MAN thinks is highly illegal all my life and its taught me to be a better driver not worse. So sure you will get some retards who think the can do stupid shit but if you apply the death penalty if they ever kill someone or a EYE for and EYE kind of punishment then they will think twice and if they don't we can remover them from society and help the human race bread to a better state!

[veloman]

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

I'm sorry that some of you just don't get my point.

@ Chalo & Veloman & anyone else that thinks OK to be punished for what you "might" have done.

Enjoy your prison camps.

Well what is it, should someone going 4x the speed limit be ticketed or not? Some of you agree there should be a ticket. But your statement above suggests that no matter what happens, if there isn't a collision there should be no repercussion at all. The guy who passed me at 120mph on a neighborhood street didn't hit anyone. Do you think that should be okay and the public be allowed to do that? How long before one of these 120mph drivers loses control and kills a family who is walking on the sidewalk?

How do you determine an appropriate fine for such driving? If it's known that you might get a $200 ticket in the rare chance that a cop is waiting for you, how many of these drivers will actually factor that in? And if they DO SCREW UP, they will prob kill themselves, but people still do this crap anyway. Just like the guy going 193mph.


No one has answered my question on how you cross a street safely when traffic is going 80mph because there is no speed limit. Same with the optional red lights.

I agree on the point that there are instances where you should be not hassled for speeding or yielding at a red light with clear view after stopping. But it should be up to the discretion of a police officer whether to stop you or not. If you do it dangerously, then you get stopped.

You guys are viewing this from your perspective, where you are highly skilled and experienced drivers/riders, and are way more adept at handling a vehicle than the average person. Your lack of laws might work if everyone was like you. But we have so many idiots on the road that yes we need some oftentimes annoying traffic laws to keep some sort of order and safety.

[cal3thousand]

The whole point is the concept of doing real harms to someone because they increased chances of potential harms.

And that's a DUMB point that has other analogies pointed out here numerous times. Gun = only potential harm too. Shit, even a fake gun has less potential harm. But go in a bank swinging that thing around and see if that's not dumb. I'm sure it's a rush.

[mdd0127]

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

I'm sorry that some of you just don't get my point.

@ Chalo & Veloman & anyone else that thinks OK to be punished for what you "might" have done.

Enjoy your prison camps.

Well what is it, should someone going 4x the speed limit be ticketed or not? Some of you agree there should be a ticket. But your statement above suggests that no matter what happens, if there isn't a collision there should be no repercussion at all. The guy who passed me at 120mph on a neighborhood street didn't hit anyone. Do you think that should be okay and the public be allowed to do that? How long before one of these 120mph drivers loses control and kills a family who is walking on the sidewalk?

How do you determine an appropriate fine for such driving? If it's known that you might get a $200 ticket in the rare chance that a cop is waiting for you, how many of these drivers will actually factor that in? And if they DO SCREW UP, they will prob kill themselves, but people still do this crap anyway. Just like the guy going 193mph.


No one has answered my question on how you cross a street safely when traffic is going 80mph because there is no speed limit. Same with the optional red lights.

I agree on the point that there are instances where you should be not hassled for speeding or yielding at a red light with clear view after stopping. But it should be up to the discretion of a police officer whether to stop you or not. If you do it dangerously, then you get stopped.

You guys are viewing this from your perspective, where you are highly skilled and experienced drivers/riders, and are way more adept at handling a vehicle than the average person. Your lack of laws might work if everyone was like you. But we have so many idiots on the road that yes we need some oftentimes annoying traffic laws to keep some sort of order and safety.

Most people will regulate their safe speed on their own, or follow suggested limits. Those that don't and that actually cause harm should be fined heavily, like thousands of dollars. Common sense, personal responsibility, and fear of what will happen if they are outside of suggested limits and cause damage will make people drive just as responsibly and we still wouldn't have to issues tickets for non-crimes, i.e. doing something that didn't hurt anyone.

You won't have to be crossing a street with 80 mph cross traffic because MOST people are going to drive safely for the conditions, not having a penalty for speeding alone but having a very sizeable penalty for speeding and causing damage should prevent the rest from speeding. I can't believe you can't wrap your head around this.

I would not have given 193 mile per hour guy a ticket if I was a cop and caught him. I would have told him that it would be much wiser to get that out of his system on a track and reminded him that if one tiny thing went wrong, he would be a dead duck and might hurt other people. People that go 193 on public roads are going to do what they want, no matter what the law is. There's no sense making everyone else pay for crimes they didn't commit in the name of stopping the unstoppable.

[liveforphysics]

Speaking of fined thousands of dollars, this guy is all ready going to be paying no less than $10,000 (legal BS and fines), then losing his licence for an extended period (which often seems to cost folks jobs as well), then will not be insurable for at least a year period after getting his licence back, and then will pay an extra ~$300 a month for SR22 insurance.


I remember a mechanic friend who was a racing buddy. Got caught racing (in a fantastic safe area to be racing, safer than most tracks and a spotter controlled dead-end road with no side streets and only open grass fields on the sides of the road), could have easily ran but didn't (everyone else ran and got away clean). He caused ZERO harm. In return, they revoked his licence, gave him a reckless driving offense (~$2500), took him to jail, impounded his car etc. That was all the tiny error-bar level harms though, the real harms were losing his mechanic job that paid the bills for his family (two kids and his wife cared for them at home), got another job that he rode his bike to, it couldn't pay the bills, wife got a job which put the kids in daycare, ended up being more expensive than having his wife stay at home caring for them, lost the house, ended up moving the kids in with his wifes parents and went to fishing boats in Alaska to try to get caught up on bills (that got way behind when he had all his fines and legal expenses after losing his job).

This is likely worse than most, but not uncommon. The penalty is all ready so absurdly severe, only a fool chooses not to run at this point. Last time I got busted, I didn't even know a cop had been chasing me for the last few miles, I was just riding home from work at a decent clip at 5am on an empty open freeway with no cars, slowed down, took the off-ramp, sat at the empty no-cars stoplight for a minute waiting for it to change (bikes often don't trip the sensor at that light), and I see in my mirror a cop with it's lights on is racing up behind me. I figure it's going to blaze passed me (it's been like 2minutes now since I was even speeding), but it screeches to a halt behind me (like 10ft from slamming into me), and the cop jumps out and does the whole felony arrest procedure with his hand on his gun for a guy waiting at an empty stop light. Lesson learned? Don't wait at empty red-lights, run them, and save your self about 5-10grand (increased special high risk insurance costs).

[hydro-one]

AMen!!