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

[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!!

[Chalo]

The penalty is all ready so absurdly severe, only a fool chooses not to run at this point.

It's much easier to just refrain from driving like a jackass in public. You think it's your natural right, but it's not. The law dogs are trying to tell you, but you aren't listening.

The next level of warning is serious injury, if you are lucky. It could go straight to permanent disability or death without a stop in between.

Chalo

[cbr shadow]

There are plenty of people who will take Luke's side of the arguement.. People love to critisize the current laws and the way things are, but can't come up with a better solution. Is the solution to not fine/arrest people who speed as long as nobody was hurt? Does this apply to any level of speeding? Are there to be no more speed limits? How would you feel if somoene went 150mph down your street when your kids are riding their bikes? If you stopped the person doing that would you accept the arguement "but nobody was hurt"?? How does this apply to drunk driving and firing guns? As long as nobody was hurt...this time.
The drunk driving/firearm example has been brought up several times by several people in this thread, but I dont think it has been acknowledged by Luke at all.. Do you make the arguement for speeding because you personally like to speed? What if I like to drink + drive ? I assure you I'm an excellent drunk driver. Far more skilled than most.

[mdd0127]

There are plenty of people who will take Luke's side of the arguement.. People love to critisize the current laws and the way things are, but can't come up with a better solution. Is the solution to not fine/arrest people who speed as long as nobody was hurt? Does this apply to any level of speeding? Are there to be no more speed limits? How would you feel if somoene went 150mph down your street when your kids are riding their bikes? If you stopped the person doing that would you accept the arguement "but nobody was hurt"?? How does this apply to drunk driving and firing guns? As long as nobody was hurt...this time.
The drunk driving/firearm example has been brought up several times by several people in this thread, but I dont think it has been acknowledged by Luke at all.. Do you make the arguement for speeding because you personally like to speed? What if I like to drink + drive ? I assure you I'm an excellent drunk driver. Far more skilled than most.

I presented a better solution and it's either completely misunderstood or ignored. We could use the same limits and laws we have now but in order for them to be enforced, with very high penalties when they are, there would actually have to have been a crime committed ,ie damage done, in conjunction with them. If people knew that if they got in an accident while going over the speed limit, it would result in a multiple thousand dollar fine and suspension of their driving privileges, very few people would recklessly exceed that limit. But, if someone knew that they were being safe, ie all alone on the road with excellent visibility and they wanted to open it up a little bit, they couldn't be fined for what might have happened.

Maybe humans are just too stupid for common sense, just, and fair laws???

I don't speed anymore or run red lights so my only dogs in this race are common sense, logic, and trying to teach people that authorities penalizing people for "what if" scenarios is an invasion of freedom and personal responsibility. Who really cares about that crap though?

[veloman]

There are plenty of people who will take Luke's side of the arguement.. People love to critisize the current laws and the way things are, but can't come up with a better solution. Is the solution to not fine/arrest people who speed as long as nobody was hurt? Does this apply to any level of speeding? Are there to be no more speed limits? How would you feel if somoene went 150mph down your street when your kids are riding their bikes? If you stopped the person doing that would you accept the arguement "but nobody was hurt"?? How does this apply to drunk driving and firing guns? As long as nobody was hurt...this time.
The drunk driving/firearm example has been brought up several times by several people in this thread, but I dont think it has been acknowledged by Luke at all.. Do you make the arguement for speeding because you personally like to speed? What if I like to drink + drive ? I assure you I'm an excellent drunk driver. Far more skilled than most.

I presented a better solution and it's either completely misunderstood or ignored. We could use the same limits and laws we have now but in order for them to be enforced, with very high penalties when they are, there would actually have to have been a crime committed ,ie damage done, in conjunction with them. If people knew that if they got in an accident while going over the speed limit, it would result in a multiple thousand dollar fine and suspension of their driving privileges, very few people would recklessly exceed that limit. But, if someone knew that they were being safe, ie all alone on the road with excellent visibility and they wanted to open it up a little bit, they couldn't be fined for what might have happened.

Maybe humans are just too stupid for common sense, just, and fair laws???

I don't speed anymore or run red lights so my only dogs in this race are common sense, logic, and trying to teach people that authorities penalizing people for "what if" scenarios is an invasion of freedom and personal responsibility. Who really cares about that crap though?

Yeah, I know I just can't get it through my thick skull.

Mdd, you have a point that partially makes sense, but it is extremely flawed too. Maybe you don't understand that people routinely overestimate their abilities and make very dangerous assumptions all the time? ("i'm sure the road is clear up ahead, I can do open it up here") People WILL make bad decisions.

I know exactly how you feel and what your perception is. I myself know I'd like to go fast and run red lights at times, and I know I can do it safely because I trust myself to only do it when surely appropriate. But you can't apply that to everyone. No matter what the consequences people are just idiots.

Why can't anyone here answer cbr shadow's question about doing 150mph on the street your kids are on? Same with the drunk driving analogy. Same with passing a cyclist at 6 inches. Because each of these scenarios are fine and legal to do under your logic.

Would you like that suv driver to run that red light when you are crossing the green light and you don't have full view of the road due to obstructions like buildings, trees, parked cars? But it's legal for that suv to run the light, as long as they miss you by a few inches, no harm was done, right?

But no, I'm a stupid human without common sense. Common sense according to you means letting you speeders have a free pass, ALONG WITH ALL THE IDIOTS out there as well.

[mdd0127]

It's NOT a "free pass". There would still be a huge penalty for exceeding recommended limits if damage was caused and knowledge of this possibility would be even more preventative than a small fine that people just see as a revenue collection.

Would you rather have the 150mph down your street guy get caught, get a $500 ticket and back on the road in six months or would you rather he skid off the road and take out a mailbox, damage=crime, going 60 in a 35 ONCE, and be off the road forever???

Obviously the guy going 150 down your street doesn't care what the law is either way so if the penalty is way more severe, once he actually commits a crime, at least he will be off the road.

If the SUV driver runs stop lights all of the time, eventually he's going to hit someone and cause damage. He can still keep running lights forever if all he gets is a $50 ticket here and there, but if he knows that the first time he runs a red light and tags a car, he will have to go to work for the state to pay off his debt and he will no longer have a drivers license, he might quit running lights.

Under this system, people still have the motivation to stay within the suggested limits, considerably more motivation actually, but the authorities don't have the ability to collect revenue from people that haven't damaged anyone or their property.

[HAROX]

The penalty is all ready so absurdly severe, only a fool chooses not to run at this point.

It's much easier to just refrain from driving like a jackass in public. You think it's your natural right, but it's not. The law dogs are trying to tell you, but you aren't listening.

The next level of warning is serious injury, if you are lucky. It could go straight to permanent disability or death without a stop in between.

Chalo

Well, you all seem to have the argument well under way. Speed kills, always has, always will.

[cbr shadow]

The penalty is all ready so absurdly severe, only a fool chooses not to run at this point.

It's much easier to just refrain from driving like a jackass in public. You think it's your natural right, but it's not. The law dogs are trying to tell you, but you aren't listening.

The next level of warning is serious injury, if you are lucky. It could go straight to permanent disability or death without a stop in between.

Chalo

Well, you all seem to have the argument well under way, so here's a mountain of real world shit to shovel.
Lawmaking is slow! Death is faster. Therein is a big frocking problem, waiting for a slow decision about going to the other side fast, while taking along your favorite friends. The US will never see 500 kph rails, I bet, or EV's capable of independent motoring @ 200 mph for 2000 miles, nonstop. Physics and economics prevent such a machine from being built or operated. You don't get something for nothing, especially concerning super dynamics.
Agreed, people navigating their SUV refrigerator computer sausage cooler phone sofa boxes down the bully-bard, nonchalant, willy-nilly, are a scourge for the cyclist. For some ungodly reason everybody seems to think it's their birthright to operate some sort of multi-wheeled vehicle, and truth is, everywhere, it's a privilege to operate such. It always has been, and always will be. A pea-brain is driving the bus or car or train or bike… who are you going to trust to be more responsible for such machinery, one with a simple mission, or one fraught with ego-desire??
Colorado just raised the penalty for drunk driving/ fatality related offenses to being high class felonies, with harsher jail times. See? Passed, after 20+ months of haranguing, after who knows how many hangovers on their own part. Under the surface, there are no accidents, only stupid people, people who think they can get away with breaking laws of physics; ignorant dumb-asses, needing reminders of deadly things three times squared, at great expense cubed, eventually… awakening to reality, or never doing so.
Lawmakers are slow, yes, but maybe not as slow as the ones who sleep thru the reality. YOU are a "durable" being, albeit limited, one who can be stopped when acted upon by outside frocking forces, for perpetuity. Though this cold truth may elude you in your quest for the fastest ride to hell's door, it won't be wasted on others, especially congress' "turtles".
This world, sans speed machines, is a slow one, and life's short as well. Speed kills, always has, always will.
Back to real time: my daughter just called from the hospital, where she's getting stitched up from falling downstairs with a tray of glassware. She just learned something.

[HAROX]

.

[cbr shadow]

Harox I was only giving you a hard time and trying to lighten the mood. Didn't mean to offend you. Also sorry to hear about your daughter.

I think this whole discussion has run its course though - we've all stated what we believe and there are plenty of people on each side.

[Dauntless]