More good news for motorcyclists....

[El Zilcho]

a few people in an one time experiment is hardly an accurate representation of "human nature". the guy turned Ahole as a prison guard could've been an Ahole to begin with.

You're thinking about Stanford Prison Experiment.

[newbiker]

You're thinking about Stanford Prison Experiment.

oops got it mixed up, sry but my original argument still stands

[El Zilcho]

oops got it mixed up, sry but my original argument still stands

No problem. I have read about the possibility of bias in SPE.

However, the problem of conformance with authority is an undeniable aspect of human nature. The whole issue of "he told me to do so" vs "I have a freedom of choice" is not quite as simple as FiReSTaRT made it look.

[newbiker]

No problem. I have read about the possibility of bias in SPE.

However, the problem of conformance with authority is an undeniable aspect of human nature. The whole issue of "he told me to do so" vs "I have a freedom of choice" is not quite as simple as FiReSTaRT made it look.

That's true. I just like to see the good side of people that's all

[fastar1]

The resonsibility is yours and not the lead rider's.

I'm saying the responsibility is shared.

The person in charge has always has some responsibility to make sure the direction he's giving is legal and moral. If this weren't the case, CEOs, generals, investment advisors, contractors, doctors, parents, would never be responsible for any misdirection they give. They can't use the argument that "He didn't have to do it" as a defense in these cases.

[Fiery254]

Next time i get nicked for speeding I'm going to countersue Henry Ford. Its all his fault.

[CruisnGrrl]

I see the sense in this. We already know the lead rider has a certain responsibility for the riders behind. I know of groups that have been pulled over and the lead rider, being a mature and sensible person, asked to spare the riders behind because they were only trying to keep up. So in fact he was acknowledging his greater share of responsibility.

This rule would only enforce what we (should) already know is just and fair.

So by your logic if one of the rider's in the back crashes the lead rider's insurance should go up too?

The only person that the lead rider is truely responsible for is their self. They have no control over any other rider's throttle.

[fastar1]

So by your logic if one of the rider's in the back crashes the lead rider's insurance should go up too?

Sure, that argument could hold water if;
1- The lead rider led the others in a way that presented a very high risk of crashing (for example, around a curve or over a crest... into a cornfield).
2- His insurance included coverage for the bikes that were following.

Otherwise, that analogy doesn't compare.

The only person that the lead rider is truely responsible for is their self. They have no control over any other rider's throttle.

That's not the way I see it. The lead rider knows that the guys behind need to follow him, so if he speeds up he should know that they have to speed up too (unless there's traffic and the leader gets slowed up again). In effect, he's in a position of power so he may have very little control over their throttle, but he has some.

[Fiery254]

Sure, that argument could hold water if;
1- The lead rider led the others in a way that presented a very high risk of crashing (for example, around a curve or over a crest... into a cornfield).
2- His insurance included coverage for the bikes that were following.

Otherwise, that analogy doesn't compare.



That's not the way I see it. The lead rider knows that the guys behind need to follow him, so if he speeds up he should know that they have to speed up too (unless there's traffic and the leader gets slowed up again). In effect, he's in a position of power so he may have very little control over their throttle, but he has some.

I've never been on a group ride where a leader hasn't said (to the effect);

"We'll stop at every stop sign or junction to wait........"

"The next stop is the Esso/Shell/Timmys about 40kms up the road...."

Anyone speeding up to catch the leader is doing so because they want to. If a group leader stays to the speed limit and catches every light on green, but members of his group catch every light on red and break the speed limit to catch up, what offence is he committing? Is he culpable for their desire to speed to catch up?

[dirtbag]

I see the sense in this. We already know the lead rider has a certain responsibility for the riders behind. I know of groups that have been pulled over and the lead rider, being a mature and sensible person, asked to spare the riders behind because they were only trying to keep up. So in fact he was acknowledging his greater share of responsibility.

This rule would only enforce what we (should) already know is just and fair.

Dude, loosen the chin strap on your tinfoil hat. Either that or put the crack pipe away for a wee stint......

[fastar1]

Thanks you dirtbag. That was a great dirtbag contribution to this thread. We really needed a dirtbag psychoanalysis of my mental state much more than we need a dirtbag response to the actual topic.

P.S. Your mom is a Hoover.

[A-Dogg]

I'm saying the responsibility is shared.

The person in charge has always has some responsibility to make sure the direction he's giving is legal and moral. If this weren't the case, CEOs, generals, investment advisors, contractors, doctors, parents, would never be responsible for any misdirection they give. They can't use the argument that "He didn't have to do it" as a defense in these cases.

The people listed in your example are paid for a service and signed a work contract to render service for an agreed financial compensation.

How much do you pay the ride leader and what contract do you have with them?

[fastar1]

Yeah OK, they aren't very good examples because they are paid but I still maintain that an unpaid leader has some responsibility for the riders behind. It's a form of social contract.

[A-Dogg]

Yeah OK, they aren't very good examples because they are paid but I still maintain that an unpaid leader has some responsibility for the riders behind. It's a form of social contract.

Ok, I get it now. You go around making baseless claims and provide improper examples to support your claims.

Do you know how ridiculous you sound? I see you are blaming everyone but yourself. A social contract. How about you give me some of your paycheck as a form of your social contract to keep my motorcycle properly maintained. As a fellow rider you bare responsibility on me having good tires and brakes. When can I collect my $400 as part of your social contract idea?

[rmemedic]

Just another reason for guys in a group to split and run...

So if the lead guy is out by himself, and another bike sees him and wants to catch up to have someone to ride with, passes a few cars and gets busted... Is the "lead" guy still responsible while he didn't even know the other bike existed?

[fastar1]

Ok, I get it now. You go around making baseless claims and provide improper examples to support your claims.

Do you know how ridiculous you sound? I see you are blaming everyone but yourself. A social contract. How about you give me some of your paycheck as a form of your social contract to keep my motorcycle properly maintained. As a fellow rider you bare responsibility on me having good tires and brakes. When can I collect my $400 as part of your social contract idea?

Firstly, I'm not making claims, I'm stating an opinion.

Secondly, I am in now way whatsoever suggesting that each rider isn't responsible for their own behaviour. You'll notice the proposed law in the OP which I am defending suggests to fine both the rider and the leader. That should be pretty plain to see.

Thirdly, we each chose to own a bike quite independantly of the other, so neither one of us has any responsibility for the mechanical fitness of the other's bike. The only social contract we have with each other involves following the laws and paying our taxes.

If I try to concoct a scenario that might put me in a position of responsibility for your bike's mechanicals, then let's imagine that you and I decided to share a car and a bike because neither of us could afford both on our own. Then even if we didn't spell it out in a contract in advance, or if we didnt pay the other for time spent using their vehicle, our responsibility for the other's vehicle would still exist.

This is the same idea with a ride leader. If we take an extreme example, if a leader decided to book it in the middle of nowhere and the group got lost and stranded because of it, wouldn't you hold him at least partly responsible for their fate? I'm saying that I very definitely would.

[Graves]

Last time I checked our flag didn't have stars or stripes on it, so I really dont care about this article, why are you fighting over some proposed American law?

[fastar1]

Last time I checked our flag didn't have stars or stripes on it, so I really dont care about this article, why are you fighting over some proposed American law?

UK actually. But some people are just very offended by the idea I guess.

[El Zilcho]

Do you know how ridiculous you sound? I see you are blaming everyone but yourself. A social contract.

There is a lot of sense in what fastar1 says. But it goes right over the heads of many people in here.

[A-Dogg]

There is a lot of sense in what fastar1 says. But it goes right over the heads of many people in here.

Yes, crash your bike or get a ticket and blame it on someone else.
I guess it's out of the question you being responsible for your bike and leaving the ride. This is how we end up with these nanny laws.