lol what? seriously??
Last edited:
|
|
|
Stunt Driving.... Need Help!!!
- Thread starter Vamz
- Start date
lol what? seriously??
With all of this wonderful discussion, I think that we're back to this thread now: http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...hy-are-peope-so-stupid&highlight=Peope+stupid
Kri$han
Well-known member
You're kidding, right? ONE guy gets a stunting charge, and MILLIONS of other drivers here didn't... and so the MILLIONS of other, law-abiding road users need to pay more?! GTFOhere
This is some BS, too... I've been of the few group rides I've been on with GTAM members, no less, most of the idiots racing through 50 zones were WELL over 35. I remember being at the back, thinking "go ahead guys"...
Last edited:
A few years ago, a rider (or was it a driver) got followed from the air from hamilton to newmarket. They handed him speeding and careless tickets for each jurisdiction he passed through (4 jurisdictions if I recall correctly). Seems like dirty pool to me. If someone is doing something that the police consider dangerous, why let them keep going for an hour?
OP is is deep crap at this point. He admitted to the cops that he was the rider and that he knew he was speeding. At least they gave him careless charges, not dangerous. Next time, when your bike is missing, work out the path forward before talking. eg. If you had ridden it to school the day before and were going to ride it home that day and it was missing, it would be hard to prove it was you on the bike that morning. At this point, sell the bike, pay a lawyer, learn the lesson.
OP is is deep crap at this point. He admitted to the cops that he was the rider and that he knew he was speeding. At least they gave him careless charges, not dangerous. Next time, when your bike is missing, work out the path forward before talking. eg. If you had ridden it to school the day before and were going to ride it home that day and it was missing, it would be hard to prove it was you on the bike that morning. At this point, sell the bike, pay a lawyer, learn the lesson.
Look at my posts in other threads regarding insurance. I'm fully on the side of basing insurance premiums on an individual's risk level: age, record, number of vehicles insured etc. I've argued that a 275% rate hike for a proven rider just because he rides a SS is (or should be) criminal. I'm on your side.
Unfortunately, guys like this wreck it for everyone because insurance cannot work any other way than the penalize the good along because of the actions of the bad. And it's not just "one guy"; it's a statistically significant number of asswipes stunting and speeding and, yes, crashing and taking out others and doing damage.
Every time a risky rider like this pops up on the law enforcement grid insurance companies have more ammunition to hike rates. Part of the problem is that even if this retard pays $5000 a year for his insurance premium it's doubtful the premiums paid will cover the cost of just medical coverage should he crash at speed; Hospital, drug, rehab and other costs can easily top $500,000 (especially if the injuries are life-altering...); he'd have to pay $5000 a year for a hundred years to cover bills of that scale. And this doesn't even touch issues like liability should he injure someone else. Of course this has to be spread out among all of us. By arbitrary increases of 275%? No, I don't think so but we're all paying more because of guys like this.
And BTW, in 2014 there were "just" 213,283 motorcycles and mopeds registered in Ontario. In all of Canada there was only 688,000 bikes registered, not "millions." So it's even more acute for us: because there's a pretty small pool of motorcyclists in Ontario we're going to pay disproportionately more for the bad deeds of others.
So stop pissing in my cornflakes and focus your animus toward shitheads like the OP that are the root cause of super-high insurance costs.
Considering there's only a little over 200,000 motorcycles registered in the province of Ontario (go ahead and check statscan if you'd like) right from the onset you're off base.
Edit: It looks like both me and Blackfin were actually looking up factual data (heresy, stuff someone pulled out of their *** is so much better regarded here!) and were responding at the same time.
And its its clear a lot of people don't understand how insurance works here. Go re-read some of my earlier responses (and heck, links) as well as Blackfins for details on why insurance is so high.
It only takes one idiot who crashes because of his own stupidity and then needs to be fed through a straw for the rest of his life to consume the ongoing yearly insurance premiums of perhaps tens of thousands of riders. Repeat for however long said idiot lives.
Last edited:
I'd like to focus my animus on why vehicles on public roads are able to achieve 190 and well beyond. It's the most retarded thing ever. I bet "they" could engineer powerful fun to drive fuel efficient vehicles that run out of steam @130. Vehicles able to do 300 is akin to USA constitutional gun rights. Retarded.
What would I do with the other 5 gears? Ignore them?
I rest my case.
Kri$han
Well-known member
You can still do 170-190 in a car, so an insurance rate hike increase based on statistics should be spread out among ALL driver's in similar classes as this dude; everyone in his age bracket, type of vehicle, geographic location, etc. Since we're basing all the costs of insuring people on stats, why not apply them all? Hence my reference to "millions" of drivers & riders alike... nice stats tho :thumbsup:
Is a 19 y/o in a corvette more dangerous than a 40 y/o on a sport bike? Maybe, but both of those people should be paying higher rates because of their age AND their vehicle of choice.
This is basically what they did with jet skis. All top out about 70mph. The really powerful ones just get there faster and are less affected by load.
I know you're just stirring the pot for street vehicles, but there is precedent for recreational vehicles.
And they do. I don't like being a 48 yo married, home-owning driver with 32 years driving experience, no at-faults, no tickets, no moving violations etc and yet having to pay a thousand dollars a year for each of my STi, my Mustang GT and my Fazer 800. Thing is, even if I'm not necessarily a risk-taking individual, I am driving and riding vehicles that are statistically more risky than if I was driving, say, a Corolla.
What I'm going to object to is if I see my Fazer rates spike from $1000 a year to $4000 a year in an arbitrary increase because of a corporate take-over (SF + Dejardins...) But as mad as I am at the prospect of that I'm almost more ****** when I see guys like the OP reinforcing insurance company positions re "sporty" vehicle through exceedingly stupid and risky behavior.
They're both risky and both pay high premiums as a result.
Comparing risk between automobiles and motorcycles is apples and oranges. The overwhelming majority of automobile crashes don't result in the level of injury or ongoing care that even a "moderate" motorcycle could, and that comes full circle to the risk discussion which is what the insurance world revolves around.
Since it's a proven statistical fact that young (and often inexperienced) cyclists on high horsepower bikes are a high risk category, the ubderwriters charge more to bind said policies. It's also a statistical proven fact that the same person in a car is unlikely to drive the same as they might on a high powered performance motorcycle, and if they do crash are also at much lower risk of serious lifelong debilitating injuries, therefore the costs are lower. This isn't rocket science.
Since it's a proven statistical fact that young (and often inexperienced) cyclists on high horsepower bikes are a high risk category, the ubderwriters charge more to bind said policies. It's also a statistical proven fact that the same person in a car is unlikely to drive the same as they might on a high powered performance motorcycle, and if they do crash are also at much lower risk of serious lifelong debilitating injuries, therefore the costs are lower. This isn't rocket science.
Last edited:
I did not know that about recreational vehicles. Actually I'm not stirring the pot about street vehicles. I have always wondered about this. I like zoomy vroom vroom probably as much as the next guy but in my humble opinion you can still have a stellar motoring experience without exceeding 140% of the speed limit. Of course on a cruiser you never will.
Well, at this point what you are saying is that since the speed limit is 100, all vehicles should be restricted to 105km/hr in order to allow passing. Would you be ok with that?
I'm not saying what the top speed of a vehicle should be. I'm saying that it's retarded that 200 or 300km/h vehicles exist. And I don't care about the freedom of choice argument.
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
Oh God. For real? How could you even know that? What if the OP comes from a wealthy family? What if the ticket gets reduced? What if the cop doesn't show up? etc. etc. EDIT: can you actually see the future? Then I have some questions for you.
Please don't tell me a measly 190 scares you that much?
Oh, like you have never gotten a speeding ticket?
The argument here is, do speeding tickets have a strong correlation with the occurrence of an actual accident in the future? The answer is NO, it doesn't, but it makes a lot of busine$$ sense for the insurers of the world, so they keep telling you that a ticket today means you will crash tomorrow.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Last edited:
Like every heavy commercial vehicle on Ontario roads already are?
That was a shortsighted heavy handed government approach to solve a problem of ****** undereducated reckless drivers in the industry. Did it work? Arguably, yes, although now the ****** undereducated reckless drivers perform their idiocy slower.
The non-commercial driver crowd in Ontario cheered this at the time, but hey, now people here complain about those evil slow trucks trying to pass each other.
So, moral of the story is be careful what you wish for. The idiot behind the wheel is the root cause of that sort of knee jerk reaction. THEY are the "stupid" variable. Virtually every econobox cage on the road made in the last 20 years can reach speeds sufficient to yield a stunting charge but we all know that the average driver never reaches those speeds, yet reading enough threads here quickly makes it obvious many cyclists do...often routinely.
When end a few idiot truckers acted like idiots next thing you know we all found ourselves electronically governed to 105. And there was much rejoicing outside the industry.
Hope it never happens to bikes, but there's always that stupid variable.
Wouldn't help much. 105kph is still 55kph faster than in-town speed limits (50kph) so a car limited to 105 could still pose a significant hazard elsewhere.
As well, unless all cars were limited to that speed a 105kph-limited car would be a hazard on existing roads since 85% of people drive significantly faster than post limits on limited-access highways.
As well, speed limits are not constant between provinces nor between the US and Canada.
Liability may also play a part: while posted speed limits are largely arbitrary and not based on highway design speeds the necessity for moments of additional speed (such as when passing a slower vehicle) may mean that a car limited to 105 may be at greater risk of collision simply because it cannot complete a pass on time.
Wouldn't surprise me if, in the future, some requirement eventually came down from the government though. In the future GPS-based positioning could set upper limits depending on where you are. The Nissan GT-R knows when it's on a race track and alters its top speed limiter accordingly. There's no technical reason this couldn't be done now for nearly every car made right now. Automated driving fleets could also limit their speed (though I suspect they will prefer to go "with the flow" of traffic rather than a set limited speed.)
Back in the 1970s the national speed limit in the US was dropped to 55 to save fuel. Today's bogeyman is GHGs; perhaps a reduction in posted speed limits to reduce fuel consumption (and thus GHG generation) could be in the offing, enforced by GPS technology... Hell, OnStar can force a car to slow or even stop if it's been stolen or is involved in a police pursuit.
I would think that if enforced speed limiters were practical and enhanced net safety they would have been mandated some time ago by nanny-state governments. However, with increasing levels of technology it may be something coming down the pipe. Who knows?
|
|
|
|
|