Agreed the Judge Dread part could be part of the problem for number of runners.
Probably age has a factor in deciding whether to give er or not.
|
|
|
Anyone here?
- Thread starter Blackfin
- Start date
Agreed the Judge Dread part could be part of the problem for number of runners.
Probably age has a factor in deciding whether to give er or not.
TiburonJA
Well-known member
Honestly, as much as the punishment sucks... Going 100 over the limit is breaking the law any way you slice it.
Like many here, I personally don't think it's entirely reckless and super dangerous to do those kind of speeds considering the time of night and (most likely) the lack of other cars. Ofc going those speeds always poses a risk, losing control at speeds like that is far more dangerous with a greater likelihood of something fatal.
At the end of the day we're all responsible for our actions, it's not like he didn't know the risks of speeding.
The speed limit they have is pretty stupid to begin with... that's for sure.
Like many here, I personally don't think it's entirely reckless and super dangerous to do those kind of speeds considering the time of night and (most likely) the lack of other cars. Ofc going those speeds always poses a risk, losing control at speeds like that is far more dangerous with a greater likelihood of something fatal.
At the end of the day we're all responsible for our actions, it's not like he didn't know the risks of speeding.
The speed limit they have is pretty stupid to begin with... that's for sure.
Yup, and in a situation where it is very likely the risk is completely to himself, and himself alone, society decides to treat him in the same manor as two ricers ripping through a school zone at similar speeds.. like I said previously, there is a distinction between speed and stupidity, where there isn't in the punishment; this is my point of contention
The question is why not?
Because most of us are adults and know roads are not playgrounds?
because adulthood = elimination of all that is exciting and/or risky; why even bother leaving the couch
What's a viable defense for doing 100kph over the legal limit on a public road?
How does that play out in front of a judge?
So you want it like a left turn lane, ok between the hours of 9-3 but prohibited between 4-6.
With the state of our laws, not well. I'm merely musing over the point of such law, particularly regarding a blast on an empty stretch of highway. Draconian laws and flash headlines hitting home with bleeding hearts who would never in a million years be affected by this individuals actions (assuming the highway was empty, maybe it wasn't)
Wouldn't be absurd would it?
Maybe if it was Northern Ontario and not 400/finch.
I can picture it now, anarchy rules in effect from midnight to 3AM and all the civic rice racers doing top speed runs to canada wonderland.
The correct answer to riding a bike legally at speeds way over 200kmh is to spend $250 at mosport.
Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk
1 Tying this offense to the term 'anarchy' is the type of pervasive sensationalism which has left the average adult incapable of separating themselves from their emotional response when addressing these types of questions. I've only been asking if the penalty fits the crime; and secondly, if the resources could be better used. Rational thoughts, shot down by emotionally charged rhetoric.
2. You carry on with the sensationalism by exaggerating the facts; "way over 200" was actually near 200. Facts never seem to get in the way when arguing the perceived 'moral high ground' ... "it doesn't matter, it's illegal either way" will be the cry, but it misses the mark on what I've been suggesting.
3. You never asked about riding a bike legally at speeds over 200kph; you asked "what the penalty should be for near 100 over the limit" ... The Mosport response was cute, but irrelevant to what I've been saying.
...so, on your last point, I'll entertain it. But since you grossly exaggerated a slightly reasonable argument, I'll do the same with an analogy.... We all should be able to agree that hockey played on the street is exponentially more dangerous than hockey played in a park.. So we decide ban it in the interest of public safety. But in all of Toronto there are only 4 parks for all the kids to go play hockey, some of which must travel hours to get there.. on top of that barrier, lets charge them to play as well. Many probably can't quite fit that into the budget after buying the hockey stick, but hey, too bad, it's safer so the law stands.... This really has nothing to do with my original point, but neither did your last point lol .. fun game.
So your problem is the noise... address that, as NIMBY as it may be... Incidentally, the very same reason tracks are few and far between... fancy that.
All your efforts to rationalize using public roads as your own race track speaks volumes about how you likely ride. Luck will only take you so far, wonder if we'll be reading about you someday here.
And these attitudes and actions (the laws suck and are for pansies, screw the police, I want to play outside societal norms because I don't agree with them) is why motorcycle insurance, specifically sport bike insurance, is what it is, and why our public image isn't exactly stellar either.
Slow clap.
And these attitudes and actions (the laws suck and are for pansies, screw the police, I want to play outside societal norms because I don't agree with them) is why motorcycle insurance, specifically sport bike insurance, is what it is, and why our public image isn't exactly stellar either.
Slow clap.
Not equivalent enough to be valid. No one would ban street hockey in the interest of "public safety" because there's no risk to the public. A motorcycle travelling at 200kph can easily kill; ask the family of the 61yo fellow killed by Mitch Crate doing when he slammed into the side of an SUV at 180kph.
People that want to play hockey competitively do go to special facilities (arenas) and do pay additional fees for the privilege of doing so. Not so different from taking your sport bike to a track day event and paying for the privilege to ride as fast as you dare in a controlled environment.
You talk about better use of resources: Why should EMS, fire & police departments have resources at the ready to squeegee some Darwin candidate down a sewer drain when he turns himself into ground beef at 200kph?
And how do you come to that conclusion? Yet another sensation, irrational, completely emotional A hole response. I'm a grown adult with a clean record paying less insurance than most any Harley owner on here dare openly state. That is a representation of how I ride.
But good for you, your mastery of inference is impressive
Slow clap indeed
Did you read the last line?
EDIT:
Also much like the reference to the 403 indecent made earlier, the scenario with that Mitch guy was very different. He was blasting a densely populated surface street with many crossroads in the early evening.. not even close to the same thing.. but blanket responses seem to be the norm.. meh
Last edited:
Yep. My points stand.
Your point was a long winded way of saying exactly what I said in the last line... can we stand together, maybe hold hands?
|
|
|
|
|