Is 128mph "reckless driving"? - Page 2

SubaSteevo · #16 12-08-2005, 01:41 PM

Had he been driving that fast through traffic, yes I would agree, but driving at 128mph is not by its nature reckless. A straight empty road has little physical difference from a straight empty track. If the bike is built to reach that speed, then it is not reckless to operate it that fast.

That being said...I don't think the guy should get off that easily. I don't understand why the cop didn't write a speeding ticket in addition to the reckless driving.

Mr. Pockets · #17 12-08-2005, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mohrds

As usual Nick, I have to disagree with you

Doug

Um. What? You agreed with me. I'm so confused.

Mr. Pockets · #18 12-08-2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SubaSteevo

Had he been driving that fast through traffic, yes I would agree, but driving at 128mph is not by its nature reckless. A straight empty road has little physical difference from a straight empty track. If the bike is built to reach that speed, then it is not reckless to operate it that fast.

You're ignoring the fact that a track involves only willing participants who accept the risk invloved, whereas a public road has innocent people who want no part of your thrill seeking. Your argument is ridiculous and ignorant.

NikFu S. · #19 12-08-2005, 09:16 PM

Reckless, adj.

Any instance in which a given object is imposing immediate danger or potential harm to any surrounding objects, ie operating outside of controlled boundaries.

"The moron drove recklessly through a public road without considering the chance he might kill an unsuspecting person or object."

syn.: haphazard, uncontrolled, inconsiderate, etc.

ant.: safely, rational, etc.

Just typed that off the top of my head without actually verifying but whatever.

Basically anyone can mash their gas pedal to the ground and turn the wheel, but given the boundaries and terrain of any public area it is not possible to make sudden adjustments to your trajectory while maintaining a perfectly controlled and safe amount of personal space.

Now a highway and a certain 4-wheeled vehicle is a different story.

SubaSteevo · #20 12-08-2005, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

You're ignoring the fact that a track involves only willing participants who accept the risk invloved, whereas a public road has innocent people who want no part of your thrill seeking. Your argument is ridiculous and ignorant.

How can someone innocent be involved if they aren't there to begin with?

Royal Tiger · #21 12-08-2005, 09:41 PM

I've been involved with a little tit-for-tat with a certain fellow over on RennList as he believes that we should have higher speed limits in this country. In general i agree, but with limits, a point he doesn't get. Needless to say he was happy when this was posted over there.

mohrds · #22 12-08-2005, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

Um. What? You agreed with me. I'm so confused.

Just making sure you're awake down there

You start digging out of the snow storm yet?

mohrds · #23 12-08-2005, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SubaSteevo

How can someone innocent be involved if they aren't there to begin with?

Your argument of "No one was there" is irrelevant. Reckless involves intent, not results. I could fire a gun into the next block, If I don't hit anyone, it can't be a crime according to your logic.

When he chose to attempt to elude the police, he had no way of knowing what was ahead of him. He got really lucky, but he still was reckless.

Besides, what kind of putz can't elude a police cruiser when they are on a motorcycle? Left, Left, Right, Right, Left and the cruiser is history...

Not that I've ever done that

Electrophil · #24 12-08-2005, 11:28 PM

Someone was there. A cop with probably a family, doing 128mph trying to do his job. I'm no outrageous fan of the police, for there are none in my family, and the only time they talk to me is when they say "sign here". But at least its for some piddling 34 in a 25 zone sidestreet. Not some excess of over a hundred. I just have no sympathy for this type of irresponsibility toward the driving public. There is no way you can have any reasonable control at that speed.

Dat's my storee... and dad burm it, I'm sticken to it!! That whipper-snapper needs to be beaten by a huge book to knock some sense in his head.

We had some lady out here gabbing on her cell phone in her Navigator, hit some pedestrian, and they gave her time for not paying attention in the form of an involuntary manslaughter. What would he have gotten?

hexadec0079 · #25 12-08-2005, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets
You're ignoring the fact that a track involves only willing participants who accept the risk invloved, whereas a public road has innocent people who want no part of your thrill seeking. Your argument is ridiculous and ignorant.

I consider any motorist aware of the risk. When I was in an accident, I wasn't willing to be hit, it is a given risk. In general, speeding is a bad thing, back in my younger days I've gone around the ticketed speed, but it was a 11pm on a closed road with a limit of 70 to begin with. I have never recieved a ticket, one warning because he thought I was going fast, one block from my house.But I agree hit the twisties or take it to the track.

NikFu S. · #26 12-08-2005, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Electrophil

We had some lady out here gabbing on her cell phone in her Navigator, hit some pedestrian, and they gave her time for not paying attention in the form of an involuntary manslaughter. What would he have gotten?

If he had hit a pedestrian I imagine he would have got vehicular manslaughter.

Another vehicle, reckless endangerment and vehicular misconduct.

Mr. Pockets · #27 12-09-2005, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mohrds

Your argument of "No one was there" is irrelevant. Reckless involves intent, not results. I could fire a gun into the next block, If I don't hit anyone, it can't be a crime according to your logic.

This is my point exactly, and I made it already. Apparently 'Steevo' missed it. There's no way the rider of that bike could know there was going to be nobody to endanger. Just because he was lucky enough not to encounter anybody doesn't change the nature of what he actually did.

SubaSteevo · #28 12-09-2005, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

This is my point exactly, and I made it already. Apparently 'Steevo' missed it. There's no way the rider of that bike could know there was going to be nobody to endanger. Just because he was lucky enough not to encounter anybody doesn't change the nature of what he actually did.

You are correct, there is no way he could have known.
However, any vehicle driving on the highway should have been moving. Even if he was going 128, if the other vehicles were traveling at 55, his speed is 83 in relation to them. I'm sure most, if not all, people have traveled at 83mph at some point. And I'm sure most, if not all, people have passed a car stopped along the side of the road while traveling at that speed. And I hope that you saw that car, otherwise your vision is so poor you should not be on the road to begin with.

Mr. Pockets · #29 12-09-2005, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SubaSteevo

You are correct, there is no way he could have known.
However, any vehicle driving on the highway should have been moving. Even if he was going 128, if the other vehicles were traveling at 55, his speed is 83 in relation to them. I'm sure most, if not all, people have traveled at 83mph at some point. And I'm sure most, if not all, people have passed a car stopped along the side of the road while traveling at that speed. And I hope that you saw that car, otherwise your vision is so poor you should not be on the road to begin with.

Your argument is, again, insane. People don't expect, while they're traveling at freeway speeds, others to go by them at 80-90mph over - and they're well within their rights to expect that that's not going to happen.

Never mind that traveling that fast is dangerous in the first place (and if you think it isn't, you're ignorant enough that there's little point in arguing with you any more), but having other vehicles traveling 80mph slower than you makes it even more dangerous. You think dodging moving vehicles at a relative 83mph is safe??? You're out of your mind and you don't know the first thing about driving.

I just looked at your profile and your age explains your arguments. So, just don't mind me. Keep thinking you're indestructible and in complete control of your surroundings. You are a god behind the wheel and you can do anything. Other people should just get out of your way.

#30 12-09-2005, 09:51 AM

Going back to the basic question of whether going 128mph is reckless, the answer must be "no". If the question is to include going 128mph in an area with a posted limit of 70, then my answer is "yes".

I go fast all the time, legally, in zones with unrestricted speed limits. I don't consider myself a reckless driver. But when I get to an area posted 120 km/hr, I slow down because at that point I would be reckless to be going at my previous high speed which might have easily been over 200km/hr.

Speed by itself isn't reckless. But speeding on a public road with other traffic where everyone is expected to adhere to a certain limit is reckless, because folks won't be anticipating someone coming up so fast. When I'm doing 200+km/hr, everyone around me knows that it is possible some car like me is coming up at high speed, so they watch their backs a bit more and stay out of the left lane. Even so, I have to be careful that some putt-putt doesn't pull out to pass a truck doing 120km/hr. That's a risk everyone takes knowingly in unlimited zones.

My bottom line is that speed in and of itself isn't reckless regardless of your definition, assuming appropriate road conditions and a capable car in good repair. But as soon as you have a speed iimit in place, then the whole situation changes.