Is 128mph "reckless driving"?

[SubaSteevo]

Originally Posted by Bipa

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.

That was my primary point, speed is not reckless. Courts establish precedent with every ruling. If speed itself is reckless, than any speeding could be concidered reckless. What is the cut off point? 120? 90? 70?

[svxfiles]

Today and last Friday I passed "drivers" who were unsafe while stopped!
One stopped dead in the exit lane of a major highway, THINKING about re-entering the highway, and one stopped dead in the slow lane of RT.40, aparently THINKING about taking a right, off the highway!

I see stupid people!

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by SubaSteevo

That was my primary point, speed is not reckless. Courts establish precedent with every ruling. If speed itself is reckless, than any speeding could be concidered reckless. What is the cut off point? 120? 90? 70?

No, you argued the point that driving at 128mph isn't reckless because you're only going 83mph or so faster than traffic. There's a big difference between your point and Bipa's.

[ensteele]

Here in Washington State, 30 over the speed limit is reckless driving.

[SubaSteevo]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

No, you argued the point that driving at 128mph isn't reckless because you're only going 83mph or so faster than traffic. There's a big difference between your point and Bipa's.

No, actually my arguemement was that at 83mph faster than traffic you would still be able to see other cars on the road. At which point you would be fully capable of slowing down. If you chose not to slow down, at that point you would be driving recklessly.

You cannot make a ruling based on what could have happened. If that were the case, then I propose we arrest every individual who owns a gun. Because after all, they might actually pull the trigger.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by SubaSteevo

You cannot make a ruling based on what could have happened. If that were the case, then I propose we arrest every individual who owns a gun. Because after all, they might actually pull the trigger.

You're taking it too far. Doug's 'firing a gun into the next block' is a much better analogy. If we were to compare it to your 'owning a gun' analogy, then we'd be arguing over whether or not it's reckless to own a motorcycle. See the difference?

No, I think a better analogy would be firing a gun into traffic. 'But I could see the other people, your honor, so I wasn't aiming at them.'

And the idea that you could slow down for anybody else on the road is ridiculous. at 128mph do you have any idea how long it would take a motorcycle to slow down? They don't stop very well. I think somebody else suggested 1000ft. Add a couple hundred feet for decision and reaction time. Okay, so somebody might be doing 55mph - but what about potholes, squirrels, people stopped at the side of the road with flat tires? They're not doing 55mph. You argued that, if nobody's around, it's just like the controlled environment on a track. It's not. You don't find those things (very often) on a track.

The simple fact is that there are innocent people and even unexpected dangers on public roads. Whether or not this asshole was lucky enough to not run into any of them is immaterial.

I would say its reckless drving but I definetly went over that in the SVX (accidentally of course)

[kuoh]

Rather interesting to see all this condemnation of the biker doing 128 MPH, but I don't recall seeing all the hoopla when the SVX top speed threads were around or when people talk of pegging their speedos. I'll bet it would take more than one hand to count the number of people here who have taken their SVX to 100+ MPH and I doubt most of them did it on a track.

KuoH

Originally Posted by SubaSteevo
No, actually my arguemement was that at 83mph faster than traffic you would still be able to see other cars on the road. At which point you would be fully capable of slowing down. If you chose not to slow down, at that point you would be driving recklessly.

You cannot make a ruling based on what could have happened. If that were the case, then I propose we arrest every individual who owns a gun. Because after all, they might actually pull the trigger.

Sorry but I have to disagree here as well. It isn't the speed itself that makes it reckless, but the speed difference makes it dangerous. Add a speed limit so that everyone drives with the assumption of limited speeds, and now you add reckless to an already dangerous situation.

Let's take out the theoretical and talk about something real. Many years ago, my Hubby was on the autobahn in his Audi, doing about 190 km/hr which is about 118 mph. He was on a two lane divided autobahn with unlimited speed limit, in the left passing lane. Dry road, daytime in the afternoon, good weather conditions, excellent visibility.

He spotted a truck up ahead in the right lane, with a small car behind it. The car seemed to be happy just following the truck at about 100km/hr (62mph), but he kept an eye on it anyway. At the last minute, just as Hubby was getting near, the car pulled out to pass the truck. Hubby hit the brakes but it was impossible to slow down enough. His Audi hit the small car and did a somersault or two, head over heels, not a sideways roll. I've seen pics of his demolished car. He survived with a few broken bones, crushed ankle and lost part of an ear. Was lucky as all Heck! The woman also survived with severe but not life threatening injuries.

It didn't matter that he could see the car. He couldn't anticipate that the other car would pull out like that, and there's no way he was "fully capable of slowing down" (your words).

Hubby was NOT speeding, since there was no speed limit. But the speed difference between the two cars, plus the unexpected last-minute lane change made it an impossible situation. These things happen all the time in unlimited zones, and are just part of the risk we accept every time we choose to drive fast in the left passing lane. Just another reason I like driving the SVX, because in a large car my chances of survival are much greater than in a little putt-putt.

I am extremely careful in the Justy when I pull out into the passing lane to get by a truck. I keep a close watch on what is approaching from behind, and even when a fast car is way back, I stick in the right lane until it is past and only then pull out when the left lane is clear for a long distance behind. In fact, I spend almost as much time checking traffic behind me as I do the traffic in front of me when I'm on the autobahn in the Justy. But most North American drivers aren't used to keeping so close an eye on traffic behind them. They assume that those coming from behind are responsible. This assumption has killed people unused to driving in our unlimited speed zones which require a totally different approach to driving.

Given North American driving habits, and I do mean HABIT ... where folks have gotten used to assuming that nobody will go faster than, say, 15 miles over the limit (pulled that number out of a hat), then the average North American driving style cannot cope with the sort of situation I have described above. Heck, even in Germany these things happen, where supposedly drivers should know better and be used to situations with large speed differences.

So although I stand by my statement that speed in and of itself isn't reckless, speeding - meaning going way over the posted speed limit, is extremely reckless when the differential becomes so great that slowing down in time becomes physically impossible. Hubby was going about 50 mph faster than the woman. If the difference had been only 15 or 20 miles, he would have slowed down in time, honked his horn maybe in irritation, and kept going. But instead they both ended up with demolished cars and severe injuries. That's the reality.

By the way, the official MINIMUM speed limit on the autobahn is only 60 km/hr, or slightly over 37mph. So I'm dealing with huge speed differences all the time when I'm toodling along at 200km/hr or 124mph. Dangerous as all heck, yet not reckless. But if I were to continue at my high speed in a limited speed zone, then definitely dangerous AND reckless.

[Royal Tiger]

Bipa, you and I are in perfect agreement on this one. You should go argue for me over on the RennList site. This guy is impossible to reason with. But he is from California, so that explains some of his attitude.

[NapaBavarian]

Originally Posted by Tigershark

But he is from California, so that explains some of his attitude.

the horror!!!


Some of us just get used to recklessness, on my 6 mile winding road it seems the people who go slow are the ones who also drive in the oncoming lane and I have even seen drivers go 120* arround a 90* corner right into a cliff and the fool who got a flat tire and stoped to change it in the middle of a road that is barley 2 lanes and slow speed head on colitions from the idiot who went into the oncoming lane.

As for the motorcyclist, we wern't there, and the story is quite vague, please go back and read the story again, do it slowly and carefully and look for the details, it never clearly indicates that the biker tried to outrun the cops.

THE STORY NEVER SAYS THE BIKER WAS TRAVELING AT 128MPH!!! The story says that the cop was traveling at 128mph, it is vary possible that the biker passed the cop at 90mph not seeing officer friendly, and the officer had to drive 128mph to catch the biker, then said biker pulled right over as he should. Two clues lead me to believe he did not try to evade, the first is the fact that the story says nothing about it, and the press usually likes to get all those juicy details in, the second is the low fine, if you are ticketed for pulling a trailer in CA at 56mph the fine starts for a first offender at $385.

Originally Posted by Tigershark

Bipa, you and I are in perfect agreement on this one. You should go argue for me over on the RennList site. This guy is impossible to reason with. But he is from California, so that explains some of his attitude.

Feel free to cut and paste my post into RennList . As you can see, I have very strong opinions about speeding. I'm as guilty as the next person of pushing the speed limits and even sometimes going a teeny bit over. I've had only two speeding tickets in my life, the last one was for going 5km over the posted 70km/hr limit (converted that means I was going at 46.6 mph in a 43.5 zone and a hidden radar camera got me). But posted speed limits change the entire dynamics of people's driving styles and assumptions. Perhaps because of my autobahn experience I'm a bit more aware of these differences. I don't get upset when someone is doing 75mph in a 70 zone, but doing 128mph in a 70 zone is totally irresponsible, dangerous, and definitely reckless because nobody else on that road will be anticipating such an idiot coming up from behind. Given that motorcycles aren't always so visible and are overlooked by many car drivers, going 90 in a 70 is also highly irresponsible and dangerous for a motorcyclist. He should have more sense.

Now, if that same driver were doing 128mph on the autobahn in an unlimited speed zone, then I'd be trying to decide whether or not to pass him

[SubaSteevo]

Originally Posted by NapaBavarian

THE STORY NEVER SAYS THE BIKER WAS TRAVELING AT 128MPH!!! The story says that the cop was traveling at 128mph, it is vary possible that the biker passed the cop at 90mph not seeing officer friendly, and the officer had to drive 128mph to catch the biker, then said biker pulled right over as he should. Two clues lead me to believe he did not try to evade, the first is the fact that the story says nothing about it, and the press usually likes to get all those juicy details in, the second is the low fine, if you are ticketed for pulling a trailer in CA at 56mph the fine starts for a first offender at $385.

Very true. Although the title of the article would lead you to believe that he was. Journalists can be tricky.

[drivemusicnow]

Here is a better/more detailed account of what happened.

County Judge John Steinheider reluctantly found a 20-year-old Palmyra man not guilty of reckless driving despite testimony that the man was riding his motorcycle in excess of 128 mph on a state highway.

Tim Salmon, traffic sergeant for the Nebraska State Patrol, testified Friday that he observed two southbound motorcycles on Highway 43 near the Cass County line on Sept. 5. He said radar indicated that one of the motorcycles was traveling at 82 mph.

The officer said the motorcycles sped up after he turned his vehicle around to follow them. “My transmission will not let me go faster than 128 mph. They were essentially pulling away,” he testified at trial Friday for Jacob H. Carman.

Salmon said another state trooper followed one of the motorcycles that went in the direction of Palmyra, but never identified the driver.

He said he located Carman and his 2005 Yamaha near a cemetery east of Highway 43 near Highway 2. He said he asked for Carman’s driver’s license and keys to the motorcycle, then continued to Palmyra in search of the other driver. Salmon said the speed of the motorcycles concerned him because it was at dusk in an area where deer may have been crossing the road. “It would’ve been an awful scene if a motorcycle would have struck a deer,” he said.

Salmon said there was also the danger of a collision if another vehicle was entering the roadway over the crest of the many hills common to the stretch of roadway.

Judge Steinheider said speed is not enough to prove reckless driving under Nebraska law, however. “As much as it pains me to do it, speed and speed alone is not sufficient to establish reckless driving,” he told Carman. “If you had had a passenger, there would be no question of conviction. If there had been other cars on the roadway, if you would’ve went into the wrong lane or anything, I would have convicted you,” he said.

“In my street mind it’s reckless driving, but in my legal mind it is not,” Steinheider said.

Carman offered no evidence at the trial. He was ordered to pay fines totaling $300 for no operator’s license, no proof of insurance and expired intransits

And here is the reason it is not reckless:

"Willful reckless driving" is defined as operating a motor vehicle "in such a manner as to indicate a willful disregard for the safety of persons or property"

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...oc/nespeed.pdf

[drivemusicnow]

By the way, journalists suck. They can't even get details like the speed limit of the road, the distances between when he was first spotted, and when he was found stopped. etc.