2motors
Well-known member
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
A little too fast
- Thread starter nearace
- Start date
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
He has answered to 3 posts after mine, so I am still waiting for him to answer.
He chooses when it is convenient to answer or not just like he chooses when it is convenient for him to follow the laws or not.
Come on buddy, answer and don't give me any BS, my question was in reference to your extremely Hypocrite comment
Last edited:
pricedo
Well-known member
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Like the old truism says: Consider the source.
RedDogDarren
Well-known member
After reading this thread I am confident I still have no regard for the opinions of anyone posting on forums.
Still waiting???
Not so willing to speak up I see
At the risk of offending your buddy the mod again, ever consider the possibility that he thinks you're a fool, and make no sense with your query? After all, the thread is about a twat (like the ones you frequently idolize) well into 172 territory, and you try foolishly to comparing that to ANY speed over a legal highway limit. 162 - in a 60 zone, compared to 101 in a 100. Yeah.
My buddy the mod? who is that? trust me the mods are everything but my buddies
I know you have a big hard on for me for a while now and as soon as you see my post your emotional self reacts and in most cases fails to read or understand so let me explain:
He said:
Responsible citizens need to obey the law all the time not just when they are aware that they are under the scrutiny of the authorities
and I asked:
So you have never driven your car above 100km/hr? Ever?
Making a point that what sometimes seems black and white like his view that laws must absolutely be obeyed at all times, sometimes is not so black and white since i can bet he has "not always obey the law" by driving 101 on the 401.
I never said driving 101 on the 401 was equal as driving 161 in a 50 zone or whatever your misleading example was.
I can make you a drawing in colors if that was not clear! just PM me
and for any future posts since you follow me around GTAM, I am sorry if I hurt your delicate feelings in the past, this is just a forum on the net there is no need to cry about it
-D-
Banned
My buddy the mod? who is that? trust me the mods are everything but my buddies
I know you have a big hard on for me for a while now and as soon as you see my post your emotional self reacts and in most cases fails to read or understand so let me explain:
He said:
Originally Posted by pricedo
Responsible citizens need to obey the law all the time not just when they are aware that they are under the scrutiny of the authorities
and I asked:
Originally Posted by ZX600
So you have never driven your car above 100km/hr? Ever?
Making a point that what sometimes seems black and white like his view that laws must absolutely be obeyed at all times, sometimes is not so black and white since i can bet he has "not always obey the law" by driving 101 on the 401.
I never said driving 101 on the 401 was equal as driving 161 in a 50 zone or whatever your misleading example was.
I can make you a drawing in colors if that was not clear! just PM me
and for any future posts since you follow me around GTAM, I am sorry if I hurt your delicate feelings in the past, this is just a forum on the net there is no need to cry about it
My buddy the mod? who is that? trust me the mods are everything but my buddies
I know you have a big hard on for me for a while now and as soon as you see my post your emotional self reacts and in most cases fails to read or understand so let me explain:
He said:
Originally Posted by pricedo
Responsible citizens need to obey the law all the time not just when they are aware that they are under the scrutiny of the authorities[/COLO
and I asked:
Originally Posted by ZX600
So you have never driven your car above 100km/hr? Ever?
Making a point that what sometimes seems black and white like his view that laws must absolutely be obeyed at all times, sometimes is not so black and white since i can bet he has "not always obey the law" by driving 101 on the 401.
I never said driving 101 on the 401 was equal as driving 161 in a 50 zone or whatever your misleading example was.
I can make you a drawing in colors if that was not clear! just PM me
and for any future posts since you follow me around GTAM, I am sorry if I hurt your delicate feelings in the past, this is just a forum on the net there is no need to cry about it
lol, you reply to the same post 5 times, and I'm the one with a hard on for you? lol, you're awesome. Your post is barely coherent, but the gist of it I get quite clearly. The context you missed and that I pointed out, is that the poster made a reference to how one should drive all the time....I submit, as would anyone here, that the defacto speed limit anywhere, even in front of a cop, is easily within 10kph of the speed limit. Considering the original point of the thread is about a guy speeding to such a degree as to seriously **** somebody up, I cannot fathom how you would jump on board with the "hypocrite" word given his posts here. If his post was in response to people doing 10 over, I'd actually agree with you. My example was misleading only to you, believe me.
RE: your parting shot - that's a pretty nice reply, I'm impressed. I genuinely feel sorry for you; contrary to your feeble diatribe, I do not follow you anywhere, but with the sheer volume of your nonsense on this forum, it's hard to miss your "thought" process. "drawing in colors, lol. You get the troll of the year award my friend
-D-
Banned
Oh I understand now, you wrote some words and added an inflection of superiority....... I now see how wrong I was, forgive me please and continue on
I figure that if you want me put in jail for doing 160. I might as well do 260 so you can't get my plate. Oh and I have never in 31 years of street riding crashed. That is why I like riding in BC. $10 for every km over the limit. Get a ticket and carry on.
Have a nice day.
Last edited:
BrownBrady
Well-known member
I'm glad no one was hurt.
If a rider wants to ride at 161 Km/h there are places for that it is called a TRACK not a public road, with lots of vehicle, and foot traffic. Or ride the couple of hundred KM's north of the GTA and have at it.
For the comments "160 km/h isn't that fast" I have witnessed bike accidents at significantly less speed and seen the outcome. Tell me how it works out for you when you come off the bike at that speed, on a public road.
i also investigated an accident decades ago, where a cager was hit by a bike at more than double to limit. The rider was killed instantly. I stayed in touch with the driver for a few years afterwards. Although they never caused the accident the mental tool was unbearable an a few years later they couldn't live with the thought that another had died, merely because they happened on the road that day. They took their life over the accident and the guilt associated with it.
But hey as long as your enjoying the speed who the hell cares and no one should sweat it even if you crash and take yourself out right? So let's not say 160 on a bike isn't fast nor at times dangerous. There is a reason you don't hear of racers being pulled over for doing 160 on public roads. they KNOW the dangers of doing so. You can be the most skilled rider on earth until someone pulls in front of you. But not to worry, (if he had crashed and died), many GTAM members will be online saying the damn cagers never look. It MUST be the fault of others, and not the rider at that speed.
I don't agree with the sentiment either that a bike should be seized and the owner prevented from ever again be permitted to hold a licence, I feel that is simply too harsh. However, this person was riding with a suspended licence and no insurance. So he has demonstrated that those "enforcement measures" have no effect on him.
It could be he stopped, because of his licence suspension. He may have been one of those the media describe as "being known to police"..lol Besides how are the penalties of 172, (other than the bike impound fees), going to impact him he already rides with no licence and no insurance, so not like he needs to concern himself with those as issues going forward. Therefore, a seizure of the bike may be one way to ensure he isn't riding, (at least that bike again). People are ASSUMING he was ridign a sport or a SS bike he "could" have been riding a cruiser they can reach 160..lol
Would eb interesting to know why he was under suspension to begin with.
For the comments "160 km/h isn't that fast" I have witnessed bike accidents at significantly less speed and seen the outcome. Tell me how it works out for you when you come off the bike at that speed, on a public road.
i also investigated an accident decades ago, where a cager was hit by a bike at more than double to limit. The rider was killed instantly. I stayed in touch with the driver for a few years afterwards. Although they never caused the accident the mental tool was unbearable an a few years later they couldn't live with the thought that another had died, merely because they happened on the road that day. They took their life over the accident and the guilt associated with it.
But hey as long as your enjoying the speed who the hell cares and no one should sweat it even if you crash and take yourself out right? So let's not say 160 on a bike isn't fast nor at times dangerous. There is a reason you don't hear of racers being pulled over for doing 160 on public roads. they KNOW the dangers of doing so. You can be the most skilled rider on earth until someone pulls in front of you. But not to worry, (if he had crashed and died), many GTAM members will be online saying the damn cagers never look. It MUST be the fault of others, and not the rider at that speed.
I don't agree with the sentiment either that a bike should be seized and the owner prevented from ever again be permitted to hold a licence, I feel that is simply too harsh. However, this person was riding with a suspended licence and no insurance. So he has demonstrated that those "enforcement measures" have no effect on him.
It could be he stopped, because of his licence suspension. He may have been one of those the media describe as "being known to police"..lol Besides how are the penalties of 172, (other than the bike impound fees), going to impact him he already rides with no licence and no insurance, so not like he needs to concern himself with those as issues going forward. Therefore, a seizure of the bike may be one way to ensure he isn't riding, (at least that bike again). People are ASSUMING he was ridign a sport or a SS bike he "could" have been riding a cruiser they can reach 160..lol
Would eb interesting to know why he was under suspension to begin with.
I can't believe there are people on these forums actually defending this kind of garbage.
did no one even read the article? 160/km's in a 50, populated by cyclists and pedestrians.
They could have killed a kid. period. you wanna open it up? hop on the 407. drive 260 for all I care, you're unlikely to kill anyone but yourself.
"oh, thats just half throttle in 2nd gear on my super sport, blah blah blah"
stop.
just stop.
you're embarrassing.
did no one even read the article? 160/km's in a 50, populated by cyclists and pedestrians.
They could have killed a kid. period. you wanna open it up? hop on the 407. drive 260 for all I care, you're unlikely to kill anyone but yourself.
"oh, thats just half throttle in 2nd gear on my super sport, blah blah blah"
stop.
just stop.
you're embarrassing.
I have to agree. It's more than a little disturbing this thread still exists.
RedDogDarren
Well-known member
I second your post.
