|
|
|
Darksider - conviction registered
- Thread starter Bike Cop
- Start date
wtf? So much weirdness. I know this was a bike guy and a high school kid, sadly I've seen graduating engineers prepare turds like this and think everything is ok.
1) The bearings are inboard, they could have the adaptor come through the spokes to help transfer torque.
2) The car should be hanging from the top spokes, not resting on the bottom spokes, why did he keep measuring tension on the bottom spokes?
3) I wouldn't be surprised if the static loads in this test were substantially less than dynamic loads on a bike.
4) He was letting air out to change the tire pressure? That shouldn't grossly change with loading (the volume reduction in the loaded vs unloaded tire is minimal, maybe 10% tops, probably much less).
Ugh, it's an interesting concept, but corners are the real test not rolling around in a straight line. Put 4 bike wheels on a car and turn quickly, I would be amazed if they didn't all collapse (even with the lightest car possible). With tall narrow wheels, they have to lean to keep the forces in line with the spokes or a collapse is inevitable.
Bolt the thing onto the left front, floor it while turning right, ignoring clearances. I would bet on a different outcome.
M/Cs or bicycles have very little side thrust on the wheels because they lean. Cars don't lean therefore you get side thrust.
The video has the assembly on the lightest load point, passenger side rear of an empty FWD car. I would guess somewhere around 500 pounds.
A cheap bicycle with a plump rider leaning back could easily see half or more of that so a high quality rim carrying 500 pounds doesn't surprise me.
Even if the wheel took the load what would be the purpose of the finished product? Tire wear would negate any cost saving.
However I do have a project in mind that could use that quality of wheel. Does anyone have an idea of what a high end bicycle rear wheel/tire would cost?
Last edited:
Nobbie48: I will address the one point, you weren't sure of.
The difference between a JP and a judge. Here in Ontario, a JP is not required to have ANY formal legal training. That means they could have been an accountant prior to applying for and being appointed as a JP. Primarily they look at the regulations and apply a "common sense and logical" application to the regulation. That is why I stated when told by the crown and an officer that a car tire on a bike is not the proper application of that tire, the JP is likely to look at it and say "seems logical to me".
A judge however, does have formal legal training, they are almost exclusively former attorneys, (they can be former crowns or former defence lawyers). They MUST be members of the bar of the province in which they are appointed. Meaning that if a lawyer moved from say Manitoba, in order to be appointed a judgeship in Ontario, they must have first admitted to the bar in Ontario. Because they have formal legal training they apply "legal principles" in reaching their decisions, as opposed to those generally applied as described above by a JP.
The difference between a JP and a judge. Here in Ontario, a JP is not required to have ANY formal legal training. That means they could have been an accountant prior to applying for and being appointed as a JP. Primarily they look at the regulations and apply a "common sense and logical" application to the regulation. That is why I stated when told by the crown and an officer that a car tire on a bike is not the proper application of that tire, the JP is likely to look at it and say "seems logical to me".
A judge however, does have formal legal training, they are almost exclusively former attorneys, (they can be former crowns or former defence lawyers). They MUST be members of the bar of the province in which they are appointed. Meaning that if a lawyer moved from say Manitoba, in order to be appointed a judgeship in Ontario, they must have first admitted to the bar in Ontario. Because they have formal legal training they apply "legal principles" in reaching their decisions, as opposed to those generally applied as described above by a JP.
Last edited:
Depending on what you need it for, the cheapest way is to buy someones old wheel (or old bike?). They keep getting lighter (and more expensive), so the older heavier versions aren't worth much. If you are not using muscle power to drag yourself up a hill, who cares if it's a little heavier? The wheels on my mountain bike were in the range of $1000+ when new, now I doubt I could get much more than $100 for them even though they are in great shape. The wheels I've looked at to replace them with something better were in the range of $1000+, I decided it wasn't worth it to me.
I went darkside on my Honda VTX 1800R last August. After putting a brand new Metzler 880 (second one of the season) on the rear, I got a nail in it after only 1200kms (not repairable). Rather than spend another $350 (third tire of the season, yeah, I ride a lot)., I thought I would try darksiding.
I used a Michelin Defender and my thoughts are as follows. The bike rides soooo much smoother and quieter. I do extensive touring (approx 50,000 a year, and all on hiways/interstate). The bike just "locks in" going down the hiway and feels rock solid, a feeling that I really like. Yes, it wiggles a little in heavy cornering, but nothing that bothers me. I ride approx 330 days a year here in the GTA in every weather condition imaginable. My bikes are my only source of transportation.
I came home from work in Mississauga to Hamilton on Saturday afternoon on the 407. Rode in 1" of slush and again, the bike felt very planted. Braking is very much improved. This is not trying to sway anyone, just giving my own recent experiences. Cheers, John
I used a Michelin Defender and my thoughts are as follows. The bike rides soooo much smoother and quieter. I do extensive touring (approx 50,000 a year, and all on hiways/interstate). The bike just "locks in" going down the hiway and feels rock solid, a feeling that I really like. Yes, it wiggles a little in heavy cornering, but nothing that bothers me. I ride approx 330 days a year here in the GTA in every weather condition imaginable. My bikes are my only source of transportation.
I came home from work in Mississauga to Hamilton on Saturday afternoon on the 407. Rode in 1" of slush and again, the bike felt very planted. Braking is very much improved. This is not trying to sway anyone, just giving my own recent experiences. Cheers, John
And it's those real world experiences that I keep reading (pianodude's post above pretty much mirrors most actual darkside experience posts online, ie almost universal praise) which keep me interested in the prospect of considering it down the road if/when the legal side is sorted out.
Not sure how the "legal side is sorted out' is going to happen, (presumably you want 2 - 3 lower court not guilty verdicts, or a higher court to rule it is legal). We may very well soon have a second conviction. If you truly believe and feel it is safe and the right thing to do then why not do it? Or is it you would prefer others to test the legal system with their money and time, while you sit idly by and wait for the hoped for outcomes?
You have stated a few times in this thread that believe it should be an easy win for a persistent defendant. If you are convinced of your arguments then why not have the conviction to test them? Put a car tire on your bike then stop at the local police station, and explain that you would like to test the court system and request they give you an infraction then go through the process with the stated tenacity, and report back?
Best case scenario you win at first trial and get the first case law. Or you lose and then go onto the appeal portion. If you win there then you have now gotten precedence for all the others who may wish to follow, and you have blazed a trail. If you lose then you have the option of accepting the fact via a precedence setting case that it is indeed ruled illegal here in Ontario. Or you again spend the effort and money to appeal to a higher court.
That would show you have a true and real belief in your argument. Otherwise, you are stating that you don't have true conviction in your argument, that it would be ruled legal with the proper defence being mounted.
You have stated a few times in this thread that believe it should be an easy win for a persistent defendant. If you are convinced of your arguments then why not have the conviction to test them? Put a car tire on your bike then stop at the local police station, and explain that you would like to test the court system and request they give you an infraction then go through the process with the stated tenacity, and report back?
Best case scenario you win at first trial and get the first case law. Or you lose and then go onto the appeal portion. If you win there then you have now gotten precedence for all the others who may wish to follow, and you have blazed a trail. If you lose then you have the option of accepting the fact via a precedence setting case that it is indeed ruled illegal here in Ontario. Or you again spend the effort and money to appeal to a higher court.
That would show you have a true and real belief in your argument. Otherwise, you are stating that you don't have true conviction in your argument, that it would be ruled legal with the proper defence being mounted.
-D-
Banned
You forgot the minivan full of Nuns
True story, old school cop in car sitting on the on ramp (on the 400 coming back South). He was just at the bottom of the on ramp where you merge onto the hwy.
He ended up pulling me over...why.....
HE gave me a speech that he drew the line...he will let the speeders go by, the riders doing wheelies, and whatever else BUT....wait for it, wait for it
He drew the line at bikes with license plates not clearly visible.
WTH...my not to visible plate to him is the biggest danger for him to draw the line...
I said it's visible. He said well maybe not to the 407 cameras.
I told him I already beat a case in Newmarket court last month because I had a photo from the 407 showing my plate.
He said they are soft over there and wished he had pulled me over further North so I would end up in Barrie's court.
I took the ticket, went over to Newmarket and showed the head prosecutor along with the recently dismissed case and viola, ticket removed.
Oh the humanity, can't fully see a plate.
Quite frankly, yes. And I'm OK with that, are you suggesting there's something underhanded or scheming by doing so?
There are lots of people involved in motorcycles with deep pockets (deeper than me), and it'll only take the right one to decide to fight a charge that they personally feel unjust or unclear at which point the picture will get clearer - as darkside becomes more popular over here and IF more charges are laid (a big question as I'd suggest most LEO's would neither care, or even be aware or able to identify darkside use) more cases will help set precedent one way or the other.
I once again use the aforementioned window tint laws as another fuzzy law left open to interpretation that enough people DID fight and win, resulting in precedent that has made it a difficult charge for the crown to get a conviction on.
No not suggesting it is scheming or underhanded at all merely pointing out that you argue the law is wrong and needs to be dispensed with. But yet your conviction on that point is so weak that your unwilling to test your argument personally. That is like a politician that says welfare provides "more than enough to live on" but is unwilling, (other than perhaps at best a month put that argument to the test). Uf they truly believed in what they are saying then they would be willing to live on the same amount of funds as someone receives on welfare.
Comparing as you have repeatedly the window tint law with darkside is also simply not comparing apples to apples. Perhaps both sections in the HAT are poorly worded, I gave already stated that thousands of regulations i the HTA are poorly worded. But there is a potential safety issue involved, (and at least until now perceived even by the bike manufacturers, who have never produced a bike for street use with a car tire factory installed), with using a car tire there is no such safety issue with the level of tint on a window. You also state that it has become increasingly difficult for a crown to gain a conviction on window tinting, can you provide stats to back that up? Or is it possible that officers simply not longer ticket for it? I would suggest that it has not become difficult for crowns to obtain convictions on dark side infractions. Given that bike cop only knows of 2 cases one of which is still pending, and we have one conviction, if the other one also results in a conviction then that would be a pretty good record of convictions.
This is no different than the helmet cam issue. Yes it has been ruled illegal to attach a camera to your helmet, and many still do, but we are not seeing a glut of tickets for it, but when a ticket is issued it usually ends in a conviction. That is my point with darkside. Do I expect we will see a "flood" of tickets? Not at all, I suspect that as officers see it and may have stopped the rider for other infractions, it may get tagged on. People just need to know that the chances are if they are tagged for it it is likely to end in a conviction. I am neither pro helmet cam or darkside, nor am I against it, I am merely trying to educate riders of the potential ramifications. If they or you choose to do it won't affect me or my riding ability.
Just as with darksiding, I could produce likely tens of thousands of people who anecdotally, would say that they "feel" safe driving a cage without a seat belt. Just because there have been millions of miles driven without seat belts being used doesn't automatically relate that doing so is safe or advised. The vehicle manufacturers install seat beats for a reason, just as they don't install car tires on motorcycles for a reason. But seeing that there have been millions of miles traveled over decades by people without using seat belts would you also suggest that the seat belt law should be stricken down.
You continue to state you have an "open mind" on the situation but yet, every post you point out that it must be safe, based on the millions of miles. You also have stated that darksiding is increasing. Can you point us to any statistic that shows say in 1970 only 1% of bikes were running darkside as opposed to say 30% today? I would suggest at best it has remained stagnate or with a very tiny increase. Not that I spend my days riding checking out rear bike tires but I certainly can state I have not noticed a dramatic increase, over the past 35 years I have been riding.
Comparing as you have repeatedly the window tint law with darkside is also simply not comparing apples to apples. Perhaps both sections in the HAT are poorly worded, I gave already stated that thousands of regulations i the HTA are poorly worded. But there is a potential safety issue involved, (and at least until now perceived even by the bike manufacturers, who have never produced a bike for street use with a car tire factory installed), with using a car tire there is no such safety issue with the level of tint on a window. You also state that it has become increasingly difficult for a crown to gain a conviction on window tinting, can you provide stats to back that up? Or is it possible that officers simply not longer ticket for it? I would suggest that it has not become difficult for crowns to obtain convictions on dark side infractions. Given that bike cop only knows of 2 cases one of which is still pending, and we have one conviction, if the other one also results in a conviction then that would be a pretty good record of convictions.
This is no different than the helmet cam issue. Yes it has been ruled illegal to attach a camera to your helmet, and many still do, but we are not seeing a glut of tickets for it, but when a ticket is issued it usually ends in a conviction. That is my point with darkside. Do I expect we will see a "flood" of tickets? Not at all, I suspect that as officers see it and may have stopped the rider for other infractions, it may get tagged on. People just need to know that the chances are if they are tagged for it it is likely to end in a conviction. I am neither pro helmet cam or darkside, nor am I against it, I am merely trying to educate riders of the potential ramifications. If they or you choose to do it won't affect me or my riding ability.
Just as with darksiding, I could produce likely tens of thousands of people who anecdotally, would say that they "feel" safe driving a cage without a seat belt. Just because there have been millions of miles driven without seat belts being used doesn't automatically relate that doing so is safe or advised. The vehicle manufacturers install seat beats for a reason, just as they don't install car tires on motorcycles for a reason. But seeing that there have been millions of miles traveled over decades by people without using seat belts would you also suggest that the seat belt law should be stricken down.
You continue to state you have an "open mind" on the situation but yet, every post you point out that it must be safe, based on the millions of miles. You also have stated that darksiding is increasing. Can you point us to any statistic that shows say in 1970 only 1% of bikes were running darkside as opposed to say 30% today? I would suggest at best it has remained stagnate or with a very tiny increase. Not that I spend my days riding checking out rear bike tires but I certainly can state I have not noticed a dramatic increase, over the past 35 years I have been riding.
While I am pro-choice on this I can't see how the courts can throw out the charge. CTs haven't been though the paperwork hoops needed by the system and are illegal because of the lack of paperwork not because they aren't safe. Statistical or circumstantial evidence shouldn't change that.
If your driver's license expires it is illegal for you to drive even on the next day. Not because you've become a threat to safety but because of a piece of paper.
If your driver's license expires it is illegal for you to drive even on the next day. Not because you've become a threat to safety but because of a piece of paper.
My biggest issue with the darksider thing is an Officer even taking the effort to write a ticket. A well placed officer, standing behind a post or bus shelter could write tickets ALL day for people blowing reds making right hand turns. Coming off ramps they just coast through, leaving a parking lot they barely slow down. I watch it all day long.
Write tickets for dumb stuff that needs ticketing, you can hit budget early every day.
Write tickets for dumb stuff that needs ticketing, you can hit budget early every day.
Yes, there are far higher priorities than looking for questionable vehicle modifications.
To quote Rob MacLennan, this would likely be a "would you like fries with that" charge, added on after the vehicle was initially pulled over for something else - and possibly dependent on the operator's attitude.
To quote Rob MacLennan, this would likely be a "would you like fries with that" charge, added on after the vehicle was initially pulled over for something else - and possibly dependent on the operator's attitude.
It's good to see you found a way to participate. This is my contribution.
|
|
|
|
|