and the wheels on the bus go round and round.
|
|
|
Whitby Accident Victim Identified
- Thread starter Harvest
- Start date
To be honest I don't know what percentage of the people have no conscience. many fake it, in fact they fake it so well that they are the leaders in morality.
i'd be sick beside my self if some one fell off my bike, but then i don't treat it as an amusement ride and have told people no when they wanted a ride on the back.
FriendlyFoe
Well-known member
so it's been 2 weeks now, still no actual word as to wtf happened?
I am just working my way through this thread, and although I haven't reached the the end yet, feel compelled to address the above. I was driving eastbound on 401 this afternoon with 3 passengers in the car. Traffic was quite heavy in the express lanes, but still moving easily at 110 to 120 including myself. Several (at least 5) rockets came roaring past, weaving in and out, some riders with right hand on throttle and left hand on their hip, giving some cagers long looks as they whizzed by. A couple of my passengers were petrified, confused, and hugely angry (I can't type what I got to hear not even on this site...) all at the same time, and so were others on the road judging from the shaking heads. Couple this with the fact that there were only cars and trucks aside from those 5 superbikes on this stretch of highway, and it is no wonder that I heard an earful about "those mf bikers" and "no wonder the girl fell off and died" as a result of said mf biker's criminal action, and "do you (I) do that sort of thing as well when you ride??" Certainly the "public" that I am in contact with does not need any convincing that this was NOT an isolated incident.
FriendlyFoe
Well-known member
clearly it wasn't that tight if they were weaving in and out with zero effort. Be terrified all you want just dont do anything retarded and i'll be out of your way thanks. There are safe ways to pick through traffic, match speed then pull through under power, and i've been "that guy" on one or more occasion.
Actually more often then not it's things like everyone on a highway slowing down to 70 because it's ****ing raining and me weaving in and out of traffic doing the speed limit because it's really not that bad.
Actually more often then not it's things like everyone on a highway slowing down to 70 because it's ****ing raining and me weaving in and out of traffic doing the speed limit because it's really not that bad.
I fully agree with you that there are safe ways, and I have been 'that guy' picking through traffic as well. I didn't say I was petrified, my passengers were. It was not raining, conditions were great, and as I said traffic was moving at 120, not 70. I did not do anything stupid, and yes they were on their way. But believe me, it was tight in spots, i.e they had to brake to avoid running into the car in front of them, swing out in front of me causing me to brake, and then gun it, only to repeat the cycle again.
FriendlyFoe
Well-known member
haha okay that's just stupid, in theory you should be able to do it relatively easily without being in anyones way. I have infact seen enough evidence of riders in this city on brand new fairly powerful bikes do random sketchy things moving through traffic that are just so far beyond unsmooth. I say dont blame the actions but in some cases the idiot trying to attempt them 
That's what she said
I say dont blame the actions but in some cases the idiot trying to attempt them
Agreed, a few riders like that can ruin it for the rest of us (I grew up riding in Germany at the age of 12, still alive at the age of ...well let's say over 50...):iconbiggrin:
So they were possibly/probably? ********. They exist in all walks of life. The original rider who dumped the girl and left her, was actually first seen racing a performance CAR. So there you have it...two for two. Is it about bikes? Or is it about cars?? You see, just as that recent article in the The Sob...I mean Sun... news can be and is manipulated and sensationalized to sell. I can hear Jenny and her Editor in her Editor's office a week ago. "Go out there and drum up some real good stuff that we can then twist to dirt on these mad bikers. Start with GTAM, there's lots of ammo there. They are notorious for putting their foot in it".
As for your guys (the 5), they may or may not have been ********, as that particular situation is open to interpretation, and if you spend a lot of time in mixed company who are of so weak-minded that they can't distinguish a situation in which they have a right to be scared out of their mind, versus their perception of what must be a scary situation, then of course it takes all kinds. As harsh as it sounds, your passengers don't have the right to run with a ball if they are very ignorant about it. I too have heard random dinner chat with friends or family (who many know nothing of bikes other than what is forced down their throat by the media in their never-ending attempts at selling bad news with fear-mongering and full colour spreads...complete with blood). "Get those shots before they wash the road down". But like your passengers, they had/have no clue what can and can't be done on a bike safely. It is their perception that is damaging.
The 5 guys might have been fools also, making an issue of their filtering and pissing off motorists. Sounds like they were in fact if they had the brakes on each time as they pull in behind other cars. Any road action that causes undo stress to other (ignorant road users) are irresponsible actions, even if what they did was no big deal at all. Emphasis is on the correct meaning of the word ignorant. Not the meaning that many illiterates assume. Your guys sound like ones I'd like to cuff up side the head for contributing to giving us a 'generally' bad name, humongous insurance rates etc etc etc, and all fed to people like your passengers that day. And that terrible Whitby incident. And the hand-wringing fear mongering that The Sun article burped out recently.
For anyone who knows my sentiments on topics such as these, you will know that I have always proactively encouraged self-policing amongst ourselves so that it would help fend of the bad press we are enduring this last half+ decade. Not everyone listens though. And I maintain we need to not encourage bad press by suggesting in any way that that was anything other than an isolated incident.
And remember, it started with a bike and a car.
Agreed, sometimes you can't tell...
Agreed again, I am very new to this forum but I do like your posts compared to some of the other ones which sometimes leave me quite speechless...
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/thestar/obituary.aspx?n=ioana-bocunescu&pid=145061867
Did this guy get away with this??
Did this guy get away with this??
Comrade Yeti
Member
Riders run because they are idiots and think they can get away with it. They are only thinking of themselves and avoiding responsibility. No matter what influenced them into running, fear of the fine, suspension, getting caught for an outstanding warrant, reading forum posts, etc etc etc. they are responsible for their own actions and the consequences.
To blame HTA 172 (And there are problems with 172, but I do agree with the intent of the legislation) is simply another way of avoiding responsibility.
ddusseld
Well-known member
While I completely agree that riders who run are responsible for their own actions and that the police are in no way responsible we really should look at root causes.
HTA 172 with it's presumed guilty punishment at the side of the road will result in riders running. There has always been a percentage of runners amongst riders but I believe that 172 has resulted in riders who would have never run before 172 to either run or contemplate running. Most of these runners will get away, a few will be caught and a few will be killed. This will be a direct result of HTA 172. It will be the riders decision to run and his/her responsibility for whatever happens after running.
HTA 172 with it's presumed guilty punishment at the side of the road will result in riders running. There has always been a percentage of runners amongst riders but I believe that 172 has resulted in riders who would have never run before 172 to either run or contemplate running. Most of these runners will get away, a few will be caught and a few will be killed. This will be a direct result of HTA 172. It will be the riders decision to run and his/her responsibility for whatever happens after running.
While I agree with the sentiment that it is entirely the rider's choice to run or not and therefore entirely the rider's fault we still need to look at the reasoning why someone would run and the possible impact HTA172 plays in the decision. Still, there is no shift of actual blame from the rider...
That is not the question (blame) in my mind... In economics they refer to this as "unintended consequences" or "unforeseen outcome". In simple terms you may pass a law, add a tax, make a business decision that can cause an outcome that you did not predict (or even seemed illogical at the time). With respect to HTA172, the law is intended to reduce "irresponsible" motor-vehicle operation, the unintended consequences MAY be that it causes even more dangerous driving (running).
The overall issue I have is I do not have the stats of % runners prior to HTA 172 versus % runners after HTA 172. With this data we may be able to make a conclusion without it is just speculation.
Unintended consequences can also be positive, say if HTA 172 pushed more people into riding the bus (this is an example not a fact). There are many laws and taxes that have been changed due (or at least impart due) to unintended consequences (tax changes, Prohibition, etc.).
The government's roll in this type of thing is bigger than the at fault in a single incident. The government passes laws to control our overall behaviour, if the laws cause unintended consequences they need to make a decision (I do not have the data to say this law is or is not causing more runners, but it is possible).
That is not the question (blame) in my mind... In economics they refer to this as "unintended consequences" or "unforeseen outcome". In simple terms you may pass a law, add a tax, make a business decision that can cause an outcome that you did not predict (or even seemed illogical at the time). With respect to HTA172, the law is intended to reduce "irresponsible" motor-vehicle operation, the unintended consequences MAY be that it causes even more dangerous driving (running).
The overall issue I have is I do not have the stats of % runners prior to HTA 172 versus % runners after HTA 172. With this data we may be able to make a conclusion without it is just speculation.
Unintended consequences can also be positive, say if HTA 172 pushed more people into riding the bus (this is an example not a fact). There are many laws and taxes that have been changed due (or at least impart due) to unintended consequences (tax changes, Prohibition, etc.).
The government's roll in this type of thing is bigger than the at fault in a single incident. The government passes laws to control our overall behaviour, if the laws cause unintended consequences they need to make a decision (I do not have the data to say this law is or is not causing more runners, but it is possible).
CanadianBiker
Well-known member
From CTV.ca, September 14 2010
The Canadian Press
AJAX, Ont. — A 33-year-old motorcyclist is looking at a long list of charges after a pursuit in Ajax, Ont.
Provincial police say a driver sped off when an officer tried to stop a motorcycle clocked at high speed on Highway 401.
The officer began a chase but broke it off due to safety concerns and passed the information on to Durham Regional Police.
Durham police pulled over the bike and held the driver for the provincial police constable.
Derek Sealy faces charges including flight from police, driving while under suspension and without a validated permit, and stunt driving.
This guy wasn't running because he feared disproportionate penalties from HTA172; he broke the law as soon as he hit the starter button. It's only one example and not indicative of anything other than the one individual but personally I'm willing to bet that most 'runners' do so because they're already doing something seriously illegal, not because of 172.
What are the bases or facts that made you come to this conclusion?
I will give you an example of another case, mine. I would have never even consider running in the past, now I have.
I got insurance, my bike is legal my license is fine. Why have decided to run? not because I was over 50 the speed limit riding on city streets, I don't do that; I have because I won’t risk to be stopped and be at the mercy of a police officer that was given the power to take my property away without any due diligence. In order for me to prove I haven't done anything wrong, I have to go to court and even then, I am still out of thousands of dollars. I won't run if I have a passenger or if I am in a school zone, that's it.
Flame away but it doesn't change the fact that my mind was changed the day that law came into effect.
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|