| Author | Message | ||
     Strmvt |
Read this on my cell ph strange news and had to look it up. Just goes to show that one bad apple spoils the barrel for us all. http://www.tricities.com/tristate/tri/news.apx.-co ntent-articles-TRI-2008-04-01-0031.html | ||
| Igneroid |
Aye Carrumba...more balls than brains...After about 90 MPH my shpincter gets so tight, you couldnt jam a flax seed up it.... | ||
| Bad_karma |
Bravo zulu to the police for not chasing this fool and making a bad situation worse. Thumbs down for photo ticketing. Joe | ||
| Corporatemonkey |
Maybe this time instead of a 200mph honda 1000r, we have a 156mph honda 250 rebel. Remember radar guns don't lie.  | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I like the way the article said "police chose not to pursue him at that time" could the decision have anything to do with the fact that they had no chance of catching him? Spin it again Sam! Someone should get the journalist a new spellchecker or thesaurus, "wreckless" means he didn't have a wreck, however in these circumstances I'd say his conduct was "Reckless" meaning dangerous. You just can't get the staff these days, can you! | ||
| Rainman |
Oh, Mr. Grumpy, you don't know the half of it! | ||
| Firebolt32 |
Remember radar guns don't lie. Actually they can. If not calibrated often enough they can be off. I've got a buddy who is a Sheriff. He has told me to ask the officer when the last calibration has been...if it's not recent...take it to court. I've done this once and won the case. Laser on the other hand...your screwed. | ||
| Corporatemonkey |
Damn and I thought my "sarcasm encabulator 4000" was working at 100%  | ||
| Court |
Regardless. The guy was an idiot. Spin it anyway you want to . . . . it effects lots of us when someone does something like this. The old "radar calibration" thing has it's roots years ago. Okay . . so the radar was "way off". The next question will be . . . "so. . . if the radar was as far out of calibration as radars are possibly known to get . . . what would the 156mph indication really mean?" Answer: 152.7 Just doesn't change much. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
It's not just a question of the calibration of the equipment. By far the greatest problem with these things is their installation, they have to be mounted at a certain angle to the road, a few degrees out can mean a huge % error factor. The French government have recently had to annul tens of thousands of tickets for this reason, & the cops now have to take photos of the process whilst setting up. You're right in this case though, it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome. | ||
| Firebolt32 |
Your right Court. They aren't far off. At 156 it's not going to matter. At 80...you might have a shot to fight it. | ||
| Nautique4life |
Clearly, this guys girdle spring is out of whack. | ||
| Paint_shaker |
Calibration is almost useless now-a-days, but is still required every 6 months (at least in Florida). Most units available conduct self checks and every unit available is required to be checked daily for accuracy. The greater the angle of the radar antenna to the road, the greater the error. And now the rest of the story... This error is in favor of the target vehicle, as the radar unit will display a speed SLOWER than what the target vehicle is actually travelling. This is known as the cosine effect. (Message edited by paint_shaker on April 02, 2008) | ||
| Mikef5000 |
The question is, how hard would it be for this guy to fight in court that "It wasn't me!" They identified him through his clothes, helmet, and motorcycle. How good a view could they really have gotten if the guy was going 156 MPH. I'd go to Iron Pony, gather up and snap pictures of all the jackets that look remotely similar to mine and all the helmets that look remotely similar to mine. Then maybe try to find some sales numbers of motorcycles that look similar. You know it was a cookie cutter, so there'd be plenty of bikes that look similar. Then go to court and give them all the pictures, and ask them what makes them think it couldn't have been somebody else? In the end though, if he was going 156 MPH on city streets, he deserves what's coming to him. | ||
| Freezerburn |
If you're going to speed on public roads, you have to be accepting of the lumps you are going to take from the law. I've gone faster than that on public roads but in a place where I knew only I was at danger - that was about 20 years ago though. Had I been caught, I would have accepted the consequences. Now, I would only consider approaching those speeds on a track. I think a lot of younger bikers are not that considerate of the other people they share the road with. I try to be considerate when I want to ride like a jackass and know that everyone else on the road gets frustrated when someone is being reckless. I must be getting older. | ||
| Guell |
no freezerburn, you just have common sense. Theres a time and place to play. 156 on city streets isnt either of them... | ||
| Werewulf |
ive was running police radar since back in the 60s, when we had a unit on a tri-pod that looked like a suitcase... what the average person knows about police radar is based on urban legend!! we did infact clock a highly moded R-1 here last year at 183 actual mph...he walked away from the police camaros... (Message edited by werewulf on April 02, 2008) | ||
| Madduck |
That ID procedure maybe why so few harley riders get tickets. Dressing just like everyone else has some advantages. Imagine the distortions 156mph would make to your features in the radar camera, no one would recognize you. Helmetless would clearly be a good idea too. | ||
| Thumper74 |
The Camaro's wouldn't even come close to touching the acceleration and top speed. 'he walked away...' is an understatement. Did you catch the guy? I'm still young, but a lot smarter than I used to be. I save the craziness for the track. The first time I decided not to stop, I realized just how slow most police cars really are. | ||
| Midknyte |
I'd go to Iron Pony, gather up and snap pictures of all the jackets that look remotely similar to mine and all the helmets that look remotely similar to mine. That would work against you. Lets say you photo'ged the following arbitrary number of items: 8 jackets 4 helmets 6 bikes Just this makes for 192 possible combinations (8*4*6). You would be trying to argue that in a 1 in 192 chance of a said combination of clothing that it was not you... | ||
| Werewulf |
after a hair raising rural highway chase, he mysteriously lost inflation in his tires and pulled over...he got 3 months work release... | ||
| Paint_shaker |
I don't like the camera enforcement. It leaves ZERO room for officer discretion. Also, the burden is suppossed to be on the state to prove the suspected violator was the one who actually commited the offense. How can the state prove who was riding, if that person is wearing full duds and a helmet to boot?? "Your honor I move to dismiss based on the fact the state can not positively identify me as the one on the motorcycle at the time of the violation." But I am sure there is case law somewhere stating the owner is responsible (which I think is a crock of crap!)... On the other hand, I am a firm believer of "Man Up"! If this dude was doing 156, he should man up and take his medicine. | ||
| Mikef5000 |
You would be trying to argue that in a 1 in 192 chance of a said combination of clothing that it was not you... That means that 191 in 192 it was me. I'm just 1 person. By this logic, the more clothes there are that look like mine, the more chance it was me! (30,000 combinations, means I'm arguing 1 in 30,000 it was not me) I believe your logic is backwards. I'd be fighting saying 191 in 192 chance it was not me. | ||
| Oldog |
Innocent until proven guilty, If they dont have pix of the plate just bike and rider then Bollux Mike is right. | ||
| Glitch |
Innocent until proven guilty With cameras it's the opposite. That's why here in Georgia cameras are about to go away. | ||
| Midknyte |
I believe your logic is backwards Post up your lottery picks will ya please  | ||
| Dynasport |
If the mounting angle of radar units is so important, how do they argue the accuracy of hand held radar units? That's what I mostly see. I believe the things, as much as I hate them, actually work pretty well. |
