Dont post your law breaking on youtube if you wanna speed

[Mordeth]

Yes, sarcasm....I'm familiar with that. But in seriousness you want the police to do a dangerous U-turn on a double solid yellow then hit higher more dangerous speeds than that of the cars in the video....to catch up with them? Seems a bit hypocritical.

Yes, you're right, and I agree with you. At the same time though, It's rather tiring that I have never seen the police police anything in a normal way in Taiwan. They only ever police according to their instructions, on a day to day basis.
Speeding in itself shouldn't be and isn't in fact a crime. Only injuring or maiming others, stealing their property and breaking contracts is. The police however, also have a common duty to remind people of their responsibilities and also offer people advice on how they might better conduct themselves.

Thank you for that response. I've been thinking about you a lot lately.....as I'm considering killing my wife.....err....I mean getting a divorce. (and therefore will need to buy another car)

[sulavaca]

I've been thinking about you a lot lately....

You had me at "thinking"

Sorry to hear things aren't working out. So you finally need a roof over your head eh? You know it's going to look odd, a guy in a helmet, in a car.

[Gilgamesh]

Not just in Taiwan

The cops are looking for this guy as well and it's hit the news in Canada

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybre ... ml#more-id

[tommy525]

wow thats faster then the HSR . I think this guy has earned a truck load of expletives but he has the skills of a fighter pilot.

I suppose he will lose his license for quite some time, plus get some real time in a slammer (well deserved tho).

[sulavaca]

I suppose he will lose his license for quite some time, plus get some real time in a slammer (well deserved tho).

As I guy who advocates driving safely, I would still like to challenge this statement. I only challenge it because I've put a lot of thought to the "justice" system recently, and have taken to the idea, based on that if one hasn't actually harmed anyone, one hasn't necessarily done anything wrong.
So here's how I see this motorcycle speeder and arguments based on the video just posted.

1) From the video evidence I have seen, the rider hurt nobody.
2) If the rider could be charged with "dangerous driving/riding", then "dangerous driving/riding" must be a manner which is specific and can be measured and quantified scientifically.
4) If dangerous driving/riding is an opinion only and cannot be quantified scientifically, then there should be no such a charge.
5) If "dangerous driving/riding" can be a law, and as I have not seen unquestionable facts or science, surrounding this type of charge, then any law can be written by opinion only, and can be implemented and used to charge people, even in the face of opinion. I would add, as most people have already been raised to accept "dangerous driving/riding" as a credible situation and as a fact of circumstance, even in a non eventful situation such as in this video, that the logic base for supporting "dangerous driving" can also be applied to all kinds of other areas. We could, for example have "dangerous walking", "dangerous texting", "dangerous usage of equipment", "dangerous teaching", "dangerous coaching", and all other manner of silly things.
I may need remind people that "risk" is an element within all activities and certainly in the case of travelling, can never be reduced to a factor of zero. This being so, then really any person involved in travelling, and based upon the loose logic of "dangerous driving/riding" is guilty of "dangerous travelling".

3) If the rider could be found guilty of "dangerous driving/riding", based on opinion alone, then to be fair, then the motorcycle manufacturer should also be found guilty of being implicit in the production of a vehicle that's design factoring makes its performance best suited to braking national speed restrictions, or "driving/riding dangerously." Furthermore, the government who provided the licence to this motorcycle and company should in all fairness also be found guilty of conspiracy or being implicit in the matter of "dangerous driving/riding".

Now anyone is free to question my logic here, as I'm sure some very emotional people will undoubtedly. I agree that the disrespect of other road users is indeed a nuisance which I also find to be very ill mannered and detrimental to the peace of society at times. But in all fairness, I am trying to use logic here and fairness when dealing with an emotional situation such as this one.
We shouldn't mindlessly go around branding this or that person as criminal based on opinion only. I think this is why we finally came about with common laws in the first place. They were and still are a manner in which society can operate peacefully, without the need to be subjecting each other to each other's differing opinions.

[Original Ian]

I suppose he will lose his license for quite some time, plus get some real time in a slammer (well deserved tho).

As I guy who advocates driving safely, I would still like to challenge this statement. I only challenge it because I've put a lot of thought to the "justice" system recently, and have taken to the idea, based on that if one hasn't actually harmed anyone, one hasn't necessarily done anything wrong.
So here's how I see this motorcycle speeder and arguments based on the video just posted.

1) From the video evidence I have seen, the rider hurt nobody.
2) If the rider could be charged with "dangerous driving/riding", then "dangerous driving/riding" must be a manner which is specific and can be measured and quantified scientifically.
4) If dangerous driving/riding is an opinion only and cannot be quantified scientifically, then there should be no such a charge.
5) If "dangerous driving/riding" can be a law, and as I have not seen unquestionable facts or science, surrounding this type of charge, then any law can be written by opinion only, and can be implemented and used to charge people, even in the face of opinion. I would add, as most people have already been raised to accept "dangerous driving/riding" as a credible situation and as a fact of circumstance, even in a non eventful situation such as in this video, that the logic base for supporting "dangerous driving" can also be applied to all kinds of other areas. We could, for example have "dangerous walking", "dangerous texting", "dangerous usage of equipment", "dangerous teaching", "dangerous coaching", and all other manner of silly things.
I may need remind people that "risk" is an element within all activities and certainly in the case of travelling, can never be reduced to a factor of zero. This being so, then really any person involved in travelling, and based upon the loose logic of "dangerous driving/riding" is guilty of "dangerous travelling".

3) If the rider could be found guilty of "dangerous driving/riding", based on opinion alone, then to be fair, then the motorcycle manufacturer should also be found guilty of being implicit in the production of a vehicle that's design factoring makes its performance best suited to braking national speed restrictions, or "driving/riding dangerously." Furthermore, the government who provided the licence to this motorcycle and company should in all fairness also be found guilty of conspiracy or being implicit in the matter of "dangerous driving/riding".

Now anyone is free to question my logic here, as I'm sure some very emotional people will undoubtedly. I agree that the disrespect of other road users is indeed a nuisance which I also find to be very ill mannered and detrimental to the peace of society at times. But in all fairness, I am trying to use logic here and fairness when dealing with an emotional situation such as this one.
We shouldn't mindlessly go around branding this or that person as criminal based on opinion only. I think this is why we finally came about with common laws in the first place. They were and still are a manner in which society can operate peacefully, without the need to be subjecting each other to each other's differing opinions.

Wow!! And what is your real agenda? Interesting tactic you used pre-labeling anyone who disagrees with you as emotional, thereby implying they are also irrational. If that is the best you can come up with from " a lot of thought to the "justice" system recently" then maybe you had better stick to finger painting.

The guy was obviously riding in a dangerous manner and threatening the lives of scores of innocent people. It is unreasonable to expect that someone changing lanes, even if they spotted him in their mirror would realise that he was closing in on them at 200kmh. Even if they indicated before they changed lanes there is almost no chance he could have avoided a collision, killing himself and quite possibly the occupants of several cars. According to the conclusions of your thought processes this should not matter because he did not actually cause harm to anyone this time. I assume you think he should be allowed to continue riding like this until he causes actual injury or death to a third party. I just hope that third party belongs to your family and not mine.

[sulavaca]

Wow!! ... I just hope that third party belongs to your family and not mine.

You have just proved my point, that emotional reaction defeats thinking and logic. This is not the basis of an effective and fair law enforcement policy.
You have taken on none of my points in the process and have added nothing in addition, but conjecture.
By the way, you also supported my point that road users cannot take into account everything and react accordingly at all times, thus creating risk, or put another way "driving/riding dangerously".

I believe the rider is likely a person who is capable of communicating, and assuming this to be so, I would like to offer him or her my opinion in a way he or she might be able to appreciate. I might also ask such a person with what seems to be a decent skill set to perhaps assist in putting it to good use in the development of riding safety, or racing. Those are two subjects I rather enjoy.

[Original Ian]

Wow!! ... I just hope that third party belongs to your family and not mine.

You have just proved my point, that emotional reaction defeats thinking and logic. This is not the basis of an effective and fair law enforcement policy.
You have taken on none of my points in the process and have added nothing in addition, but conjecture.

I have not proved your point at all. You basically stated that he should not be punished for his action because nobody was hurt. I pointed out why he should be punished. I am not going to dissect each of your points individually, I am sure readers of both posts can use their own intelligence to draw conclusions. I don't intend to reply to you again on this subject so in your mind you can "win" this argument if you like.

EDIT: The Wow!! was in disbelief at such flawed logic. The the wish that he kills someone from your family and not mine was so that you might yourself then learn how flawed your "thoughts" are. It is obvious you by your opening about the "emotional" response, that you have already closed your mind to differing opinions.

[pb]

The paper referenced below directly deals with effects of speed variability (the relative speed difference) which was pretty extreme for the motorcyclist.
Please note that this means also that driving slower than the rest of the traffic puts you at increased risk.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/journal ... index.html

UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS OF SPEED VARIABILITY

Posting a minimum speed limit was and still is motivated by the desire to reduce speed variability in a traffic stream and its attendant consequences in efficiency and safety of traffic operations. Numerous studies have documented the negative effects of speed variability.

In determining the extent to which the 55 mph federally sanctioned maximum speed limit affected safety, a Transportation Research Board (TRB) study found that the probability of crashes occurring increases as the speed variance rises. The study showed that speed variation causes significant lane changing and passing maneuvers, which are known to be potential sources of conflicts and crashes (TRB 1984). The significance of speed variance was observed by developing a fatality model that included highway safety characteristics such as traffic density, percentage of vehicles exceeding 65 mph, percentage of teenagers, and enforcement activity, as well as speed variance and average speeds. The TRB model revealed that speed variance had a statistically significant effect on fatality rates-states with wider variances in vehicle speed on the highway tended to have higher fatality rates. The study further found that the mean speed only affected the severity of crashes. Holding the effect of speed variance constant in the model presented no statistically significant relationship between the fatality rate and any other speed variables. The study concluded that controlling speed variance could be an effective tool in improving highway safety.

Another study of 36 crashes that occurred on Indiana highway 37 indicated that the crash involvement rates per million vehicle-miles of travel were higher for vehicles whose speeds were below and above the mean speed (West and Dunn 1971).

[sulavaca]

Posting a minimum speed limit was and still is motivated by the desire to reduce speed variability in a traffic stream and its attendant consequences in efficiency and safety of traffic operations. Numerous studies have documented the negative effects of speed variability.

I understand that. I also understood when I wrote however that travelling always involves inherent risk. As it is impossible to define what an "acceptable" risk scenario is, then until all risk can be alleviated, then all risk should be accepted, and is indeed accepted by the masses, as they prefer to commute at faster than their natural speed would allow.
If people were to accept no risk at all, then they wouldn't take to the road. If people were to value and take the best care of their lives as possible, then they wouldn't drive or ride motorcycles.