TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:

ddurkof wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:Will not hold up in court,

Maybe he was clocked by laser. He is an idiot and hopefully he won't kill anyone before he kills himself.

Isn't a laser even less reliable in the rain?

Laser is fine in weather, just adjust the weather setting so it knows what it's shooting through.

Beating a speeding ticket on issues such as weather, device, or vehicle type could prove tricky if you're officer happens to be a engineering major at A&M making As in his coursework...

In all of these responses, has any concern been raised about what harm and suffering this self-serviing, immature, birth control poster child could inflict on a God loving family? Ask yourselves that, brothers and sisters?

Oldgringo wrote:In all of these responses, has any concern been raised about what harm and suffering this self-serviing, immature, birth control poster child could inflict on a God loving family? Ask yourselves that, brothers and sisters?

Just thinking the same thing.

An out-of-control 450-pound sport-bike + rider moving at high-speed can do a lot of damage to those in it's path.

txjim42 wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:In all of these responses, has any concern been raised about what harm and suffering this self-serviing, immature, birth control poster child could inflict on a God loving family? Ask yourselves that, brothers and sisters?

Just thinking the same thing.

An out-of-control 450-pound sport-bike + rider moving at high-speed can do a lot of damage to those in it's path.

I've worked a crash where a high speed sport bike hit a full size tahoe, and literally destroyed it. I would've guessed the tahoe had been hit by a train, had I been a mere passerby.

If you're going that fast on anything on publicly accessible roads, we're past the point of speeding tickets...you're going to jail.

gigag04 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

ddurkof wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:Will not hold up in court,

Maybe he was clocked by laser. He is an idiot and hopefully he won't kill anyone before he kills himself.

Isn't a laser even less reliable in the rain?

Laser is fine in weather, just adjust the weather setting so it knows what it's shooting through.

Beating a speeding ticket on issues such as weather, device, or vehicle type could prove tricky if you're officer happens to be a engineering major at A&M making As in his coursework...

I would have thought the rain would have scattered or interfered with the beam enough that a reliable return could not have been received and that a good radar system would have worked better. Learn something all the time on here.

It's been a long time since I ran speed radar, but still am heavily involved in RF technology, including radar and readings. The only 'higher' speed readings I am aware of that a radar unit will give is if it is a ghost reading or reading another larger vehicle. A ghost reading will be a fleeting one time bump. And I doubt there was any other vehicle moving at 193 around him. The very common error for a speed radar unit is either cosign error where the target and the radar are at an angle and that gives a lower reading of the target, or moving radar where the transmitting unit is unable to determine it's own speed and gives a lower reading.

For lidar, the only thing i am aware of for rain is it cuts the distance down, but will not give you a higher reading. I would like to see what the radar manufacturers statements about tracking motorcycles or sport bikes and it being inaccurate and giving false higher readings.

In both cases an officer running speed measuring equipment must use their visual confirmation of speed along with the measurement to justify the ticket. I am sure he was able to see the motorcycle was traveling WELL above any posted speed limit.

barstoolguru, if you have beaten tickets many times on radar/lidar on a motorcycle, please give us some examples of what the false reading was and how you beat the ticket.

...I come from an age where there were only a coupla radar "guns" on the dept...we in patrol wrote speeding tickets by clocking them...pacing them...or estimating...I never lost a case in court...never went to the "official training course" to do it...but an officer can get to within 3 miles per hour with his eyes, after awhile...this guy was so far off the map...gigag04's is the only solution...

Keith B wrote: It's been a long time since I ran speed radar, but still am heavily involved in RF technology, including radar and readings. The only 'higher' speed readings I am aware of that a radar unit will give is if it is a ghost reading or reading another larger vehicle. A ghost reading will be a fleeting one time bump. And I doubt there was any other vehicle moving at 193 around him. The very common error for a speed radar unit is either cosign error where the target and the radar are at an angle and that gives a lower reading of the target, or moving radar where the transmitting unit is unable to determine it's own speed and gives a lower reading.

For lidar, the only thing i am aware of for rain is it cuts the distance down, but will not give you a higher reading. I would like to see what the radar manufacturers statements about tracking motorcycles or sport bikes and it being inaccurate and giving false higher readings.

In both cases an officer running speed measuring equipment must use their visual confirmation of speed along with the measurement to justify the ticket. I am sure he was able to see the motorcycle was traveling WELL above any posted speed limit.

barstoolguru, if you have beaten tickets many times on radar/lidar on a motorcycle, please give us some examples of what the false reading was and how you beat the ticket.

I bet Barstoolguru was riding something like this when he got those tickets:

...that's more my style...I'm may be found dead someday...but it won't be because I had a motorcycle wreck...I'm yellow when it comes to them...yellow as this go-mo-bile!!!

Funny, some of the same comments and attitude seen here in this thread, come from Anti gun owners about them crazy people that have to have a gun. Or carry a LOADED one in public

bronco78 wrote:Funny, some of the same comments and attitude seen here in this thread, come from Anti gun owners about them crazy people that have to have a gun. Or carry a LOADED one in public

How is it a crazy or condemning attitude if we think 193 mph on a highway is too fast?

Jumping Frog wrote:

bronco78 wrote:Funny, some of the same comments and attitude seen here in this thread, come from Anti gun owners about them crazy people that have to have a gun. Or carry a LOADED one in public

How is it a crazy or condemning attitude if we think 193 mph on a highway is too fast?

I can see Bronco78's point. It seems just as clear to some that carrying a loaded gun concealed or not in public is reckless. Some people that do are reckless or careless, but most are not. Some people think having one in the house is crazy. This fellow's 193mph dash on a public highway with other traffic around is reckless and careless. He clearly didn't consider the consequences in that environment. He was probably riding the same bike I just sold, Hayabusa, and I would have loved to have been able to turn it loose, but those consequences kept creeping into my conscience.

...I see absolutely no connection with this guy and responsible gun possession or carry...he is, to any mature, rational human, an idiot...there is no justification for travelling that fast or even 160, to allow for radar errors, if there be any...he wasn't using his head, and he needed to be jailed...losing his MC endorsement would seem fitting punishment to me...he gives responsible MC riders something else to live down...if he wants to drive this fast...there are places to do so...but not on the streets where my wife and kids will be...

Early in my career I saw what happened when a Kawasaki Ninja 1000 impacted an overpass support at 140 plus (estimated by Highway Patrol trooper working the wreck).

There was a debris field similar to what happens when an airplane crashes. The rider and the bike were in chunks the size of your fist.

I have never had the desire to own a motorcycle since that night. The 193 MPH guy should buy lottery tickets.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

bronco78 wrote:Funny, some of the same comments and attitude seen here in this thread, come from Anti gun owners about them crazy people that have to have a gun. Or carry a LOADED one in public

I don't think that's an apt analogy. Consider this:

I don't particularly care if someone wants to go 193 mph on a bike. I used to regularly attain about 160 mph on my race bikes on the back straightaways at Willow Springs and Riverside International Raceways. I never had that kind of horsepower to go 193, and nobody made a street bike back then that would go that fast on a roadrace course without about $250 large put into it. But.......that 160 was on a closed course racetrack—not the public highways. The likelihood of involving another bike if I went down was low enough ('cause I was usually near the back of the pack ), and besides, the other guys paid their money just like I did to be out there, and they assumed the risk of possibly crashing in order to have the chance to go as fast as they could possibly go—and it didn't put any pedestrians, soccer moms, or commuter buses at risk....only us. Conversely, driving 193 mph on public thoroughfares in any kind of weather is kind of like firing your pistol into the air....or down the street....inside the city limits. You might not hit anyone, but then again, you might. Without a pretty good reason, do you really have that right? On the other hand, if you trot yourself down to the local shooting range, you can blaze away all you want in relative safety. Either way, if you want to splatter yourself all over the pavement, that is certainly your right.....just as it is your right to go put a bullet in your own kneecap. But the only way you can do that without risk to anyone else is in a controlled environment, and you don't really have the moral authority to inflict those risks on other people without a very good reason.....such as shooting in self-defense, or driving at high speed in order to evade someone who is trying to kill you.

You have to remember that you're right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Ditto driving 193 mph in the rain on a public thoroughfare. Other people on the roads have rights too. And one of those rights is the right to not be taken out by a jackass driving without regard to the public safety, and the likelihood of that happening goes up exponentially as the speeds involved go from simple "speeding" to "just plain stupid." I don't care if his bike will go 500 mph, just like I don't care if you or someone else owns a Dillon M134 minigun. I just don't want anybody to use either item in an irresponsible manner where it might negatively impact someone else's life.

I think that is what most critics are responding to here—not that he had a bike that would go that fast. Does that make some kind of sense?