CVC 23109(c)(i) exhibition of speed

[Jim_bo]

Ahh... the "I can control a wheelie very well and so everyone should be allowed to do so as well" law.

Would you like me to post the HUNDREDS of youtube videos showing "very experienced" riders almost killing themselves when their wheelie goes out of control for an action that would have been controllable if both wheels had been on the ground?

Your statements imply that I am absurd and extreme, however, the irony is that your statements clearly are absurd and extreme only in the opposite direction. If you are going to compare you tube videos of idiots who think they are auditioning for the next "Jackass" movie to a reasonable rider who happened to have the front wheel of his bike momentarily lift from the ground, then you are so jaded that you will never see an objective opinion. That would be the same as comparing a guy making a right turn through a puddle and having his traction momentarily break loose to the nuts that "drift race" on the Fast and the Furious. Dude... all that glitters is not gold.

You aren't the only one here that grew up on a motorcycle. Your statement doesn't give you instant credibility.

Apparently, I am the only one (to this point) that recognizes that simply having the front wheel of a bike briefly leave the ground does NOT automatically mean there is a complete loss of control.

No, the purpose of subjective statute is to provide a judge with the latitude to actually look at the circumstances.

Well, Carl has already demonstrated he doesn't know what he is talking about, so why would I think the judge would be any smarter?

If you would prefer a zero tolerance approach, that can be worked out.

A zero tolerance approach to what?? Exhibiting speed? Did you think that having the front wheel of a bike leave the ground is actually part of the statute?? Maybe if you have shinny wheels and racing stripes, you are obviously an exhibitionist, so any speed can be construed as an "exhibition of speed". That may sound ridiculous... but considering the sliding definition of the statute... maybe it doesn't.

Almost as popular is the "this only makes the state money" defense.

I would think the state makes quite a bit of money off of this statute.

I would argue that anyone that cannot predict when the front wheels leave the ground doesn't have your level of expertise... and is not in total control.

I never said anything about predicting when the wheel leaves the ground. I only said that if it does, that doesn't mean that control has been lost. And even if it did, how does that apply to "exhibition of speed"? There is NOTHING in that statute that refers to a loss of control!!

This is akin to saying, "I have been driving my whole life. I should go at whatever speed I wish".

That is akin to saying, "if the government does it, it must be legal"!!!

True. But merely disliking the verdict is not enough to go to appeal. What point of law do you think will be used to elevate this issue to the appellate level?

Of course I wouldn't like the verdict when the law is improperly applied. By your own statement, you have justified a conviction under this statute by:

1. a front wheel leaving the ground,
2. Something someone did on you tube
3. Retribution for a political statement you didn't like (ticket/revenue scam)
4. Loss of control of vehicle (allegedly)
5. Lack of experience of driver
6. Zero tollerence retribution for arguing a legitimate legal defense (read: don't argue with me, just lie down and take it)

No, saying that you are a really good rider/driver is not enough.

No, saying that it is a violation of a statute that doesn't even approach the black letter reading of the statute nor the apparent intent is not enough.

[/QUOTE]

 

[cyjeff]

Your statements imply that I am absurd and extreme, however, the irony is that your statements clearly are absurd and extreme only in the opposite direction. If you are going to compare you tube videos of idiots who think they are auditioning for the next "Jackass" movie to a reasonable rider who happened to have the front wheel of his bike momentarily lift from the ground, then you are so jaded that you will never see an objective opinion. That would be the same as comparing a guy making a right turn through a puddle and having his traction momentarily break loose to the nuts that "drift race" on the Fast and the Furious. Dude... all that glitters is not gold.

Aren't these same idiots allowed to drive on the streets?

If you are saying it isn't fair that some kids ruin it for the rest of the class, I can't help you there.

And people are ticketed all the time for losing traction on a wet surface. Every day.

"Traveling too fast for conditions" jumps to mind.

Apparently, I am the only one (to this point) that recognizes that simply having the front wheel of a bike briefly leave the ground does NOT automatically mean there is a complete loss of control.

No, but since you cannot also claim that every single wheel that leaves the ground is UNDER control, the point seems moot.

Why yes, laws ARE written to the lowest common denominator. Has something to do with applying the same laws to everyone.

Maybe you should petition your congressman to get you a special "I am really good on a motorcycle and can, therefore, pull a wheelie whenever I want to" license.

Maybe you could come up with a special test involving driving a course solely on one wheel from beginning to end to prove that you are under control on only one wheel.

You would make turns, you would come to a complete stop and start up again... all on one wheel. You would prove that there is no loss of stopping distance, turning radius or acceleration on one wheel.

Well, Carl has already demonstrated he doesn't know what he is talking about, so why would I think the judge would be any smarter?

It must be difficult to be the only one that understand the arcane world of one wheeled motorcycling.

Get ya many girls?

A zero tolerance approach to what?? Exhibiting speed? Did you think that having the front wheel of a bike leave the ground is actually part of the statute??

Can you show me how a front wheel will leave the ground during SLOWING a motorcyle?

Thanks.

Maybe if you have shinny wheels and racing stripes, you are obviously an exhibitionist, so any speed can be construed as an "exhibition of speed". That may sound ridiculous... but considering the sliding definition of the statute... maybe it doesn't.

Wait...

You go out of your way to be noticed, but then don't want to be noticed?

I would think the state makes quite a bit of money off of this statute.

Ah, so now we have gone from "the state makes" to "I would think the state makes"... which means you really don't know.

But if something 'the man' is doing makes you sad, it must be part of a grand conspiracy... and has nothing to do with trying to keep idiots alive.

I never said anything about predicting when the wheel leaves the ground. I only said that if it does, that doesn't mean that control has been lost. And even if it did, how does that apply to "exhibition of speed"? There is NOTHING in that statute that refers to a loss of control!!

You were the one that introduced control as a factor (reference "I have been driving a motorcycle since the day I stopped pooping my diapy").

The physics do not allow the front wheel to leave the ground EXCEPT during acceleration. Therefore, the wheel leaving the ground is an exhibition of speed.

Because you must be accelerating for it to happen... just as you must be DEcelerating to make the rear wheel come up.

I thought you said you had ridden before?

That is akin to saying, "if the government does it, it must be legal"!!!

Hardly.

Just not everything that happens is about you.

Of course I wouldn't like the verdict when the law is improperly applied. By your own statement, you have justified a conviction under this statute by:

1. a front wheel leaving the ground,
2. Something someone did on you tube
3. Retribution for a political statement you didn't like (ticket/revenue scam)
4. Loss of control of vehicle (allegedly)
5. Lack of experience of driver
6. Zero tollerence retribution for arguing a legitimate legal defense (read: don't argue with me, just lie down and take it)

Wow.

You introduce an argument that has nothing to do with the law (control) and when we try to talk it out, you then use our proof to prove that everyone is against you.

Again, show me how the front wheel leaving the ground is NOT an exhibition of acceleration.

No, don't bother showing something from a ramp or someone bouncing a motorcycle on a trampoline or something.

Show me how, from a standing start, any action OTHER than acceleration can make the front wheel of a motorcycle rise.

 

[Jim_bo]

Jeff, you have demonstrated my point perfectly. You are so jaded that you will never see an objective argument. The summation is:

1. Control of the vehicle has nothing to do with the EOS statute
2. The number of wheels on the ground or in traction have nothing to do with the EOS statute.
3. Accelleration has nothing to do with the EOS statute.
4. Driving experience has nothing to do with the EOS statute.

But these areas are where all of your arguments are based. The EOS statute is about an exhibition... i.e. showing off. This involves willful intent. Where the speeding statutes do not require intent (i.e. "I didn't realize I was speeding" argument doesn't work), that is not the case here. Therefore, in order to properly prosecute on offense under this statute, the prosecution should have to show the mindset of the driver (i.e. the driver screaming to his buddies, "Hey y'all, watch this!!!")

I have not said that the OP may or may not be guilty of a half dozen other violations... I have only made the point that the statute as written is so vague that almost nothing should be allowed to rise to the level of a violation. But in practice, practically anything can be convicted under this statute.


Oh... for the record, I am not the one who initiated that control of the vehicle would be a violation... Carl did that.

 

[cyjeff]

Can you show me how a front wheel will leave the ground during SLOWING a motorcyle?

Thanks.

 

[Jim_bo]

Can you show me how a front wheel will leave the ground during SLOWING a motorcyle?

Thanks.

I'm not sure what your point is. If you are trying to argue that the laws of physics dictate the motions of a vehicle, I concede. But what did you prove?

Can you show me where acceleration is an element of violating the EOS statute?

 

[cyjeff]

If an action can only be committed during an access of acceleration, then it is an exhibition of speed.

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, you should run for political office. You are quite skilled at defending the establishment when there is support and then distancing yourself when there is dissent. That's not criticism, just a recognition of the obvious.

What???

Yes, I suppose I can spend all day doing the Texas Two Step and we can go round-and-round, but why? I learned long ago that when the argument becomes circular, it is time to end it. Why continue belaboring the same point over and over? If I want that, I'll listen to my kids argue.

So, he can go to court and let a judge decide. All that any of us can provide is opinion, anyway. It is the judge that has the final say, and none of us can predict what the judge will do. If we could, there would be no need for attorneys or courts to interpret the law. As nice as that might be, who among us would want some of the others among us to be doing that interpreting?

 

[davisdrafting]

I do not recall where I ever posted that he was not in control. Common sense does indicate, however, that one wheel will imply a lack of a control as it is, after all, a two wheeled vehicle. And, since the steering wheel is off the ground, the operator will have to resort to a shifting of weight and leaning to control the vehicle and not the handlebars as designed. In short, if his front wheel left the ground, he was operating and attempting to control the vehicle in a manner that it was not designed.

The issue I have with most of your posts is you speculate and assume far too much as do most cops. Also from my experience cops are not clear or understand all laws, they retain bits and pieces, Just enough to write a citation. Gone uncontested will generate money for the system.
You and others are assuming I Willfully road a “wheelie” when in fact the front tire had left the surface of the road 6” to 24” during a start and shifting between 1st & 2nd gear at duration of approximately 20’ to 30’ in first gear and 5’ to 10’ in second gear shift.
Not exactly what I would qualify or define as a “wheelie”

Can you show me how a front wheel will leave the ground during SLOWING a motorcyle? Thanks.

Sure I can show you this with no front wheel at all!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOLQtHl2Coc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIa0q47CXsk

Please also watch a couple hours of motorcycle racing, both dirt and road, noting the percent of time the front wheel is touching the ground. Also educate yourself on the physics of gyroscopic precession and apply it to controlling a motorcycle.
Please let’s stop arguing the fact of “control” now and move on.

I understand I have a .01% chance of winning anything in traffic court.
(Not only is there no DA but the “judge” isn’t even a real judge)
But I’d like to get my money’s worth so to speak. If everybody fought BS citations
I doubt the court would find it a lucrative business.

My reason for posting was to;
1. find the appropriate CVC that was violated
2. find a winning case law that follows similar actions taken place
3. find a line or two of arguable defiance to use

 

[CdwJava]

Nope. I never assumed you were popping a wheelie, I just used the term as it tends to be the common vernacular when the front wheel leaves the roadway. In any event, if your front wheel is leaving the road between 6" and 24" when you start off and continue for up to 30' in that manner, I suspect that either you have some control problems or your bike has some issues.

I have assumed nothing with your post. I merely posted that there is no clear cut case law that defines this section or that defines what section applies when a motorcycle's front tire leaves the roadway be it 23103 or 23109. I also pointed out that other sections could also be applied depending on your actions. I am baffled that you somehow took offense at these observations. I am sorry that you feel I am some how making assumptions and beefing you because I am not waving pom-poms and telling you that you have a great case. The truth of the matter is as I have stated - that the section IS subjective, it IS subject to the interpretation of the citing officer and then the court, and it IS a matter for the court to decide. Not appreciating the truth of the matter is not going to change reality.

 

[Jim_bo]

If an action can only be committed during an access of acceleration, then it is an exhibition of speed.

Where in the statute does it refer to acceleration at all? What makes you say that a violation can be due ONLY to an excess of accelleration?

 

[Jim_bo]

What???

Yes, I suppose I can spend all day doing the Texas Two Step and we can go round-and-round, but why? I learned long ago that when the argument becomes circular, it is time to end it. Why continue belaboring the same point over and over? If I want that, I'll listen to my kids argue.

Then what is the point of your arguing now?

So, he can go to court and let a judge decide. All that any of us can provide is opinion, anyway. It is the judge that has the final say, and none of us can predict what the judge will do. If we could, there would be no need for attorneys or courts to interpret the law. As nice as that might be, who among us would want some of the others among us to be doing that interpreting?

The judge does NOT have the final say. The state supreme court does. I am advocating that people who are unjustly charged and convicted continue to challenge the state in its unreasonable application of the law.

 

[Jim_bo]

Nope. I never assumed you were popping a wheelie, I just used the term as it tends to be the common vernacular when the front wheel leaves the roadway. In any event, if your front wheel is leaving the road between 6" and 24" when you start off and continue for up to 30' in that manner, I suspect that either you have some control problems or your bike has some issues.

Once again, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with respect to motorcycles.

 

[CdwJava]

Once again, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with respect to motorcycles.

Okay.

I suppose it's common place for motorcycles to shift gears and pop the front wheel off the ground almost two feet (per the OP's own statement). Funny, none of the bikers I have spoken to (none of which are cops or related to any) indicate that it is anything but unusual. Whether it is a violation of 23103 or 23109 or something else, I'll leave to the courts.

 

[davisdrafting]

Okay.

I suppose it's common place for motorcycles to shift gears and pop the front wheel off the ground almost two feet (per the OP's own statement). Funny, none of the bikers I have spoken to (none of which are cops or related to any) indicate that it is anything but unusual. Whether it is a violation of 23103 or 23109 or something else, I'll leave to the courts.

The only useful advice that has come from you in bold.

“Biker friends” should I assume they ride cruisers? That
Would explain their answer.

The last dozen or so posts are useless arguing caused mostly by you.
Please MOVE ON, start your own thread.

 

[cyjeff]

The only useful advice that has come from you in bold.

“Biker friends” should I assume they ride cruisers? That
Would explain their answer.

The last dozen or so posts are useless arguing caused mostly by you.
Please MOVE ON, start your own thread.

I spent most of my youth on a motorcycle.

Having said this, there is nothing more to say.

Go to court. Tell them that the front wheel two feet above the ground meant that you were fully in control of the vehicle at all times.

I am sure there are people that can control a car on only two wheels. I still don't want people trying it on the street.

Good luck.