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.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?
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.You aren't the only one here that grew up on a motorcycle. Your statement doesn't give you instant credibility.
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?No, the purpose of subjective statute is to provide a judge with the latitude to actually look at the circumstances.
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.If you would prefer a zero tolerance approach, that can be worked out.
I would think the state makes quite a bit of money off of this statute.Almost as popular is the "this only makes the state money" defense.
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!!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.
That is akin to saying, "if the government does it, it must be legal"!!!This is akin to saying, "I have been driving my whole life. I should go at whatever speed I wish".
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: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?
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 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.No, saying that you are a really good rider/driver is not enough.
[/QUOTE]