I have ridden for years and I`m pro-cycle, but I rarely see people on the sport bikes who aren`t mostly on the edge of killing themselves. I don`t know what that particular kind of bike does to a riders psyche but it must do something. I personally don`t get it, as I have always been a "cruiser" style rider. I can`t see hunched over a gas tank on a trip of any distance, but to each his own. Fortunately, in that video it`s good thing that the rider had all of that acceleration, as it looked like it enabled him to get out of the way of the idiot in the truck.
Does anyone else see the similarities behind this video and the pharmacist that killed that theif?
If the "victims" wouldn't have been breaking the law in the first place, there would be no story. Every action has a consequence, sometimes you don't expect to be murdered for your consequence, but you don't know what the other person is thinking, so why take the chance?
Does anyone else see the similarities behind this video and the pharmacist that killed that theif?
If the "victims" wouldn't have been breaking the law in the first place, there would be no story. Every action has a consequence, sometimes you don't expect to be murdered for your consequence, but you don't know what the other person is thinking, so why take the chance?
There are no similarities, unless you're somehow trying to say that Erslander is a hero for shooting the criminals and therefor the truck driver is a hero for trying to kill the criminal rider. I'm hoping that's not what you meant, because if it was then IMHO you've sunk to a new moral low.
No, all I was saying, is that none of these discussions would be occuring if one party hadn't broken the law first.
I agree with the fact that it is much worse to attempt to kill someone, than make an illegal pass. But had the illegal pass not happened, then the attempted murder wouldn't have occured.
I agree with the fact that it is much worse to take a human life, than to steal some pharmaceuticals. But had there not been an attempted robbery, there wouldn't have been a murder.
I'm just looking at it from a cause/effect perspective. The only similarity that I was trying to make was that a small broken law caused another (more serious) law to be broken. Not sure how that was misunderstood to make out anybody as a hero, but its an internet post open for interpretations, all I can do is try to re-read my posts before hitting enter, and try to read it from another's viewpoint.
IP: Logged
02:50 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by 1988holleyformula: No, all I was saying, is that none of these discussions would be occuring if one party hadn't broken the law first.
I agree with the fact that it is much worse to attempt to kill someone, than make an illegal pass. But had the illegal pass not happened, then the attempted murder wouldn't have occured.
I agree with the fact that it is much worse to take a human life, than to steal some pharmaceuticals. But had there not been an attempted robbery, there wouldn't have been a murder.
I'm just looking at it from a cause/effect perspective. The only similarity that I was trying to make was that a small broken law caused another (more serious) law to be broken. Not sure how that was misunderstood to make out anybody as a hero, but its an internet post open for interpretations, all I can do is try to re-read my posts before hitting enter, and try to read it from another's viewpoint.
what is the cause/effect of someone passing someone else illegally? what is the evil of an illegal pass? we know what the evil is of robbery. there are very few traffic violations I find worthy of the death penalty. tho, winky willie in the pickup sure is in the running, eh?
what is the cause/effect of someone passing someone else illegally? what is the evil of an illegal pass? we know what the evil is of robbery. there are very few traffic violations I find worthy of the death penalty. tho, winky willie in the pickup sure is in the running, eh?
What he is saying is that had A not been done, B would not have been able to occur. He is not saying A, or B are correct.
It's cause and effect. Had the riders been going the speed limit, they likely would never had caught up with Joe Dirt in the truck, and the entire thing never would have happened. He is not saying that the truck was correct.
He's not saying anything else, you are twisting his words, and trying to illicit a response. For instance, if you would not try to "read into" everything you don't agree with, people would not be able to argue.
Brad
[This message has been edited by twofatguys (edited 06-02-2011).]
Originally posted by twofatguys: What he is saying is that had A not been done, B would not have been able to occur. He is not saying A, or B are correct.
It's cause and effect. Had the riders been going the speed limit, they likely would never had caught up with Joe Dirt in the truck, and the entire thing never would have happened. He is not saying that the truck was correct.
He's not saying anything else, you are twisting his words, and trying to illicit a response. For instance, if you would not try to "read into" everything you don't agree with, people would not be able to argue.
Brad
well...yeah...but, in that case, you can go all the way back to: the guy should never have left the house. there is no reasonable "cause/effect" here. There is not a single ounce of "blame" to be doled out on the biker. Traffic laws are just "finable manners" to keep the roads organized. there is nothing "evil" about breaking traffic laws. and, drivers who think they are the traffic cops, and are going to make a citizens arrest by killing someone are the only real "evil doers".
tho, I fully understand the "she was asking for it because of what she was wearing" arguement.
maybe the right answer is to make motorcycles illegal......? or create a completely seperate roadway system, so bike & autos dont mingle - being that they are so different in capabilities? sure seem to upset alot of drivers.....these Hot Dogs with their Crotch Rockets & Hula-Hoops.....
well...yeah...but, in that case, you can go all the way back to: the guy should never have left the house. there is no reasonable "cause/effect" here. There is not a single ounce of "blame" to be doled out on the biker. Traffic laws are just "finable manners" to keep the roads organized. there is nothing "evil" about breaking traffic laws. and, drivers who think they are the traffic cops, and are going to make a citizens arrest by killing someone are the only real "evil doers".
tho, I fully understand the "she was asking for it because of what she was wearing" arguement.
maybe the right answer is to make motorcycles illegal......? or create a completely seperate roadway system, so bike & autos dont mingle - being that they are so different in capabilities? sure seem to upset alot of drivers.....these Hot Dogs with their Crotch Rockets & Hula-Hoops.....
I didn't say anything about "blame" or "evil" so I don't really have anything to add on those comments.
But the "you can go all the way back too..." arguement doesn't work in my opinion. Really, all I am trying to say is that if Law A (making an illegal pass) had not been broken, then Law B (attempted murder) wouldn't have happened.
I guess I should have just stated it this way. If no laws were broken, then no laws would have been broken.
Originally posted by 1988holleyformula: I didn't say anything about "blame" or "evil" so I don't really have anything to add on those comments.
But the "you can go all the way back too..." arguement doesn't work in my opinion. Really, all I am trying to say is that if Law A (making an illegal pass) had not been broken, then Law B (attempted murder) wouldn't have happened.
I guess I should have just stated it this way. If no laws were broken, then no laws would have been broken.
I do not see how one leads to the other. there is no "cause & effect" here. passing someone - legally or illegally - has zero impact. it causes nothing. nothing was "taken away" from the vehicle being passed. NOTHING. or was there? can you explain the "cause/effect"? what was effected? how did the illegal pass impact the truck?
now, I dont doubt one bit that this local yokel is sick of bikers blasting down his home town road, and wants to "show 'em a little somethin". much more believeable than killing over an illegal pass. maybe watching the video would help. because the truck driver has little respect for the dbl yellow as well. crosses it WWAAYY more than any biker in the video. and, there are quite a few. which really make me think this guy just doesnt like bikers on "his" road, the "illegal pass" just being his invalid excuse to act out.
IP: Logged
04:18 PM
TommyRocker Member
Posts: 2808 From: Woodstock, IL Registered: Dec 2009
I have to say, I agree with JazzMan. This is quite unusual, as we tend to disagree on things politics AND motorcycle related.
With what was shown in the video, the rider should have been nailed with the illegal passing, and the driver should have been nailed with attempted murder. As was mentioned, there is no justification for the driver's actions.
Maybe that hot 17 year old girl shouldn't have dressed so provocatively, but she should still have been safe from rape. This guy shouldn't have passed there, but he shouldn't have had to escape a murderous redneck either.
also, twofatguys, you did NOT say some, you said "these crotch rockets should not be legal to begin with" which is a stupid statement that I called you out on. I never said that this rider's actions were ok.
I do not see how one leads to the other. there is no "cause & effect" here. passing someone - legally or illegally - has zero impact. it causes nothing. nothing was "taken away" from the vehicle being passed. NOTHING. or was there? can you explain the "cause/effect"? what was effected? how did the illegal pass impact the truck?
Okay, this is the last effort that I will give in this discussion if I'm just getting answers like this. But I'll try to answer your questions if you answer my last one on this post.
"or was there something taken away from the vehicle being passed" - I would say that the truck driver's (imagined) pride was being taken away by the motorcyclists. "can you explain the "cause/effect"? what was effected?" - The cause (motorcyclist passing the truck) effected the truck driver's mental state, causing him to go on RAMPAGE mode.
All I want is an answer to this question: Would the driver of the truck tried to kill the motorcyclist if the motorcyclist had not made an illegal manuver? edit: If I could get a "yes" or "no" to this question, that would be awesome!
[This message has been edited by 1988holleyformula (edited 06-02-2011).]
No, all I was saying, is that none of these discussions would be occuring if one party hadn't broken the law first.
I agree with the fact that it is much worse to attempt to kill someone, than make an illegal pass. But had the illegal pass not happened, then the attempted murder wouldn't have occured.
That still places some form of blame on the victim. It's in the form of "victim did something (illegal) and caused other person to commit crime". Take out the "illegal" and it reads "victim did something and caused other person to commit crime". Both literally say the victim caused the criminal response. From a logical perspective the only difference is the word "illegal", and that implies that it is somehow more morally acceptable for a person to commit a crime if that crime was caused by an illegal action. In other words, it be less bad if a prostitute got raped than a non-prostitute.
In every permutation the one thing being ignored is the fact that the decision to do violence was made by the perpetrator. It was the driver's full responsibility to conform to the laws of this land and society. The driver, by definition, was in complete control of his actions.
Comparing the Ersland case to this, the only similar elements were that the robbers attempted to use deadly force, and the driver of the truck attempted to use deadly force. The analogy ceases to exist beyond that point.
All I want is an answer to this question: Would the driver of the truck tried to kill the motorcyclist if the motorcyclist had not made an illegal manuver? edit: If I could get a "yes" or "no" to this question, that would be awesome!
The semantically correct answer would be no, but the question is meaningless to begin with. The implication of the question is that the rider somehow brought upon himself this situation because of what he did, namely a probably illegal pass. The part of that implication that I and many others disagree with is the part that says "brought upon himself", because in turn it somehow seems to say that he forced the driver to make the decision to try and kill him. That basically says that free will doesn't exist.
Here's another question, just a yes or no would be awesome: Have you stopped beating your wife? See the implication? See how the question is meaningless? There's actually term for this kind of question, Loaded Question.
I understand that you probably aren't asking it this way on purpose to be mean, but rather because you firmly believe you are correct in your viewpoint that the rider brought this upon himself and are just trying to get others to agree with you. I would respectfully suggest that you open your mind to the possibility that the rider didn't do anything that deserved being terrorized or murdered for, and that the driver is fully responsible for his own actions regardless of provocations from others.
BTW, the "He made me do it" defense never works. Tried that one with my brother when I was a brat, the 'rents saw right through that one...
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 06-02-2011).]
That still places some form of blame on the victim. It's in the form of "victim did something (illegal) and caused other person to commit crime". Take out the "illegal" and it reads "victim did something and caused other person to commit crime". Both literally say the victim caused the criminal response. From a logical perspective the only difference is the word "illegal", and that implies that it is somehow more morally acceptable for a person to commit a crime if that crime was caused by an illegal action. In other words, it be less bad if a prostitute got raped than a non-prostitute.
In every permutation the one thing being ignored is the fact that the decision to do violence was made by the perpetrator. It was the driver's full responsibility to conform to the laws of this land and society. The driver, by definition, was in complete control of his actions.
Comparing the Ersland case to this, the only similar elements were that the robbers attempted to use deadly force, and the driver of the truck attempted to use deadly force. The analogy ceases to exist beyond that point.
edit: Sorry, just saw your next reply, I guess this is meaningless to carry on. Have a good day.
I think you're reading WAY more than I ever intended. Can you answer the same question (with a yes or no) that I asked Pyrthian?
Would the driver of the truck tried to kill the motorcyclist if the motorcyclist had not made an illegal manuver?
and again with
Would Ersland have killed the 18 year old, if there had been no attempted robbery?
WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE, REALLY I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY, DON'T BREAK THE LAW. Can we agree on that?
[This message has been edited by 1988holleyformula (edited 06-02-2011).]
IP: Logged
05:03 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by 1988holleyformula: Okay, this is the last effort that I will give in this discussion if I'm just getting answers like this. But I'll try to answer your questions if you answer my last one on this post.
"or was there something taken away from the vehicle being passed" - I would say that the truck driver's (imagined) pride was being taken away by the motorcyclists. "can you explain the "cause/effect"? what was effected?" - The cause (motorcyclist passing the truck) effected the truck driver's mental state, causing him to go on RAMPAGE mode.
All I want is an answer to this question: Would the driver of the truck tried to kill the motorcyclist if the motorcyclist had not made an illegal manuver? edit: If I could get a "yes" or "no" to this question, that would be awesome!
ok - well, at least we agree that it was all in the truck drivers head - and there is no "real" cause/effect.
and, what the driver of the truck "may have done" in other conditions is purely speculative. and being he almost hit bikers going the other way, who did NOT pass him, while regularly crossing the double yellow, one could jts as easily make up the scenario that the biker who passed him SAVED the lives of the other bikers by focusing his idiotic rampage. so - yes, it is entirely possible that truck driver may have attempted murder no matter what happened. If "being passed" is a valid enough excuse to kill someone, no telling what else might be. How about flashing hi-beams? is that death worthy? a horn perhaps? what other "death worthy" infractions are there that the rest of us sane people need to be wary of? now, if he flipped the bird - oh yes - that certianly is death worthy, right? maybe a "hairy eyeball"?
ok - well, at least we agree that it was all in the truck drivers head - and there is no "real" cause/effect.
Let's switch "real" for "tangible" and I'll agree. The stuff that goes on in my head is very real, and has effects on my life, and even causes me to follow through with my actions.
Let's switch "real" for "tangible" and I'll agree. The stuff that goes on in my head is very real, and has effects on my life, and even causes me to follow through with my actions.
And if you ever decide to kill someone because you didn't like them committing a traffic infraction, rest assure the number of people coming to your defense will be, well, larger than it ought to be...
IP: Logged
06:44 PM
PFF
System Bot
cliffw Member
Posts: 35921 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by JazzMan: That still places some form of blame on the victim.
Yeah but, ... this is not a perfect world. I would not let my daughter go out in public wearing skimpy clothes. Someone, somewhere, ... The same with driving. Odds are you will come across those with a disposition of road rage. Just saying. EDIT We need to do all we can to protect ourselves. It's too late after charges are filed.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 06-02-2011).]
also, twofatguys, you did NOT say some, you said "these crotch rockets should not be legal to begin with" which is a stupid statement that I called you out on. I never said that this rider's actions were ok.
quote
A portion of the people that generally ride them seem to have little penis syndrome, and just work to piss people off. I think the helmet laws should be relaxed so they can thin the herd easier.
You are taking one thing I say, and applying it to something else. What the heck man? Am I going to have to CMA on everything I type? I cannot be that friggin confusing.
I do think they should at the very least be heavily regulated, there are way too many idiots on them,
[list]
Brad is not saying that all motorcyclists are idiots.
Brad is saying that saying that if "sport bikes"* are not made illegal, that they should be at least regulated as to whom can ride them.
Regulated does mean more Government involvement.
Regulated means that less people could ride "sport bikes"*
Brad has no idea how they would be regulated, just that they need to be.
I am not saying that anyone should die.
All of this is Brad's opinion, and should be taken lightly.
The term crotch rocket is slang for some types of sport bikes, mainly super sport and super bikes. The name is derived from the way the rider sits on the bike and from the speed and acceleration of which these bikes are capable. A sport bike's foot pegs and shifter are located farther back than a conventional or 'cruiser' motorcycles; this puts the rider in a position that is more streamlined and aerodynamic and places the rider's crotch in very close contact with the seat.
The term crotch rocket is sometimes associated with squid, a subset of motorcyclists who may be inclined to choose sport bikes over other types of motorcycles, among other reasons due to the high performance characteristics of sport bikes.
Wait... Squid, never head that before.
quote
Squid (motorcycle)
Squid is a slang term used to describe an irresponsible motorcyclist. The term is common among motorcyclists in North America.
The term is generally used to describe a motorcyclist who rides aggressively, erratically or beyond their capabilities. Squids are perceived as overconfident and often ride without appropriate safety equipment, such as a helmet, gloves, leather jacket, riding pants, or boots.
The origin of the term squid is ambiguous. It is commonly said to be a contraction of squirrely and kid , or less commonly, squished and kid . a female rider who exhibits these characteristics is typically called a squirrel, for squirrely girl''.
Squid is also described occasionally as an acronym, although these are likely backronyms.
* " S tupidly Q uick, U nderdressed, I gnorant and D angerous" * " S tupidly Q uick, U nderdressed and I mminently D ead" * " S uper Q uick U ntil I D ie" * " S peeding Q uickly U ntil I D ie"
I learned something, Squid. heh.
Brad
IP: Logged
07:56 PM
30+mpg Member
Posts: 4049 From: Russellville, AR Registered: Feb 2002
"Well my friends I have some good news. The riders in the video are working closely with the autorities to put this douche bag behind bars!! Although no details can be released yet, it looks like the driver is going to legally get his. Thank you for all of your support. To all of you who are so concerned with the riders passing on a double yellow, let it go. The authorities have stated that the pass is of NO CONCERN TO THEM! Justice for the attempted murder of our fellow riders is on it's way."
posted 6 days ago.
IP: Logged
08:56 PM
Jun 3rd, 2011
blakeinspace Member
Posts: 5923 From: Fort Worth, Texas Registered: Dec 2001
Brad is not saying that all motorcyclists are idiots. Brad is saying that saying that if "sport bikes"* are not made illegal, that they should be at least regulated as to whom can ride them. Regulated does mean more Government involvement. Regulated means that less people could ride "sport bikes"* Brad has no idea how they would be regulated, just that they need to be. I am not saying that anyone should die. All of this is Brad's opinion, and should be taken lightly.
Brad
Who is this Brad you keep speaking of?...
an acronym for something larger (Believes Rocketriders Are Dumb)? merely a software program like Cliff Pennock? a mythical being like a unicorn (or pegasus)?
James, in your first post... you mention the lesson learned is not to ride in Kentucky. I thought you hated logic like that?... You know, the blanket statement that is not the point at all... (Like Hitler was white, so all whites are bad...) or is that the point you were trying to make?
Harrowing footage... thank god it did not end badly for the riders or oncoming traffic. I agree with others... rider was a dummy... but man... the pickup... I can't imagine the thought process that continued for several minutes that made him think that what he was doing was a good idea. Scary. Frankly, I am glad the bikers were able to end the situation with the involvement of law enforcement. Like Phyr mentioned... if not the bikers that day... what is the straw, the trigger the next day/week/month... high beams, a gesture, a horn?.. wow.
It further made me wonder what would have happened if he could have gotten to the back tire of the lead rider? Attempted murder again? or... just scare the guy maybe to make a point? wow. I would hope he would've stopped, but I doubt it.
[This message has been edited by blakeinspace (edited 06-03-2011).]
an acronym for something larger (Believes Rocketriders Are Dumb)? merely a software program like Cliff Pennock? a mythical being like a unicorn (or pegasus)?
Yea, and even with the disclaimer there is still people that take it out of context, or make it out to be "stupid".
I stand by everything I said, and still believe that since idiots are attracted to crotch rockets like metal to a magnet, and put others in harms way every time they put them on public roads. That the things should be outlawed, or at least regulated to keep the ignorant people away. A few classes, and a few more years of maturity go a long way.
Nobody has shown me anything to make me change my mind, just the same typical mindless hate I would expect from people who do not care about anyone other than themselves.
Carry on.
Brad
IP: Logged
09:52 PM
MidEngineManiac Member
Posts: 29566 From: Some unacceptable view Registered: Feb 2007
In this case, the cause (making an illegal pass) had the effect of royally pissing off an unstable person.
Lucky for him, he only got in the way of a couple weekend bike riders...........methinks the outcome woulda been a LOT different (as in a funeral) if he had crossed some other kind of riders. It would NOT have been cameras pulled or cops called..........and IMHO, they would have been justified.....tell ya straight, any pickup driver tries that to me when I am on a bike or horse, and it WILL be shots fired and 40 hits to the head with a tire iron....no excuses accepted.........try to murder me, and I'll try to murder you right fracking back. And I dont apologize for succeeding where ya failed..........
Like I said before, these crotch rockets should not be legal to begin with. A portion of the people that generally ride them seem to have little penis syndrome, and just work to piss people off. I think the helmet laws should be relaxed so they can thin the herd easier.
That's not very nice. I have a sportbike and I don't have "little penis syndrome". I enjoy riding sometimes and a cruiser bike doesn't work with my back problems (nor does the Fiero or my pickup for that matter). I do agree with the helmet comment though. Montana does not have a helmet law and like I tell my kids, "no helmet, no brain!"
IP: Logged
10:12 PM
Hank is Here Member
Posts: 4446 From: Hershey, Pa Registered: Sep 2000
I am chiming in a little late here... I ride and also have a pickup. IMHO all involved should have left in handcuffs.
To some extent I agree wit 2fat guys in the fact that bike should be limited; well to the same extent that cars should be limited. I do not mean on a type of bike or car but they should be limited on engine displacement. Let's have classes of licenses 599 cc and under 600 cc to 899 and 900 cc+.
IP: Logged
10:15 PM
PFF
System Bot
MidEngineManiac Member
Posts: 29566 From: Some unacceptable view Registered: Feb 2007
Ohhhh...Brad,...buddy...about crotch rockets and little penis syndrome ..
Yahmaha YJ1200...same era as our Fiero's...try one at WOT.....YES, it is fast enough, it is scarry enough, that ya DO get a little dick...its been tucked up thru yer inards and is that lump ya feel in yer throught...........
next best thing to actually pulling back on the stick and rotating.............
IP: Logged
10:22 PM
Xyster Member
Posts: 1444 From: Great Falls MT Registered: Apr 2011
I am chiming in a little late here... I ride and also have a pickup. IMHO all involved should have left in handcuffs.
To some extent I agree wit 2fat guys in the fact that bike should be limited; well to the same extent that cars should be limited. I do not mean on a type of bike or car but they should be limited on engine displacement. Let's have classes of licenses 599 cc and under 600 cc to 899 and 900 cc+.
This is the most logical thing I have heard today.
IP: Logged
10:22 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
This is the land of the free. Everyone is free to be stupid.
When that breaks the law, it is the law & courts that should handle it. It's how the system was designed. It keeps idiots & powertrippers from handing out what they think justice is.
IP: Logged
10:30 PM
MidEngineManiac Member
Posts: 29566 From: Some unacceptable view Registered: Feb 2007
Ohhhh...Brad,...buddy...about crotch rockets and little penis syndrome ..
Yahmaha YJ1200...same era as our Fiero's...try one at WOT.....YES, it is fast enough, it is scarry enough, that ya DO get a little dick...its been tucked up thru yer inards and is that lump ya feel in yer throught...........
next best thing to actually pulling back on the stick and rotating.............
Them old Yahama's will flat out FLY. I got the honor to ride a old 2 stroke......holy crap, that thing moved. I still want to ride a turbo busa to say I have ridden a turbo busa. You need balls of titanium to ride that SOB. Look up turbo busa on youtube.
IP: Logged
10:55 PM
Xyster Member
Posts: 1444 From: Great Falls MT Registered: Apr 2011
Them old Yahama's will flat out FLY. I got the honor to ride a old 2 stroke......holy crap, that thing moved. I still want to ride a turbo busa to say I have ridden a turbo busa. You need balls of titanium to ride that SOB. Look up turbo busa on youtube.
This isn't helping.
IP: Logged
11:07 PM
87antuzzi Member
Posts: 11151 From: Surrounded by corn. Registered: Feb 2009
My apologies. You didn't specify track. That makes you a responsible rider. Thank you.
Honestly, i have done some stupid crap on a bike and look back and go WTF. Ive calmed down you can say. However if im in the middle of Kansas on a open road im gonna play if no one is around . Im not quite old man biker that likes to see the county side but im not the dude in flip flops doing a 100 though town.
