marauder@fluke.UUCP (Bill Landsborough) (10/01/86)
In article <865@wang.UUCP> lee@wang.UUCP (Lee Story x77155 ms 1989) I commute about 70% >by Honda VT500, 30% by Toyota, and a year or two ago was stopped three days >in a row for absent-mindedly letting the Camry glide down the long, >gradual hill at 65 to 70 (probably 0.1 MPH faster than the average >traffic?). I've NEVER been stopped while on a motorcycle in about 14000 >miles of riding, and have often wondered why. Do the State Police want to >avoid possible high-speed chases? Do bikes fail to show up clearly on >their radar? Are there other less obscure reasons? > Lee Story @ Wang Labs My experience with motorcycles and speeding tickets has been very interesting. I have always had fast bikes, which look fast also. (GPZ 1100 Kawasaki's) And they have been magnets for police especially in California. I read an article in one of the bike magazines that if you carry a lunch pail on your unwashed "commute-to-work" bike, your chances of getting tickets is reduced by 200% or so just because you are no longer portraying a displaced canyon racer looking for a race, but just a regular guy going and coming from work. I have found that it works although I must admit that I have trouble going out for a ride with my lunch pail strapped on the seat! :-) As far as State Police wanting to avoid a chase, I know that is the rule with them. Picture this scene: A fast rider on a high performance bike goes by a cop on a windy road. The cop being a old motorcycle racer himself, turns his siren and lights on and takes off after the rider from about 1/4 mile back. The rider looks and says I can smoke him cause he doesn't have my licence number yet! So he gasses it and the chase is on. At any other time, the rider under no duress, could easily outrun the police car. But now he is very excited and scared and trys to go 10% faster than he has ever gone before. So he goes into turns at 95 instead of his normal, pretested, 85 because this is "the real thing so I have to go faster than I ever have". The result is obvious. He packes it into a tree or oncoming traffic and the cop gets to clean up the mess and write a billion reports why he pushed this 19 year old saint into a chase. His superior points out that if he had not given chase, or if he had slowly caught up to the rider without lights and siren, gotten his licence number and then slowly pulled him over, that the kid would have been alive today. The bottom line is that cops will almost always avoid going after a fast motorcycle just for that reason. The rider is better off getting away with speeding, than being dead. And if the rider has composure the cop is not going to catch him anyway. BY THE WAY!!! I am not encouraging riders to try to outrun police!! I have never beaten radio waves yet. And neither will you! Bill Landsborough --- "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless." James 1:26
struve@calma.UUCP (10/04/86)
I had one of the first 750 Interceptors around the Bay Area, in April 1983. The first time I rode it to work, I was pulled over by a Highway Patrolman on a motorcycle, who proceeded to look the bike over and ask me lots of questions. As I recall, he was particularly intrigued by the then novel 16" front wheel. When he was done with the tech inspection, he wrote up a ticket for 65 in a 55. I had been riding safely with the flow of traffic; it was clear to me that he thought an Interceptor was more fun to pull over than a Chevette. Eight days before I had been ticketed by another bike cop, when I was on my CB 900. THAT ticket was my first in 5 years. Two years ago, another ticket on my 900. 5 months ago, a verbal warning on my BMW. NO car tickets since 1978. Bottom line: in my opinion they pick on bikes, and it doesn't matter if they're on a bike or in a car.
davep@hpfcpp.HP.COM ( Dave Post) (10/14/86)
It seems that police attitudes differ in different places. A couple years ago, in Denver, a police car chased a motorcyclist who then broadsided a small car. A passenger died. At the scene an officer was quoted as saying something like ( paraphrased ) " Don't worry. We got him." to the injured driver. An investigation resulted, but I believe the conclusion was something like: The police reputation is more important than the quality of life of innocent victims. ( My interpretation, of course. ) It is not unusual to read in The Denver Post of a police chase ( of car or motorcycle, I do not think there is much discrimination ) ending by involving innocent victims. This attitude seems to prevail in Loveland, CO also. This past week an apparently intoxicated motorcyclist tried to evade police and was seriously injured. Several years ago it was reported that the police even tried to run a motorcyclist off the road by colliding with the bike. You WILL be pursued in Denver and Loveland and it does not matter about circumstances. This attitude seems too ruthless to me, but I could have been influenced by the newspaper reporting. As it stands, I can not tell much difference between reckless driving by citizens and pursuit driving by police. Dave Post Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO hplabs!hpfcla!post
car377@drutx.UUCP (RogersCA) (10/27/86)
> > It seems that police attitudes differ in different places. > > ... but I believe the conclusion was something like: The police reputation > is more important than the quality of life of innocent victims. ( My > interpretation, of course. ) It is not unusual to read in The Denver Post > of a police chase (of car or motorcycle, I do not think there is much > discrimination ) ending by involving innocent victims. > .... > I can not tell much difference between reckless driving by citizens and > pursuit driving by police. > > Dave Post Ah, what a novel concept! We can make it a new public referendum on the upcoming ballot, say proposition 5: "Law enforcement officers are absolutely prohibited from attempting to apprehend any crime suspect eluding arrest if that suspect is utilizing a motor vehicle in order to avoid capture." We can solve many problems with this one, e.g., prison overcrowding, higher taxes used for purchase of special police cars, etc. We would even need less police officers, since all criminals would be sure to have transportation handy, and officers would not be needed to chase them. I think you are confused. The police are required to enforce the law and apprehend lawbreakers, and must balance the safety of immediate innocent bystanders against the safety of other innocent bystanders who are endangered if the pursuee escapes. Furthermore, police who are pursuing suspects may not know the extent to which the pursuee is otherwise dangerous to the public, and must assume the worst in such cases. How convenient that you can discard the complexity of such decisions and claim that these officers act purely from ego-gratification! Everyone has an opinion, and others in the Denver area probably feel as you do, but the skewed logic which blames the pursuit officer and NOT the criminal for endangering the safety of innocent bystanders is just a little too weird for me to fathom. Chuck Rogers @ ATT-ISL, Denver