Who remembers the "attacked on a motorcycle" thread? I almost had to play it out - Page 5

Who remembers the "attacked on a motorcycle" thread? I almost had to play it out

This is a discussion on Who remembers the "attacked on a motorcycle" thread? I almost had to play it out within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Super Trucker Notice the "but I needed" line. Nobody but you needed light. You also intentionally lit the guys mirror, That not ...

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 71 of 71
  1. #61
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Trucker View Post
    Notice the "but I needed" line. Nobody but you needed light.
    You also intentionally lit the guys mirror, That not only was illegal but makes you a bit rude. You copy your exact story from the original post and ask a cop in your state and see what he says. YOU WERE WRONG.
    Incorrect - I did not intentionally light his mirror, I was attempting to see down the road so that I could pass him and get away from him (as I clearly stated in the very section you quoted), as he had already started behaving badly and brake-checking me. Unfortunately, and not by design, this lit up his side mirror. As soon as I realized that it did, I went back to lows. It was a mistake that I quickly corrected.

    His headlights were not up to the task of illuminating the road and shoulders ahead anywhere near what I would consider sufficient, thus forcing me to either use my own lighting or pass him blind. When I realized how far he was escalating the situation, the blind pass became the lower risk as opposed to stopping to chat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Trucker View Post
    Wrong again, if you have inferior equipment it is not the other road users fault. Install driving lamps on the bike, they will light up the sides of the road and not piss any body off. (if your low beams were adj properly that may also help)
    Low beam headlights are not designed to be the sole source of light on the road. They are primarily markers the allow other drivers to see you, and while they do provide illumination, they are designed to be used in conjuction with street lights and other ambient lighting, none of which existed in this case.

    If I were to adjust my lows to throw light far enough down the road to act as the only source of illumination on a pitch black road, they would turn into another set of brights. In fact, my bike uses exactly the same bulb and housing for both high and low beams. Only the aiming is different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Trucker View Post
    That is sure nice of you. Everybody else should make adj to their life because Bob thinks he is more important. Wow

    And you were wrong. Use the broncos lights if you are that scared of road side problems.
    Well, dimming a mirror sure is a better option than running someone off the road - at least for a rational driver.

    Speaking of inferior equipment - the bronco's lights were not exactly turning night into day - far from it. Why should I be reliant on another driver's lights as I close, especially when those lights do absolutely nothing to illuminate the road behind his vehicle, where I am?

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Trucker View Post
    Yes it is illegal, you did not "over take" you followed, even while over taking it is still illegal to have the brights on within a certain distance of another vehicle.
    This is straight from the LA statute that Joe R posted (thanks again Joe).

    Whenever the driver of a vehicle follows another vehicle within 200 feet to the rear, except when engaged in the act of overtaking or passing, such driver shall use a distribution of light permissible under this Chapter other than the uppermost distribution of light specified in R.S. 32:321(1).
    When I aborted my over-taking and began following, I dimmed my lights. It was out of courtesy, but it also happened to be exactly what the law requires.

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Trucker View Post
    I am done with this topic, you were wrong yet you insist on blaming others for your problems. It has been pointed out by more than one person but yet your opinion of yourself seems to out weigh the law.
    I'm sorry we disagree on this. The only thing I'm blaming on the other driver is his own actions. I had sound reasons for the decisions I made, and believe it or not, driver courtesy was part of those decisions.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?


  2. #62
    Senior Member Array Juggernaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    569
    Low beams are only designed to be used at speeds below 25 mph. If I rode my bike on the road with only lows, I would be putting myself and other motorists in danger because of the differential in speed. I can't believe anyone could blame Bob for causing the situation, especially in light of the statute.
    Check page 31:
    http://www.dmvnow.com/webdoc/pdf/manual/manual.pdf
    Vis consili expers mole ruit sua.
    -Horace

  3. #63
    Ex Member Array Joe R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by Juggernaut View Post
    Low beams are only designed to be used at speeds below 25 mph. If I rode my bike on the road with only lows, I would be putting myself and other motorists in danger because of the differential in speed. I can't believe anyone could blame Bob for causing the situation, especially in light of the statute.
    Check page 31:
    http://www.dmvnow.com/webdoc/pdf/manual/manual.pdf

    I'd brake check you too.

    Provide evidence that substantiates your claim regarding low beams.

    From your own link:
    When following, use low
    beams whenever you are within 200 feet of
    the vehicle ahead.
    Last edited by Team American; December 1st, 2007 at 05:33 PM. Reason: Remove personal attack...

  4. #64
    Senior Member Array Herknav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Waypoint 0
    Posts
    986
    I still don't buy the safety spiel. If you don't feel safe, slow down.

    As Bob stated, he was 20' (or less) behind a guy doing 45 mph. It's not like an animal was going to run between them. Bob didn't feel that he was following too closely, so if the Bronco hit something, Bob was still OK (in his estimation).

    Bottom line, it's a courtesy issue. It's kinda like finding the biggest guy in the bar and hitting on his girl. It may not be illegal, but it's not nice. If the "big guy" overreacts, you're still getting a beating. Was it worth it to be "not illegal" as opposed to "courteous?" That's all I'm sayin'.

  5. #65
    Senior Member Array Juggernaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    569
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe R View Post

    I'd brake check you too.

    Provide evidence that substantiates your claim regarding low beams.

    From your own link:
    So doing 30 in a 65 zone is safe? THAT is the speed differential to which I referred.
    Vis consili expers mole ruit sua.
    -Horace

  6. #66
    VIP Member
    Array Team American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,826
    Personal attacks won't be tolerated on this thread...let's keep it clean or the padlock comes out...
    "I surrounded 'em"- Alvin York

    "They're ain't many troubles that a man can't fix with seven hundred dollars and a thirty ought six"- Jeff Cooper

  7. #67
    Ex Member Array Joe R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by Juggernaut View Post
    So doing 30 in a 65 zone is safe? THAT is the speed differential to which I referred.
    Depending on conditions it might be safe. And it is also LEGAL at all times, unlike your indiscriminate use of headlamps. And while you might not be speeding in that situation, YOU as the overtaking vehicle are ALWAYS responsible for avoiding a collision.

    You might want to be more courteous on the road. You are very vulnerable and exposed..........

  8. #68
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Herknav View Post
    I still don't buy the safety spiel. If you don't feel safe, slow down.

    As Bob stated, he was 20' (or less) behind a guy doing 45 mph. It's not like an animal was going to run between them. Bob didn't feel that he was following too closely, so if the Bronco hit something, Bob was still OK (in his estimation).

    Bottom line, it's a courtesy issue. It's kinda like finding the biggest guy in the bar and hitting on his girl. It may not be illegal, but it's not nice. If the "big guy" overreacts, you're still getting a beating. Was it worth it to be "not illegal" as opposed to "courteous?" That's all I'm sayin'.
    More like 20' or more, and that's the point at which I switched to lows. As I was closing the distance, an animal most certainly could have darted between us.

    I agree, it's courtesy, but it's also safety.

    Juggernaut - Can you point out your 25mph guideline? I didn't see it in your link. I trust my lows at much higher speeds than that, just not when they are the only source of light around me.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  9. #69
    Ex Member Array Joe R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    More like 20' or more, and that's the point at which I switched to lows.
    20 feet and you decide then to dim your headlamps.

    I cannot say what I think of you or I will get another warning.

  10. #70
    Senior Member Array jofrdo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Posts
    709
    How about we get back to a discussion of defensive handguns? I work at a NASA facility in Virginia and I carry every day. If I drive through the gate, I am required as a condition of employment to voluntarily submit to random vehicle searches (even though I would be selected without probable cause). I would be charged with a Federal crime if my gun were discovered during the search, despite my having a carry permit. I choose to park outside the security fence where I keep a bicycle locked up overnight. I leave the gun concealed in the car, outside the fence, and pedal through the gate and to my office. Problem solved. So far, my bike has not been searched.

  11. #71
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by jofrdo View Post
    How about we get back to a discussion of defensive handguns?
    I think that's an excellant idea.

    I've been trying to engineer something similar to what you do. One of the hurdles is that my facility is in the middle of nowhere, so I would be parking almost literally on the side of the road. I'm still trying to decide how I feel about that. The second hurdle is that it's much more difficult to adaquately conceal and secure a handgun on a motorcycle. I'm working on that one too, but I'll probably end up building a custom hidden compartment. Of course, this whole problem could dissolve as my contractor is considerably miffed at NASA facilities and wants to move us off-site. I'd go for that in a heart-beat.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. UGLY: Marine, wife attacked by teens after showing of "Little Fockers"
    By ExSoldier in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: January 7th, 2011, 07:58 PM
  2. Man Attacked by Witchcraft Opens Fire on Neighbor's "Voodoo" House in Self-Defense
    By LanceORYGUN in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: October 26th, 2010, 10:15 PM
  3. Johnny Depp to play Mad Hatter in "Alice In Wonderland"
    By ccw9mm in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 5th, 2009, 10:48 PM
  4. Time for a "Bad' Play on Words..."Potato"
    By RETSUPT99 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: January 1st, 2008, 07:32 PM
  5. Parents, make sure your kids don't play this "game"
    By buckeye .45 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: February 5th, 2007, 12:06 PM

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors