Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Perfect Line and Other Riding Myths' started by Snivly Dweeb, Oct 15, 2013.
You ride a goddam KLR. The only law you CAN break is littering when you park it.
WE ARE:huh the public , the assets are ALL of ours. The government is supposed to be US. Public assets certainly aren't theirs.
It pains me to no end, but, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
And I think you make sense every now and then too. Mostly today.
No, public assets are the peoples collectively, administered by our elected officials and who they appoint.
The simple fact that something is public property, doesn't guarantee that it may be used or accessed individually, be it a piece of asphalt or military hardware.
Military hardware I can understand , but you're merely making excuses for our bureauocratic government.
Your use of the term "contracts" regarding this issue and the alternate meanings of simple words is right out of the sovereign citizen handbook. You made reference in another post referring to their agenda as "that crap", so it seems strange to me you are in tune with their views on this issue.
The verbiage used in the statutes is very simple non-legalese language and means nothing more or less than it says.
These are the applicable definitions
These two definitions cover anyone issued a regular Texas driver's license, a temporary, instructional, or occupational license (which is referred to as a hardship license in most other states), anyone who is not licensed, and anyone granted authorization to drive because they are a non-resident and have a driver's license from their home state. In short, anyone and everyone who might be found driving a vehicle.
These statutes require a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle on a highway, require the license to be exhibited on demand, and provide the penalty for failure to do so.
These are the only Texas residents exempted from the requirement to hold a Texas driver's license when operating a motor vehicle.
Anyone other than those listed in Sections 1 or 2 above are clearly required to have, and exhibit on demand, a driver's license appropriate for the vehicle they are operating. The penalties for failure to comply are clearly spelled out.
It is all spelled out in plain language. Whether or not you choose to believe the words mean something other than what they do is up to you. Either way, I wish you well and I'm done with this.
I found some of the footage:
<object height="322" width="480">
<embed src="http://www.cbc.ca/video/swf/UberPlayer.swf?state=sharevideo&clipId=2412229517&width=480&height=322" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="322" width="480"></object>
I'm not looking to be told what to do, and I'm not trying to create government jobs, but I do prefer that our assets and well being are protected from the needless abuse of selfish, thoughtless, and ignorant people.
In a way YOU'RE being selfish , thoughtless and ignorant. We're BOTH right to some extent.
So, you can't find a statute with a punishment clause regarding driving without a license either, right?
Just for fun go look at all the statutes which do have punishment clauses.
Driving on Expired Driver's License
Driving on Suspended Driver's License
Driving on Revoked Driver's License
There may be more. I don't remember.
They all pertain only to persons who have made application for, and have been issued a Driver's License.
It is clear and well documented what the punishments are for each.
Where, oh where is the punishment for no driver's license?
Still no winners. Thank you for playing.
For extra points find the statute with a punishment clause for speeding.
Is it thoughtless to want our representatives to manage our public assets in a way that serves the greatest good for the most people?
Is it ignorant to support our republic where everyone's wants and needs are considered, rather than the majority rules of a democracy, or the anarchy of jungle law?
Is it selfish to accept that I can't always have everything my way?
I'm pretty sure that fining someone that risks their life is as illogical as I have ever seen an argument. If someone chooses to "drive recklessly" (or I guess in a way where they increase their risk of serious injury through behavior), then a monetary fine will not change that decision. The only thing a law does is increase the number of criminals. It won't deter anyone. It's ineffective. Let them learn their lesson. If they hit a wall, well, they hit a wall. It's a win win. If they make it, well some day, they will be your age and look back and realize how risky of a decision that was.
You are taking someone who has not committed a violent crime, and are initiating violence against them in order to make them pay you. That is the bottom line. It does not change behavior, it does not help them, it does not help you. It helps the government entity that is holding the gun to their head and forcing them to pay.
Two guys on motorcycles, speeding, are not a risk to anyone but themselves. You can't arrest someone because they might kill someone else. They have to first hurt somebody before you can take away their rights. Besides, speed limits are generally set too low, and the laws that govern the roads don't necessarily reflect safety.
But what if they pop a wheelie? or a stoppie? That's even scarier!
So a person is drunk and gets into a truck, according to you there's no risk until he actually hits someone.
Look, I like wheelies more than most, but if you don't think a 400# piece of metal going 100 miles an hour is a threat or danger to the public I seriously question your understanding of physics.
Well there are plenty of (mostly 3rd world) countries in the world, where you can easily see, how that actually works.
I´ve ridden in over 50 countries in my life, and by far the most pleasant riding experiences (traffic-wise) for me have been the ´western´ countries, like Europe, US, and Australia, where people generally obey the rules. Other places may have been even greater experiences in other ways, but traffic in those countries could more or less always be described as poor to downright horrible, and it has also been by far the biggest risk to get into any serious trouble on my travels.
Some people will never understand, what good could possibly come out of it, when traffic laws are ´too tight´ in their opinion. But I suggest you go check it out, how the ´really relaxed´ traffic laws work in reality.
Or maybe what you actually mean is, that YOU should have different rules to everyone else? In that case nothing but growing up a little will help.
(Just my 0.02.)
Bullshit, are you high? :huh
When you operate a motorcycle at speeds of more than double the posted highway speed (in this case, in Canada, not fucking Texas (?!?), that's 200km/h), and you lose it and hit a car, you're dead, and other people might be dead.
Keep it off the streets where my wife and kid drive. Take it to the track. Your argument against public safety sucks.
I find it truly disgusting that so many are willing to lay down and submit w/o question. The gub'ment has so many bullied into submission there's no wonder crime and stupidity are rampant. Enjoy comrades. :huh Fear is a powerful tool.
Your statement is contradictory. So are you and others here advocating that we here in the US do away with all traffic laws? Or all traffic laws for motorcycles? Or just the one's that you disagree with or "question"? I agree with you, crime & stupidity are rampant, so what is your answer this problem?
Somewhere on ADV someone posted a copulation of motorcycle crashes/accidents that is an hour an a half long. I watched the whole thing and besides the unsurpassed stupidity of some of the riders/drivers, the thing that most amazed me was the way people drive in other countries that obviously have no or very little traffic laws....open gates of hell with utter chaos.
Y'all are right, most of the time only motorcycle riders suffer injuries. But, excessive motorcycle speed has killed many pedestrians and cage drivers in the past and will continue to do so...I have see the aftermath many times with my own eyes. Here is just one of many that you can find with googlefingers:
I can say this, I don't want to live in a country that has no traffic laws.
The hypocrisy is strong with this one.