Discrimination alive and well in NY

[CrazyDave]

Originally Posted by adlowe

You miss the point that a FEDERAL appeals court endorsed it?

You certainly did! (Hint: Your tax dollars paid the salaries of the federal court employees who worked to approve the New York motorcyclist checks. So did mine.)

You did, too.

Maybe. But I've just got to ask: What country do you think you're living in?

BTW, discrimination (and profiling) is NOT illegal in America.

EXACTLY! You can even LEGALLY discriminate against members of protected classes provided you are not discriminating based on said membership. (e.g. You can discriminate against a disabled person who holds a degree from the University of Michigan if your discrimination is based on the institution that granted the degree rather than the disability.)

Civics lesson: House bills are NOT laws. Senate bills are NOT laws. In order to become law, the bill must be approved by both the House and the Senate then signed by the President. (If the president refuses to sign, there is a provision for over-riding his decision and making it a law.)

Yup. Almost. Change "we" to "they" and you've got it.

Make it a class action lawsuit. I'll sign on. Bet we can get a lot more folks to join us. We'll be rich! (But only if the lawyers don't take too much.)

No need for the civic lesson.. just my bad for thinking it did pass.

[Hondaguy]

Did you ever think for those of you who enjoy rides to place like the Dragon where skill sets are questionable that it might be nice not to have unlicensed riders on those roads?

Now I don't go to those places because I want to be in control of my own destiny as much as possible. I can find quiet roads to ride if I liked twisty riding. I think there are more unlicensed riders without insurance than unlicenced drivers.They are not only a danger to themselves but to all of us on many levels. I realize many could probably outride me. But it only takes one wide sweeper to ruin a good day for a group of friends riding together.

We don't have any vehicle inspections here at all. So maybe checkpoints would be a good thing Sporadic checks for safety and properly licensed and insured riders now and then.
For those with mandatory inspections I see not need for safety checkpoints unless its for DUI and ALL vehicles should be stopped.

[CrazyDave]

Originally Posted by Hondaguy

Did you ever think for those of you who enjoy rides to place like the Dragon where skill sets are questionable that it might be nice not to have unlicensed riders on those roads?

Now I don't go to those places because I want to be in control of my own destiny as much as possible. I can find quiet roads to ride if I liked twisty riding. I think there are more unlicensed riders without insurance than unlicenced drivers.They are not only a danger to themselves but to all of us on many levels. I realize many could probably outride me. But it only takes one wide sweeper to ruin a good day for a group of friends riding together.

We don't have any vehicle inspections here at all. So maybe checkpoints would be a good thing Sporadic checks for safety and properly licensed and insured riders now and then.
For those with mandatory inspections I see not need for safety checkpoints unless its for DUI and ALL vehicles should be stopped.

Sorry.. check points are just police state tactic in actions in essence the same thing as showing ones papers in say Russia whenever someone speaks of safety, what they are really saying is control.. as in I like the government controlling us.. I like the government randomly stopping me to see if I am doing something illegal or not.. I like it because I don't like being free, I like it because I enjoy being assumed guilty, I like it because I like being controlled..you may.. I don't

[Hondaguy]

Originally Posted by CrazyDave

Sorry.. check points are just police state tactic in actions in essence the same thing as showing ones papers in say Russia whenever someone speaks of safety, what they are really saying is control.. as in I like the government controlling us.. I like the government randomly stopping me to see if I am doing something illegal or not.. I like it because I don't like being free, I like it because I enjoy being assumed guilty, I like it because I like being controlled..you may.. I don't

We view the same thing from different viewpoints. I believe I may be saving a life by giving a little of my time. I joined the service with the same thought where we did not have the benefit of Constitutional rights and were controlled down to the clothing we wore.

Sometimes giving up a little freedom for the benefit of another's safety is not such an "ominous" thing.

[adlowe]

Originally Posted by Hondaguy

Did you ever think for those of you who enjoy rides to place like the Dragon where skill sets are questionable that it might be nice not to have unlicensed riders on those roads?

Yes. Often. But motorcycle-only checkpoints are probably the least effective way to accomplish that. (See below.)

I'd also like to see semis kept off those roads. The Dragon in particular seems to attract many more than it should. Should we set up roadblocks and check the GPS routes that truck drivers are using?

No. Much as I tend to disagree with CrazyDave, he's making excellent points about government intrusion. Like this: Texas Student Loses Appeal Against RFID Tag
Talk about slippery slopes!


Unlicensed, uninsured motorcyclists? Let's see,
o The state licenses the drivers and knows whether or not they've got a CY endorsement.
o The state titles the motorcycles.
o The state registers the motorcycles. Don't most of them put the owner's DL number on the bike's registration certificate?
o The state identifies the minimum insurance requirements. Don't they require proof of compliance before issuing the plates or tabs?
Checkpoints? Wouldn't it cost far, far less to put in a little computer programming to identify the registered owners without a CY endorsement then send a state trooper over to investigate? And be more effective?

But that doesn't work for riders from out-of-state. If every state did it, though...

[CrazyDave]

Originally Posted by adlowe

No. Much as I tend to disagree with CrazyDave, he's making excellent points about government intrusion. Like this: Texas Student Loses Appeal Against RFID Tag
Talk about slippery slopes!

Don't tell me ,after agreeing with me you feel both a little dirty and yet somehow excited at the same time.. it only feels dirty the first couple of times.. you'll get used to it

[adlowe]

Originally Posted by CrazyDave

Don't tell me ,after agreeing with me you feel both a little dirty and yet somehow excited at the same time.. it only feels dirty the first couple of times.. you'll get used to it

Hey, I NEVER said I agreed. I just said you're making excellent points. (And I didn't even throw in "even though he's wrong". )

[CrazyDave]

Originally Posted by adlowe

Hey, I NEVER said I agreed. I just said you're making excellent points. (And I didn't even throw in "even though he's wrong". )

Ah come on you alluded to it.. you know you did..and you liked it

[Hondaguy]

Originally Posted by adlowe

Yes. Often. But motorcycle-only checkpoints are probably the least effective way to accomplish that. (See below.)

I'd also like to see semis kept off those roads. The Dragon in particular seems to attract many more than it should. Should we set up roadblocks and check the GPS routes that truck drivers are using?

I did not know it was illegal for trucks to be on that road...or that they are required to even use GPS routing?


No. Much as I tend to disagree with CrazyDave, he's making excellent points about government intrusion. Like this: Texas Student Loses Appeal Against RFID Tag
Talk about slippery slopes!

That RFID thing is something the school requires in order to attend, she has a choice not to go to that particular school. Which in my opinion negates any final authoritative meandering. If she views it as a religious intrusion and "mark of the beast" she SHOULD RUN from that school. Not try to change it. The "devil cannot be changed" LOL


Unlicensed, uninsured motorcyclists? Let's see,
o The state licenses the drivers and knows whether or not they've got a CY endorsement. But not insurance
o The state titles the motorcycles.
o The state registers the motorcycles. Don't most of them put the owner's DL number on the bike's registration certificate? Never heard of that,
o The state identifies the minimum insurance requirements. Don't they require proof of compliance before issuing the plates or tabs? Not here they don't

I think sometimes we over react to inconvenience. If there was a checkpoint a couple years ago the drunk who hit my wife would have been off the road and if it would have been me I would not be here. I support DUI check points. I wish they put them outside every bar at closing.

I support MC checkpoints for insurance and licensing since I have to pay $270 of my insurance premium for those who don't bother to buy it or worse don't bother to get licenced and there are a lot of both..

On the other hand I am vehemently against annual mandatory vehicle inspections and enjoy not having to deal with that intrusion. I have been stopped at a check point once in the 6 years I have been here. Far less time being inspected than most who suffer through a State mandated "vehicle inspection" every year and don't blink an eye

[adlowe]

Originally Posted by Hondaguy

I think sometimes we over react to inconvenience. If there was a checkpoint a couple years ago the drunk who hit my wife would have been off the road and if it would have been me I would not be here. I support DUI check points. I wish they put them outside every bar at closing.

First off, it is not illegal for semis to drive on The Dragon. It's just stupid -- most can't make the turns without blocking the road in both directions, something that is illegal. Many can't even make the turns when they do that. It is one of the huge dangers on that road. And no, truckers are not required to use GPS but the ones who end up stuck on The Dragon all seem to have been routed there by GPS.

As for checkpoints, like you I have no real problem with them as a tool of law enforcement. They do, IMO, violate civil liberties but can provide sufficient public benefit to make them acceptable. Targeting specific groups -- and doing so exclusively -- is where my objection arises. Claiming to do it to "protect" members of that group from their own stupid decisions (drunk drivers excluded*) irritates me beyond words. Gaining the endorsement of incapable (but certainly "qualified") judges by citing spurious proof makes it worse. But that's the world we live in today.



* Drunk drivers: Last time I checked, drunk drivers were involved in about 10% of all accidents and close to 50% of fatal accidents. More could be done to prevent fatal accidents by getting drunks off the road than will ever be practical by filling vehicles with safety equipment and forcing all of us to pay for it.

And while I've got the soapbox out: Preventing fatal accidents does NOT prevent deaths. Not a single one. Preventing those accidents only affects the timing. And doctors do not "save" lives. Everyone dies. So far, anyway.