Colorado Springs to Denver in 20 minutes

Takes me a little longer.

Friend lived in El Paso. They said driving to Dallas was 6hrs. If you couldn’t do it you were wimp.

1 Like


How can they prove he was riding?
His video speed is not certified.
Hispeedometer is not certified. Doubthat any roadside cameras are.

HOV lanes do detect speed. - (When reviewing myiolation of ExpressToll™ entrance and exit lanes, the woman questioned their speedetection showing a muchigher speed.)
But our dashcam video agreed wither speeds.
However, none of it is certified.

I’ve driven that several times over the last few years. Never been passed by someone doing 110 mph.

The rider was charged with…

  • Menacing – placed another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury
  • Engaged in a speed contest
  • Reckless endangerment
  • Reckless driving
  • Speeding 40 mph over prima facie limit
  • Engaged in exhibition of speed
  • Vehicle had no number plates attached

His phone, his YouTube video…
Certification wouldn’t even be an issue if I was on that jury as all the measuring devices showed he was WELL in excess of 120 mph…

If I was a juror on the case and being an engineer, I’d have NO problem with the facts meeting “beyond a reasonable doubt” for most of those charges.

1 Like

Correct. Theyvere 120.

If you have a video of someone engaged in reckless driving the police won’t do anything because “An officer needs to witness it in person”.

If you post it online and becomes popular, they find the person and charge them with 6 crimes, half of which they didn’t even do (at least not more than most of the other reckless drivers do on a daily basis).

Likely will not be arrested. Texas will not arrest for out-of-state misdemeanor.

We getting a black and white justice system where people either aren’t charged for crimes despite sufficient evidence, or they are charged well beyond what they should be based on what they did. The plea bargain system isn’t helping things either.

This happens on a daily basis with the way people drive. Forget it. How a person feels has no value the way I see it. Having a car go past you in the other lane with a combined speed of 120 MPH may not feel dangerous, but if they come in to your lane and hit you everybody in both vehicles is most likely dead.

Nope. There was nobody else racing him.

Yes, but it is a motorcycle, so it’s not nearly as dangerous as a car going 150. It’s just feels dangerous to people because they’re not used to it.

Absolutely. Once unexpected lane change and it’s over.


Yes, due to his Internet followers.

I’ll take their word for it.

1 Like

As usual you are missing many of salient points.

How you see it matters not. It is how the law sees it.

The speed contest was reaching the destination in the shortest time possible. Easy case to make.

Reckless endangerment. Explain how 170 mph is not reckless when the surgeon is removing the rider’s jawbone from your shoulder after he T bones you and passes through the door shredding his helmet and skull.

But there are enough charges to lock this dimwit up for quite a while.

As a prosecuter once told me, you layer the charges as heavy as possible to let the judge determine the entirety of the crime and sentence accordinly.

“Gixxer Brah” in custody in Texas

Neither, this is about how the police see it. The police are there to enforce the law, not make their own rules based on how they feel about things.

You’re okay with being locked up for a while waiting for a judge to figure things out because the police think you might have committed a crime? I doubt you would have this opinion if it was you. How about if a Mustang the same colors as yours was involved in a robbery, so they should just arrest you for a while until a judge decides what to do with you.

I don’t believe that how a speed contest is defined. If it was, cutting through private property to get somewhere faster would be a speed contest. You could be right, but it is the speed that he was going on the road, not reaching a destination in a certain amount of time. Reaching a destination is what travel is, and travel is what the roads are to be used for.

It an accident a motorcycle is much less likely to kill someone in a car than another car is. Even at this speed, the only reliable way to kill someone in a car is if the motorcycle hit one of the doors in the side. A car going 70 MPH will do that too.

Sure all this is dangerous, it’s just not as dangerous as people think compared to all the dangerously operated trucks and SUVs out there every day.

A car with worn out rear tires can hydroplane in the rain and hit oncoming traffic and kill everyone. This happens all the time and it’s probably more dangerous than what the motorcycle was doing. But nobody is even being given a ticket for this. We’ve had 6 deaths from this in the last few years just around my area.

In this case the danger would be hitting a car from behing and causing it to lose control. This already happens on a daily bases when cars merge in to traffic off of exit ramps.

170 mph on a motorcycle is LESS DANGEROUS than truck and SUV operations?

Somebody is “Coo coo for Cocoa Puffs”…

1 Like

In an accident, sure. Of course the motorcycle is many many times more likely to cause an accident with his reckless operation. Get hit head on by the motorcycle with him going 170, you’ll probably have some minor injuriess, I think anyway may not as high as 170 though. Get hit by an SUV at 60? Everyone in your car is dead.

The energy is the square of the speed, so I could be mistaken when I say head on. A 500 pound bike at 160 is like a 2000 pound bike at 80 and is like an 8000 pound bike at 40. This is a lot of energy. I’m not sure what would happen as there are a lot of variables.

A motorcycle going 170mph hits a car head on, the rider and helmet possibly are going through your windshield and if that helmet hits your face, it will be a closed casket funerial…

Wrong again. The police make the charge, the prosecutor accepts the charge, or not and a Grand Jury decides to indict or not.

That’s not how it works either. If I get hauled in the first step is a bail hearing and I could go home after or stay locked up. Then the pre-trail, then the trail and IF and ONLY IF I am found guilty does the judge get to determine how long I’ll stay locked up.

So reading comprehension is a thing for you, too?

The energy of a moving body is 1/2 mass times velocity squared. A 170 mph motorcycle has the energy of a large SUV going 55 mph and it is focused on a very small area compared to a 7 ft wide SUV. Physics, its not just a good idea, its the LAW!

I am convinced that I just do not have enough crayons to explain these things to you.

1 Like

You said it, that’s the point I am making. The motorcycle is much more likely to cause an accident due to reckless operation, just like a drunk driver in the SUV. So this should be treated the same as a drunk driver. Suspend the license of both.

If a motorcycle hits the side of the car, the small area of impact does this:


There’s no need to treat it like something else. There are specific laws regarding this type of unlawful behavior when operating a vehicle. This could easily rise to the level of a felony offense. Here’s a snip of the New Hampshire laws, certainly will be something similar for the area in question-

Reckless driving falls under “serious traffic offenses” in NH law. It’s RSA 265:79and states:

“Whoever upon any way drives a vehicle recklessly, or causes a vehicle to be driven recklessly, as defined in RSA 626:2, II(c), or so that the lives or safety of the public shall be endangered, or upon a bet, wager, or race, or who drives a vehicle for the purpose of making a record, and thereby violates any of the provisions of this title or any rules adopted by the director, shall be, notwithstanding the provisions of title LXII, guilty of a violation and fined not less than $500 for the first offense and $750 for the second offense nor more than $1,000 and his or her license shall be revoked for a period of 60 days for the first offense and from 60 days to one year for the second offense.”

RSA 626:2, II(c) states:

“’Recklessly.’ A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the circumstances known to him, its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of having voluntarily engaged in intoxication or hypnosis also acts recklessly with respect thereto.”