0
Good post on the FLA case.
The FLA case hinges on whether its was a pursuit and if the biker knew he was being pursued..........
In the FLA case the tire no doubt caused that crash. So is the tire manufacturer being sued, or the maintenace dept at the SP barricks?
Or the screw manufacturer that punctured the tire a week ago?
In the NY case, its hard to determine, other than a speeding SUV isn't too safe to drive.
The FLA guy is documented in using the radio. The NY guy do the same?
There's a story (forum) I read where a Canadian guy was going 100 or so on his bike on the Rt 6 Mid-Cape.
The officer radioed ahead and they road blocked him further up.
The biker had NO CLUE he was the subject of the blockade, he thought it was a sobriety check point or similar.
You can't run from what you don't know about....
I suspect this will be debated.
and if you consider "high velocity" running....................
Then every 80 MPH ticket in a 50 - 65 MPH zone where the officer sees you pass him/her; "would be considered running."
I don't. I think the FLA case states that the public are fed up with squids and allowed these charges to be leveled starting a precedence that has no boundaries.
My problem is that when LEO "HIDES" as part of their traffic enforcement; behind objects, in the woods etc., the reasonable expectation that a driver EVEN paying attention would know they were being "pursued" is gone................
Since I have no idea in the NY case, I can't comment on it.
I present this scenerio:
You "speed" down the interstate, pick any speed. The LEO can't get you for whatever reason. (traffic stop, in getting gas, car stalled) but he is able to reasonably ID the vehicle and a search leads him to your home a day later..........
BANG you're charged with running IMHO as the FLA case example is set.
Not too cool huh?
Its time to take take responsibility for one's actions.
Not "you made me do it............."
Preservation of life should include your own...............
And the FLA case sets a BAD precedence IMHO.
-Suf Daddy