Saw The Weirdest Thing …

Print Friendly

Sunday evening, the wife and I went for a walk along the Blue Ridge Parkway. As we were leaving, a guy on a newish Harley rolled into the overlook parking lot. And dropped his bike. I got out to help him get it back up. That done, I got back in the car and we began to drive away.handi lead

Here’s where it gets Weird.

My wife noticed it first. Look! The guy has a handicapped plate.

On his bike.

Now, being a Libertarian, I’m opposed to this business of putting (scratch that; being forced to put – and pay for) “plates” on anyone’s bike, handicapped or not. They are the equivalent of those tags you see punched through the ears of cattle – and are hanging off the bumpers of “our” cars and bikes for exactly the same reason.

Free men don’t need plates on their cars anymore than free-ranging cattle have tags in their ears. Would either freely consent to such a thing?

Of course not.dropped bike pic

Anyhow. If a guy can manage to ride his bike with a wooden (or metal) prosthetic leg – or hell, no legs at all – it’s ok by me. Or rather, it is none of my business.

Some people have higher-order skills and are better even at 50 percent capacity than some people are at 100 percent. The “drunk driving” analogy is generally applicable. Take an excellent driver – someone with a great deal of natural skill and perhaps some high-level training – and have him drink three or four beers. Even “impaired” – as defined by the law  – he’s still a better driver than most people are completely sober.

This is an unassailable fact that is routinely assailed. Or rather, dismissed out of hand.

If one is nabbed in a “sobriety checkpoint” – which does not test one’s ability to drive or ride but only tests whether one has “x” arbitrary percentage of alcohol in one’s bloodstream (according to a notoriously inaccurate test) – one gets caged and charged with a heavy offense. In court, it’s no defense to demand proof that one’s driving/riding was wobbly. Indeed, even if the arresting cop agrees that one’s driving/riding was absolutely faultless, it is considered (by the law) an irrelevance.

Which is outrageous.handicapped rider pic

Aren’t we constantly hectored that the object of these exercises is “safety”? Well, if the person’s driving or riding can’t be faulted, isn’t that prima facie evidence of safe driving/riding?      

Objectively – on the face of it – arbitrary classifications of people based on some generic “group” metric are indefensible. They presume Smith is incompetent because Jones is – even though Smith has done nothing to warrant being regarded as incompetent.

It’s stultifying because it does not allow for individual variance.

And individuals vary.

So, provided our handicapped biker dude doesn’t lose control, wreck and harm some other person, I figure he’s got as much right as I have to pursue his happiness, on two wheels or four.

But is it smart to ride a bike if all your parts aren’t there – or working?

It’s an individual judgment call.handicapped rider 2

Or ought to be.

If it were me – if I had a peg leg or one good eye or was seriously gimped in some other way – I’m pretty sure I’d hang up my leathers.

I suspect the guy my wife and I encountered should have, too.

Whatever his issue was, he had trouble holding up his bike as a result of it – and once he’d dropped it (all 900 pounds of it) there was no way he was getting it back up on his own. I wished him godspeed – but could not help thinking about what might happen to him – and someone else – down the road.

Being handicapped sucks. Life is unfair.

Utterly beside the point.handicapped marker pic

If, because of some physical debility, you have difficulty maintaining balance, probably you ought not to be riding a bike.

In particular, a 900 pound dresser.

But we live under a system that creates perverse incentives. One of these is selling people the idea that t handicaps don’t matter. Indeed, that handicapped people are just as “able” (although differently able) as the non-handicapped. Which is nonsense of the worst sort. Oscar Pistorius can run very fast. But he’s still missing his legs – and there are many things he simply cannot do as well (or at all) as the same Oscar Pistorius could with legs.

Yes, we can?

Well, sometimes, we can’t.

And wishing it were otherwise won’t make it so.

Throw it in the Woods?

Spread it via Twitter: LibertarianCarG (they would not let me have “guy”).

And:

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning.  If you value alternatives to the MSM, please support independent media. Our donate button is here.

For those not Pay Pal-inclined, you can mail us at the following:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

Share Button

  58 comments for “Saw The Weirdest Thing …

  1. Bryce
    July 22, 2014 at 9:28 am

    One of the unintended side effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is that it increased the costs of hiring and serving people with disabilities. As a result, disabled people are more likely to be unemployed/lack education than they did before the ADA was passed.

    The same side effect occurs with things like affirmative action and legislation like the Family Leave Act and Pregnancy Discrimination Act. When you increase the cost of hiring/educating a class of people, expect that fewer will be hired/educated.

    • clover
      August 25, 2014 at 10:28 pm

      The only reason I am here was that I was looking for what a libertarian would say about an innocent black robber being shot while looking away from the cop with his hands up? I had to laugh at that one. The teddy bear that could do no wrong was innocently shot? Then when the videos came out that he attacked a store owner minutes earlier they said it was wrong to show what the guy was really like. That is the kind of lies libertarians are usually all over. Clover

      I also had to laugh at the comments by Eric in this article. He says that a guy that just had a half a dozen quick drinks is safer than the worst driver. With that said maybe the tailgater is also better than the worst driver. Maybe the guy that passes on blind curves and blind hills drives better than the worst driver. Maybe the guy that flies through all red lights is better than the worst driver. Eric I would prefer to be on the road where drivers drive at their best rather than having them drive like the worst drivers on the roadway. With all drivers driving as bad as the worst drivers then my insurance rate is going up 10 times if I even live till the next day. Libertarians are stupid.

      • August 25, 2014 at 11:16 pm

        Clover,

        If you have anything worthwhile to add it would be nice to see you post it instead of your typical non-sequitur.

      • eric
        August 26, 2014 at 5:23 am

        Clover once again demonstrates his reading incomprehension.

        The article was about pitting blacks against whites (and vice versa) and the reflexive badge-licking of “conservative Republicans” such as yourself.

      • Bevin
        August 26, 2014 at 6:35 am

        Clover!

        Where ya been?

        Don’t be a stranger. After all, I need a good laugh now and then.

      • eric
        August 26, 2014 at 6:51 am

        Hey, Clover . . .

        I have (borrowing your phraseology) just one question for you: If I can prove that my ability behind the wheel is superior to yours even after I have consumed a couple of drinks, will you agree that I ought not to be harassed by cops?

        More precisely: If there is no objective reason to suspect that I am “impaired” (for whatever reason) such as failing to properly control my car, wandering across the double yellow, etc., how can you justify arresting/caging me? Indeed, what is the justification for subjecting me (or anyone) to a random stop?

        That the cop might find evidence of something untoward?

        Doesn’t that put the proverbial cart ahead of the horse, Clover?

        I mean: Anyone might be a criminal. Are you saying everyone ought to be presumed criminal until they demonstrate to the satisfaction of a cop that they are not?

        Yes, Clover. That is exactly what you are saying.

        But you’re not consistent. You would not like it if cops stopped you at random on the street and required you to submit to a “brief” interrogation (well, being you, maybe you would like it). But I bet you “a million dollars” you would not like it if they “randomly” showed up at your house to “check” for evidence of child abuse or maybe to make sure you didn’t have “illegal” drugs hidden somewhere inside… or would you?

        Your flea-minded little brain cannot connect the dots.

        It must be painful to be so stupid. But then, the stupid do not know they are stupid.

        • clover
          August 26, 2014 at 9:40 pm

          Eric your what ifs shows us that you are truly stupid. You say “But I bet you “a million dollars” you would not like it if they “randomly” showed up at your house to “check” for evidence of child abuse or maybe to make sure you didn’t have “illegal” drugs hidden somewhere inside”.
          Eric police do not do that. Why not take it to the next step and say that i will not like it when police kill everyone they see on the street? Eric you have mental problems. I am not sure if it is just stupidity or something worse.Clover

          Eric many months ago you showed us your stupidity and lack of knowing anything about autos or business by telling us that GM was going bankrupt. It traded at 34.85 today. Go did ditches somewhere. You may be better at that.

          Then Eric says that he wants to challenge me at his ability of driving a car. Eric, driving a car is not all about driving one when you are trying your best. It is about every day driving. It is about when you make your stupid decisions that endangers others that is the problem. It is not your ability. A guy that gets plastered drunk half the time might be a better driver than I am when he is not drinking. What does that prove?

          • Eightsouthman
            August 27, 2014 at 12:20 am

            clover, Here we go again……You’re back in town again. You’ll play the clown again……one more time…….Ray Baby one more time(baby one more time) Baby one more time(baby one more time)……et. al.

          • helot
            August 27, 2014 at 1:38 am

            RE: “you would not like it if they “randomly” showed up at your house to “check” for evidence of child abuse or maybe to make sure you didn’t have “illegal” drugs hidden somewhere inside”.

            The dumb assed Clover replied: “Eric police do not do that.”

            Ha! Is Clover an ignoramus, or what? I mean, a TOTAL DUMB SHIT.

            I was half-inclined to post a bunch of links to enlighten Clover, but what’s the point? Some People just refuse to listen.

            The scary thing is, that ignorant outlook on life, isn’t a singularity.

          • Bevin
            August 27, 2014 at 5:21 am

            Dear helot,

            “I was half-inclined to post a bunch of links to enlighten Clover, but what’s the point? Some People just refuse to listen.”

            True. There’s an old Chinese saying,

            “You can lead a jackass to water, but you can’t make him drink.”

            Wait a minute, on second thought, that was an old American saying, and it involved another kind of quadruped.

          • eric
            August 27, 2014 at 9:48 am

            Well, Clover, before you begin hurling the “truly stupid” insults, you might learn to spell (or use a spell checker).

            Proper construction would help, too.

      • Bevin
        August 26, 2014 at 7:16 am

        Clover writes:

        ” Libertarians are stupid.”

        Clover worries about mere mundanes doing evil. Therefore he cheers when “The Government” and “Law Enforcement Officers” get tough with us.

        I guess it has never occurred to clover that maybe, just maybe, the thing clover really ought to be worried abut is “The Government” and “Law Enforcement Officers” doing evil.

        But no, in clover’s Lake Wobegone fairy tale land that would never happen. He’s so sure of that, he would bet us a million dollars!

  2. chiph
    July 22, 2014 at 9:59 am

    I don’t understand why he was riding a dresser hog either. Unless he had a sidecar on it. No chance of dropping one of those — just got to be careful making right turns.

  3. July 22, 2014 at 12:56 pm

    chiph is right. A sidecar motorcycle wouldn’t fall over. Neither would a trike. If two wheels are necessary, I would think that a nice lightweight bike like the Suzuki LS650 Savage would be about perfect (with a set of leather saddlebags).

    • Eric_G
      July 22, 2014 at 2:15 pm

      You most certainly can roll a trike, as demonstrated by Mr. Clarkson here:

      • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
        July 22, 2014 at 8:22 pm

        The trouble with the Reliant Robin is the configuration. This would have far less chance of rollover:

        http://youtu.be/WLj0SQrYJqk

        But Eric’s right about the inconsistencies between a few beers and severely addled old people or those with limbs missing behind the wheel. It makes no sense.

        Well, it does. The State is only after your money. It would seem unfair to penalise the infirm and squash them in the same box as those over 0.05% BAC, jailing them for being “incompetent” under their laws.

        The laws used in almost every major country is of Maritime/Admiralty. It runs on commercial law. Which means it can’t deal with live human beings, just paper – your strawman NAME – in all capitals.

        This is different in Iceland, where the public discovered what was going on and threw them all out.

        When a cop asks your name, he’s trying to link you with your all caps name, whereby he can then apply his Admiralty law.

        You are a man on the land under Common Law, not of the sea, but he is. His laws don’t apply to you and you have to make it clear.

        ————————————————-
        Can I see your licence and rego..?

        Did you observe me breach the peace?

        Umm..

        Am I under arrest or am I free to go?

        I just need to see your..

        Am I under arrest or free to go?

        Mate, what’s your name?

        What’s YOUR name, address and DOB?

        I don’t have to tell you that.

        As all men are created equal, and all laws apply to everyone equally, I don’t have to give you my details either. SO – am I under arrest or free to go?

        Do you have a licence?

        I’ve now asked you 3 times if I was under arrest and YOUR SILENCE IS YOUR ACQUIESCENCE (important maxim of law). So I must assume that I’m free to go considering you did not observe me breach the peace. Adios..
        ————————————————-

        Do not give them your name or licence, as this is considered by them a contract, which is what they need to have jurisdiction over you. Don’t do anything they tell you, as this is also considered acquiescing to them (an agreement).

        You are not your NAME. Your NAME was created by registering your birth (certificate), which is a trust fund that you don’t own. If you say your Name is your NAME, it’s considered fraud and personation, which is against their laws and punishable by imprisonment.

        Admiralty law exists only on paper and only has jurisdiction on the sea, but if you let them then all their laws will apply regardless of land or sea.

        Only Common Law is applicable to the flesh and blood human being.

        The best example of this is the OJ Simpson trial. How is it that a jury could not convict Simpson, but his ex-wife’s family could? Is it because Judge Ito told the jury what verdict to return? On what grounds? It is because that case was won in the first few minutes of the trial, specifically, the instant Simpson’s attorney asked, “Which Orenthal James Simpson do you want?”, after Ito called the NAME. This told Ito that Cochran knew that it was the NAME/a “person” which was charged. No man can be charged in state court; a man can be charged only in civil court which is where Nicole’s family took Simpson.

        You are not the NAME, a person as defined in their laws, you are a wo/man, a flesh and blood human being. Don’t sign anything as it means far more that most realise.

        They have no jurisdiction unless you let them have an “in”, by agreeing that the NAME on your licence is you.

        Always ask questions, that keeps the authority on your side. They should then get back in their boat and sail away.

        • to5
          July 22, 2014 at 10:17 pm

          Rev, to answer your OJ question. The prosecutor was a woman named Marcia Clark, a recent college grad. She of the belief that all people have no prejudices. OJ was a wealthy, educated and famous black man who married a white woman. These type of men were quite scarce and for the black women who saw him take a white woman was over the top. So MC reasoned that a jury of 11 black women and a male would convict OJ. Not so as black women hated Nicole for taking OJ for a husband. When OJ’s attorney saw the jury for the first time, he leaned over and told OJ: “OJ, you’re a free man now.”

          What MC didn’t realize, due to her PC education, was that there was a deep hatred of black women for Nicole, and the black women sided with OJ, even though the prosecutor’s case was 100% airtight for convicting OJ.MC said to herself after the verdict: “Gosh, even black women can be prejudiced, how can this be? That’s not what I was told in school!”

          • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
            July 23, 2014 at 1:01 am

            To5, that was another aspect of the OJ trial I looked at. Considering the jury was all black, it could be considered racist and the case would be thrown out as it doesn’t represent a true and unbiased collection of OJ’s peers.

            Everything in that “trial” was basically a dog and pony show minutes after it began.

          • eric
            July 23, 2014 at 5:29 am

            Hi Rev,

            Yup – the oJ thing was black jury nullification. The prosecution could have shown a video of OJ murdering those two people; it would not have affected the outcome. The verdict was a form of group revenge. OJ’s factual guilt or innocence was largely irrelevant.

        • ALBERT CHAMPION
          July 24, 2014 at 8:22 pm

          i suppose if you want to go to jail, you can play this game.

          i would not try it in harris, montgomery, dallas, tarrant counties in texas. you will just be cuffed and jailed. your car will be towed to some impound lot[make sure you drive a junker - nothing nice because if you left it nice, it will have become a junker when you retrieve it].

          never do this on a friday, saturday, sunday. if you can find your attorney, he may not be able to do anything until monday.

          you do not want to spend a weekend in any of these county lock-ups.

          the imperative is not to be stupid and belligerent. the fuzz hold all the cards. and even if they beat you, it will always be their words versus yours.

          • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
            July 24, 2014 at 8:34 pm

            Albert:

            Hamilton v DPP: “It is an ancient principle of Common Law that a person that is not under arrest has no obligation to stop for police or answer their questions and there is no statute that removes that. The conferring of such a power on a police officer would be a substantial detraction from the fundamental freedoms which have been guaranteed to the citizen by the common law for centuries.” – Dec 25 2011 Victorian Supreme Court.

            Coaklan v Waugh 1957 “The common law does not require a citizen to identify oneself or to carry identification of any sort”.

            More here: http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

          • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
            July 24, 2014 at 8:39 pm

            Sorry – I’ll correct myself:

            “(Police officers) have no power whatever to arrest or detain a citizen for the purpose of questioning him or of facilitating their investigations. It matters not at all whether the questioning or the investigation is for the
            purpose of enabling them to ascertain whether he is the person guilty of a crime known to have been committed or is for the purpose of enabling them to discover whether a crime has or has not been committed. If the police do so act in purported exercise of such a power, their conduct is not only destructive of civil liberties but it is unlawful.” – Regina v Banner (1970) VR 240 at p 249 – the Full Bench of the Northern Territory Supreme Court

            “It is an ancient principle of the Common Law that a person not under arrest has no obligation to stop for police, or answer their questions. And there is no statute that removes that right. The conferring of such a power on a police officer would be a substantial detraction from the fundamental freedoms which have been guaranteed to the citizen by the Common Law for centuries.”
            – Justice Stephen Kaye – Melbourne Supreme Court ruling – 25 November 2011

            “There is no common law power vested in police giving them the unfettered right to stop or detain a person and seek identification details. Nor, is s.59 of the (Road Safety) Act a statutory source of such power.” – Magistrate Duncan Reynolds – Melbourne – July 2013

          • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
            July 24, 2014 at 8:52 pm

            “(Police officers) have no power whatever to arrest or detain a citizen for the purpose of questioning him or of facilitating their investigations. It matters not at all whether the questioning or the investigation is for the purpose of enabling them to ascertain whether he is the person guilty of a crime known to have been committed or is for the purpose of enabling them to discover whether a crime has or has not been committed. If the police do so act in purported exercise of such a power, their conduct is not only destructive of civil liberties but it is unlawful.” – Regina v Banner (1970) VR 240 at p 249 – the Full Bench of the Northern Territory Supreme Court

            “There is no common law power vested in police giving them the unfettered right to stop or detain a person and seek identification details. Nor, is s.59 of the (Road Safety) Act a statutory source of such power.” – Magistrate Duncan Reynolds – Melbourne – July 2013

            http://www.carr.org.au/d-police%20powers.pdf

          • Eightsouthman
            August 27, 2014 at 12:37 am

            rev, I’m sure you are correct for where you live. Albert is dead on though, he just didn’t cover ALL the counties where it’s best to not do that, as in all counties in Tx for sure.

      • Charles
        July 23, 2014 at 6:16 am

        They may not be the best car around but there is some style in those Robin Reliants.

        • eric
          July 23, 2014 at 6:24 am

          I’d like to drive one – to see what it’s like.

          Seems like it’d make a great in-city car.

          Much better than the not-so-smart SmartCar!

          • BrentP
            July 23, 2014 at 12:54 pm

            some three wheelers are interesting… this one, the Robin, no. That thing is just plain wrong. The single wheel is supposed to be the (rear) drive wheel for a three-wheeled car.

            A three wheeled cycle of course has the single wheel for steering and in front. But on a three wheeled cycle one sits in the back over the axle of the two wheels.

            Move the seats forward, steer with the single front wheel, put a body over the chassis and the whole thing is severely mis-weighted. It makes no sense at all mechanically. (I know you meant economically, but it’s possible to make economic and mechanical sense)

            If one has money to pay for the hand manufacturing, there’s the morgan:

            http://www.morgan3wheeler.co.uk/smallsite/smallindex5.html

          • eric
            July 23, 2014 at 2:48 pm

            Yeah… but I’d still like a test drive… just for the hell of it… just to say I did!

            I have driven all kinds of weird – and in some cases, dangerous – stuff over the years…. it helps provide perspective.

      • Jason Flinders
        July 24, 2014 at 10:33 pm

        The Top Gear crew also demonstrated what is probably the best use for a Reliant Robin:

        I’ve never heard of one of these making it to the U.S. It would be interesting to have one just to play around with a bit.

    • eric
      July 22, 2014 at 4:19 pm

      Hi Ricky,

      A trike (with hand controls) seems ok to me, too. Provided the rider is keenly aware of the limitations – the dangers – of mixing a single track font end that steers by leaning and an rear end with a rigid axle that does not want to lean…

      • justin
        July 24, 2014 at 7:11 pm

        years ago at the Warm Springs Georgia Institute for Rehabilitation
        I saw the guy that ran the place had a purpose built sidecar

        it was low enough and wide enough for his wheelchair, with the handlebars moved over in front of the wheelchair and linked to the front fork,
        he rolled his wheel chair into it grabbed the handlebars, shifted the Honda Hawk automatic trans bike into gear and roared away.

        he gave me a ride once when my car broke down, it was really really creepy and scary riding on the seat on the motorcycle while someone in the side car steered and accelerated.

  4. JoePA
    July 22, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    Being intoxicated is a standard used to determine guilt by both the courts and insurance companies, it does away with costly litigation. Be drunk and get rear ended….yup its your fault. Political Correctness is now the rule of law. Driving with severe disabilities that drastically reduce your abilities is ok but have a few cocktails and you’re a menace to society. The ADA is a joke, if a company hires a disabled person they receive no federal funding but if they have an employee become disabled the $$$$$Federal$$$$$ money pours in to keep him. The incentive to hire disabled does not exist.

    • eric
      July 22, 2014 at 4:32 pm

      Hi Joe,

      Yup.

      It’s crazy… from a rational (and decent/humane) point of view, anyhow.

      Consider: My mother-in-law has terrible arthritis as well as slow reflexes. She is an awful driver.

      But she’ll sail right through the “sobriety” checkpoint, because her form of “impairment” is considered acceptable.

      Meanwhile, if I roll up on of these checkpoints after having had two or three beers, I’m in real trouble – notwithstanding that I started out at a much higher level than my mother in law and am still a much better driver than she is even with a few beers in me. (Evidence in support of this: She has had multiple wrecks – I’ve had none.)

      Ye gods…

  5. Dwellmeter
    July 22, 2014 at 7:57 pm

    ‘handicapped plates’ specifically exist to grant “special parking-privileges” for desirable parking spots

    parking on public streets/property should be fairly allocated on a normal first-come basis with motor vehicle laws applied equally to all. private property parking should be none of the government’s business (like at shopping malls)

    if handicapped people are able to drive in all the normal situations encountered by non-handicapped drivers — then they should also be able to handle parking like everybody else or make alternative arrangements. (what do handicapped drivers do if they get a flat tire on the highway … does the government ensure they are not delayed or inconvenienced ?)

    Reserved Handicapped Parking slots are everywhere, and often empty/unused. I’ve never seen any driver use a Handicapped slot that looked like they could not have physically and readily used the other slots everyone else uses. Not unusual to see “handicapped” parkers get out and walk around the supermarket for a half hour. And course there’s huge abuse of ‘handicapped’ vehicle privileges, like normal drivers using grandma’s Buick (with handicapped plates and grandma left home) for a prime parking spot at the mall.

    abolishing license plates entirely would help many things. if ya see a lot a license plates around– ya definitely ain’t in a free society

    • Eric_G
      July 22, 2014 at 9:33 pm

      A quick Google search revealed this nugget from Massachusetts:

      Disabled Placard and Plate Form
      Special Placards and Plates are available for vehicles that transport medically disabled drivers and passengers.

      http://www.massrmv.com/rmv/forms/disabled.htm

      Interesting too, that you can get a note from a chiropractor. Most states it looks like handicapped plates are for drivers only though.

      I have no problem with reserving a spot or two for the disabled, just the requirement that it be done. There were handicapped spots before the ADA and everyone seemed to do just fine. Now there are an excessive number of handicapped spots and everyone resents them. The vast majority of people I see using them could be better off parking away from the front door and getting at least a minimum of exercise, but abuse of the system is par for the course when it comes to our government. Don’t dare complain about the abuse to anyone who matters or we’ll end up with audits that will cost more than the abuse is worth.

      • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
        July 22, 2014 at 9:46 pm

        The moment I take the key out of my car’s ignition, it becomes “disabled” ;)

      • eric
        July 23, 2014 at 5:48 am

        Agreed.

        And as with affirmative action, the side-effect (perhaps deliberate) is the generation of resentment toward the handicapped.

        Go to any Lowes or Hone Depot and you will see dozens of handicapped spots. It’s absurd. Our vet – who practices in our rural county, one stoplight and population about 14,000 – has been told she must have several “handicapped accessible” parking spots in her gravel driveway, as well as a ramp to accommodate the disabled.

        At her expense.

        Which means, her clients’ expense.

        • Boothe
          July 23, 2014 at 1:54 pm

          Eric – I believe the “resentment” generated by granting special privileges to any group or class is indeed deliberate. It goes back to the political concept of divide and rule. We who think critically, seek the truth and don’t receive special privileges will object to and resent a system based on favouritism, precisely because it costs us time and property. The favoured classes will obviously seek to retain and enhance that advantage, resenting those of us who dare to speak the truth and call for true equality. If I’m not mistaken they call us things like “hater”, “homophobe” and “racist” for demanding a level playing field and the asserting our right to keep the fruits of our labor. The bottom line is that the political parasite class is skimming the lion’s share of the loot while we argue over table scraps. Sadly, human nature being such as it is, I don’t think “the public” will ever figure out the game is rigged and that they’re the marks. From what I’ve seen most of them don’t want to know.

          • helot
            July 25, 2014 at 1:23 am

            RE: “Sadly, human nature being such as it is, I don’t think “the public” will ever figure out the game is rigged and that they’re the marks. From what I’ve seen most of them don’t want to know.”

            That’s a perfectly captured sentiment. I often feel the same way.

            How-Ever; that’s what, ‘The Internet’ is for: To correct that which is fucked Up.

            This ain’t the Walton generation.
            This generation and The Walton generation might be just as gullible, but like I said, that’s what, ‘The Internet’ is for.

            ,,,Unless, it matters not?
            I suppose it’s possible.
            But, I hope not.

            ‘The Internet’ is the “new” Gutenberg Press. …Fingers crossed, cross my heart, hope to die, if it’s Not.

            Also, that’s the whole notion of The Fourth (and Fifth) Turning: That the preceding generation will be replaced by a generation that ‘Gets It’.

            Faster, Pussycat, Sell, Sell.

    • Bill
      July 24, 2014 at 10:38 am

      Taking away vanity plates would create a new disability.

  6. BrentP
    July 22, 2014 at 10:35 pm

    He’ll fall or drop the bike again at some point and a cop will ticket him for it.

    Someone I knew fell turning a corner, only thing hurt being his pride and some cosmetic damage to the motorcycle. A cop ticketed him for it. (his MC was small enough to pick back up and go on his way)

    • eric
      July 23, 2014 at 5:32 am

      Probably.

      My concern in this particular case was that the guy seemed to be too weak/unsteady to hold his bike up – let alone ride the thing.

      What was it Clint Eastwood said?

      A man’s got to know his limitations….

      • ernie
        July 24, 2014 at 12:29 pm

        Eric, how could you??? That was the Duke, Marion Morrison AKA John Wayne (that’s a terrible name for a cowboy…) Not the Smirk AKA Clint Eastwood.

        • July 24, 2014 at 9:30 pm

          Ernie,

          Clint Eastwood in Magnam Force.

          Although with the number of movies that the Duke has been in it would not surprise me if he mentioned something similar to the Eastwood quote

  7. Dan M
    July 24, 2014 at 1:53 am

    One thing I’ve always wondered about… if drunk driving is really as big of a problem that the MADD people make it out to be, why is it that there are bars on country roads in the middle of nowhere that are inaccessible except by car or bike?

  8. July 24, 2014 at 2:57 am

    170 greatest Eastwood quotes
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1vZq3bTS_Y

    Best John Wayne quotes
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPe2hXSTTPU

    Som Bitch. Best of Buford T Justice
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tirGyJDSivI

    Best of Steve McQueen
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4v1ahx2-Do

    Coolest actors EVER
    http://guyism.com/celebrities/coolest-actors-ever.html
    – – – –
    Intolerance: Love’s Struggle Throughout the Ages (1916) D W Griffith
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo66cJqEl4A

  9. Bill
    July 24, 2014 at 9:56 am

    Back in the early 80’s I was a radio station chief engineer in Wyoming, which like many other cultural wastelands, excels in bars per capita. One evening, after having been sent on my way at closing with my last drink in a go cup, after emptying and disposing of said go cup, I drove across town, arriving at home. Two important facts: I was blacked out while driving home. Every local cop, sheriff deputy, and state trooper that was available that evening was on DUI patrol.
    I have given up drinking, tiring of the hangovers.
    I have never been pulled over for drunk driving, even though I’ve done a lot of it.
    Beyond being high functioning, it is a benefit to have a high subconscious competance, what I call my autopilot, if one is going to be able to disable normal conscious functioning without suffering the usual catastrophic outcomes. It is pretty much essential unless one is willing to eliminate ALL of the distractions available to today’s drivers: misbehaving passengers, cellphones, GPS navigators, eating, reading, making up, smoking, etc.
    It is much easier to compensate for the absense of a limb than the absense of a brain.

  10. dogg
    July 24, 2014 at 10:23 am

    When I used to drink–I know it’s not PC to say this–but I was able to hold a lot of beer without my driving being impaired. I had this verified one night. I had got off work for the weekend and went to a club, where I had 5 beers in about an hours time. I left, not wanting to stay where I had to drive home with anymore in me that I had. There were cops watching the place and a veteran cop was obviously training a new one to do sobriety tests, so they pulled me over with no real reason.

    I told him I didn’t appreciate being used as a guinea pig when I had done nothing, and he got on with applying all the sobriety test to me (this was before the breathalyzer thing). I passed every single test without flaw, and the cop was really pissed. He said, “I know you’re drunk, but I have to let you go since you passed every test.”

    I thanked him and headed the few blocks to my home, chuckling the whole way.

    • eric
      July 24, 2014 at 1:48 pm

      Hi Dogg,

      Yup!

      I have challenged our resident Clover (see posts with the green “clover” avatar) to meet me at VIR (local track) and we will do a little side-by-side driving, him “sober” – me with a couple of beer in me.

      I’ve bet him “a million dollars” I’ll win the bet… which probably explains why he hasn’t taken the bet.

  11. Bob Robertson
    July 24, 2014 at 11:10 am

    As a biker with only one good eye, I can tell you that it matters not at all.

    Depth perception is a matter of difference. Someone with two eyes sees that difference right away.

    I see that difference because of movement. The common denominator of all vehicles is that they move. Everything’s relative movement compared to everything else gives me an instantaneous “perception” of location in terms of depth.

    Just like someone with two eyes watching TV, who is getting no more information with two eyes than I get with one, because the image is a 2 dimensional plane. Yet because the images move, the relative motions of all the different things in the picture provide that perception of depth.

    All that said, even just turning my head provides the same change of perspective that having two eyes does, so it’s no problem at all.

    Except for one thing: I always wear eye protection. Full-face, visor, and glasses, for example. I don’t have a spare eye to lose.

    • eric
      July 24, 2014 at 1:44 pm

      Agreed, Bob.

      I know guys who are “disabled” in one way or another who can ride as well (or better) than most people (who still have all their parts in working order) can drive….

  12. Don
    July 24, 2014 at 12:20 pm

    Three wheelers? I can’t wait to get my reserved 2015 Elio eliomotors.com. It will have no tip over problems.

    I’ve been motorcycling (on 2 wheels) for over 40 years. If I was missing an arm, I would only ride a 3 wheeled motorcycle – or not at all. But that’s just me. If the guy in the picture thinks he can ride safely missing his arm, then more power to him. That is NOT safe IMHO, and if I saw him going the same way as me in traffic, I would get completely away from him ASAP.

    As a disabled Vietnam-era vet, I have a handicapped inside mirror hang tag for my car (no handicapped plate), and I only use it with my car – never my motorcycle. I have always and do pay the regular full state licensing and registration fees for my car, no handicapped discount at all. And I like it that way, so there is no handicapped ‘advertising’ on my vehicle, except when my car is publicly parked.

    BTW, when I get my Elio, I plan on selling the last of my motorcycles; and riding on Elio’s 3 wheels for the remainder of my life. And I’m going to love it!

    • eric
      July 24, 2014 at 1:38 pm

      Amen, Don!

      I’ve put a line in to Elio, by the way, in the hope they’ll allow me a test drive. I really like what I’ve read about the car so far.

  13. July 26, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    If you look at my comment from 22 July, you’ll note that I said a trike or sidecar motorcycle wouldn’t “fall over”. I never wrote that they were impossible to roll.

  14. helot
    August 18, 2014 at 3:26 am

    I saw, “The Weirdest Thing”… an ad on EPA: “Reduce your tax this year! Donate your car or boat and support our troops! ..Donate now”

    Psft, as long as they pay,… and help to spread the message of Freedom and Liberty… I don’t mind ignoring them.

  15. helot
    August 18, 2014 at 3:55 am

    Also, I liked the, ‘Leather Bitches’ bit.
    That was smooth.
    Too bad the advertiser in that spot couldn’t stick with it.
    …Ah well, ‘Know Your Rights’. CCR.. [A.k.a. C.C.F. (Concealed Carry Forever) the 'New' V.H.F.?].

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *