Wheelies Are Not Reckless

My question involves a reckless driving ticket from the State of: CA

I received a reckless driving ticket for doing a wheelie on a deserted industrial street. I am in the process of fighting this ticket. I have a lot of information to defend myself but could always use a little more. i am set for trial December 8th.

The act in itself of doing a "wheelie" is NOT reckless driving. I am a very experienced rider that can sustain a wheelie at 5mph up to higher speeds, on this day i was going approx 15-25 mph and not accelerating whatsoever.

Does anyone know of a similar case in CA that i can refer too? By definition i am not guilty of reckless driving and actually what i do is quite safe at my level of experience. There was no one on the street and it was a sunday 6pm so all businesses were long gone.

Thanks for any input.

So ... you pop a wheelie on the back wheel and you lose steering ... pop it on to your front wheel and you lose acceleration and motor control.

No matter how you cut it, you are going to lose on this one unless you get awfully lucky and they have cited this as an infraction and the officer fails to show at trial.

Note that "reckless" does not have a "level of experience" component. It says:

23103. (a) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful
or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty
of reckless driving.

"Willful" means with intentional disregard for safety. "Wanton" means while being conscious (aware) of the conduct, intending to do or omit the act in question, realizing the probable injury to another, and recklessly disregarding the consequences. (Dewey (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 216, 221; Schumacher (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 335, 340.)

A judge might be amused enough by this novel approach to cut you some slack, but your experience at previous unlawful acts is not going to be sufficient to get you out of this.

Hopefully for you, this has been cited as an infraction and not a misdemeanor or you could face jail time.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

So ... you pop a wheelie on the back wheel and you lose steering ... pop it on to your front wheel and you lose acceleration and motor control.

No matter how you cut it, you are going to lose on this one unless you get awfully lucky and they have cited this as an infraction and the officer fails to show at trial.

Note that "reckless" does not have a "level of experience" component. It says:

23103. (a) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful
or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty
of reckless driving.

"Willful" means with intentional disregard for safety. "Wanton" means while being conscious (aware) of the conduct, intending to do or omit the act in question, realizing the probable injury to another, and recklessly disregarding the consequences. (Dewey (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 216, 221; Schumacher (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 335, 340.)

A judge might be amused enough by this novel approach to cut you some slack, but your experience at previous unlawful acts is not going to be sufficient to get you out of this.

Hopefully for you, this has been cited as an infraction and not a misdemeanor or you could face jail time.

- Carl

---

Carl,

Thanks for the response.

I respectfully disagree with you.

First off, watch this video and then tell me that there is a loss of steering just because the front wheel is in the air....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQd7LWnqxrM


The term 'wantonness' is thus defined: 'Wantonness includes the elements of consciousness of one's conduct, intent to do or omit the act in question, realization of the probable injury to another, and reckless disregard of consequences.' [Citation.] ... The word 'wilful' in this connection means 'intentional' [citations]. The intention here referred to relates to the disregard of safety, etc., not merely to the act done in disregard thereof." (People v. Nowell, 45 Cal.App.2d Supp. 811, 815 [114 P.2d 81].)

This means I have to willingly and intentionally put someone or someone's property at risk. Due to the fact that there were neither persons nor property at risk, how can i be found guilty?

Definition of recklessness: American Law Encyclopedia Vol3

"An act is reckless when a person knows of an unjustifiable risk and consciously disregards it."

I have video documentation and proof that a wheelie is completely controllable. I also have 2 witnesses that will testify to the fact that no persons or property were put in an unjustifiably risky situation.

[12] While the trial court could not convict the appellant of reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 23103) since that offense was not an offense necessarily included in that charged in the information, the action of the court constituted an acquittal of the appellant of the charge of violation of section 23101 of the Vehicle Code. (In re Hess, supra, 45 Cal.2d 171, 176.)

If someone can be convicted of a DUI and have the reckless driving dropped, how can a safe wheelie be guilty of reckless driving?

I quote from the Jury intruction form 2200:

"If you conclude that the defendant drove faster than the legal speed limit, that fact by itself does not
establish that the defendant drove with wanton disregard for safety. You may consider the defendant's
speed, along with all the surrounding circumstances, in deciding whether the defendant drove with wanton
disregard for safety."

That alone should prove that the act of doing a wheelie alone is not reckless driving. You must consider the surroundings. I have video documentation of the street I was on at exactly the same time and day I was arrested which shows that there was absolutely no traffic and no property at risk.

You might argue that what if a car pulled out could I stop in time to not hit it if i was in a wheelie. Yes and no. Obviously if he pulls out right in front of me, I will hit the vehicle regardless of how many wheels are on the ground.

If someone pulls out, there is a initial reaction time that takes place from having a handle on the bars to the time I have my hand and foot on the brake. This probable takes 1/4-1/2 second. During a slow wheelie, I am constantly riding the rear brake in order that i do not fall backwards, thus eliminating that physical reaction time to the rear brake, and during a wheelie the time it takes to hit the rear brake hard enough to bring the bike back down is equal to the time it would take me to physically react to hitting the front+rear brakes thus having the same amount of time to stop from a wheelie then from regular riding.

Anyone who says otherwise in court will be objected to due to lack of foundation. I understand it may initially SEEM as though one would have no control, but are you really in the position to tell me that i do not?

And yes experience most definitely makes a difference. For example:

Judge tosses indictment for parachuter
Posted on : 2007-01-18 | Author : General News Editor
News Category : General
NEW YORK, Jan. 18 (UPI) A New York judge threw out an indictment
against a man who attempted to parachute from the Empire State
Building.
Justice Michael Ambrecht ruled there is no legal grounds to prosecute Jeb
Corliss since he is a professional parachute jumper with experience
enough to avoid causing injury to himself or others, The New York Times
reported Thursday.

Quote:

---

Quoting undotime

---

I respectfully disagree with you.

---

That's fine.

Quote:

---

The term 'wantonness' is thus defined: 'Wantonness includes the elements of consciousness of one's conduct, intent to do or omit the act in question, realization of the probable injury to another, and reckless disregard of consequences.' [Citation.] ... The word 'wilful' in this connection means 'intentional' [citations]. The intention here referred to relates to the disregard of safety, etc., not merely to the act done in disregard thereof." (People v. Nowell, 45 Cal.App.2d Supp. 811, 815 [114 P.2d 81].)

---

Assuming that this definition is still the legal standing, it still does nothing to show that the action as not reckless as defined under the law. It takes very little to explain how it can be dangerous to remove the steering wheel from the pavement and thus lose your ability to control the vehicle.

Quote:

---

This means I have to willingly and intentionally put someone or someone's property at risk. Due to the fact that there were neither persons nor property at risk, how can i be found guilty?

---

Where does it say that someone ELSE must be put at risk? It indicates that this is one possibility. Plus, if you wanted to argue the point, the street can be damaged, you can lose control and the cycle can strike property along the side of the road, etc.

Quote:

---

If someone can be convicted of a DUI and have the reckless driving dropped, how can a safe wheelie be guilty of reckless driving?

---

Because, depending on the details, speed alone cannot be used to determine reckless driving.

Here are the two conditions that must be met per the Jury Instructions you cited (in part):

1. The defendant drove a vehicle (on a highway/in an offstreet
parking facility);
AND
2. The defendant intentionally drove with wanton disregard
for the safety of persons or property.

Note that the definition of "wanton disregard" does not require it to solely refer to others:

A person acts with wanton disregard for safety when (1) he or she
is aware that his or her actions present a substantial and
unjustifiable risk of harm, and (2) he or she intentionally ignores
that risk. The person does not, however, have to intend to cause
damage.

Quote:

---

Anyone who says otherwise in court will be objected to due to lack of foundation. I understand it may initially SEEM as though one would have no control, but are you really in the position to tell me that i do not?

---

A race driver does not have a right to drag race on a vacant city street any more than a stunt driver has a right to do stunt rides on a city street.

Quote:

---

Judge tosses indictment for parachuter
Posted on : 2007-01-18 | Author : General News Editor
News Category : General
NEW YORK, Jan. 18 (UPI) A New York judge threw out an indictment
against a man who attempted to parachute from the Empire State
Building.
Justice Michael Ambrecht ruled there is no legal grounds to prosecute Jeb
Corliss since he is a professional parachute jumper with experience
enough to avoid causing injury to himself or others, The New York Times
reported Thursday.

---

First, that may have more to do with indicting under the wrong section that his professional ability, and, second, was in another state and not relevant here.

You raise some interesting issues certainly worth bringing before the court. But, you might consider obtaining professional counsel to present the defense. If you lose, you do face jail time other penalties. It's not something that you should do on your own.

And while I have never known of a wheelie prosecution to lose at trial, I have to admit I have only known of less than a half dozen in my almost 18 years at this.

But, I wouldn't rely to heavily on this defense ... and you might want to consider a deal if one is offered.

Good luck.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

That's fine.


Assuming that this definition is still the legal standing, it still does nothing to show that the action as not reckless as defined under the law. It takes very little to explain how it can be dangerous to remove the steering wheel from the pavement and thus lose your ability to control the vehicle.

---

See this video and tell me there is no control of steering...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQd7LWnqxrM

...like i said lack of foundation.

Quote:

---

Where does it say that someone ELSE must be put at risk? It indicates that this is one possibility.

---

Right here..

In order to prove the offense of reckless driving, it must be shown that the driver”…in the management of his automobile at the time and place in question intentionally did something with knowledge that injury to another was probable or acted with wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of others and in reckless disregard of the consequences of his acts. [Citation omitted.]”(Peoplev. Schumacher(1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 335, 338; 14 Cal.Rptr. 924, 926.) The elements of wantonness include: (1) consciousness of one’s conduct; (2) an intent to do the act in question; (3) realization of probable injury to another; and (4) reckless disregard of the consequences. (Id., 194 Cal.App.2d at p. 340; 14 Cal.Rptr. at p. 927.) For the purposes of reckless driving, willfull means intentional disregard of safety. (Ibid.)

I have the right to damage myself or my property. I do NOT have the right to damage other persons or their property.

Quote:

---

Plus, if you wanted to argue the point, the street can be damaged, you can lose control and the cycle can strike property along the side of the road, etc.

---

But without having intentional disregard for the safety of that property, its just not "reckless" by legal definition. Sure anything CAN happen, and anything can happen at anytime anywhere, but the proper steps were taken to ensure the safety of persons and property as are the proper steps taken when we drive on the street to ensure the safety of ...persons and property.
It only becomes "reckless" when you have willful and wontan disregard for that safety.

Quote:

---

Because, depending on the details, speed alone cannot be used to determine reckless driving.

Here are the two conditions that must be met per the Jury Instructions you cited (in part):

1. The defendant drove a vehicle (on a highway/in an offstreet
parking facility);
AND
2. The defendant intentionally drove with wanton disregard
for the safety of persons or property.

Note that the definition of "wanton disregard" does not require it to solely refer to others:

A person acts with wanton disregard for safety when (1) he or she
is aware that his or her actions present a substantial and
unjustifiable risk of harm, and (2) he or she intentionally ignores
that risk. The person does not, however, have to intend to cause
damage.

---

Exactly my point, depending on the details, only riding on the rear wheel of a motorcycle cannot be used to determine reckless driving.

Quote:

---

A race driver does not have a right to drag race on a vacant city street any more than a stunt driver has a right to do stunt rides on a city street.

---

Excellent point, and that is why we have laws specifically for that type of thing, although Carl, there are NO laws specifically for riding on the rear wheel of a motorcycle.

Speed Contests

23109. (a) A person shall not engage in a motor vehicle speed contest on a highway. As used in this section, a motor vehicle speed contest includes a motor vehicle race against another vehicle, a clock, or other timing device. For purposes of this section, an event in which the time to cover a prescribed route of more than 20 miles is measured, but where the vehicle does not exceed the speed limits, is not a speed contest.

(b) A person shall not aid or abet in any motor vehicle speed contest on any highway.

(c) A person shall not engage in a motor vehicle exhibition of speed on a highway, and a person shall not aid or abet in a motor vehicle exhibition of speed on any highway.

If you can show me a law that specifically states that a wheelie is punishable by law, then i will admit guilt of breaking the law.

Quote:

---

First, that may have more to do with indicting under the wrong section that his professional ability, and, second, was in another state and not relevant here.

---

It is similar because in New York there is no law that states you cannot jump off of buildings, just like in California there is no law that states you cannot wheelie.

Quote:

---

You raise some interesting issues certainly worth bringing before the court. But, you might consider obtaining professional counsel to present the defense. If you lose, you do face jail time other penalties. It's not something that you should do on your own.

---

I have a public defender. Thank you for the advice. I really appreciate it.

Quote:

---

And while I have never known of a wheelie prosecution to lose at trial, I have to admit I have only known of less than a half dozen in my almost 18 years at this.

---

Thats because the general public do not know any better and lets be honest, the courts don't exactly make the defendant feel like they have a chance in hell, so they usually fold right away.

Quote:

---

But, I wouldn't rely to heavily on this defense ... and you might want to consider a deal if one is offered.

---

I already declined their deal, they wanted me to take exhibition of speed which isn't even really a good deal.

Quote:

---

Good luck.

- Carl

---

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Here are the two conditions that must be met per the Jury Instructions you cited (in part):

1. The defendant drove a vehicle (on a highway/in an offstreet
parking facility);
AND
2. The defendant intentionally drove with wanton disregard
for the safety of persons or property.

Note that the definition of "wanton disregard" does not require it to solely refer to others:

A person acts with wanton disregard for safety when (1) he or she
is aware that his or her actions present a substantial and
unjustifiable risk of harm, and (2) he or she intentionally ignores
that risk. The person does not, however, have to intend to cause
damage.

---

I also wanted to touch on this point as i missed it in my last post.

You are absolutely correct, "wontan disregard" in itself is not specific to "others", although in the definition you posted above(2) it states:

"The defendant intentionally drove with wanton disregard
for the safety of persons or property."

So you see, by bringing tho two elements together is what makes this specific to other persons or property. If this stated "with wontan disregard for self, persons or property"...then that would be a very different story.

I hope, for your sake, that the judge agrees with you. However, I'll go along with Carl.

Oh, and as far as your NY case goes, you should have searched a little deeper:

Quote:

---

Quoting New York Times 3/5/08

---

New Yorkers may not jump off the Empire State Building, even with a parachute, after all, an appellate court in Manhattan ruled on Tuesday.

The four-judge panel overturned a lower court decision that had found that Jeb Corliss, a professional skydiver who tried to leap from the 86th-floor observation deck in April 2006 did not violate any laws because, among other things, he was experienced and had carefully planned the jump.

The judges, however, reduced the charge in the indictment from a felony charge of reckless endangerment with depraved indifference to life to a misdemeanor charge of reckless endangerment....

But the judges rejected as “specious” the contention by Mr. Corliss’s lawyer, Mark Jay Heller, that nothing in the penal law prohibits jumping off tall buildings, saying that such conduct “is clearly encompassed within the reckless endangerment statutes.”

---

So much for your "there is no law that states you cannot wheelie" argument.

Barry

Guys, the OP is convinced that his wheelies are so controlled that the laws don't apply to him.

Much as the drunks come here to state that the laws shouldn't apply to them because they are very good at being drunk and, therefore, didn't put anyone at risk.

He won't see it. The judge will make him.

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

I hope, for your sake, that the judge agrees with you. However, I'll go along with Carl.

Oh, and as far as your NY case goes, you should have searched a little deeper:So much for your "there is no law that states you cannot wheelie" argument.

Barry

---

Barry,

Thanks for the input.

The original charge was reduced because there was, in fact, no specific law prohibiting such behavior. The decision of the judges to reduce the felony reckless endangerment charge to a misdemeanor reckless endangerment charge indicates that a misdemeanor is an appropriate charge for behavior loosely "encompassed within" the statutes for a broader regulation, and a felony is not. A felony is too serious a penalty for an incident of such loose discretionary limits. Further, a parachute jump from a tall building in the middle of a busy city far out shadows a low-speed wheelie in terms of both recklessness and risk of injury/damage.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Guys, the OP is convinced that his wheelies are so controlled that the laws don't apply to him.

Much as the drunks come here to state that the laws shouldn't apply to them because they are very good at being drunk and, therefore, didn't put anyone at risk.

He won't see it. The judge will make him.

---

I fully understand the scope of these laws, why they are in place, and who they apply to. I do not mean to sound as though I am above the law in any way. I am only asserting that there are certain variables that must be taken into account in the gray areas of some of these "all-encompassing" statutes, and in this case I have been made a victim of one particular officer's failure to take such variables into account.

My case is not in any way comparable to a DUI, because DUI's do not have any of these gray areas or room for discretion. In the case of a DUI, if you blow a .08 or higher BAC, you are guilty. No gray area there.

Quote:

---

Quoting undotime

---

My case is not in any way comparable to a DUI, because DUI's do not have any of these gray areas or room for discretion. In the case of a DUI, if you blow a .08 or higher BAC, you are guilty. No gray area there.

---

Absolutely. And therein lies your problem.

I am sure you would agree that popping a wheelie would be dangerous to the vast majority of people that attempt it. In most cases, that ticket would be an very appropriate ticket, right?

You are attempting to argue a case that YOUR judgment is superior to the officer's, the judge's and the state legislature's. Your problem is that the officer is a trained observer, the judge rules the court and interprets the law and the legislature CREATED the law.

You are going to court to claim that, in your judgment, you were operating your vehicle in a safe manner. The problem with that argument is that your judgment doesn't mean a great deal in a court of law.

Are you certified or validated by any authority on safety in high risk driving such as the Stuntmen's Association? Or, as I suspect, is your entire argument based upon your and only your opinion of your driving skill?

Do you remember that old story? If I offered you a brand new Ducati in exchange for your little finger of your left hand, would you bet that you could pull ten wheelies in a row ... each a quarter mile long in duration... without a single slip?

Then it wasn't a safe driving practice. And you won't win your case.