Wheelies Are Not Reckless

[jk]

well, here is something a bit obscure but:

when riding a wheelie as shown in the vids, you have absolutely no ability to apply any braking what-so-ever. Not being able to apply your brakes would be operating the vehicle in an unsafe and reckless manner.

you also speak of ability to steer when in a wheelie;


in the vid, the guy does a real good job of going in left hand circles. What happens if he has to make a quick right? That guy would lose it, no doubt. He stepped off the bike how many times? He obviously was not in control of the bike.

You may have a modest ability to steer but your surely do NOT have control of the vehicle.

as to your challenge of riding a wheelie being illegal; since you brought in the New York situation; does your challenge include all states? Obvioulsy what happens in New York has nothing to do with what happens in New York unless that case goes up to the fed courts.

[blewis]

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.

Wow! What do you do -- just make these things up? You seem to interpret things the way you WANT them to be -- without regard to reality!

I'm not going to go into details -- you can read the case for yourself. Essentially, Corliss was indicted by a Grand Jury. He filed a motion for dismissal, which the motion court granted because of a faulty jury instruction (prosecutorial error) relating to mens rea. That judge also dismissed the lesser included misdemeanor reckless endangerment charge -- without discussion.

The appellate court ruled that the faulty jury instruction was, indeed, grounds for dismissal of the felony indictment. However, the misdemeanor reckless endangerment charge did not depend on the defendant's state of mind. It therefore reinstated the indictment. Contrary to your assertion, the appellate court specifically stated,

Initially, we reject as specious [meaning unfounded or erroneous] defendant's suggestion that nothing in the Penal Law prohibits parachuting off tall buildings and into the middle of a busy city street; such conduct is clearly encompassed within the reckless endangerment statutes....

This is the second time I've noted this. How many more times are you going to argue the point? I've wasted enough bandwidth on this....

Barry

[cyjeff]

Guys...

The OP is only interested in hearing himself talk.

Personally, I hope that he shows the YouTube video to the judge as evidence of his skill.

That way, the judge can charge him twice. Once for the ticket the officer saw and once for the admission from the OP in open court.

[M3 Pete]

So it's way past the trial date. Did Mr. Wheelie go to jail?

[cyjeff]

Let me put it this way...

People like the OP would have come back here in a SECOND to tell us how wrong we were.

[undotime]

So it's way past the trial date. Did Mr. Wheelie go to jail?

Mr. Wheelie did not go to jail.

Never made it to trial. Although by the written definition i am not guilty, idiots on trial can really do whatever they want. This i do not understand.

Anyway, my public defender understood and agreed that i was not guilty but strongly advised i try to negotiate something because the kind of people in that area, usually would not care for someone doing wheelies.

Anyway, i was able to negotiate it down to a speed ex, and 500 fine including penalty assesment, and traffic school in order for the case to be dropped. So im out 500 bux.

I still stand by my claim that doing a controlled wheelie is not wreckless, but thanks to the way this justice system works, you get pushed into corners, and see no way out so, of course you fold.