Tpoppa

This is not intended to insult track riders/racers, but it may anyway. From my experience the "safer on track" statement is an urban legend. I'll admit I haven't done many track days, but that's because I enjoy spirited street riding more. On the track I was more concerned with another rider taking me out, than I am on the street. I think many track riders get too familiar with only the hazards that are encountered on the track, and get a bit spooked riding a spirited pace on the street having to consider traffic, blind hills, debris, etc. Not all. I have ridden with some very skilled track riders, that are also very skilled street riders. But I've also ridden with lots of very skilled street only riders. I'm reasonably quick on the street, which doesn't automatically translate to fast on the track. I've also seen more than a few fast track riders that were not comfortable riding quick on the street. The skill sets are similar, but not identical. [i'm not considering unskilled riders, because I generally don't ride with them] Again, this is based on my experience. I have my flame suit on. I'm sure there are other opinions/experiences.

OK, then how do you define it from a getting hurt or a dollar perspective?

Had a 919 years ago. It was just OK. That would be a pretty big step down.

Disagree. In the one trackday I did there were more crashes than I've seen in my last 50k of spirited group riding. Of course, I don't ride with squids.

I don't believe it's an issue to detain a criminal if a crime has been committed. A friend of mine had his house broken into. At the time of the breakin, he was literally sitting at his kitchen table sharpening an ax...really. He subdued the criminal and called the police. When the police got there, the crackhead was face down on the ground with a very sharp ax on the back of his neck. He was crying and had literally pissed himself. The police thanked him for keeping him there.

Thieves are looking for easy quick hits, not a confrontation. A different target is easier than coming back.

I think the cbr500 would be a better choice than the 300. But keep I mind there's a decent chance that a first bike will be on it's side at least once. A prescuffed ninja250 or nighthawk can be had on the cheap.

Can I offer a bounty on that POS's head?

His "holy fuck" would make a stellar ringtone. Make it happen.

Seems that the witnesses stories are pointing the cop shooting/killing an unarmed 18 yo who attempted to run away and then surrender. The only story that was different was the woman on the radio who was not a witness, but was repeating 3rd person information.

repost, but seems appropriate:

Were/are you a Marine?

VFR12 is a good choice for a 2 up bike that is capable enough for a quick run through the twisties.

The newly released eye witness testimonies of construction workers that were standing about 50 feet away from the shooting corroborate that the officer shot and killed Brown when his hands were up and not a threat. They also witnessed the officer firing at Brown's back. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-witnesses/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Here are more flaws with blood testing for THC Oral ingestion - Eating something with weed "baked" in will impair you much more than smoking. Eating it isn't well detectable in blood tests. The only reliable way to test would be if a blood sample was drawn within 30-60 minutes of smoking because that is when THC levels are actually "high" (and that further depends on the person's metabolism). Police are not equipped or trained to do that on the roadside. Not to mention, there's no way on earth I would ever advocate letting some cop, who just got done arresting some filthy crackhead, take a blood sample. Furthermore, it would be cost prohibitive to equip police departments for immediate blood sample collection all in an effort to catch stoners on their way to Taco Bell. Laws are written to test for low levels in the blood, which means anyone prescribed medical marijuana or any chronic smokers would always be prone to a false positive, regardless if they're impaired or not. -------------------------------------------------- http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html Blood Tests Unlike urine tests, blood tests detect the active presence of THC in the bloodstream. In the case of smoked marijuana, THC peaks rapidly in the first few minutes after inhaling, often to levels above 100 ng/ml in blood plasma. It then declines quickly to single-digit levels within an hour. High THC levels are therefore a good indication that the subject has smoked marijuana recently. THC can remain at low but detectable levels of 1-2 ng/ml for 8 hours or more without any measurable signs of impairment in one-time users. In chronic users, detectable amounts of blood THC can persist for days. In one study of chronic users, residual THC was detected for 24 to 48 hours or longer at levels of 0.5 - 3.2 ng/ml in whole blood (1.0 - 6.4 ng/ml in serum) [Skopp and Potsch]. Note: THC blood levels can be measured in two ways. Most labs used by U.S. law enforcement report levels based on concentration in whole blood, but others report concentration in blood serum or plasma instead. Concentrations in whole blood are about half as high as those in serum/plasma. Therefore 0.5 - 3.2 ng/ml in whole blood = 1.0 - 6.4 ng/ml in plasma or serum. Unless otherwise stated, whole blood concentrations are reported here. In another study of 25 frequent users, 36% showed no measurable blood THC throughout 7 days of abstinence, while the rest had at least one positive, though not necessarily on the first day. Six subjects (24%) had detectable blood THC after seven days at levels ranging from 0.2 to 1.5 ng/ml (that is, 0.4 to 3.0 ng/ml in serum) [Karschner]. There have been anecdotal reports of even higher day-after blood THC levels in chronic users, but these haven't been confirmed in controlled studies. Unlike urine, blood test results can give a useful indicator of whether one is under the influence of marijuana. Studies have shown that high THC blood levels are correlated with impaired driving. An expert panel review of scientific studies on driving under the influence of cannabis concluded that THC levels above 3.5 - 5 ng/ml in blood (or 7 - 10 ng/ml in serum) indicate likely impairment [Grotenhermen]. The same review found no increased driving hazard at low levels of THC. Despite the fact that accident studies have repeatedly failed to find evidence of increased driving risk at low levels (1 or 2 ng in blood) of THC, numerous states and foreign countries have enacted "zero-tolerance" laws, treating any non-zero trace of THC as legal evidence for driving under the influence. Others have fixed, per se limits above which DUI is presumed, often with no scientific basis. However, most states (including California) don't have per se limits, but define DUI in terms of whether the totality of evidence (including drug test results) shows that the driver was impaired by marijuana or drugs. Although high blood THC is a fairly good indicator of being under the influence, it is not infallible. Chronic users who develop tolerance to THC may in some cases drive safely with very high blood levels of THC. In one study, a subject with severe attention deficit disorder could not pass a driving test while straight, but performed well with a blood level of 71 ng/ml [strohbeck-Kühner]. No similar phenomenon is known for alcohol. Oral ingestion Oral ingestion produces a much different THC blood profile than smoking. Instead of peaking sharply, THC rises gradually over a couple of hours to a plateau of around 2.5 - 5 ng/ml in blood (5 - 10 ng/ml in serum), then declines (see blue curve in Figure 5). Blood metabolites In addition to THC, blood tests can detect cannabinoid metabolites. Not uncommonly, labs report levels of THC-COOH, the same non-psychoactive metabolite found in urine. As shown in Fig. 5, THC-COOH levels for blood are similar to urine. They may be detectable for a couple of days after a single use or weeks in chronic users, and are therefore not a valid indicator of being under the influence. There is no scientific basis for treating drivers who have THC-COOH but not THC in their blood as being legally "under the influence." Another blood metabolite not shown in Figure 5 is 11-hydroxy-THC, a psychoactive byproduct produced when THC is processed by the liver after oral ingestion. While not detectable at appreciable levels in smoked marijuana, 11-hydroxy-THC shows a similar blood profile to THC after oral consumption. The presence of 11-hydroxy-THC may therefore be used as an indicator of recent oral use. However, most blood tests don't bother to check for 11-hydroxy-THC. Figure 5 - Blood plasma levels of THC & Metabolite

If more states legalize it...and I expect they will. I expect the issue of OVI testing to reach higher level courts, quite possibly the Supreme Court. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/marijuana-dui-bill-passes_0_n_3230947.html

Below is from Wikipedia. Depending on what sources you read, the detection windows will vary slightly, but the basic information seems pretty consistent. The more frequently you smoke the higher the levels are in your urine and blood even if you are not currently under the influence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_drug_testingUrine testing[edit] Marijuana use can be detected up to 2–5 days after exposure for infrequent users; For heavy users: 1–15 days; For chronic users and/or users with high body fat: 1–30 days[1][2] Under the typical 50 ng/mL cutoff for THC in the United States, an occasional or on-off user would be very unlikely to test positive beyond 3–4 days since the last use, and a chronic user would be unlikely to test positive much beyond 7 days. Using a more sensitive cutoff of 20 ng/mL (less common but still used by some labs), the most likely maximum times are 7 days and 21 days, respectively.[3]In extraordinary circumstances of extended marijuana use, detection times of more than 30 days are possible in some individuals at the 20 ng/mL cutoff. [4] However, one must remember that every individual is different, and detection times can vary due to metabolism or other factors. It also depends on whether actual THC or THC metabolites are being tested for, the latter having a much longer detection time than the former. Blood testing[edit]Cannabis is detectable in the blood for approximately 2–3 days after use, with heavy/frequent use detectable in the blood for approximately two weeks.[14] Because they are invasive and difficult to administer, blood tests are used less frequently. They are typically used in investigations of accidents, injuries and DUIs. Urine contains predominantly THC-COOH, while hair, oral fluid and sweat contain primarily THC. Blood may contain both substances, with the relative amounts dependent on the recency and extent of usage

I believe both to be unreliable. With a field sobriety test being even less reliable. Fact is this: Recreational usage of weed in Colorado and Washington would have never made it to the ballot without courts being able to convict for OVI. While I believe these OVI tests to be bogus, recreational use wouldn't exist without them.

I am aware of both of these. I am still calling shenanigans. How much THC in your system actually impairs your behavior? The THC levels for a chronic smoker who hasn't smoked in a day or 2, would be higher (pun intended) than a once in a while smoker who just smoked.

I still do not believe there is any conclusive way to prove that someone is currently under the influence of Marijuana. I understand that courts have convicted people on this charge. I believe all of them to be bogus convictions unless the person happened to admit to it or plead guilty. Officers looking at the person eye movements or smelling Marijuana is not a reliable way determine if someone is currently under the influence. Neither is a blood test. THC stays in your system for 3-30 days. The effects wear off in just a few hours.

That is Apple marketing. Again, works for some but turns other off. Some call it innovative. Some call it pretentious. There's no right answer for what makes your shorts tight. If the products, operation, substance, and function were genuinely different there wouldn't be 11 billion patent infringement lawsuits between Apple and Samsung (those lawsuits are in both directions).

I would agree that the products are pretty much the same as others. What's different is the marketing. Apple marketing seems to be geared toward lifestyle as much as substance. That approach works for some but turns others off (ask Harley). That's where the comments about pretentiousness come from.