Scruit

This case is still ongoing! Most recently, a Pretrial Conference has been set for March 1st. The wheels of justice are turning slowly on this one...

The petition appears to be irrelevant at this point as the controversial "inconsistent with normal highway driving" section has been removed and 4511.251© now references penalties.

It may not be flammable in and of itself, however it will make any existing fire burn hotter/faster. Still, if they were concerned about nitrous explosions in cars then they would ban notrous completely, not just on street. It's a kneejerk reaction to recent street racing deaths. Nitrous smacks of street racing therefore we'll ban nitrous. Are people who've already spent money on these system granfathered? Some of these multiport systems can thousands of dollars when you consider the cost of tuning. Heck, even a single port kist costs over $500. Are those folks going to have to rip their systems out now? I thought if you banned a physical thing that was previously legal you had to grandfather the folks who already had them (such as the now-sunset AWB) They're banning it becuase of guilt-by-association, not because the thing they are banning is enough of a danger to other people that the right of the drive to own the system is outweighed by the public safety aspect. People street race with, and without nitrous - concentrating on the tools of the crime is historically folly. If you want to stop street racing then attack street racing directly.

They are not singling out NOS because of the risk of explosion. They are singling it out because of it's association with street racing. Are enough people injured of killed in nitrous explosions to make it worth passing a law?? So, if we accept that the ban on nitrous is not in response to the risk of nitrous explosions, then we have to ask why they want to ban nitrous. Are they trying to prevent people from adding power to their cars? If so then why would they ban nitrous and not ban aftermarket superchargers? (both are potent power-adders) What other power adders will they ban?

The changes in the as-passed version are not as great a concern as the originally proposed changes (whcih would have defined "street racing" as any "acceleration inconsistent with normal driving" or thereabouts) Not sure if I understand the ban on nitrous though. What is the differenciator between nitrous or an aftermarket supercharger? Why single out one power-adder and not the others? Are they going to ban aftermarket superchargers and turbos? What about owm? What about replacing an OEM turbo with a better turbo? What about adding an intercooler? Fancy spark plugs?? Am I gonna become Bubba's play-thing because of my K&N filter??

I don't see the street racing definition references in the senate version either: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/analysis.cfm?ID=128_SB_065&hf=analyses128/s0065-i-128.htm

The link you posted is "As Introduced" and I posted "As Passed". Looks like that provision was dropped.

RIP. Never understood drinking and riding. On my very first interstate group ride we stopped for lunch on the way home and everyone but me had 3-4 beers. I made my excuses and rode home alone.

I may be missing something, but I've been reading http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_HB_191 and I cannot find the "inconsistent with normal driving" clause that we're all worried about. Did that get dropped by the house?

"All the better to ANPR you with, my dear..."

I fixed it for you all.

I've been using it for about an hour, and there was not scheduled downtime that they warned about in advance. I did get lots of "500" errors leading up to the failure. I guess I shouldn't have searched for videos of "dangerous ohio drivers". I crashed their server cloud with too many results.

Another pre-trial coming up. Dunno who they are getting toxicology on, though. I didn't see any mention of DUI in the media reports so far...?

Video: 0 Whitey1: 1

The joke is the TV station switching off the Titans/Patriots game after Brady's historic 2nd quarter where he threw for 5 TDs... "Well, this hasn't happened for nearly 60 years! This historic game ties records that have stood since 1950. But because the outcome is pretty obvious we're gonna take you to a different game." Hey, numbnuts, some of us wanted to watch that historic game...

I see deer on our road all the time. It is supposed to be a 55 limit but I never go faster that 35 because deer can emerge from the cornfield and run into the road faster than you can stop from 55. Yesterday morning there was a dead deer at the end of my driveway. A few years back someone hit a deer down the road from here and the deer slid all the way up into my front lawn. Deer died within minutes, car had to be towed.

Resident Limey says: There is an offense of "Inconsiderate Driving". It's like a speeding ticket. It's a more difficult prosecution than speeding because to be ruled 'inconsiderate' requires the prosecution prove the act was intentional. Most traffic offenses don't require they prove you did it on purpose. It's used in situations where no other stated law was broken, however the driver's actions created a dangerous situation, etc. You'd also get this for speeding up while being passed etc. If Columbus introduced a law against inconsiderate driving then half the city's driving population would be on death row before the week is out.

I'm just going by public information. Nothing special.

Best way to find out is to call the clerk of courts just before the close the business day before. Failing that, call the court when they open. Don't forget, though, that a continuance could always be filed the next morning right up to the hearing time. In fact a continuance request was filed over a month ago, but the docket does not list a response from the judge yet. It may have already been continued just not listed. Also bear in mind this is just listed as a pre-trial conference. This is typically just a brief hearing to determine if both sides are ready for the court to set a date for a trial, and if not, why not, and how to make it so they ARE ready. Either it'll just be some legal jargon and nothing really resolved or decided.... Or it may be continued.... Or it may be resolved with a plea deal. Anything can happen. It's kina tricky to see which way it can go, partly because we don't even have 1/2 the information that the folks involved in the case have. Also, if the defense wishes to go to trial they can typically opt for a jury trial or bench trial (judge is jury too). The normal strategy is to request a jury if your defene is emotional, or a judge if your defense is a precise technical legal one. That is to say, a jury is more likely to feel sympathy for a father on trial for killing his daughter's rapist, whereas a judge won't. A judge is more likely to give an obviously guilty person the benefit of black/white legal logic if the defense is based upon the precise definition of "business use" wherein it pertains to a item of property stolen from a business, and therefore should the means of valuation (for determining felony/misdemeanor level) of the item be simply "Market value" rather than "New Replacement Cost" because the business was not actually using the item for what a reasonable person would consider it's stated use, as required by the valuation statutes. (yes, that sentence was intentionally long winded, because that's how judges, not normal people, process information) We're right on the tipping point of 'is cell phone use recklessness enough to be considered manslaughter.' A jury could go either way. Not so many years ago a jury would have been more sympathetic to her becuase weve all dont it, right? But more and more these days people are hearing about the dangers of cell phone use in cars (I'm now pimping a fully hands-free voice-activated thimgamyjobber in my cage) and those people are starting to think; "Well, yes of course cellphones are potentially lethal in cars!" So I can't really say if they'd opt for a jury trial or bench trial. You don't want a judge making a call on what;s reasonable because they don't have the same sympathy. But on the other hand, I supect a jury may agree that the cellphone makes it manslaughter. I predict a plea deal with depressingly little jail time (or none at all) but a couple years of probation and a healthy fine. Unless the judge/prosecutor have "had enough" and want to send a message out - wherein I would expect her to serve the full 90 days.

I figured... If the Judge grants the motion then the hearing will be pushed out. The first continuance is usually granted as a matter of course.

The Not-Guilty plea should not be seen as a "I didn't do it" or anything like that. Her only other options were Guilty or No Contest - either of those would mean it was all over. Anyone facing a charge this serious will always plead not guilty just to give themselves some time to think. This time can also be used to further examine the evidence to see if there are mitigating factors etc. Or it may just be time to organize a plea deal. I would suprised if the hearing goes ahead - watch for a continuance request - check the website that morning if you need to, or call the court to confirm. Of course if the defense gets a continuance they have to "waive time" (by delaying the trial they are giving up their right to a speedy trial), this gives the prosecution more breathing room too. It's all a big game at the end of the day. In this case nobody is suggesting there was a specific intent to do harm to this man, so that would have factored in to the decision to charge at the M2 level rather than felony etc. More and more, though, cellphone use is being seen as such a high risk that it's starting to be considered as "more than negligence" in these types of crashes - just like deaths in DUI crashes are sometimes charged as murder because drunk driving is universally considered to be extremely dangerous and not just 'risky'. There will soon be a time when driving while using a cellphone is considered more than just 'risky'.

Difference is that your bike isn't gonna sneak off back to the repair shop behind your back because it prefers the way the tech rode her.

Lojack for Laptops is a fundamentally different concept than lojack for cars/bikes. Chalk and cheese. Lojack for laptops (LFL) is software (with BIOS hooks in some laptops). It communicates via the internet with LFL HQ and identifies the IP address that the computer is connecting to the internet with (or the closest NAT, at least). LFL then has to track the IP down using subpoenas etc until they find the physical address, after which they direct the police there. LFL is embedded in the BIOS of new Dell laptops. It will survive reinstalling the OS, formatting the HD and even installing a new HD. I tested this recently when I formatted my HD and installed XP in place of Pis.. I mean Vista. I did nothing with the LFL install, didn't try to finx it or reinstall it or anything. 3 days laster I checked the LFL website to make sure my laptop was still doing it's daily "Phone Home". Yes, it was. Just as their advertising states, their software DID survive a format and install of a new/different OS on my computer.

Like I already said - I have been burned enough times by supposedly "professional" mechanic/techs doing a crappy job that it's made me unable to trust the vast majority of professionals who take pride in their work. Anyone who knows me or my car will know why I struggle to trust my vehicle with a tech without me keeping an eye on it. It's not a commentary on any tech I haven't met. It's just about the risk to my and my family created by those few people I've caught doing crappy work in safety critical areas, joyriding the vehicle etc. I know there's no way to word this without insulting the good techs out there, so I give up trying to word it nicely and just ask that you understand that that's not my intention.

Anyone who drives for a living should understand that traffic convictions will impact them more than those who don't. Anyone who works in a position of trust should understand that they are held to a higher standard than the rest of us. I hate to see anyone lose a job, especially in this economy, but we have no choice but to defer to those who are in the position to make that call. The only person who is responsible for this is the person with his hand on the throttle. Let's keep this in context... He's lucky the worst that happened is losing his job - many people riding much more safely than that have lost their lives.