FZRMatt

4511.451 Right-of way of funeral vehicle.

(A) As used in this section, “funeral procession” means two or more vehicles accompanying the cremated remains or the body of a deceased person in the daytime when each of the vehicles has its headlights lighted and is displaying a purple and white or an orange and white pennant attached to each vehicle in such a manner as to be clearly visible to traffic approaching from any direction.

(B) Excepting public safety vehicles proceeding in accordance with section 4511.45 of the Revised Code or when directed otherwise by a police officer, pedestrians and the operators of all vehicles, street cars, and trackless trolleys shall yield the right of way to each vehicle that is a part of a funeral procession. Whenever the lead vehicle in a funeral procession lawfully enters an intersection, the remainder of the vehicles in the procession may continue to follow the lead vehicle through the intersection notwithstanding any traffic control devices or right of way provisions of the Revised Code, provided that the operator of each vehicle exercises due care to avoid colliding with any other vehicle or pedestrian.

© No person shall operate any vehicle as a part of a funeral procession without having the headlights of the vehicle lighted and without displaying a purple and white or an orange and white pennant in such a manner as to be clearly visible to traffic approaching from any direction.

(D) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one predicate motor vehicle or traffic offense, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of two or more predicate motor vehicle or traffic offenses, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.

Effective Date: 01-01-2004; 10-12-2006

Guess this dispels the myth I've heard about a guideline of cpd not to pursue bikes at speeds above 120...

Ive heard a few stories of "I outran a cop" ... But I think more end like yours with ticket in hand...

Oh, I forgot to mention. It's not hard to out run someone who isn't chasing you to begin with. Not pursuing speeders at an excessive rate of speed applies to cars also. It just happened that in this case I was already moving when he came onto 315 at Lane "chasing" the other car and was right next to me when he entered the highway. The problem was that HE had tunnel vision from chasing the other car and didn't notice me behind him for about 2 miles

When I was 17, I "out ran" a Seneca County deputy. In all reality, I was driving 110 mph in a 55 zone at night and he was stopped on the side of the road. I didn't see him until I was on top of him and he didn't turn on his lights until I passed. I was able to turn into a housing development outside of town just as he was turning on his lights. When I turned, he shut his lights off and just sat there. He probably thought I was home and didn't have a chance to catch me before I got inside. Again, I "out ran" someone who had enough sense not to put us both at risk.

Guess this dispels the myth I've heard about a guideline of cpd not to pursue bikes at speeds above 120...

Ive heard a few stories of "I outran a cop" ... But I think more end like yours with ticket in hand...

As a general rule, we don't "pursue" anyone unless it is a serious offense of violence. The benefit of catching the speeder is far out weighed by the risk of catching them. A $120 ticket isn't worth a life. The risk of death to the rider (who more than likely is riding way beyond their ability trying to get away), death to the officer (who probably has tunnel vision because they are so focused on the one trying to get away), and the risk of death to an outside party (who may pull/walk out in front of a pursuit because they can't judge the speed) just isn't worth it!

Pulling over and getting a ticket (maybe a warning) has far less risk to everyone than running. After all, a speeding ticket is just a piece of paper with the same classification as a J walking ticket. It is a minor misdemeanor.

FYI, the 125 in a 65 was a car not a motorcycle. Also, he was racing another car (admitted it), I just didn't write him for street racing. For me, there is no sense in compounding violations (unless you act like a real d-bag). In hind site, I should have written him for it. That way the reckless op would have stuck. To be honest though, I really don't care. I don't take this job home with me, and I don't take actions that aren't directed toward me personally.

Maybe, sorta, it could have been interpreted that way. The initial accusation was drag racing, but I was really just following a friend at a high rate of speed. The way I understood it at the time was that the reckless was based on speed alone.

So you're telling me if I get clocked at triple digits on a clear road I only get two points? Not what I need to hear...

No, I am not saying that you will only get 2 points. There is still a 4 point speed violation. What I am saying is that if you were to get clocked/paced in Franklin Co. at that speed, there is a good chance that you could get it reduced to a 2 point violation. Was there any other violation written on the ticket other than reckless op? Marked lane violation? Fail to signal?...etc? The street racing is probably what will be the other violation. As long as there was an additional violation with the speed, there is a case for reckless op. He doesn't have to actually write it on the ticket.

Some departments want all charges written on the ticket to show the totality of the circumstances which lead to the charge of reckless op. Others, (like ours) would rather you write the single charge and articulate in the arrest narrative all of circumstances which lead to the charge. By doing it that way, it keeps the fines lower and creates less hardship. That being said, the officer is free to write the ticket how he/she sees fit.

4511.20 Operation in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property. (A) No person shall operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar on any street or highway in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property. (B) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one predicate motor vehicle or traffic offense, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of two or more predicate motor vehicle or traffic offenses, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.

I don't see where it reads you can't get a reckless op ticket just for speed. 20 or 51 mph could be considered willful disregard for safety depending on how the officer interpretsthe law.

Speeding in a straight line is just speeding. Speeding and changing lanes without signaling or weaving in and out of traffic or running a stop light/sign is reckless op.

I have wrote a reckless ticket to a speeder for 125mph in a 65 zone (paced). When we went to court I was informed that if there no other violations other than the speed, I could not write the reckless. The prosecutor then ammended the charge to a 4 point speed violation.

My ticket was reckless op added to speeding (83 in 55) based on a "more than 20 over" rule the locality had. Prosecutor offered to drop the speeding and keep the reckless op without even being asked. I asked for the other way around and he said the locality was pressuring them to make the reckless op charges stick (in general, not just my case).

Were you weaving in and out of traffic or some other type of additional offense? If not and they wrote you for the reckless op based solely on the 20 mph over, I would think about getting an attourney and fighting it. In the state of Ohio, speed alone does not constitute reckless operation of a motor vehicle.

That may be it. We usually do have a lot of assholes down here for this event.

Speed alone does not constitute reckless opp. If he didn't write you for it, the most you should be looking at is a fine and some points on your license.

I don’t know how things work there, but in Franklin Co. if you go in and talk to the prosecutor, explain that you can't afford the 4 point hit, they will usually bump it down to a 2 point violation in exchange for a guilty plea. That being said, I explained the same thing to a friend in Fostoria and he was told that the only contact he could have with the prosecutor would be to plea innocent or guilty to the original charge.

For those coming down to Red White and Boom, you can put your mind at ease knowing that 5 Suburbans full of uniformed TSA employees arrived downtown to keep you all safe! Not quite sure what their purpose is, but I know I feel safer already!

17 years and still running well.

Cops are doing this now?

Sweet.

...quoted for future IAD inquiry...

Sure I do, but it's only when I'm riding my bad ass super trick Suzuki Ninja 250!

Doesn't anyone know how to divide, to get accurate mpg? 120, 130,150 miles/tank is all relative isn't it? Not all tanks are the same size

Me personally, I get between 38-42 mpg. Don't ALWAYS go straight to 6th on the highway. Nice to have the power on tap when needed

How do you not have power on tap at highway speed in 6th gear? At 75 mph I'm right in the middle of the RPM range (about 6k RPM) and just getting back into the meat of the power. With the twist of the wrist I'm at 1.85$ standing on the pegs flapping my arms like some kind of wounded chicken.

I know it's not a CBR, but my '94 FZR can get 200 (about 51 mpg) miles to a tank if I take it easy. I am good for 160 - 170 before flipping to reserve if i am running it a little harder.

Seems to go both ways when this question gets asked. So do you guys carry with one in the chamber? Safety on or off? Reasons behind your answer?

On in the chamber, and what's a safety? When you need to use your gun, there should never be a question of "did I rack it?" And mine doesn't have a safety.

SO i was going on a ride with my wife after dinner this evening and was cut off on a 90 degree corner by a delivery box truck. Grabbed a handful of front brake and locked the rear and still slammed into his rear bumper (that was as high as my headlight) as he was passing. The truck was 100% at fault, he didnt even look and he was cookin! I managed to keep the bike up after all this and safely pulled on the side of the road. I only have bruises/crapes on my right wrist and a few cuts on my right knee. My wife stepped off the bike with no more than a bad memory (thanks again Lord!!!). The dude tried to talk his way out of being at fault but the cops weren't having it. he got sited. The dude never once said sorry!Who almost kills two people with terrible driving and doesn't at least drop a sorry? Some people are unbelievable. Oh well, thanks to the good lord we live to ride another day.

When I was in sale and driving a company car, our company policy was to never apologize if you are in an accident. Even if you know you are at fault, saying sorry implies you are guilty and they were afraid it would be used against them in court. We were to take our ticket and fight it on court.

http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2011/06/13/story-columbus-john-kasick-honorary-ohioans.html?sid=102

Only because he intends on taxing their income and breaking their union!

Saw it on Friday morning. No one posted it. Ignore the map shown, and google 770 Kinnear Rd., where he ended up. That isn't a tight curve on the freeway. Anyone who's been there wouldn't hardly even notice the curve. It makes no sense, and I haven't figured out why or how he and the bike would exit the freeway, supposedly over a guard rail, and down a hill.

What you do have there is the exit to the shopping center and the OSU hospital and campus. The right lane is exit only, needed for heavy traffic at times. What you do have there is a bunch of idiot drivers that will do stupid stuff trying to get in or out of that right hand lane.

There was almost no traffic. My guess is he was speeding (drastically). He exited the roadway so far from where he ended up that the officers couldn't find it. On a side note, if the red '01 GSXR with the Rough Riders emblem on it that was left on E. 11th Ave. last night belongs to anyone on here, it is in motorcycle jail!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/chicago-district-attorney-recording-bad-cops_n_872921.html

Really, I know most cops are great people just trying to make the world a better place. But these bad apples in your ranks are doing the same to your image as squids do to sportbike riders.

That sure as heck wouldn't happen with our I.A. office. Ours would more likely say "mam, are you sure he didn't penetrate you in any way? I am sure we can come up with some extra charges if you are willing to play along".

But' date=' the evidence wasn't "collected", it was destroyed.[/quote']

He says that it was destroyed, but until I see that proof, I don't buy it. Anyone can say their property was taken from them and destroyed, and they can say that they smuggled their memory card out in their mouth. The sensationalism of those statements coupled with the culture of mistrust of the police makes for a story and video with the potential to go viral. However, like I said before, they could have very easily produced the phone to back up the story, but they didn't. And even if they did produce a broken phone, it doesn't mean that was the one they used that night. Again, I just don't buy it.

Valid points. Would the collection of evidence via a non-implicated bystander's personal property require a warrant? I don't know that answer.

Yes and no. It could go either way. Someone mentioned it earlier (in this thread I beleive, but I read a lot of threads tonight on guard duty), but the possible destruction of evidence COULD be grounds for a warrantless seizure. However, once the person who is in possession of the evidence is detained, a warrant would probably be sought and issued. It is nearly impossible however, to gather the evidence if the unknown person in possession of it disappears into the chaos of a shooting scene.

I have absolutely no opinion on the shooting. I wasn't there and I don't know the circumstances. However, going after someone filming is a blatant violation of everything America stands for. THAT was tampering with evidence, illegal search and seizure, violation of due process, and a violation of the first amendment's protection of free speech. Free speech, you ask? This is akin to confiscating a printing press.... or shutting down a radio station. What if the cop removed and destroyed the dash-cam video? No different. Cops are good. They do a hard job and are in danger's way every day. This cop is bad. But what scares me is the current trend. This is now the third or fourth national case where the law is trying to criminalize the filming of police. Can you imagine? If the ACLU needs my help chasing a cause, here it is. Let us not forget that the bill of rights are the People's protection from government ..... not from anti-hunters, not from school bullies, not from crazy zealots......

Your second sentence says it all, you weren't there. No one has any idea why he was going after the guy with the phone. Everyone wants to assume that the officer was chasing them to destroy evidence of a crime. I say BULLSHIT! If someone is standing there shooting video of a potential "crime" (whether it is on the part of the driver or officer) that video is EVIDENCE. You can be damn sure that the EVIDENCE is going to be collected.

I read posts weekly about cops writing tickets or violating people's 4th amendment rights, and that the "victims" are considered guilty until proven innocent by the system. However, it is funny that in this thread the officer is the one that is guilty before anyone has all of the facts. Everyone is assuming that the officer was doing something wrong, because everyone wants to believe that the officer was doing something wrong! Also, the original video was posted on a MSN's web site, yet no one interviewed the "victim" and gave him a chance to produce the "smashed" cell phone (even that doesn't prove anything, I have 1/2 a dozen broken cell phones around my house) (the kids play with them all of the time). My bet is it never happened and he tucked the phone in his pocket. It makes for a better story when it looks like the cops were trying to cover up a bad shoot by destroying evidence.

@ racist cop:

what makes you think there was a gun in the car?

Not even a bad/dirty cop is dumb enough to be involved in a bad shoot in the middle of a busy street. I'll admit, there are bad and dirty cops out there. That being said, the vast majority of officers are good people and the last thing they want to expose themselves or their families to is a shooting.

in my generalized, one-sided opinion...

cops are power-hungry bastards. at least the bad ones. i could put plenty of adjectives on that, but power-hungry pretty much sums it up.

i think if the technology was readily available, every cop should have to wear a video camera. the police freaking needs policed. pathetic.

/end rant

That is in the works. There is a badge camera that has been tested in some departments over the last couple of years. With the exception of my language from time to time, I say bring them on.

Without quoting anyone in particular, what makes you think thy pointed the gun at them over a cell phone? Two people bailed from the car and I am guessing that there was at least 1 gun in the car. Also, did anyone ever see the broken cell phone? "Law abiding citizens" lie about the police all of the time. To be honest, the one taping should be charged with tampering with evidence. Just my opinion.

That has to be the most awesome article I have ever read!