Is it legal to wheelie?

Originally Posted by Berlin

Stuff

If a power slide or wheelie go wrong the risk of harm to Joe public is greatly increased over someone behaving themselves.

I do agree that good stunters have ultimate control however, along with a lot of broken bikes in their past.

Berlin, agree 100%.

MBK, points taken, (Get it? LOL) nothing more to add at this point

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid;2392223

And as for it not about hitting a corner too quick.[COLOR=Red

wrong[/COLOR]
If you go around a bend and the back end slides out, you are going to quick.wrong Perhaps not for the actual bend, but for the road conditions (diesel, gravel, oil, mud, puddle)wrong. So yes, TECHNICALLY, it could be construed as careless driving/riding.

I didn't say I would though.fair enough

so you take a corner on a 50mph road at 35mph, 20 mins earlier a truck droped 100 ltrs of desil over the entire corner thus slippy rd, so acording to your logic your spidy sence should have went off before the corner or your a careless driver
in such intances i would use the "my physic powers dont turn on till after 9pm" defence

Originally Posted by davepreston

so you take a corner on a 50mph road at 35mph, 20 mins earlier a truck droped 100 ltrs of desil over the entire corner thus slippy rd, so acording to your logic your spidy sence should have went off before the corner or your a careless driver
in such intances i would use the "my physic powers dont turn on till after 9pm" defence

No, its not my logic, its the laws. At the end of the day you should be going round a corner at a speed that you are able to stop safely if you need to. So what if you are going round said corner and the actual truck is stopped (presuming its a blind corner)......

and I don't believe there would be nothing to warn you of said diesel....100 ltrs is a lot and other cars are bound to have driven through it....

To me, your riding/driving plan should take into account "things which you can reasonably expect" and I would suggest that diesel in the road is "expected". At least, I do, but perhaps thats because I have been caught out before.

But like I said, doesn't mean you would ACTUALLY get booked. I am talking in "TECHNICALLY" terms. And even if you did get booked, doesn't mean it would go anywhere....CPS would likely bin it.

Technically I could probably get booked for flicking a booger at my wife but in reality...

I;m not even sure what my point is, just popped into my head. Poor wifey.

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

and I don't believe there would be nothing to warn you of said diesel....100 ltrs is a lot and other cars are bound to have driven through it....
now thats a bold statement, i sure you know some rds near you that are very rarely used. and i dont know how long youve been riding or milage done but in mine and others i know others experiance diesel is not always obvious and tbh is only really obvious in wet/damp conditions

To me, your riding/driving plan should take into account "things which you can reasonably expect" and I would suggest that diesel in the road is "expected".in that case do you expect mass diesel on every corner and every rd to the point of its a ice rink if so do you go everywhere at 1 mph
At least, I do, but perhaps thats because I have been caught out before.

But like I said, doesn't mean you would ACTUALLY get booked. I am talking in "TECHNICALLY" terms. And even if you did get booked, doesn't mean it would go anywhere....CPS would likely bin it.

yep i agreed with your point of prosicutions in the first qoute

Originally Posted by davepreston

yep i agreed with your point of prosicutions in the first qoute

Meh...I was making the point IT IS NOT MY LOGIC!!!!! anyway, we are meant to be talking about wheelies...not diesel..

I think you'd get the spidy sense twig on 100 litres of diesel because you'd smell it about 250 yards away.

The guideline I prefer to use is the golden rule from roadcraft, which says that you should be able to stop safely on your own side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear. If you can't see around the bend, then you should be prepared to stop in case you tip into the bend and find your mate laid out on the white line and his bike scattered across the carrigeway.

I suspect also that wheelying is one of the things that can attract one of those vehicular asbos, just to add another reason why it might be a bad idea.

Originally Posted by Berlin

Surely to pull a decent wheelie you have to be in supreme control of your vehicle? Likewise with a power slide etc.

Surely someone who is very good at wheelying is a better and more controlled rider that one that can't? They are more aware of the limits and function of the vehicle and able to control it to an extremely high degree.

On the Law's logic, a stunt rider is the most dangerous and out of control person on a bike when it could be argued the exact opposite. Jenson Button is more dangerous in a car because he can do more things with that car. Likewise Valentino Rossi on a bike.

Sometimes the law is donkey shaped. And lets not forget that the law is in place to protect the thickest members of our society and the law *should* apply less the more inteligence that a person has.

A blanket speed limit is in place because the powers that be deem 30mph to be a safe speed for the most utterly useless driver in the UK to travel at in a built up area. The more able the driver the higher technically they could be travelling to achieve the same end result (the avoidance of an accident). Nigel mansel has sharper reaction times and better car control than a mong that shops at iceland and read heat magazine and punches her friend on X factor.

Oh, slap me, I'm controvertial!

C

The whole 'proper control' point is a bit of a layman's term when it comes to careless driving. The two are actually separate offences. So yes, you can argue that the stunt rider is demonstrating immense skill and control of his vehicle but by performing his stunts on a public road his standard of driving would be below that expected of a careful and competent driver - which is what careless driving is actually about. I'd argue it was FAR below the standard expected and therefore dangerous, but the Criminal Protection Society wouldn't listen to that for very long.

Just ask yourself, would you have done it on your test, deliberately or accidentally, and expect to pass?

As for the speed limit thing, you haven't mentioned observation and anticipation whatsoever - they're the true skills of a great driver ON THE ROAD. Nigel Mansell et al might have great skills on a track but they don't transfer to the road as far as safe driving is concerned. 30 is 30 because even at that speed accidents can happen that are completely unavoidable from the driver/rider's side of things, regardless of skill/intelligence/choice of frozen food retailer etc but at least at those speeds there's a chance of whoever dropped a b0llock surviving to live another day. Whether that's a good thing or us getting in the way of natural selection is a different debate all together!

Originally Posted by Berlin

A blanket speed limit is in place because the powers that be deem 30mph to be a safe speed for the most utterly useless driver in the UK to travel at in a built up area

Whilst I agree with the rest 100%, the 30mph limit is for the safety of pedestrians, not drivers. People are poor at judging how fast a car is moving, and the faster it is moving the poorer they are at it.

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

The point I am trying to make is that it could be argued that an "accidental" wheelie is an example of not being in proper control of your vehicle and as such, could be liable to a Section 3 charge.

A wheelie is relatively noticeable (depending on the hoist), but does this also apply to cars that get any wheelspin leaving lights? Or lock up a wheel under braking? Or is it because a bike cannot steer when on the back wheel?