Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/)
-   Misc News (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/misc-news/)
-   -   Anthony ''Go-Show'' Gobert (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/misc-news/2372-anthony-go-show-gobert.html)

blitz 04-14-2004 10:21 AM

Re: Anthony ''Go-Show'' Gobert
 
1. You state "Drunkenness only exacerbates" Inattentive driving. Bad driving. Lack of driver training. I agree. My daughters started riding dirt bikes at age 5, primarily as a way to teach them how to deal with vehicles and vehicle dynamics as well as spatial awareness. It's a safety thing.



2. Here's what I don't get:" people are unjustly punished by sanctimonious lynch mobs unwilling to delve beyond the surface of a complicated problem. "



Who is being lynched? If you're not in violation of the 0.08 BAC, you won't be arrested, and you won't be punished. You choose not to drive drunk, and you're not singled out.



There's no lynch mob. There is a clearly written law, and if you CHOOSE to break it, you suffer the consequences. You're not being persecuted.
















TatdNPrcd 04-14-2004 10:40 AM

Don't give up...
 
This is GREAT! :-) I'm so glad you found this article. I have the issue at home and I remembered something about JB running off the road (crossing the line). I couldn't wait to get home and find it but you did even better.



The funniest thing here is that it's certainly possible anyone who rides drunk would be quicker on the track or on the road. "I'm SUPERMAN!"

Mashuri 04-14-2004 11:03 AM

Re: Excellent Post, I wonder if there is another way to do it though
 
Erion is under Honda Support and I'd bet the farm it was Honda's decision to axe Gobert. They are extremely strict wbout upholding a good image. BTW, Gobert didn't have a salary. As I understand it, he would only get paid based on performance.

nokneedragin 04-14-2004 11:06 AM

Re: Anthony ''Go-Show'' Gobert
 
If Go-show is convicted in a court of law for DUI he will pay, per the law of the land. But I am amazed by all the post that say they would loose their job for a DUI. Other than a job that demands that you drive for the company, or where caught on duty drunk, have I ever seen anyone lose their job due to a DUI, or the DUI is just an excuse to terminate a bad employee. Yes some jobs are considered 24/7 (military, police, fire/rescue for ex.), but even they try treatment, before discharge, unless there are other outstanding reasons to use the DUI to release the employee.

I, personally, would hate to work for an organization that imposes that much moral authority on my personal (outside the work day) life.

That being said, Gobert is an marketing tool, and has signed a contract of some sort. He is a public face to a company and the company is going to protect its image by dumping him (which they did).

pdad13 04-14-2004 11:09 AM

Re: Anthony ''Go-Show'' Gobert
 
Dude, I gotta tell ya, you sound like the prototypical substance abuser (I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying you're using the same type of logic). It's the "I can handle my booze/I drive better than anyone/it's everyone else's problem, not mine" argument.



If you were fired from a magazine for drunk and unprofessional conduct on a single occasion, I'd say that's a bit harsh and I'd have to agree that it was unfair. Of course, I don't know what other issues there might have been, but if it's as you say, I'm with you on that one.



I can also see that there are differing opinions and contradictory scientific information as to what BAC can be defined as seriously impaired. Is .08 too low? Maybe so. There is some truth to the fact that many laws are made to produce revenue (and produce other effects not related to the carriage of justice). I can agree with that, too.



But, what you fail to recognize is that driving/operating any motorvehicle on public roadways is a privilege and not something you're entitled to. With that privilege, come certain obligations you must meet. Not driving after you've been drinking (or not properly managing your alcohol consumption before you drive) is a biggie.



There has to be a uniform limit allowed by law. Almost every week I see somebody out there who is obviously smashed. Just last week I saw some dude who narrowly missed causing at least 5 serious accidents. He almost rear-ended someone at about 70mph three separate times. I stayed as far away from him as possible until I could safely pass him (two lanes away). I don't want people like that on the road.



Let me ask you this: If you think you can drive/ride with virtually no impairment at .08, isn't it possible you might push it a little further and further until you were, say, 0.12? How would you do then?



You are right to say most people make a lot of mistakes when they are driving sober. Even you, no doubt, have made a few. So why tempt fate and try it "a little drunk."



Take a cab.


Mashuri 04-14-2004 11:16 AM

Re: Anthony ''Go-Show'' Gobert
 
Blitz those statistics are extremely skewed. So, when you see "39% of America's traffic deaths are alcohol-related," do you believe that they were fatal accidents caused by alcohol-impaired drivers who were found at-fault? If you did, that's what they wanted you to assume. The truth is, if ANYONE in the accident report even mentioned drinking or having alcohol then it was listed as "alcohol-related." This means that if the cops took the statement of an innocent bystander who witnessed the accident, and they were drinking, the study counted that accident as alcohol-related. Not very accurate now is it?



If you really want to learn more about drinking and driving, read what the National Motorists Association has on it. They post sources for their findings as well: CLICK HERE


nokneedragin 04-14-2004 11:19 AM

taking it to absurd limits
 
So you don't want speed limits, must drive on the right side of the road laws, stop signals, drop a tab a acid and drive, and in general a road system that is complete anarchy?

What traffic laws do you consider worthy of keeping?

Looking for specifics, not political theory.

My take on JBs basic point earlier in the thread seemed to be more along the lines of, the gov'mnt should stop using traffic laws to bolster their pockets, and demand more driving training, skill, and self responsibility. All laudable goals, but my ingrained pessimism leads me to beleive that most peaople are lazy and don't give a damm about any but themselves.

BMW4VWW 04-14-2004 11:29 AM

Re: Anthony ''Go-Show'' Gobert
 
I believe Johnny's problem with the .08 law is the same as mine. Whenever the Great Oz... I mean our government legislators apply one of these one size fits all malum prohibitum laws they invariably limit the freedom and unjustly punish some that don't deserve it. I am quite sure that I can drive better after a couple of beers than my 85 year old neighbor can sober. You admitted in an earlier post that more "experienced" drinkers fared better than most at higher BACs, while teenaged drivers were incapacitated at levels far below the much ballyhooed .08. VWW


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:06 AM.