[Torie]

Well you are arguing the libertarian position that one should be free to take massively huge risks with one's life always. I don't agree. What if this nut had a family? No man is an island. One needs to continually struggle for a reasonable balance of freedom and consquences to others and responsibility. There is no short cut on this. That is why I think the hard line libertarian point of view is rather empty and silly.

I might add that a vehicle going that fast going around a curve might come across something that could not be avoided. But I am going beyond that, and positing the case that no one else could have been possibily endangered, and assuming that, still rejecting your policy point of view.

[jla]

And it sounds like you're appointing yourself as a societal overseer, (that's a viewpoint, not a disparagement). Regardless if a person has a family or not, it is that person's life, and if that person chooses to take risks that you or I would not that is his/her decision to make, as long as the only person he/she places in any potential danger is themselves.
Are you inclined to fining or jailing folks that smoke or drink liquor to excess? Would dying of self-imposed cirrhosis or cancer be preferable to getting one's head split apart in a cycle crash?
Funny thing about liberty, it allows people to make bad,as well as prudent, decisions regarding their lives.

[GeronL]

The judge simply ruled that speed in and of itself is not reckless, that is a correct ruling.

The man is still a suicidal idiot.