Nissan makes killing bikers a new sport

[THE BIG SITT]

Pics of aforementioned mother

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by THE BIG SITT

Pics of aforementioned mother

There she is, 17yr old girl that hit me, which makes nick like 5 at the most

[THE BIG SITT]

… so when does she turn 18? Or can she keep a secret?

[DevinWolfe]

Originally Posted by Alex

Nah - funny is "nick's mom drives a juke." See the difference?

Your mom goes to college...

[nickjpass]

I'm four actually and I drive my dad's Juke.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by alex.s

2. ok so anyone in an accident with a motorcycle should instantly go to jail. got it! totally makes sense. because its not like people get in accidents every day. and it's not like its the motorcyclists decision to take the risk of riding without a cage. one time i hit some dropped oil in my car and spun into a semi truck. i should probably go to jail for attempted murder.

That's pretty much what the bill said. It was defeated in the last session. Personally I think that their driving record should play a part in the sentence, but that wasn't in the last bill.

But look at it from another angle. Say we're talking about guns not cars. Is it OK for someone to set up some empty cans and start target shooting on a crowded beach? If you accidentally kill a 5 year old making a sand castle then its OK because it was just an accident right? Pay the $87 fine and go home.

If you are going to be in control of something that can kill people, then you need to be held responsible for your actions - EVEN IF IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.

But back to the ad, how about pedestrian bad guys? A Juke can surely outrun a pedestrian. But it would still be more convincing if the "Bad guys" actually had a gun or knife or even a big stick or something.

[rmorse]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

That's pretty much what the bill said. It was defeated in the last session. Personally I think that their driving record should play a part in the sentence, but that wasn't in the last bill.

But look at it from another angle. Say we're talking about guns not cars. Is it OK for someone to set up some empty cans and start target shooting on a crowded beach? If you accidentally kill a 5 year old making a sand castle then its OK because it was just an accident right? Pay the $87 fine and go home.

If you are going to be in control of something that can kill people, then you need to be held responsible for your actions - EVEN IF IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.

But back to the ad, how about pedestrian bad guys? A Juke can surely outrun a pedestrian. But it would still be more convincing if the "Bad guys" actually had a gun or knife or even a big stick or something.

Oh jesus. Next stop on the escalating argument train is going to be comparing cagers to hitler.

[DevinWolfe]

Originally Posted by rmorse

Oh jesus. Next stop on the escalating argument train is going to be comparing cagers to hitler.

Well... since you brought it up.... ever notice how some cars have those black diamond mesh grills? They look a little like a particular mustache...

[dubojr1]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

Relevant

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by rmorse

Oh jesus. Next stop on the escalating argument train is going to be comparing cagers to hitler.

Not true. Next he's supposed to call me a cageaphobic nazi.

You must be new here.(?)

[rmorse]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Not true. Next he's supposed to call me a cageaphobic nazi.

You must be new here.(?)

Science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by rmorse

Science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

If you say so, but in all fairness its not very scientific when you artificially inject hitler into a thread and say its godwins law.

[rmorse]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

If you say so, but in all fairness its not very scientific when you artificially inject hitler into a thread and say its godwins law.

Lol, my bad. I wasn't suggesting that it's godwins law; I was just throwing that out there because of the hitler comment I had earlier. I was just saying that it seemed like the convo was headed in that direction.

[akima]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

But look at it from another angle. Say we're talking about guns not cars. Is it OK for someone to set up some empty cans and start target shooting on a crowded beach? If you accidentally kill a 5 year old making a sand castle then its OK because it was just an accident right? Pay the $87 fine and go home.

If you are going to be in control of something that can kill people, then you need to be held responsible for your actions - EVEN IF IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.

Interesting point!

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

That's pretty much what the bill said. It was defeated in the last session. Personally I think that their driving record should play a part in the sentence, but that wasn't in the last bill.

But look at it from another angle. Say we're talking about guns not cars. Is it OK for someone to set up some empty cans and start target shooting on a crowded beach? If you accidentally kill a 5 year old making a sand castle then its OK because it was just an accident right? Pay the $87 fine and go home.

If you are going to be in control of something that can kill people, then you need to be held responsible for your actions - EVEN IF IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.

But back to the ad, how about pedestrian bad guys? A Juke can surely outrun a pedestrian. But it would still be more convincing if the "Bad guys" actually had a gun or knife or even a big stick or something.

if guns were the source of 99% of people's transportation, and everyone wore protection against that transportation except for that 1%, and someone in that 1% got shot and died from the shot even though everyone else has been wearing full body armor protection and everyone else has been shot multiple times without injury because of that protection, but that 1% simply... doesn't want that protection. then no, i don't think the person who accidentally fired the wrong shot should be responsible for someone not taking adequate protections. sure an 87$ file alone is inadequate if the person was being reckless. but guess what, 9 times out of 10, its not only the drivers fault. 9 times out of 10 there is something major that the rider COULD HAVE DONE, but didn't. accidents aren't one persons fault. its a combination of fault. one person makes a mistake, the other person doesn't account for it. the larger consequences that come from an accident are the responsibility of the rider alone. if someone crashes into my car, are they charged with attempted murder? **** NO! their insurance pays for the damage. ohhhh but we are special because we choose to take a more dangerous vehicle... so therefore punishments against us should be more severe... tottttally makes sense dude.

let me give you another example... suppose you are in some area with loud noise... really loud noise... and you choose not to wear hearing protection... and you go deaf. whos fault is it? clearly its that loud noises' fault right? theres no way it could be your own fault for not protecting yourself... right?

if you ride a motorcycle with a bunch of steel cages, you are asking to be hit by one of them. don't act all surprised when it happens.

where is there any competition between a car and some pedestrians? now THAT would make the juke look bad.



i realize we are arguing about the top level of a deep rooted subject about personal responsibility in regard to government regulation... and noone ever changes their political beliefs. so after this message i give up

[massacremasses]

haha

dude, the bikers just happened to be the bad guys. They were the predators, and the prey became the predator (the lady in the Juke) she wins. end of silly little commercial. Who the **** cares.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

haha

dude, the bikers just happened to be the bad guys. They were the predators, and the prey became the predator (the lady in the Juke) she wins. end of silly little commercial. Who the **** cares.

Thank you!

[250rr]

Kind of a cool cartoon.

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by alex.s

if guns were the source of 99% of people's transportation, and everyone wore protection against that transportation except for that 1%, and someone in that 1% got shot and died from the shot even though everyone else has been wearing full body armor protection and everyone else has been shot multiple times without injury because of that protection, but that 1% simply... doesn't want that protection. then no, i don't think the person who accidentally fired the wrong shot should be responsible for someone not taking adequate protections. sure an 87$ file alone is inadequate if the person was being reckless. but guess what, 9 times out of 10, its not only the drivers fault. 9 times out of 10 there is something major that the rider COULD HAVE DONE, but didn't. accidents aren't one persons fault. its a combination of fault. one person makes a mistake, the other person doesn't account for it. the larger consequences that come from an accident are the responsibility of the rider alone. if someone crashes into my car, are they charged with attempted murder? **** NO! their insurance pays for the damage. ohhhh but we are special because we choose to take a more dangerous vehicle... so therefore punishments against us should be more severe... tottttally makes sense dude.

let me give you another example... suppose you are in some area with loud noise... really loud noise... and you choose not to wear hearing protection... and you go deaf. whos fault is it? clearly its that loud noises' fault right? theres no way it could be your own fault for not protecting yourself... right?

if you ride a motorcycle with a bunch of steel cages, you are asking to be hit by one of them. don't act all surprised when it happens.

where is there any competition between a car and some pedestrians? now THAT would make the juke look bad.



i realize we are arguing about the top level of a deep rooted subject about personal responsibility in regard to government regulation... and noone ever changes their political beliefs. so after this message i give up

Game. Set. Match.

[Luvninja]

You are all taking this commercial WAY to seriously. I'm still buying a Nissan *GASP* as soon as I sell my car (not juke).

In the case of taking things so f*cking serious, we should be angry that the t-mobile chick represents sport bikers as always going WAY too fast... But we won't because she's on a bike, and she's hot so she can do whatever she wants.

Seriously though, guys stop taking commercials so seriously. Didn't your momma ever tell you what you see on TV isn't real...?

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by Luvninja

and she's hot so she can do whatever she wants.

so true. -_-

[SafetyPaws]

guys guys, who said they died? If you look at 1:02 you can clearly see the rider getting up off his feet. And besides how in the hell does the center console even resemble a bikes tank?

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by SafetyPaws

guys guys, who said they died? If you look at 1:02 you can clearly see the rider getting up off his feet. And besides how in the hell does the center console even resemble a bikes tank?

There are plenty of bikes that look almost exactly like that. Even the rest of the console comes up like a motorcycle tail. The resemblance is uncanny. It must be intentional.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Luvninja

In the case of taking things so f*cking serious, we should be angry that the t-mobile chick represents sport bikers as always going WAY too fast... But we won't because she's on a bike, and she's hot so she can do whatever she wants.

Its the overall tone of the Juke ad that is bad.

Three sport bikers are apparently being portrayed as the bad guys even though I don't see them doing anything bad. Their positions (3 side by side) are that of a "Hey babe, how's it going? Check out our hot bikes. Wanna ride to your Juke?" posture. An aggressive attack posture would be where the three surround her and face her at 12, 4 and 8 O'clock positions. Or if they had weapons or dialog that made it clear that they were bad guys. So Nissan is basically saying that if you are riding a motorcycle, you're automatically a bad guy. Not cool.

I really didn't see anything that offensive about the T-mobile chick. In fact I just got a new T-mobile phone. Love it. Looks just like the one she has in the ad. I usually ride just like her too. Or try to. Squid alert!

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by SafetyPaws

And besides how in the hell does the center console even resemble a bikes tank?

seriously...

[alex.s]

[Jiggles]

Now that I got my settlement I need to buy a replica 1887 and terrorize juke owners

[Jono]

Originally Posted by SafetyPaws

And besides how in the hell does the center console even resemble a bikes tank?

Just like this....




See it now?

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

That's pretty much what the bill said. It was defeated in the last session. Personally I think that their driving record should play a part in the sentence, but that wasn't in the last bill.

But look at it from another angle. Say we're talking about guns not cars. Is it OK for someone to set up some empty cans and start target shooting on a crowded beach? If you accidentally kill a 5 year old making a sand castle then its OK because it was just an accident right? Pay the $87 fine and go home.

If you are going to be in control of something that can kill people, then you need to be held responsible for your actions - EVEN IF IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.

But back to the ad, how about pedestrian bad guys? A Juke can surely outrun a pedestrian. But it would still be more convincing if the "Bad guys" actually had a gun or knife or even a big stick or something.

Originally Posted by alex.s

if guns were the source of 99% of people's transportation, and everyone wore protection against that transportation except for that 1%, and someone in that 1% got shot and died from the shot even though everyone else has been wearing full body armor protection and everyone else has been shot multiple times without injury because of that protection, but that 1% simply... doesn't want that protection. then no, i don't think the person who accidentally fired the wrong shot should be responsible for someone not taking adequate protections. sure an 87$ file alone is inadequate if the person was being reckless. but guess what, 9 times out of 10, its not only the drivers fault. 9 times out of 10 there is something major that the rider COULD HAVE DONE, but didn't. accidents aren't one persons fault. its a combination of fault. one person makes a mistake, the other person doesn't account for it. the larger consequences that come from an accident are the responsibility of the rider alone. if someone crashes into my car, are they charged with attempted murder? **** NO! their insurance pays for the damage. ohhhh but we are special because we choose to take a more dangerous vehicle... so therefore punishments against us should be more severe... tottttally makes sense dude.

let me give you another example... suppose you are in some area with loud noise... really loud noise... and you choose not to wear hearing protection... and you go deaf. whos fault is it? clearly its that loud noises' fault right? theres no way it could be your own fault for not protecting yourself... right?

if you ride a motorcycle with a bunch of steel cages, you are asking to be hit by one of them. don't act all surprised when it happens.

where is there any competition between a car and some pedestrians? now THAT would make the juke look bad.



i realize we are arguing about the top level of a deep rooted subject about personal responsibility in regard to government regulation... and noone ever changes their political beliefs. so after this message i give up

I've been making the point of people acting the bollox in a car & causing an accident vs doing the same with guns for years,

Even in the US you need a licence for a pistol (at least a background check), you also need a licence to drive. Both are privileges (as both can be be revoked) people seem to forget that.

If someone is texting while driving & causes an accident they seem to get a slap on the wrist, even if they kill someone. If they're spinning a hair trigger .45 on their finger while texting & kill someone they'd be tasting prison food for a long long time, what's the difference between killing someone by recklessly hitting them with a ton & a half piece of metal & killing them by recklessly hitting them with a 15g lump of metal?

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by Whiskey

If someone is texting while driving & causes an accident they seem to get a slap on the wrist, even if they kill someone.

California law against negligent cellphone use or negligent operation of a vehicle is very serious and can lead to jail time if someone was hurt because of it. hell the texting ticket alone is like 300$ and thats when there is no repercussion.

but i was never talking about a negligent driver. wear a camera and you have proof of their negligence, but negligence is not always the cause of accidents. accidents happen for a variety of reasons. to assume without any proof that someone is violating a law is unconstitutional. if you have no proof that someone was being negligent, they should not be punished. have proof? take them to court. ever heard of a witness before? you dont need cameras to prove someone was negligent.

[Luvninja]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Its the overall tone of the Juke ad that is bad.

Three sport bikers are apparently being portrayed as the bad guys even though I don't see them doing anything bad. Their positions (3 side by side) are that of a "Hey babe, how's it going? Check out our hot bikes. Wanna ride to your Juke?" posture. An aggressive attack posture would be where the three surround her and face her at 12, 4 and 8 O'clock positions. Or if they had weapons or dialog that made it clear that they were bad guys. So Nissan is basically saying that if you are riding a motorcycle, you're automatically a bad guy. Not cool.

I really didn't see anything that offensive about the T-mobile chick. In fact I just got a new T-mobile phone. Love it. Looks just like the one she has in the ad. I usually ride just like her too. Or try to. Squid alert!

Ummm If you skidded to a stop infront of me and were revving your engine like the dude in the middle I would knock you out. Not because you're on a motorcycle but because your showing some aggression, there's also 3 of them.... right infront of her... blocking her way...
also, Listen to the audio!
How can you not get that they're the bad guys NOT because they're on bikes. They just happen to compare the motorcycle to their car, that's why there's a motorcycle in the commercial (lightbulb yet?) Nissan thinks that their ugly car compares to a motorcycle (thats what I find offensive)

Did you ever watch WALL-E? Did you understand it?

And about the T-mobil chick, I know nothing is offensive. That's kind of my point... Finding it offensive is about as ridiculous as finding the Nissan commercial offensive.

[Stingray1000]

Originally Posted by Luvninja

Ummm If you skidded to a stop infront of me and were revving your engine like the dude in the middle I would knock you out. Not because you're on a motorcycle but because your showing some aggression, there's also 3 of them.... right infront of her... blocking her way...
also, Listen to the audio!
How can you not get that they're the bad guys NOT because they're on bikes. They just happen to compare the motorcycle to their car, that's why there's a motorcycle in the commercial (lightbulb yet?) Nissan thinks that their ugly car compares to a motorcycle (thats what I find offensive)

Did you ever watch WALL-E? Did you understand it?

And about the T-mobil chick, I know nothing is offensive. That's kind of my point... Finding it offensive is about as ridiculous as finding the Nissan commercial offensive.

You tell him Gabby! LOL

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by Jono

Just like this....




See it now?

Oh I kind of see it now... I was with the other guy until that pic...

[nickjpass]

The whole car resembles parts of motorcycles...like the console...the gauges have a visor as if to be a windscreen...

[Jiggles]

Also it does wheelies

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by Jono

Just like this....




See it now?

How about these?

[DevinWolfe]

Maybe irrelevant.... Just throwing it out there.... (this is as artistic/photoshop as I get, deal with it)

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by alex.s

California law against negligent cellphone use or negligent operation of a vehicle is very serious and can lead to jail time if someone was hurt because of it. hell the texting ticket alone is like 300$ and thats when there is no repercussion.

ABATE is trying to get another bill passed in Florida to ban texting and driving. So far its failed to pass and texting while driving remains legal in Florida. I've nearly been hit numerous times, and usually without fail, the cager is on the phone or texting when it happened.

As far as witnesses, the dead biker in an accident usually doesn't argue with the cop when the cager says he was speeding. Once there is an allegation that the biker was speeding, the cops assume the biker was at fault (even though the cager pulls in front of him). So if the cager claims that the biker was speeding, he doesn't even get the $87 fine.

But if a biker IS speeding and hits a drunk that wanders into traffic, then the biker goes to jail.

Originally Posted by Luvninja

Ummm If you skidded to a stop infront of me and were revving your engine like the dude in the middle I would knock you out. Not because you're on a motorcycle but because your showing some aggression, there's also 3 of them.... right infront of her... blocking her way...

Stopping a motorcycle isn't being aggressive. However, throwing a huge bag at someone IS aggressive. She's obviously on drugs too. How else is she going to throw her bag at them, zip to her car, start it, zip back and start running them over before it hits the ground?

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

As far as witnesses, the dead biker in an accident usually doesn't argue with the cop when the cager says he was speeding. Once there is an allegation that the biker was speeding, the cops assume the biker was at fault (even though the cager pulls in front of him). So if the cager claims that the biker was speeding, he doesn't even get the $87 fine.

if you really think someone dead on the highway doesn't result in an investigation, i have nothing more to say.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by alex.s

if you really think someone dead on the highway doesn't result in an investigation, i have nothing more to say.

In Florida, yes, there is an investigation, but its usually only for about 15 minutes when a biker is involved. The cager will usually be tested for alcohol and if negative, he walks. Other than that, if there are no witnesses that will side with the dead biker, frequently the only witness is the guy who caused the accident.

Just a while ago there was a biker killed not far from here that was riding through an intersection and a cager turned in front of him. The cager claimed the biker was speeding and the investigation was over. Of course, the question is how did the cager so accurately calculate the biker's speed without actually noticing him?

But like I said, even if the cager admits to pulling in front of the biker and causing the accident, its only an $87 fine.