Judge shocked at biker's bridge stunt - The Mormon's Bridge Video

[Quasievil]

exhibit B

http://www.youtube.com/user/scarwall#p/u/29/iAoA_7DxKWI

Exhibit C

http://www.youtube.com/user/scarwall#p/u/29/iAoA_7DxKWI

Exhibit D

http://www.youtube.com/user/scarwall#p/u/33/gAmdVE89-VI

like I said lucky he hasnt killed himself or someone else.

[Maha]

You don't think that this could prejudice your case/sentence?

Just because your lawyer works for free, no need to make his job more difficult...

Carver just gets caught up in his own Hysteria at times.
Nice chap, pretty good in front of a camera, but loves to talk about him more than anything.

[Quasievil]

- What if you got Carver on your side, perhaps even went as far as sponsorship etc

Yeah good plan I could give him free stuff and he could use it and bag the stuff online eh

Im not sure of any local business that appreciates Carver, he has worn most welcome matts out in these parts (think he is even banned from Boyds) yup made a name for himself in Hams for sure

Funny, Im just enjoying being a prick to him today......he aint biting tho trying hard to!!

[STJim]

Any ideas on when we can expect a judgment and thence the full story, so that I can avoid all of the supposition and bush lawyer antics on this thread until then?
Or will it be easier to watch for a new thread to be started once the judgement is handed down?

Expect this to be early April Will set up a fresh thread

[STJim]

All we need now is a poll to guess number of months his loss of licence will be for ...

Why don't you set it up

[SixPackBack]

Yeah good plan I could give him free stuff and he could use it and bag the stuff online eh

Im not sure of any local business that appreciates Carver, he has worn most welcome matts out in these parts (think he is even banned from Boyds) yup made a name for himself in Hams for sure

Funny, Im just enjoying being a prick to him today......he aint biting tho trying hard to!!

I would make the observation that 'being a prick' will hurt your business much more than damaging Carver in any way.

[Quasievil]

I would make the observation that 'being a prick' will hurt your business much more than damaging Carver in any way.

I would enlighten you to the fact the the NZ market is way bigger than the few who are on KB, as well as the fact that judging by the massive rep I seem to be getting the opposite is true.

Anyhow, who is out to damage Carver other than himself and the Law, not much I can do apart from laugh at the situation he got himself into......laugh laugh

[Oscar]

Dillusion is a state of perspective.

Under Carvers "reckless" attitude, is actually a very skilled and fearless individual. Whom pointed in the right direction could possibly go quite far. I am yet to see another kiwi attempt a bridge stunt as he performed (not saying no-one is out there - just saying I haven't seen it).



.

Firstly, the line between "skilled and fearless" and "over confident & stupid" is very fine. Carver's previous record would put him more toward the latter category in my opinion.

Secondly, that stunt has been done before.

[mister.koz]

Firstly, the line between "skilled and fearless" and "over confident & stupid" is very fine. Carver's previous record would put him more toward the latter category in my opinion.

Secondly, that stunt has been done before.

Video? I'd be keen to check it out

[Scouse]

I would make the observation that 'being a prick' will hurt your business much more than damaging Carver in any way.

Yep but isnt it funny how he does not seem to grasp this fact.

[FJRider]

Why don't you set it up

I feel infraction points are for sharing ... my last poll (on this particular member I recall) got a few ...

A second go at the same member ...

[DougieNZ]

I wasn't going to reply to this thread. I am reluctant to do so to feed carver;'s obvious penchant for self publicity but here goes. Reading the thread I think my thoughts echo several peoples on this site and thread.

The problem here is not the "stunt" itself. I would fight for the right for anyone to do such an activity. Provided the only person they are pitting at risk is themselves - and that it didn't majorly inconvenience other people wanting to go about their lawful business.

The problem is that the "stunt" was not planned and preformed in such a way to avoid risk to innocent people. what would have happened if he had have fallen on innocent people underneath and killed them? Would the same discussion be taking place? What if it was your brother/sister that was killed? Would you just say "oh well., bad luck"?

People have compared this action to bungy jumping... what? 2 things.

To be able to undertake such actitivies an operator would requirte sign off. This would include full risk assessments and what controls have been put in place to minimise risk to the participants and others. Events would have to be properly planned and carried out in a way to minimise risk.

Also, the particiapnts would have to sign a form saying they are aware of the risks and chose to undertake the activity.

Then we get to the actions after the event. Do we say afterwards - "oh well that was a bit silly - I wrongly put people at risk and I will do it poperly next time"?

No - we publish it on the internet and discuss it on various web sites - then try to defend the actions and in effect challenge the police to prosecute?

Well I for one are glad the police and the judiciary have taken up the challenge on my behalf.....

[trustme]

It is people like you and the police that assist me so much in making a name for myself, priceless free publicity, nationwide, for a slight inconvenicence and small fine..
a bit of a bargin really.

Of all the posts I have seen in this thread this is the one that I find the most disconcerting, contrary to popular opinion not all publicity is good publicity. I suspect most within the motorcycle industry would run a mile rather than be associated with a this sort of stunt as it tends to allienate a large proportion of their potential market & joe public at large
If you think this a the way to carve out a career you should do a little navel gazing or you will end up being a legend in your own luchtime & an irrelevance to everyone else.
Who has the likes of Red Bull lined up with Chris Birch or you, who creates a better image,who would they want to sponsor or promote, bit of a no brainer IMHO

Cool stunt but dumb move, time will tell

[scumdog]

I wasn't going to reply to this thread. I am reluctant to do so to feed carver;'s obvious penchant for self publicity but here goes. Reading the thread I think my thoughts echo several peoples on this site and thread.

The problem here is not the "stunt" itself. I would fight for the right for anyone to do such an activity. Provided the only person they are pitting at risk is themselves - and that it didn't majorly inconvenience other people wanting to go about their lawful business.

The problem is that the "stunt" was not planned and preformed in such a way to avoid risk to innocent people. what would have happened if he had have fallen on innocent people underneath and killed them? Would the same discussion be taking place? What if it was your brother/sister that was killed? Would you just say "oh well., bad luck"?

People have compared this action to bungy jumping... what? 2 things.

To be able to undertake such actitivies an operator would requirte sign off. This would include full risk assessments and what controls have been put in place to minimise risk to the participants and others. Events would have to be properly planned and carried out in a way to minimise risk.

Also, the particiapnts would have to sign a form saying they are aware of the risks and chose to undertake the activity.

Then we get to the actions after the event. Do we say afterwards - "oh well that was a bit silly - I wrongly put people at risk and I will do it poperly next time"?

No - we publish it on the internet and discuss it on various web sites - then try to defend the actions and in effect challenge the police to prosecute?

Well I for one are glad the police and the judiciary have taken up the challenge on my behalf.....

Good post that man!

[SixPackBack]

I wasn't going to reply to this thread. I am reluctant to do so to feed carver;'s obvious penchant for self publicity but here goes. Reading the thread I think my thoughts echo several peoples on this site and thread.

The problem here is not the "stunt" itself. I would fight for the right for anyone to do such an activity. Provided the only person they are pitting at risk is themselves - and that it didn't majorly inconvenience other people wanting to go about their lawful business.

The problem is that the "stunt" was not planned and preformed in such a way to avoid risk to innocent people. what would have happened if he had have fallen on innocent people underneath and killed them? Would the same discussion be taking place? What if it was your brother/sister that was killed? Would you just say "oh well., bad luck"?

People have compared this action to bungy jumping... what? 2 things.

To be able to undertake such actitivies an operator would requirte sign off. This would include full risk assessments and what controls have been put in place to minimise risk to the participants and others. Events would have to be properly planned and carried out in a way to minimise risk.

Also, the particiapnts would have to sign a form saying they are aware of the risks and chose to undertake the activity.

Then we get to the actions after the event. Do we say afterwards - "oh well that was a bit silly - I wrongly put people at risk and I will do it poperly next time"?

No - we publish it on the internet and discuss it on various web sites - then try to defend the actions and in effect challenge the police to prosecute?

Well I for one are glad the police and the judiciary have taken up the challenge on my behalf.....

Emotive clap trap.

Some of the first bungy jumping in the world was conducted off the Greenhithe bridge-without prior consent.