Ethics, Motorcycle Dealerships and Motorcyclists

[NewGuy]

Until we have a structure like the Europeans it is unlikely we would be able to control newbs getting super powerful bikes.

You're looking to the socialist nanny states of Europe for guidance on how to handle things here in the US? No thanks.

We already are moving toward the same socialist "crumb" that many European countries have, on a variety of issues, where no one takes responsibility for themselves, everyone taxed at astronomical rates, and the government excessively limits personal freedom. There is absolutely no need to speed our descent into that evil by adding yet another issue that will discourage individual responsibility, limit personal freedom, and give more control to the state.

Actually, it is kind of funny, but every time I've been to Europe they seem freer than people here in the US. Especially on topics like sexuality.

More laws do create a lot of problems, though, I agree. I'd rather the motorcyclist community try to resolve (as much as possible) this kind of thing before government intervention becomes a hot topic.

RhadamYgg

I've been all over Europe many times. There is a huge difference between what you're describing, ie a cultural attitude toward sexuality, versus what I was talking about which is excessive government regulation and taxation. In most countries in Europe the government has interfered with the free market in all industries, and has excessively taxed it's poplulace to support socialist agendas. Unfortunately we slowing moving that way in this country. Again, I will not be looking to Europe for examples of what government should and should not do.

[MZ33]

Just looked it up to make sure that what I have seen and what statistics say are true. Most accidents happen at speeds below 35mph. Now that doesnt show what the actual speed limits where those accidents happened are but still shows that slower speeds cause more accidents than faster speeds.

Guys!! That most accidents happen at slower speeds does not mean that the slower speed caused them!!

Most common cause of accidents is following too closely. Speed is relatively low on list of motor vehicle causes, but it is the highest cause for fatal incidents, and for injuries. Which, incidently, is why it gets scrutinized more by government & insurance bodies.

[Brackstone]

=I've been all over Europe many times. There is a huge difference between what you're describing, ie a cultural attitude toward sexuality, versus what I was talking about which is excessive government regulation and taxation.

I think this is wrong because I just read most European countries are adopting a "sex tax". Everytime you have sex you need to send money to the government. Much like the TV Tax they are going to have vehicles driving around to see if you are indeed having sex and if you are they will make sure you pay the tax.

BTW this also reminded me of a very interesting video I just watched I encourage everyone to check it out

http://totalmotorcycle.com/BBS/viewtopic.php?t=30452

[RhadamYgg]

Just looked it up to make sure that what I have seen and what statistics say are true. Most accidents happen at speeds below 35mph. Now that doesnt show what the actual speed limits where those accidents happened are but still shows that slower speeds cause more accidents than faster speeds.

Guys!! That most accidents happen at slower speeds does not mean that the slower speed caused them!!

Most common cause of accidents is following too closely. Speed is relatively low on list of motor vehicle causes, but it is the highest cause for fatal incidents, and for injuries. Which, incidently, is why it gets scrutinized more by government & insurance bodies.

Ahh, I think you have something there. That was in one of the books I've read. I should re-read them, my early onset alzheimer's is probably kicking in.

RhadamYgg

[ofblong]

Just looked it up to make sure that what I have seen and what statistics say are true. Most accidents happen at speeds below 35mph. Now that doesnt show what the actual speed limits where those accidents happened are but still shows that slower speeds cause more accidents than faster speeds.

Guys!! That most accidents happen at slower speeds does not mean that the slower speed caused them!!

Most common cause of accidents is following too closely. Speed is relatively low on list of motor vehicle causes, but it is the highest cause for fatal incidents, and for injuries. Which, incidently, is why it gets scrutinized more by government & insurance bodies.

From my experiences slower speeds IS what caused an accident. Speed limit says 55 and your doing 35 your GOING to be the cause of an accident. Now thats if your doing it on a dry warm day with no reason to go that slow other than "gauking" cause you cant drive. 35 in the middle of a blizzard well thats understandable .

[sv-wolf]

Most common cause of accidents is following too closely. Speed is relatively low on list of motor vehicle causes, but it is the highest cause for fatal incidents, and for injuries. Which, incidently, is why it gets scrutinized more by government & insurance bodies.

How sure are you of this, MZ? You are right that that most published research concludes that speed is not high on the list of causes of motor vehicle accidents (it comes 11th on UK lists) but official findings which show that it is the principle cause of fatalities have been repeatedly debunked in the UK and in Australia by independent motoring and other organisations. It is apparently very difficult to determine causality in high speed accidents.

Of course, unless you are a dedicated researcher with plenty of time on your hands, it is very difficult to get at the truth of this sort of thing, especially when all sorts of sectional interests are involved. But, I'm terminally suspicious of government research. It has too long a history of finding what it wants to find - in this and in all sorts of other areas as well.

In the UK, government as well as independent research is beginning to find that speed cameras far from saving lives have either no appreciable effect on road accident statistics or, in some cases even increase the number of fatalities. The government unsurprisingly is now hooked into a slick face saving exercise.

Although it is refusing to back down in its public support of speed cameras, it has quietly introduced new funding legislation which makes it impossible to maintain them, making their gradual disappearance from the roads almost a certainty. Clever, eh!

[sv-wolf]

Until we have a structure like the Europeans it is unlikely we would be able to control newbs getting super powerful bikes.

You're looking to the socialist nanny states of Europe for guidance on how to handle things here in the US? No thanks.

We already are moving toward the same socialist "crumb" that many European countries have, on a variety of issues, where no one takes responsibility for themselves, everyone taxed at astronomical rates, and the government excessively limits personal freedom. There is absolutely no need to speed our descent into that evil by adding yet another issue that will discourage individual responsibility, limit personal freedom, and give more control to the state.

Europe? Socialist? That's a laugh! I wish!

(How could I have missed this one?)

You're talking about government sponsored services and regulation, NewGuy, which is something quite different.

The road network is a communal space and the consensus here in the UK is that a communal space needs to be regulated communally.

It is generally perceived in the UK (and in those parts of Europe I know a little about) that preventing the young and inexperienced from riding large motorcycles on public roads reduces the number of accidents, collisions, injuries, and deaths. Though many would argue about the regulatory details, most people take the view that this is a good thing and give it their support.

That is generally known here as democracy - rule by the majority. The myth of unlimited personal freedom in a wholly individualist society, is known as anarchy. The idea of anarchy on the roads does not appeal! They are bad enough already.

Of course, our fake Western democracies hardly constitute rule by the majority. So I'm no supporter of government (big or little). Hmmm! Perhaps we have some common ground after all - though I suspect we'd need a magnifying glass to find it.

[NewGuy]

Europe? Socialist? That's a laugh! I wish!

(How could I have missed this one?)

You're talking about government sponsored services and regulation, NewGuy, which is something quite different.

Yes, I am talking about "government sponsored services" and interference in the free markets (ie, regulation). Which is socialism.

The road network is a communal space and the consensus here in the UK is that a communal space needs to be regulated communally.

There needs to be a balance between the wants of the community and the freedoms of the individual. Something most of of Europe has abandoned decades ago.

That is generally known here as democracy - rule by the majority.

Well some of us prefer a represenative democracy, such as the Republic established here in the US that is intended to prevent mob rule (ie, rule by the majority), so that there will be a balance between the wants of the majority and freedoms of the individuals.

The myth of unlimited personal freedom in a wholly individualist society, is known as anarchy.

I never advocated anarchy, and as I pointed out our Representative Republic was intended to prevent both extremes that you've mentioned. Unfortunately, we are slowly creeping toward the socialist policies that have become popular in Europe.

I dread the day when we have socialized medicine in the US and there won't be decent medical care left anywhere in the world. Just one of many examples of the US moving toward ridiculous socialist policies. I hate that idea as much as I hate the idea of the government saying my first bike should have been an anemic 125cc POS.

[MZ33]

How sure are you of this, MZ? You are right that that most published research concludes that speed is not high on the list of causes of motor vehicle accidents (it comes 11th on UK lists)

It was presented to me in a defensive driving course I had to take to drive for the Red Cross. It was, I believe, from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration here in the U.S. The instructor used to be a truck driver, and then moved into safety & accident management for a trucking company, then started a driving school. If you are more interested, I will try to track him down and verify his sources. But since you asked, I did a little internet searching. New York State has posted their accident statistics online: (http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics ... _Final.pdf) This is the same format that the instructor presented, except that he had national data.

As you can see, "Following too closely" was listed as a contributing factor 29,544 times in 146,851 accidents, and resulted in 19 fatalities. "Unsafe speed" was listed 20,456 times in the same 146,851 accidents, but resulted in 384 fatalities. This data is compiled from the police reports per accident. This is the data for one state out of 50, but I have no reason to believe that either my instructor or the NHTSA fudged the numbers with the other 49 to get the results they want. On the other hand, yes, I know that statistics can be manipulated. I do not believe that occurred in this case.

Upon further reflection, it occurs to me that he may have used only Ohio data, since that is where we are. In which case, the sentence about all 50 states may be inaccurate. The class was back in May. But I believe he was using national data--pretty sure NHTSA was cited somewhere.

[Misguided Missle]

You're talking about government sponsored services and regulation, NewGuy, which is something quite different.

No its not, this is the poster child for socialism

People dependant on the state