Motorcycling is a LUXURY EXPENSE...

[Sev]

I think what Lionlady was getting at, is that a LOT of new riders seem to be blowing all their savings getting that big bore sportbike they like so much, not thinking about insurance or the cost of proper gear. shazam! insta-squid!

So why does it instantly become our job (or business) to tell those people they've done wrong? If someone comes here asking, then great...fill them in. But people screw up every day in all aspects of life because they don't think for themselves. Or should I buy the book It Takes a Village by Hillary Clinton?

When they ASK US for advice it becomes our problem. We have two choices, ignore them and hope they go away that just seems elitist and assholish to me.

Or we can give them the advise that we believe will help them to become the best riders possible.

I'll admit some people are overzealous in offering advise, I was at one point as well, but that's beside the point.

[Jamers!]

Or should I buy the book It Takes a Village by Hillary Clinton?

no, of all the things one could do that should be at the bottom of the list if even on it. I agree though, if people come here asking for our imput and advice we should give it, but if they make a 'mistake' then we all jump on em for it and give em "poo poo", whats that do other than make us seem like a buncha jerks. . .



JWF

[ZooTech]

When they ASK US for advice it becomes our problem. We have two choices, ignore them and hope they go away that just seems elitist and assholish to me.

Yes, when they ask for it. But there seems to be a lot of unsolicited advice floating around here, which comes across just as elitist.

[flynrider]

I had a bike instead of a car for 5 yrs. Since I did my own wrenching, it was less expensive than driving a car. I didn't consider it a luxury.

My current bike could be considered a luxury, since I have a truck for general transportation, but I commute on the bike nearly every day. It saves wear and tear on the truck and costs me 1/2 in gasoline.

[dieziege]

The whole thing is wrong.

Motorcycles have always (well, since after WWII) been seen as "cheap transportation" for lower-class people who for whatever reason couldn't ride busses. That's why MC riders were fair game to badger with silly laws (e.g. anti-ape-hanger laws) and police harassment.

Yeah, that changed a bit by the '70s... and even more in recent years w/ $20,000 harleys... but the laws are based on the perceptions of the time in which they were passed.

The reason some states don't require MC insurance is that it is difficult to do a lot of damage with motorcycles. Look up the concept of "financial responsibility" laws (as opposed to "mandatory insurance"). In many states, no vehicle needs to be insured if the owner/operator can prove that they are financially responsible. In the case of cars that often means posting a bond or proving to the state that you have money. In the case of motorcycles... how much harm do they normally do? Most MC accidents are single-vehicle accidents with little or no property damage. The MC+car accidents are *usually* the fault of the car and the car rarely receives more than a few thousand dollars damage anyway. Contrast that with cars, where a simple accident can result in $10,000+ in property damage (to other cars) and it is easy to drive one through a storefront or into someone's house causing thousands of dollars in damage and injuring or killing many bystanders. Yeah, harm can be done on a MC too... but it is a LOT harder, and a lot less frequent, and is self limiting because the MC rider is likely to kill themselves before they kill too many others.

So some of the Financial Responsibility Law states looked at motorcycles and said "almost everyone has the wherewithall to be financially responsible for this sort of harm...the cost to society of catching that final 1% who can afford a MC but can't afford to fix a fence they've crashed into is too high for the payoff."

That's hardly unique to Insurance. Everyone knows about California SMOG inspections, right? We pioneered the idea of running all cars through emissions testing every 2 years... but motorcycles don't need to be tested in CA. Why not? The state evaluated MC testing and decided that the cost would exceed any possible benefit.

That's the reality... if the guy who couldn't afford insurance (who caused this thread) lost control in a parking lot and rode into the "McPlayArea" at McDonalds, chances are he'd cause a few hundred dollars worth of damage to the outside fence. Add a couple thousand in legal fees and he'd have his wages garnished for a year or so to make good on the harm. Same thing in a Pontiac and he'd probably cause thousands of dollars in damage to the play area and kill a few kids in the process. Maybe $50,000 in harm... add another $50K in legal bills, and he's got a $100,000 judgement. If he was making $80,000 a year it would take 5-10 years to pay that back. But if he was, he'd have the insurance.

[Lion_Lady]

Okay... What I'm getting at is these basic premises:

1) Unless you live in a very few geographical areas (that are blessed with mild weather year round), it is simply NOT practical to substitute motorcycling for year round, DAILY use. So, for practicality, you need access to a cage for those 'other' times.

2) Motorcycles are subject to graver consequences from poor maintenance. So, if you aren't mechanically inclined or don't have access to a mechanic who will work for free, OR cannot afford to pay a professional to fix problems, see #1, above.

3) Motorcycling requires a higher level of skill and attention than driving... again, due to graver consequences of making a bad judgement while on the road. So, if you must get to work/school, etc in a less than alert state of mind with any frequency, see #1.

As regards to the concept of denying anyone the choice to drive a Porsche, all I'm saying is that if you can't afford the upkeep and maintenance on a Porsche, then for crying out loud, buy what you CAN afford, and save up your $$ until you CAN afford one.

I can't imagine that anyone reading this would agree, that it makes sense to buy a Porsche on credit, and then ask for help diagnosing an engine noise on a public forum because you "can't afford to take it to a shop."

THAT, my friends is what I'm getting at. If you can't afford the upkeep on a bike, then don't get one. Motorcycling is more than just making payments on the machine, or outright purchase. Always some expense to take care of.

So, for anyone with limited cash flexibility, motorcycling is probably not for them.

P

[scan]

So, for anyone with limited cash flexibility, motorcycling is probably not for them.

P

Yeah, that sounds about right for most cases. I'd say situation where you are saving money by riding instead of driving and saving fuel, are more rare. Hooray for the commuters, but I know I waste gas because I ride all over the place and rarely does it have a purpose.

[CNF2002]

I bought my bike when I paid off my SUV. I wanted something cheap that got great gas mileage. I could have sold the nice SUV and gotten a cheap stripped econocar for 9k that got 30mpg. Instead I got a 2k bike that gets 70mpg and gear cost...what...a few hundred, taxes alone on the car would have been more than that.? You dont need to buy fancy race leathers and a $700 Shoe Ultimate helmet.

Maintenance so far has been limited to oil changes (aside from the strange clunk I just started noticing today), even though my tires are too freaking expensive and dont last very long.

Now instead of junking the investment in the SUV (the interest alone was a couple thousand over the term) I just bought a small bike to commute on. I dont wear out the expensive vehicle with unnecessary work miles, I dont pay outrageous money for gas at 19mpg, and I have a very nice vehicle to play with on the weekends, take trips in, and haul things like tables and lounge chairs from the thrift shops. And I dont have a car payment. My insurance is less because its now classified as a secondary vehicle, which saves me more than it costs to insure the bike. I also save money on trips downtown since I dont have to pay to park in a garage, and trips anywhere are more convenient because I dont have to worry about parking (especially at the mall).

If I bought a bike to ride around for fun on the weekend, a liter sportbike with full race leathers and matching helmet and scarf, I'd consider that a luxury item. But bikes are incredibly practical for barebones transportation. Luxury? Yeah right.

[dieziege]

The Porsche-on-credit argument is a red herring. We are talking about buying an inexpensive used motorcycle ($200-$1000 current USD). Maintenance may or may not be a red herring... people must learn to maintain vehicles somehow. I learned by buying a bunch of really cheap cars when I was younger and fixing them anywhere anyhow... and I pulled my hair out a few times trying to figure out silly stuff alongside the road but that's good for you. Builds character.

All that said... yes, if you can't afford something, you "should" not get it. That has the halmarks of a silly truism. Especially when you can't afford *not* having it either.

When I was 18 I couldn't afford a car. I couldn't afford a house. I couldn't afford much of anything. I could have mooched off of friends the rest of my life... I can be a good moocher when I want.... but I chose a different path.

I bought a $600 VW rabbit with money that wasn't mine, got a job that I could take because I could get to it with the car, used the job to get the money to repay the car purchase, saved more money, had the car break down and leave me stranded several times including in dangerous situations... saved more money... and before I was 18 I was signing the mortgage papers on my house, still driving that $600 POS.

I could've done *exactly* the same thing with a motorcycle. There would be a few main differences. 1) The motorcycle would've been a LOT less trouble because a $600 motorcycle is pretty nice where a $600 car is a death trap. 2) I would've been safer because a $600 car is a death trap in its own right (brake discs breaking, pedals falling off, engine mounts breaking, spedo stops working, can't shift into reverse, engine cuts out at random times, fuel tank sucks into a little wadded ball because the vent plugs, windows fog up any time it rains so you've got to have paper towel to see, the list goes on) where a $600 motorcycle is no more dangerous than a $3000 motorcycle and either is safer than a $600 car 3) I couldn't have carried two passengers (which I wanted to do). 4) I would have gotten wet more often.

Would you call a motorcycle a luxury in that case?

As for the weather issues... my father rode as primary transportation in Wisconsin in the '60s 9 months out of the year. Yeah, he had a "cage"... but the money he saved by leaving it at his parents house and riding put him through college.

[Meanie]

When they ASK US for advice it becomes our problem.

Says who? The person seeking the advice has two options....take it or leave it. This is a forum in which everyday riders provide their adventures, opinions and feedback on their hobby. Nobody in here, that I know of, claims to be an "expert" of motorcycling. A doctor's advice is almost always heeded with serious consideration because they are supposed to be highly educated in the medical field with years of schooling. Advice from everyday riders can be considered on the common sense level because all we have to offer are our experiences and that, is still never a guarantee of being the correct answer.

Bottom line, forum members offer the best advice "they" believe to exist from their own experience. The seeker should realize all issues and circumstances vary with each person. Thay have to determine what is best for himself/herself.