Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Rhadam, go back and read the artical.

1) The kid rode and raced dirt bikes so he had the skills to ride.

2) He bought the bike at 6:00 and rode it around, the crash was at 11:45 so it wasn't 30 seconds after purchase.

3) The general term of crotch rocket was used so it could have been anything from a 250cc up.

4) He was showing off in front of freinds. He was looking back at them instead of where he was going.

Also if he was to get the crotch rocket on loan, he would have had to get insurance on it before the loan would pass.

How is a dealer supposed to KNOW beyond any reasonable doubt, or even any reasonable suspicion what bike is too much for a new buyer to handle.

Let's say there is a 27 year old standing in the dealership looking at a new Hyabusa or a Victory Hammer. He's got a license issued a week earlier with a motorcycle endorsement. Is that guy brand new to riding, and just got the new license when he got his motorcycle endorsement added after taking the MSF course, or is he a guy who has been riding for the last 8 years and just moved to that state and needed to get a new license? If the buyer isn't willing to tell the dealer, the dealer has no way of knowing.

A dealer could try to figure out what the buyer's history really is, but if the buyer isn't interested in telling the dealer and just says he wants to buy a bike, is it the dealer's fault if the buyer bites off more than he can chew?

While I know dealers do some unethical things, it's not really the dealer's responsibility to get a buyer a bike that's appropriate for the newbie. Some do it with altruistic intentions, and some do it hoping to get a future sale. ie, "I'll sell him/her the "starter bike" and he/she will be back in a few months to "upgrade."" However, it's not the seller's job to know what's right for the buyer.

The responsibility lies with the buyer to be honest with himself/herself about their capabilities, and do some research on getting an appropriate bike. I was able to figure out that a Sportster 1200 or a Kawasaki Mean Streak were not appropriate bikes for me. If I can figure that out then anyone can. Hell for some a Ninja 250 will be too much, or Vulcan 500 will be too much. The dealer can't be held responsible for irrational/irresponsible buyers. Those buyers need to accept responsibility for their own safety.

I mean really should a dealer get in trouble for selling a bike, but not requiring that the buyer also get a full face helmet, jacket with armor, pants with armor, riding boots, and riding gloves?

Mr. Invisible wrote:Rhadam, go back and read the artical.

1) The kid rode and raced dirt bikes so he had the skills to ride.

2) He bought the bike at 6:00 and rode it around, the crash was at 11:45 so it wasn't 30 seconds after purchase.

3) The general term of crotch rocket was used so it could have been anything from a 250cc up.

4) He was showing off in front of freinds. He was looking back at them instead of where he was going.

Also if he was to get the crotch rocket on loan, he would have had to get insurance on it before the loan would pass.

1) Yes he had skills (unknown level, but predicted high because he was a dirt rider)

2) Yes, it was 30 seconds after he left his house, but he had actually made it home from the dealer.

3) Yep, the folks at work call my Ninja 250 a crotch rocket - simply because it looks like one.

4) Yep, it was pretty stupid what he did.

All the same:
5) He wasn't licensed.
6) Probably took it safe on the way home and thought he knew everything about the bike from that ride.
7) I doubt he bought a Ninja 250. It seems probable that he gather the 10K or so from working hard and bought the most expensive bike he could get cash.
Accepted, without a doubt, what he did was stupid. People of course have done dumber things and survived, but in motorcycles, stupid is often fatal.

When you contrast this to the hockey player (Luc Bourdon) that died at the beginning of the riding season - you find that being licensed or not may not prevent senseless deaths. (Luc was licensed for about 2 weeks before he crashed fatally on his bike).

RhadamYgg

NewGuy wrote:How is a dealer supposed to KNOW beyond any reasonable doubt, or even any reasonable suspicion what bike is too much for a new buyer to handle.

Let's say there is a 27 year old standing in the dealership looking at a new Hyabusa or a Victory Hammer. He's got a license issued a week earlier with a motorcycle endorsement. Is that guy brand new to riding, and just got the new license when he got his motorcycle endorsement added after taking the MSF course, or is he a guy who has been riding for the last 8 years and just moved to that state and needed to get a new license? If the buyer isn't willing to tell the dealer, the dealer has no way of knowing.

A dealer could try to figure out what the buyer's history really is, but if the buyer isn't interested in telling the dealer and just says he wants to buy a bike, is it the dealer's fault if the buyer bites off more than he can chew?

While I know dealers do some unethical things, it's not really the dealer's responsibility to get a buyer a bike that's appropriate for the newbie. Some do it with altruistic intentions, and some do it hoping to get a future sale. ie, "I'll sell him/her the "starter bike" and he/she will be back in a few months to "upgrade."" However, it's not the seller's job to know what's right for the buyer.

The responsibility lies with the buyer to be honest with himself/herself about their capabilities, and do some research on getting an appropriate bike. I was able to figure out that a Sportster 1200 or a Kawasaki Mean Streak were not appropriate bikes for me. If I can figure that out then anyone can. Hell for some a Ninja 250 will be too much, or Vulcan 500 will be too much. The dealer can't be held responsible for irrational/irresponsible buyers. Those buyers need to accept responsibility for their own safety.

I mean really should a dealer get in trouble for selling a bike, but not requiring that the buyer also get a full face helmet, jacket with armor, pants with armor, riding boots, and riding gloves?

Well, that is the difficulty with the licensed riders - you can't tell when they got the endorsement. I'd consider this out of our controllable scope, unless the driver's licenses changed (M since X date) which is highly unlikely.

I'd settle for having the motorcycle dealers do what automobile dealers do - check to ensure that the person is licensed and does in fact have insurance.

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

For example, we have a another thread with someone who has had their M for less time than me that wants to get a CBR1000RR.

The first reaction is 'It is wayy too soon for that'.

But then again Brackstone had about half as many miles as me and when he test rode a bike the guy going through it said 'Some people with twice as much experience as you wouldn't even attempt some of the things you did.'

So, experience and ability are both things that are hard to measure and cannot be directly linked to how long you've been riding. Except with a specific skills test - on bike.

And what would you do if someone hurt themselves during the skills test? Better have good insurance.

RhadamYgg

I'm curious.....why do you care? Is it because it made the news? There are plenty of people who get killed everyday.....skydiving, surfing.....giving birth, choking on something, stunt people in the movies......you get my drift...

Because women die giving birth or babies die being born, you want to limit that too?
OK...I know that's not equivalent...but the point is.....craap happens.....
So....what is it about this particular one that has you so bugged?

Start this over there, we are making massive in -roads with our campaign.

www.thinkbike.co.za

blues2cruise wrote: Because women die giving birth or babies die being born, you want to limit that too?

I want to limit babies!

But that's just because when I go out to eat I don't like it when they are screaming

Brackstone wrote:

blues2cruise wrote: Because women die giving birth or babies die being born, you want to limit that too?

I want to limit babies!

But that's just because when I go out to eat I don't like it when they are screaming

OK, then you should swear off any activities that would..... ummmmm ..... make babies!!! Let me know how that works out for ya..!!!!!

jstark47 wrote:

Brackstone wrote:

blues2cruise wrote: Because women die giving birth or babies die being born, you want to limit that too?

I want to limit babies!

But that's just because when I go out to eat I don't like it when they are screaming

OK, then you should swear off any activities that would..... ummmmm ..... make babies!!! Let me know how that works out for ya..!!!!!

lol

Hey I always wear my helmet

Brackstone wrote:

blues2cruise wrote: Because women die giving birth or babies die being born, you want to limit that too?

I want to limit babies!

But that's just because when I go out to eat I don't like it when they are screaming

tell me about it. my wife and i used to always complain about people taking their stinkin' crying babies out to eat. we wanted a nice quiet meal since we were paying for it. then we had kids. sorry man. some time you just need a meal out. and not matter how well we plan (making sure the baby is fed, diaper is changed, toys to keep them entertained, etc.) they seem to not be happy. i do sometimes wish i could put a muzzle on them to be kind to the other diners - but i think they would be taken from me for a very long time if i did that.