Total Motorcycle Community Forums

SV...you are certainly verbose today.

OK RhadamYgg, Lets get back to the original story.

Let's say that you are a salesman and a young man walks up to you and wants to buy that big litre sport bike. His line is "I have been riding motorcycles my whole life, I even race them".

Quick answer. Do you sell him the motorcycle or not.

Do you feel the same way about other consumer products? Are we to start having to prove we're journeyman electricians before we're allowed to buy electrical components for our homes? Do we have to be certified arborists before we can buy a chainsaw?

I guess I don't see the dealer as having a responsibility to know everything about the potential buyer for a legitimate transaction to take place. I still feel that the individual has the entire responsibility of doing research to make sure it's what he/she can handle, etc, such that even if the dealer recommends something else, said individual can stick to what the research told them.

Evolution or similar theories work within a species also. The weak, diseased, or otherwise stupid animals tend to die off if left to nature and the stronger or smarter ones tend to thrive. We've crippled this program in the human species by trying to protect even the weak, the idiots and so forth from themselves, and it's really beginning to show.

I guess I have no empathy for people who can't be bothered to actually think and research what they're going to do. There are consequences to everything, and it seems people in general have forgotten that the consequences of poor decision making can be death.

How about,

Gee mr salesman, I want to buy that 250 over there.

He!! no kid, you'll out grow that bike in a week, then you'll wish you had bought this here Hayabusa.

But I've only just started riding.

Cr@p kid, you'll learn to handle this baby in a couple of hours...


Not the exact conversation I overheard, nor the models involved but close enough, and I still wanted to dodo kick the salesman...

My point was that the original post was about the artical where the mother of the late son admitted that he was riding and racing motorcycles. Her rant was that even though he was an experienced rider, the motorcycle seemed to have too much power, it couldn't be the riders fault. Since then everyone has seamed to overlook the fact that an experienced rider went to the dealer to buy a bike, and wants to hang the dealer out to dry for selling a sport bike to a young individual.

Dr_bar, funny you should bring up the Hayabusa. When I took the BRC, they said they used to allow you to bring your own bike to the class, till someone showed up for class with a Hayabusa.

I'm not down on the dealer in the article, I just paraphrased a conversation I overheard.

Do I think the kid was an idiot... Oh yeah, it would be tough if it was one of my daughters, but if they acted the same way and had an acident, I would be harder on myself for not being a bigger part of their "riders" education. As it is, neither of them ride, (except on the back of my bike.)

blues2cruise wrote:SV...you are certainly verbose today.

Thank you blues, but as you know, I'm always verbose. There are just a few occasions on which I am more verbose than others.

They've found a gene for verbosity BTW, so I disclaim all personal responsibility for it. (This is of course a lie, but I'll give you a damn good debate about it if you want.)

I suspect, however, that I'm in danger of losing my title to RhadamYgg after his last performance. Whaddya think? (I had to print off your post RY - still getting through it. Will conclude, consider and inwardly digest.)

Richard

blues2cruise wrote:

RhadamYgg wrote:
So, why should I care? Some meat-head maybe with a big dick looking to prove his masculinity gets killed on a bike after some really short period of time.m

No, no...you have that wrong....it's the owners of small ones that seem to need to compensate by buying a huge bike.

You have evidence for this, blues?

the_sandman_454 wrote:Do you feel the same way about other consumer products? Are we to start having to prove we're journeyman electricians before we're allowed to buy electrical components for our homes? Do we have to be certified arborists before we can buy a chainsaw?

I guess I don't see the dealer as having a responsibility to know everything about the potential buyer for a legitimate transaction to take place.

You are right. It would not be reasonable to make a salesman responsible for judging the skill level of a customer he has never seen before. But I think you are avoiding the point here, Sandman. There is no reason, as RhadamYgg points out, why the salesman should not bring up the issue of safety and make the customer aware of the dangers involved in riding a big FO motorcycle without sufficient experience. In the UK, financial consultants are regulated and are required to bring matters of risk to the attention of potential purchasers. Is there a lesson here?

For a motorcycle salesman to go one stage further and positively encourage a youngster to buy a bigger bike, as in the example the doc gave, is irresponsible. I have seen it happen on more than one occasion. A salesman tried it on me, once. I'd just come back to biking and had started off carefully on a 125. When I was ready to upgrade I took the 125 back to the dealer for an exchange. The guy tried to sell me an early TL1000 ( ). Of all the bikes to suggest!!! I could practically see the ££££ signs passing in front of his eyes as the funeral service passed in front of mine.

the_sandman_454 wrote:I still feel that the individual has the entire responsibility of doing research to make sure it's what he/she can handle, etc, such that even if the dealer recommends something else, said individual can stick to what the research told them.

Fact is, not everybody would even know how to go about doing the research, or know how to distinguish between good, factual information and advice and the volumes of craap which our society produces in huge quantity.

It is not just a matter of knowledge either; it is a matter of judgement, and we know perfectly well that teenagers in particular, who are coping suddenly with a huge onslaught of hormones, who's brains are in the process of rewiring themselves and whose experience and understanding of danger are strictly limited are not the best judges of these matters even in their own interest.

As for doing research, I'm an impatient sod, and rarely research things like this very deeply - so I take your remarks personally. ( ) Fortunately, I am old enough and have enough common sense and experience to make reasonably well-founded judgements - I hope. (RY, I can still remember when I was a youngster of 37, full of testosterone... etc.)

the_sandman_454 wrote:Evolution or similar theories work within a species also. The weak, diseased, or otherwise stupid animals tend to die off if left to nature and the stronger or smarter ones tend to thrive. We've crippled this program in the human species by trying to protect even the weak, the idiots and so forth from themselves, and it's really beginning to show.

You need to read your Darwin a little more carefully, Sandman.

It works like this. An eighteen-year-old chooses a bike that is far too much for him. Let's assume for the moment that his choice is controlled by a particular gene or group of genes (rather than being the result of teenage delusions, peer pressure and bad advice.) If he kills himself then those genes are lost to the gene pool. That's true. But the fact is, he is carrying not just these genes but a whole lot of other genes as well. And some of these other genes may well be essential to the survival of the species (genes which provide protection against some future pandemic disease, for example.) His loss might therefore weaken the gene pool and lower the chances of species survival, not improve it. It's the collective gene pool of the species that is important.

Darwin does not work at the level of the individual.

The idea that we are weakening the species by protecting members from the consequences of their actions is eugenicist (and I would also add, macho) bullshit. The people who believe this craap always believe themselves to be fine specimens of humanity and deserve to survive.

But of course, there is not the slightest shred of evidence that complex human behaviour, like the choice of a motorcycle, is controlled genetically anyway. The eighteen-year-old's choice will be influenced by all sorts of social and environmental factors: some of those will be historical (the kid's upbringing); some will be effective at the time he makes the choice. (family dynamics, etc.) It will be influenced, if he is a younster, by his level of biological development. It may even be influenced by his state of health at the time and other passing factors. All these things can affect our judgement. And many of them are temporary.

RhadamYgg made this point very well:

RhadamYgg wrote:
I see people who I've known who have been complete "Donut Holes" when they were younger to people who have families, regular jobs and are great parts of the community. We lose that potential every time one of these motorcyclists die in a senseless death due to a tragic lack of information... and control.
RhadamYgg

sv-wolf wrote:State ownership and regulation is just another way of running capitalism (some would say a more cost-effective way.) For this reason, right-wing European governments have actively centralised capital as frequently as left wing ones. Calling this 'socialism' commits you to the idea that there might be such a thing as right-wing socialism. An interesting concept!

Then later you say:

What you are talking about is a state capitalism. The free-market loons have manged to convince people that free-market capitalism is the only form of capitalism there is and that everything else is 'socialism' or something similar.

Well only someone from Europe, or some ultra-liberal fool from the US would seriosly present state control over the markets as being a form of capitalism. It goes against the long standing definition of what capitalism real is. Now I know some idiot (or to use your word "loon") created the concept of "state capitalism" in the early 1900s, but that doesn't mean he was right, or that the concept is a good concept. BTW, care to guess in what country the term "state capitalism" originated?

But you seem to be lumping social and economic regulation together here.

Well often they are part and parcel, but I do not automatically lump them together. Please reference my earlier comments regarding culture attitudes toward sexuality (a social issue) versus regulation (incl. taxation) of the markets (an economic issue).

Economically, neither market regulation nor free-marketeering policies have ever been remotely successful in encouraging capitalism to deliver uninterupted growth.

Who said free market capitalism could or should deliver uninterrupted growth. Uninterrupted growth is a utopian pipe dream that is not possible. Free markets (ala Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory) have been better at providing growth.

All the evidence suggests that allowing inexperienced youngsters to ride large machines is hazardous for other road users.

Really? Let's see that evidence that backs that claim up.

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

I don't buy it. That's just the myth. In reality, the US constitution was framed like those elswhere to ensure rule by the wealthy. Madison was quite explicit about that.

Aah, typical US bashing from someone in the UK. Tell the truth, are you mad because the US kicked your butts in two wars, or because you needed us to save your butts in two others? . . . or is it both?

[/quote]