Motorcycle Forums banner
1 - 6 of 151 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
Booo, AMA. Even though bikes pollute less than cars just based on the mileage, that's no reason we can't do our part. The technology is obviously there, look at the GL1800. Meets 2008 and ROMPS.



And how would reducing emissions "compromise the safety of riders"? If any manufactuer is stupid enough to mount a CC where it can burn someone, it's not the EPA's fault.



The argument about this making motorcycling too expensive for beginners is also very weak. You can get a CX500 that runs like a top for less than a grand if you look around. Why so many beginner motorcyclists buy new is beyond me. What this may do is reduce the number of beginner bikes models available, but I doubt it will make them more expensive.



Looks like the AMA is too worried about keeping everyone happy. The "big tent" AMA. Wasting political capital on fighting emissions and helmet laws. If I didn't race motocross (yes, on my dirty two-smoke, I'm a hypocrite, I'll be on a CRF450 when I can scrape together $4k for a nice used model, so be quiet) I doubt I'd be a member.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
Re: Check these out Shaun!

I gotta say those numbers look pretty optimistic. A buddy of mine has a '68 camaro that he has put at least $25k into, and has over 500hp, and an aftermarket torque converter (locks at 3500 rpm), and he only claims a 12.5s 1/4 mile. Plus, there is way more to being a sport car than straight line acceleration. And there is no doubt today's cars handle and brake better.

History does repeat itself. Look at how far behind Detroit has already fallen in developing hybrid vehicles. They're spending their money lobbying congress to keep them from making our vehicles more efficent, instead of putting it into developing technology. Honda and Toyota are leading the way, once again.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
Be Careful....

Are you saying a government program made life better? Don't you know that the free market would have cleaned up the LA basin much quicker than government regulations ever did?

You could all of the people below (the ones blathering on about how the EPA is run by bin Laden, etc) and transport them back in time, they would have been against every government regulation that has ever been made. Seat belts? Air bags? Crash tests? Rollover ratings? All regulations that have made us safer, while not effecting our quality of life one bit. Are you more free in a deathtrap?

All you slippery slope belivers out there (calling all NRA members!), can someone answer me this: Three wheelers were deemed dangerous and outlawed. Banned. Done. How is it possible that four wheelers are still available (actually incredibly popular), what, 15 years later? Shouldn't they have been outlawed too? Is it possible that our elected officials DIDN'T go down the slippery slope? Is it possible that they could see the difference between a quad and a three wheeler, and outlawed one but not the other, because they are people like you and me with common sense? Someone please, please explain to me why four wheelers are still legal.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
Re: Be Careful....

So is it the media or the government? Or both? I still don't understand why they have not been outlawed. Could it be that the media also has some common sense? You say they have not gone after quads "yet". I never knew there was a delay involved in the slippery slope. When can we expect the slide to continue?

When suv supporters ask why they are being singled out when there are other forms of pollution, they are exposing a serious lack of brainpower. "Why are you mad at me in my expedition, look at that semi over there, he only gets 3mpg! And what about that power plant? Or that barge? " They both pollute WAY more than I do. We would be going after semis, barges, and power plants if people were using them for a job that a car could do. SUVs are used to get the same job done as cars. They just do it incredibly inefficently. (I hope I don't have to explain to you why wasting gas is bad.)

I agree with you that pickups should get more criticism. They are also rarely used for their intended purpose, but are used for their intended purpose much more often than SUVs. I suppose I should let you know that I own a pickup. It's an '86 Toyota 2WD 4-cylinder (with 160k) , it gets 26 mpg, I put about 5k miles per year hauling around my dirtbike, leaves, picking up appliances, etc, and lending it out to all my friends and relatives.

The SUV backlash is not driven by the media, and I am not a lemming. SUV owners are the lemmings, just of the auto industry, not the media.

Lemming: "Hi, I need a new vehicle. I saw an ad the other day where this SUV drove on a gravel road in the mountains. That sure was impressive. I need something with a decent amount of cargo space, since my kid plays hockey. And I want something that is good in the snow. Whattya got?"

Car salesman: "Oh, you plan on hauling around your son's hockey gear? It sure does snow around here, so you need four wheel drive, since it is more important to be able to accellerate on bad roads than it is to stop or turn. Plus, it is impossible to avoid accidents, so you might as well drive something that will kill the other people, not you. You look like the outdoorsy, adventrous type. I can see you in an SUV. We have this one that is based on a $15,000 pickup, but we put seats where the bed used to be, which cost the factory $1000 extra. It can be yours for only $26,000!"
 
1 - 6 of 151 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top