"Except that the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate"
The courts seem to think otherwise.
"Lots of things cause far more harm than sport bikes"
Sure, but thats hardly a reason not to ban sports bikes. Legislation will follow what folks demand. A lot of motorcyclists out there are doing their best to have bikes banned, and theyre going to succeed.
"regulatory fascists need to stay (the f**k) out of peoples' lives"
Sure thing, but then many motorcycles invade folks lives by creating hazardous situations on public roads. I pay taxes and I vote. Why should I allow my childs life to be put in danger each time she crosses the street to go to the store?
I am assuming you meant to say there are more SUVs than motorcycles? Yes, that is very true. Not sure what your point is though.
I have not seen an SUV travel at 100mph on a road kids have to cross. I see motorcycles do that often. Get my drift?
I have no hassle with the bikers (helmeted or not) that keep within speed limits and not endanger others. I strongly suspect the vast majority of (voting) Americans feel the same. Sadly a minority of people is acting in a way that is going to cause the majority to force them to comply.
No need to wonder, the government (either state or federal) will make a unilateral decision on what is sensible and what is not sensible. Unfortunately we cannot look to either the motorcycling community or manufacturers to impose a mutually agreed upon limit to prevent this. Legislation will be forced upon us because of imbeciles that do not have the presence of mind to moderate their behavior.
"Laws don't prevent accidents, people do."
So how will you have a motorcycle accident if you cannot ride one? Best youll be able to do is go out make a motorcar accident, which I believe is a lot safer. A lot of folks out there are eager to help you be safe.
"if he were as concerned about public welfare as he claims, he would have called for the ban of Corvettes in that column"
Well he wont because he probably owns one himself. Most people are to small to see the error of their own actions; which is why the majority of posters here do not consider exceeding speed limits as wrong, nor do they think owning a 200mph motorcycle for road use as irresponsible.
"And he mostly skirts the real point, which is stupid behavior"
No, I believe he is saying owning and operating a 200mph motor vehicle on public roads is stupid behavior. I think he is quite right.
Sure, but kill ratios of SUVs do not invalidate the arguments set forth in the article. Many motorcyclists have not got the presence of mind to realize they are engaging in irresponsible behavior that is going to cost all motorcyclists. In fact many feel incensed by the fact that their puerile behavior is rightly coined as such.
I have read a few posters responses to the article. You do the same as I rest my case.
"Well, uh, gee, what do you think a federal court (often with a judge who has a lifetime appointment from the executive branch) is going to say. The Constitution is clear; the courts are confused and unaccountable."
I am sure you have some point
"Your child is statistically much more endangered by thousands of other things besides sportbikes."
Like your opinion pertaining to what is safe or unsafe for my child matters?
"if someone is endangering someone else, we have laws and remedies for it,"
Yes we have. Unfortunately some folks choose ignore those laws.
"but Easterbrook's column is about banning things as a kneejerk reaction based on emotion."
Not sure what the absurdity of a 200mph capable motorcycle for public roads has to do with emotion.
"Not only is it stupid (and ineffectual), it's unconstitutional"
It is very effective, it has been read by many thousands (who do vote) and simply because you consider it your constitutional right to have access to a 200mph capable motor vehicle for use on public roads does not make it so.
According to Easterbrook's way of thinking , we should ban all small Toyota's?
Really? Can the Toyota top out close to 200mph? No? Oh? Does it out accelerate a Corvette? No? So maybe youre talking about your interpretation of Easterbrooks thinking. Maybe you need to read the article again
"Both busas and 500hp corvettes should not be allowed on public roads."
"There is no statistical rationale for this statement"
No, but there is a logical rationale. Both are not appreciated by the public at large and as such create negative feeling from the public to all associated with it. Somebody reading the article about the busa is going to view me as an asshat, simply because I ride. The fact that I do not speed, wear a helmet and run stock pipes will mean nothing.
"You could restrict the top speed of all vehicles - period - to 100mph and you wouldn't make a spit's worth of difference to the accident rate because virtually all of them happen below 70mph"
I do not think that is true Take as example somebody traveling at 120 who applies brakes when observing an obstacle in the road. Unable to stop in time, he/she hits said obstacle at 60mph. That is an accident happening at less than 70mph, but caused buy excessive speed.
I do not put to much heed in statistics as they can be interpreted to prove anything.
BTW, I do not support speed restrictors on motor vehicles. I am simply saying that performance has gone way over the top, which is forcing legislators to act to bring it back to more sane levels. Of course, it would be better if manufacturers and riders could decide which levels to drop down to rather than some suits in Washington.
My Streetrod is rated at 120 odd HP. Nobody is going to try and outlaw it. The Hayabusa has 180+hp (?) which is way too much. If legislation comes in and restrict all bikes to 100hp, I am going to be nailed also. Now I must have my bike restricted because of a couple of immature jerks suffering from penis envy?