E-mail to the column author:
I recently read a portion of your ESPN page 2 column. While I agree with some of your statements in the section labeled "Sayonara Hayabusa", I find I must take issue with others.
You state that "The only real use of the acceleration ability is road rage -- to drag-race from stoplights, cut others off in traffic, speed like mad." A more accurate statement might read "The only real use of the acceleration ability THAT I PERCEIVE is road rage -- to drag-race from stoplights, cut others off in traffic, speed like mad." The original statement is, after all, a statement of perception or opinion - not an objective, proven fact. Riders are known to be able to use such machines without placing others at risk. I must confess that I find it somewhat alarming that the only perceived use that you see for such machines results in situations where other roadway users are placed at risk.
You state that "High-performance street motorcycles are socially irresponsible, and designed without regard for the safety of riders." The first part of this statement is ludicrous. Motorcycles are machines. Nothing more, nothing less. You cannot assign human behavioral characteristics to a machine without adding context in the form of a human operator/rider and the manner in which they operate the machine. Regarding the second part of this statement - I can assure you that the machines produced today are far safer than the machines I rode in the 70s. They stop better and are a more stable platform in a wider range of environmental conditions than the machines I rode then.
You state that "Roethlisberger and others who buy high-performance bikes don't wish anyone harm, they're just looking for an ego rocket." Really? Do you have information sources regarding Roethlisberger and others? Or are you simply stating your opinion? If the latter, what behavioral science credentials do you hold? Why should I believe this statement?
You state that "But public roads are subject to public regulation." Actually, public roads are subject to federal and state regulation - not public regulation.
You state that "Our nation's laws do not confer any "right" to operate on public roads a high-horsepower bike, anymore than there's a "right" to drive a bulldozer down the middle of an interstate." This statement is inaccurate. It is federal AND state law which regulates public and private transportation. These laws dictate minimum design standards, operator licensing, taxation, and a great deal more. The motorcycles that you rail against meet federal and state standards and qualifications for safe operation on a public road. Thus an operator who meets the standards and qualifications that apply to them is granted the PRIVILEGE of operating such a motorcycle on a public roadway. Regarding driving a bulldozer down the middle of an interstate - I've never seen a bulldozer that meets federal and state standards and qualifications for safe operation on a public road. I've never seen a bulldozer with a license plate. Thus your attempt at equating motorcycle usage and bulldozer usage on public roadways simply doesn't hold water.
You close this section of your column with the statement "The intended use of these bikes is lawbreaking!" Once again, your are asking your readers to assume that you either have inside information on ALL high-performance motorcycle operators or that you are qualified to make a blanket statement regarding the behavior of a group of people who share a single characteristic: They ride high-performance motorcycles. I find that I must enquire, once again: what behavioral science credentials do you hold? Why should I believe this statement?
Given the number of inaccuracies in such a small number of paragraphs, I can only surmise that it is not your intent to provide any sort of objective treatise regarding high-performance motorcycles and the riders who operate them. I can only surmise that your intent is to ignite passions with exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims. Thus I feel like this entitles me to respond in kind.
Norman Vincent Peale is credited with the following statements:
"Americans used to roar like lions for liberty. Now Americans bleat like sheep for security."
Given the level of exaggeration and unsubstantiated claims of your column, I think that the column can best be summed up with a simple BAH, BAH.
I recently read a portion of your ESPN page 2 column. While I agree with some of your statements in the section labeled "Sayonara Hayabusa", I find I must take issue with others.
You state that "The only real use of the acceleration ability is road rage -- to drag-race from stoplights, cut others off in traffic, speed like mad." A more accurate statement might read "The only real use of the acceleration ability THAT I PERCEIVE is road rage -- to drag-race from stoplights, cut others off in traffic, speed like mad." The original statement is, after all, a statement of perception or opinion - not an objective, proven fact. Riders are known to be able to use such machines without placing others at risk. I must confess that I find it somewhat alarming that the only perceived use that you see for such machines results in situations where other roadway users are placed at risk.
You state that "High-performance street motorcycles are socially irresponsible, and designed without regard for the safety of riders." The first part of this statement is ludicrous. Motorcycles are machines. Nothing more, nothing less. You cannot assign human behavioral characteristics to a machine without adding context in the form of a human operator/rider and the manner in which they operate the machine. Regarding the second part of this statement - I can assure you that the machines produced today are far safer than the machines I rode in the 70s. They stop better and are a more stable platform in a wider range of environmental conditions than the machines I rode then.
You state that "Roethlisberger and others who buy high-performance bikes don't wish anyone harm, they're just looking for an ego rocket." Really? Do you have information sources regarding Roethlisberger and others? Or are you simply stating your opinion? If the latter, what behavioral science credentials do you hold? Why should I believe this statement?
You state that "But public roads are subject to public regulation." Actually, public roads are subject to federal and state regulation - not public regulation.
You state that "Our nation's laws do not confer any "right" to operate on public roads a high-horsepower bike, anymore than there's a "right" to drive a bulldozer down the middle of an interstate." This statement is inaccurate. It is federal AND state law which regulates public and private transportation. These laws dictate minimum design standards, operator licensing, taxation, and a great deal more. The motorcycles that you rail against meet federal and state standards and qualifications for safe operation on a public road. Thus an operator who meets the standards and qualifications that apply to them is granted the PRIVILEGE of operating such a motorcycle on a public roadway. Regarding driving a bulldozer down the middle of an interstate - I've never seen a bulldozer that meets federal and state standards and qualifications for safe operation on a public road. I've never seen a bulldozer with a license plate. Thus your attempt at equating motorcycle usage and bulldozer usage on public roadways simply doesn't hold water.
You close this section of your column with the statement "The intended use of these bikes is lawbreaking!" Once again, your are asking your readers to assume that you either have inside information on ALL high-performance motorcycle operators or that you are qualified to make a blanket statement regarding the behavior of a group of people who share a single characteristic: They ride high-performance motorcycles. I find that I must enquire, once again: what behavioral science credentials do you hold? Why should I believe this statement?
Given the number of inaccuracies in such a small number of paragraphs, I can only surmise that it is not your intent to provide any sort of objective treatise regarding high-performance motorcycles and the riders who operate them. I can only surmise that your intent is to ignite passions with exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims. Thus I feel like this entitles me to respond in kind.
Norman Vincent Peale is credited with the following statements:
"Americans used to roar like lions for liberty. Now Americans bleat like sheep for security."
Given the level of exaggeration and unsubstantiated claims of your column, I think that the column can best be summed up with a simple BAH, BAH.