Motorcycle Forums banner

'Sayonara, Hayabusa', says ESPN Writer.

25K views 112 replies 48 participants last post by  Fenton 
#1 ·
Hope the legislators take Easterbrook's Corvette penis extension too.



Foist!
 
#4 ·
As an owner of a Hayabusa and a number of sport bikes including track bikes this is nothing surprising. This guy lacks the skills and knowledge necessary to operate a motorcycle and probably feels threatened and a little bit jealous. His line of thinking has been the typical method leading to limits on freedom throughout the history of mankind and ought to be fought against vigorously. And to think that the company that builds his glorious Vette will likely be bought and owned by the very Japanese companies that build the motorcycles he so despises. Perhaps they will create an even faster 6 cylinder bike called the Vettebusa!
 
#5 ·
...it took me a while to get past the calender...



I think the ESPN writer of 'Sayonara, Hayabusa', is just concerned about our safety. He doesn't mind if our little 600 sport bikes...



"...drag-race from stoplights, cut others off in traffic, speed like mad. Perhaps you've been on a highway when a couple colorful high-performance bikes have roared past you at far over the speed limit. The people on the bikes may be morons, which is their problem..."



...and for that he should be more clear.
 
#6 ·
Okay, here's what I sent to that guy:



Facinating comments on fast sport bikes. I agree they're dangerous...all motorcycles are. Anytime you're riding on a motorized rail down a highway, you could end up dead. But by choice, I ride every chance I get.



Your call to ban all sport bikes, however, is patently ridiculous. You need to take a bit of a physics class; your Ford Fusion sedan (which I am sure you own, since you are so anti-performance) has the potential for much more destruction at 60 mph than a sport bike at double that speed, due to the mass involved. If you argue for banning all sport bikes, then you must call for banning all performance automobiles as well. You may want to watch yourself, though; you'll ***** off one of your sponsors, Toyota.



Some people will be dangerous driving anything; some people are just plain careless. Lots of people where I live are into guns, too. Don't give me that cop-out of motorcycles not being in the Constitution.



But that's okay...hang on long enough and you'll probably get your wish. I found it funny that you also talked about George Orwell later on in your column. We are moving in that direction, with help from people like you. When "they" come for YOUR favorite mode of life-enjoyment, just remember that.



Jimmy Rusidoff



Oh, and please feel free to quote me, like I trust you not to twist anything or quote me out of context.
 
#7 ·
For the most part, I agree with him. Those bikes are stupid fast and not wearing a helmet is stupid. That said, where I disagree with him, is on the need for more regulation. Just pull over and ticket/arrest the offenders. Everythings working fine as it is right now.
 
#10 ·
Which views he expressed are ignorant?

"His ingorant views are held by a vast majority of the populous"

Which views he expressed are ignorant? That he doesn’t feel you need to have access to a 200mph capable vehicle for use on public roads? Seems a very sensible view to me.
 
#13 ·
"The Constitution says you've got a right to own a gun and to read a newspaper; firearms and materials related to First Amendment political, artistic and religious expression are the only categories of purchases with specific constitutional protection."



Someone needs to remind Gregg Easterbrook that the Constitution doesn't say any thing about a right to breathe either, nor does it say anything about a right to play a dangerous game such as professional foot ball. The biggest danger to our freedom and our country comes from ill informed twits like Gregg Easterbrook, not high speed motorcycles.
 
#14 ·
I wouldn't say he's ignorant so much as pedantic and deceptive: if he were as concerned about public welfare as he claims, he would have called for the ban of Corvettes in that column, as well.



And he mostly skirts the real point, which is stupid behavior.



That said, I'm sure there's a large percentage of the general public who share Mr. Easterbrook's opinion of motorcycles and motorcyclists (although I'm not sure how you realistically design a motorcycle with "regard to the safety of riders" as he states it without turning it into a car.)



P.S. When did reckless driving become road rage?
 
#15 ·
I wrote Gregg and told him I was going to ride my Hayabusa today and speed, cut people off, race from stoplights, and terrify old people in his honor. Oh yeah, I'm not going to wear a helmet either just for effect. I might as well live up to his worst nightmare.
 
#16 ·
"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. It is past time the high-horsepower motorcycle was regulated off the roads. The intended use of these bikes is lawbreaking!"



Who gave this guy a job? There is a perfect example of an idiot.

 
#17 ·
Except that the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate sportbikes or thousands of other things it sticks its nose into.

Lots of things cause far more harm than sportbikes--like cars, bicycles, swimming pools and stairs, but no one is crying out to ban them. People like Gregg Easterbrook and other regulatory fascists need to stay (the f**k) out of peoples' lives.
 
#18 ·
Right on the money.



Here are the two amendments that no one ever mentions that prevent the federal government has no authority to regulate even 1% of the things it regulates:



Amendment IX



The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



Amendment X



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



The federal government has specific, enumerated powers. Everything else is off limits to the federal government and retained by the people. Sound like the US we live in today? Not even close.
 
#19 ·
"Here are the two amendments that no one ever mentions that prevent the federal government has no authority to regulate even 1% of the things it regulates:"



This should have read: Here are the two amendments that no one ever mentions that show the federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to regulate even 1% of the things it regulates:
 
#20 ·
Re: Which views he expressed are ignorant?

Just wondering, what is sensible?

100 mph capability?

90 mph?

80 mph?

These are all over any legal speed limits that I'm aware of. Should all vehicles be governed so that they cannot ever exceed the speed limit?

Laws don't prevent accidents, people do. You can still crash and die while traveling well below the speed limit.. but you know this.
 
#22 ·
"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 that’s 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 they’re going to succeed.



"regulatory fascists need to stay (the f**k) out of peoples' lives"



Sure thing, but then many motorcycles invade folk’s lives by creating hazardous situations on public roads. I pay taxes and I vote. Why should I allow my child’s life to be put in danger each time she crosses the street to go to the store?

 
#23 ·
I wouldn't worry to much about this idiot. According to his logic we should outlaw Corvettes too...Ain't going to happen.... I am sure Honda, Harley, Ducati, Kawasaki, Yamaha, Suzuki etc could band together and buy few Congress members ooops I mean Lobbyists to make sure Hayabusas, ZX14s, R1s, VRods, 999s, stay legal...Too much money involved.....Like JB said he is a stick and ball idiot..
 
#24 ·
here is my email:



Mr. Easterbrook,



Your column entry titled "Sayonara, Hayabusa" was very interesting. Interesting and very wrong. There are too many points in your opinion that are misguided, but let's start from the beginning.



1. "Acceleration of max-performance motorcycles is wildly disproportionate to driving needs. The only real use of the acceleration ability is road rage -- to drag-race from stoplights, cut others off in traffic, speed like mad."



- This is flat wrong. These motorcycles are built to showcase a manufacturer's engineering capability, much like your mentioned Corvette. Do you also wish for any car with such power/performance to be banned? To my knowledge, there have been at least 5 Ferrari Enzos (about $500K apiece) destroyed by their owners in high speed accidents, in the United States ALONE. Should we send Ferrari out of business? How about Porsche? Mercedes? How about ALL car manufacturers who make cars that have the POTENTIAL to exceed posted speed limits? Shall we regulate the maximum performance capability of all private vehicles?



Yes the acceleration is breathtaking, but in the hands of responsible riders (which comprise the majority of motorcycle owners) this power and speed is easily managed. To simply assert that this performance capability is simply for lawbreaking is flat wrong.



2. "High-performance street motorcycles are socially irresponsible, and designed without regard for the safety of riders. Roethlisberger and others who buy high-performance bikes don't wish anyone harm, they're just looking for an ego rocket."

- This point is fails the "laugh" test. By your reasoning, ANY vehicle which has a higher performance potential would be deemed "socially irresponsible." Where would you draw the line? A Honda Civic Si has tremendous performance potential..FOR ITS CLASS, but it is economical and somewhat practical. But compare it care to a Chevrolet Aveo, and it moves into the realm of "socially irresponsible," since its performance is definitely beyond what an Aveo can achieve.



"Ego rocket" - all vehicles are bought with one thing in mind: APPEARANCE. Things like roominess, fuel economy and feature set are all secondary to the most elementary factor in vehicle purchases; IMAGE. It influences all purchases, and especially in vehicles, since we have used cars to identify or express our own self image. An SUV is an "ego tank", signifying ruggedness, and individualism. A BMW is an "ego sedan," signifying your affluence and success. And a Corvette is an "ego rocket," signifying your racy nature and competitive spirit. Motorcycles are the same. A Hayabusa can signify that you are "fast and daring." This point of your article is, unfortunately, pointless.



3. Our nation's laws do not confer any "right" to operate on public roads a high-horsepower bike.."



- And neither do those same laws confer any right to NOT own such vehicles. What a smart person should look at is not only what a law prohibits, but what it DOES NOT PROHIBIT. THe law confers no right for people to own fuel guzzling SUVs of questionable practicality and it enormous consumption of resources, but you are allowed to have them. SUVs are more dangerous to vehicles which consist of substantially less mass, but there is no call to regulate their ownership. If safety is truly your goal, elimination of vehicles above a certain weight/mass rating should be the target.



Did you know happen to forget or gloss over the fact that Big Ben was not speeding, but was in fact taken out by an INATTENTIVE DRIVER? Horsepower had nothing to do with Ben's accident. It was all the fault of a CAR DRIVER who failed to maintain situational awareness. Ben could have been riding a scooter and the result would have been the same.



But, let's drill this down to the basic point: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. As you said later, Ben made the decision to NOT where the "Revolution" helmet, even knowing the risks of not wearing one. Ben also made the choice (albeit a very dumb one) to not wear a helmet, again, knowing the risks. But it is his responsibility, and that of the nation, to encourage and promote the safe operation of motorcycles, and the fitment of proper attire. It is also our responsibility to promote better driving habits and education, so incidents like Ben's will be kept to a minimum. The banning of motorcycles will do nothing more than to put many people out of work, deny many the passionate pursuit of their hobby, and put more people in cars, which would further burden our already overburdened road/highway infrastructure and even more consumption of precious resources.



Thank you for your time.
 
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