And let me get this straight. A state which requires all automobile passengers to wear seatbelts yet allows motorcyclists to ride sans helmets will eventually be telling me how fast my motorcycle can go because 130 mph is just much safer than 188 mph? Okay. Makes sense to me.
OK, so if we regulate the bikes top speed both legally and mechanically, I should expect a 155mph limit? (Same as many high-performance cars)
That would be sweet, my Multistrada can't do that now. I think with the 14 tooth counter sprocket it's only good for 129mph.(just a guess)
Seriously, It will not make a difference, there is not an alarming rate of fatalities due to people riding at 160. I think the problem is the roll on from 50-100 and things get out of hand quicker than expected. I think it is the "quick and the dead" not the "fast and the dead." And there is nothing anyone can do to prevent our chosen toys from being quick.
The "Gentlemans" agreement between the big 4, Triumph, Ducati, etc is 300Kph or 186 MPH. This came about when the European Union started to rattle the sabre saying they'll ban sportbikes off of public roads. This really came to a boil with Triumph was looking to introduce there new Daytona 1300. It was suppose to be a Hayabusa killer with a top speed of over 210 MPH! From the spy photos the bike looked like a bigger Daytona 650. After this agreement Triumph stuffed the bike back into the crate and shoved it onto a shelf. To be honest I personally would love to see it back. I've always had a soft spot for Triumph. With gas prices going up ($5 a gallon by next year I bet) I'm looking at a Sprint, Tiger or Ducati ST3 (add another Duc to my stable).
It's probably high time for a graduated licensing system, whereby a novice would be mandated by law to a maximum displacement motorcycle he or she could ride I believe such systems are common place in other parts of the world. I'm not entirely certain of the statistics, but I would gather the majority of the serious accidents are caused by youth with vast excess of exuberance and insufficient skill. I've been riding 20 years and it sickens me when I see some (not all) young guns weaving in and out of highway traffic at obscene speeds. You don't have to have a fast bike to be obnoxious and disrespectful to the safety of other road users. It's a culture and mentality of these type of individuals and unfortunately I think the lawmakers have no choice but to protect these types of twits from themselves.
Graduated licensing for teen-agers driving automobiles is already in place here in Michigan, so some of the groundwork for setting up a regime for bikes is already done.
I'm guessing that a little work from the industry and our lobbying groups could quickly blunt efforts to ban, especially if the impact of alcohol in the headline stories about sportbikes is emphasized.
What's the beef? Most people seem to welcome govt regulation of everything under the sun moon and stars. This is just the next logical step after helmet laws. Only fools think that the safety-freaks would stop with helmets.
Take a cue from what's been done to the smokers. At first the little Hitlers said, "We'll never ban smoking on airplanes. We only want non-smoking sections." Now in some towns it's illegal to smoke in your own backyard. Or an open air venue like a public park. The lesson of this is that the public is easily stampeded into unreasoning fear by media lies and exaggerations. If the media decides to take on motorcycles as a safety issue then we are truly screwed. Luckily for us a lot of people in the media ride motocycles too.
Never forget that one feature of the safety-fascists in the USA is that once they start down a road they never stop. After all, someone somewhere is having fun.
I predict that irony will abound when the HD/ABATE crowd rallies to the defense of sportbike owner's rights.
Remember that "Doin right ain't got no end". Wasn't it said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions? Hopefully we stay under the radar. The more popular we are, the bigger chance the "do gooders" will fix us up but good.
With every soldier's death, with every mother's loss, with every soldier's son and daughter who grew up without their dad, we have seen the price of freedom. With those freedoms coming at so dear a cost, we should assure that our citizens suck the marrow from every last bone of freedom. Every taking of a freedom should come with a terrible struggle. All takings should come with a fight. It's what we are. I'm not convinced that I need a 200 mph bike (or even an 85 mph bike). But I'm not convinced that I want to give up the possibility.
Conversely, every soldier's death should come with tremendous constraint, forethought and justification. Five week vacation when we have troops committed...dirty, rotten, motherfuc.....
"If the media decides to take on motorcycles as a safety issue then we are truly screwed. Luckily for us a lot of people in the media ride motorcycles too."
--It doesnt matter if the media rides or not. The media/celebs have just a wee bit of an elitist attitude. The "do as we say, not what we do". They feel they know whats good for us and they are far more capable than the general public. So its just fine that they have turbine powered bikes as long as the general population cant get a hold of them.
Same goes for firearms and environmentalism. How many times have you heard a congressmen/celeb/reporter preach on about the evils of firearms, water conservation, land management, large trucks, and SUVs and it turns out that assclown has a lush green 100 acre residence with two pool, 3 Escalades, and a CCW. And when it does come out they usually spin it as if they are more important.
I remember talking with a co-worker that was a BIG environmentalist. We were driving to lunch and we were talking about cars and she said "you know, if I could afford one, Id by one of those Hummers."
Now this was a few years ago, so she wasnt pointing to the new H3. Were talking the older Hummers that get 10-12 miles to the gallon.
I told her "how could this be? They were just ranked as one of the worst environmental autos out on the road?!"
And she said, "Yeah, but if I was the only one aloud to have one it would be OK, since I know more about the environment than most people. I am more capable and responsible."
And that sums up the "Ban It" crowd. They think its just fine if THEY have a 200hp bike. But they just dont think you are as import/capable/smart as them so you get the hockey helmet and short bus with tinted windows.
...oh, and nice Jimmy email address you got there...
Classic stuff there. We had a Liberal journo named Carl Rowan years back that wrote for the Tribune, I think. Anyway, he was 100% anti-gun, and every other column he wrote always drove the point home. Well, one day some kids broke into his back yard and started messing around in his pool. Lo and behold, old Carl greeted them out the back door with a gun! When this was reported all over the state, Carl shot back that he didn't see where he was a hypocrite, and that he is STILL anti-gun. Like most assholes like him, he isn't against himself owning a gun, but he is against YOU having one. Classic.
Heh heh. I've lost count of the environuts I've seen in Utah who freak out when they see a 4-wheeler ATV. Usually they are standing next to their Toyota 4WD they just drove through open BLM land. They believe that they should be exempt from restrictions because they "care" more.
I'll bet SBP has seen this crap too. Heck, he's at a University! I bet he's got some great hypocrisy stories.
I have always wondered why anyone really cares about legislating this motorcycle safety thing. It is not very often that anyone but the motorcyclist gets killed or even seriously injured in motorcycle accidents. (Warning: this is going to sound callous) As a safety concious person myself (always wear helmet, use turn signals, etc...) I think that it is good for the gene pool when someone not wearing a helmet and riding their bike through traffic at 100+ mph gets killed. If they are that stupid, do we want them breeding? One more thing, in response to a previous post...I think that here in the States the big 4 are Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki, and Suzuki rather than Ducati, Triumph, BMW, etc.
The MORON that suggest graduated licensing is dead on for the sake of our sport. The the real problem is not the gov't or the manufaturers- it's the insurance industry. They are going to have enough of this speed stuff and start black balling sportbikes like they black balled the homemade bike industry. As a motorcycle insurance specialtist, I have watched the last 5 years spiral out of control in the sportbike industry. Now, we can place blame on who ever you want but it comes down to two groups that really are causing this mess. Group 1 is the race industry. They clamor for more speed because they use it on the track. However, most of the supersport and superstock bikes that are on the track remain virtually unchanged in the motor department. Group 2 is the media. These guys are paid to test bikes to the limit but with that they claim to need more. More of everything- speed, control/feel, braking but for what? Hell, 90% of the riders out there have NO idea how to properly operate a sportbike. But the media says "It needs a little_______(fill in the blank). So, MORONs when do we tell the motorcycle industry that the bikes are fast enough and to work on all the other aspects of the bike for control reasons. Or do you let "Big Brother" step in and screw it up for the rest of us.