Hmmm. Interesting. Is this good or bad? Does this mean that the onobtanium bikes sold in Europe and Asia will start showing up here, eventually?
Typically, the AMA is engaging in a little "Chicken Little: squealing on this one to attract attention. While I'm glad that they're around to watch out for things, I'm not convinced that this is a prime concern at the moment. Too many bad things going on in the good 'ol USA as it is.
Pacer, I do not think so. The manufacturers choose to sell bikes like the cbr400rr in europe, and not the US. I believe the motorcycling market is so competitive right now that we would be offered an expanded range of models.
UN Undersecretary for Transportation Khammie Redd has issued the following statement: "Motorcyclists of the world: As of July, 2004, all motorcycles will be restricted to 25 horsepower and will run on diesel fuel. We have decided that this is the best compromise between the desires of rich Americans and the needs of poor Namibians. In the interests of safety, all motorcycles will also be equipped with seat belts, leg guards, roll bars, seating for seven, and two extra wheels. We feel that this is the best compromise between the desires of Western riders for sporty handling and the needs of rural Asian riders to carry their extended families with them on trips to the market."
When asked where riders might write to add their own input, Khammie Red replied, "The UN is not a democracy. Save your opinion for someone who carers."
Reality check: Mexico!?! Yeah, right, that must be why there are so many illegal aliens crossing the border into Mexico every day. I love the Baja, but you can't even own property down there unless you're a citizen, or a corporation. And just try to see what happens if you start to stir up trouble by talking about the government taking away your "rights."
Face it, the US is as free as it gets in this world, and our government is among the least corrupt in this world (albiet, still very corrupt), and there is no indication that either party has any inclination to let the UN set policy here. Yet, all it takes is one tiny little article like this one to get all the yahoos whining about their "rights."
I'm sick of it. We get the government we deserve. Politicians get away with what they do because we let them; 90% of the population, at least, pays almost no attention to what goes on in our government halls. Want to change it? Get out and educate and organize; find decent candidates and get them elected; work to get corruption out of our political process, which right now is openly for sale to the highest bidder.
But above all, quit wasting my time and your's with ALL THIS USELESS !
Umm. Aprilia already produces all their bikes to the strictest world standards (Switzerland and the country of California) and noone seems to talk a lot of trash about them. Just quietly cut the pink wire.
100 hp limit? 700 lb motorcycles? Can't run 180mph off the dealer floor? Damn, sounds like nervana to me. The only problem I see is that Harley can't meet the world wide demand for it's product already. The last thing we need is a forced demand... I hope they keep things like they are. I prefer to ride a Harley because I personally want too, don't wan't others to ride them because Big Brother makes them.
No, I didn't say I have a right to a 160HP bike. But I do have a right to be represented. I (we) vote for the members of US Congress. As such we have a voice. If we disagree with a proposed law or policy we can successfully lobby to have those laws and policies changed. Last time I looked, I could not for members of the UN. It's similar to taxation without representation and I believe we agree that's not so great.
I do beleive that the Canadian Firearms Act of 1996 banned private ownership of well more than half of Canada's legally registered pistols. Any handgun of .32 or .25 caliber and any handgun with a barrel length of 105 mm (4.14") or less--more than 553,000 legally registered handguns--became illegal with the stroke of a pen.
The second phase of the law requires a government-issued firearms owner license. As of Jan. 1, 2001, anyone who owns a shotgun or rifle but did not apply for a license faces five years in prison and a $2,000 fine. These licenses are also required to buy a long gun, or if you just want to buy a box of rifle cartridges.
The third phase of the new law goes into effect Jan. 1, 2003, when each individual long gun must be registered.
Now you tell me what freedom you are lacking. Perhaps the freedom from an overly intrusive government.
This type of regulation tends to have a homogenizing effect. I'm getting really tired of bureaucrats trying to protect me from myself. We all know what's at stake when we straddle a motorcycle and are accountable (or should be) for what and how we ride. If I buy a new GSXR-1000 and loop it on the way home, that's my own stupid fault...and it's also my right. Someone else should not have the right to make that decision for me (this also applies to cars, boats, seatbelts, and helmets). If the manufacturers are willing to build them, then we should have the right to buy them without bureaucratic interference. Also...has anyone thought about how much this will cost us? Conformance is rarely cheap.
No, we lack the freedom from gun control laws. Yes, we have stricter gun control laws here, including much tighter limits on handguns. As for the new legislation, I support licensing, but oppose registration. At the same time, we have one of the highest rates of private gun onwerhsip in the world (maybe second to the USA, but I don't have a source on that), and significantly lower levels of violent crime. That's a trade off.
All governments including the US one limit freedom to some degree (speed limits, criminal law, etc.). It's about ensuring that these limits do not unnecessarily compromise core personal freedoms. If you want an example of an onerous US attack on personal freedom, let's discuss the "war on drugs", or restrictions on citizens travelling to certain countries.
Do we have more regulations here. Yes, maybe a few (gun control and seat belt laws are the only ones to come to mind). As disussed in the last paragraph, there are also examples of US restrictions on freedom that we don't suffer.
While I am a gun owner, I do find the US idea of firearms as a constititional right odd. I'm not saying it's wrong - it's part of your history. However, it's not part of mine.
More importantly, our rider training should be as good as it is in Europe. A scooter with an uneducated rider on it is more dangeous than an R1 with and experienced rider on it any day. Young people should have to work there way from 50cc up. The motorcycle companies would love the extra sales. They have no problem selling the big ones, only the small ones. DrEvil....
This is 1) a troll for a flamefest or 2) a Harley rider who is upset because his porcine machine is unable to pass a Subaru. In any event, I'd say that the value of used 100+HP bikes will escalate if the Frogs get their way with 100HP horsepower limits. Goverment officials should not be allowed to design or specify anything, government regulators are usually industrial rejects looking for cushy jobs.
I don't own a gun, I'm an archery bigot but still support the right to bear arms and oppose legislation regulating gun ownership. You might ask me if I approve of Uzi's and other such pointless weapons in the hands of the public and I'd respond that my disgust with Uzi ownership is very much like the disgust others may hold towards my sportbike ownership. In either case one can ask to what possible use can either device legally put to use? (a form of polo using motorcycles to hunt mosquitoes in parking garages I guess?). The problem with all laws that limit a particular activity (however discreetly) is that the laws gradually become more and more restrictive.
As far the "war on drugs" is concerned, I think it's clear that it is a facade to protect the numerous "investors" who would stand to lose a great deal of profit should drugs be legalized. No legislation will eliminate the sale of drugs, there will always be someone willing to take the risk regardless of the penalties (assassinating Pablo Escobar did not decrease cocaine traffic, it merely shifted it to a different cartel). Drug use can only be curtailed by convincing the public to not use. It would be better to legalize and tax drugs (as is currently done with the socially acceptable drugs, alcohol and tobacco).
The rub is that the folks with the cars would quite gleefully eliminate motorcycles all together so they could carry on their insane game of freeway bumper cars. Cars are so safe now that you have to FrUCtose up considerably (filter that one out Blip to actually be hurt in even a serious (vehicle damage-wise) crash so people are more frequently driving like it doesn't matter if they crash. Since bikes don't bump to well, eliminating bikes (powered or pedalled) would allow the bumper car game to continue unfettered.
I guess this is degenerating into a discussion on gun control. My initial point was to address what I thought of as a slight to my national pride (one of my many vices) related to freedom.
As for guns and sportbikes, I am of the opinion that both should be legal But I have no issues with having certain competency requirements before one can acquire and use one. Driver's licensing should be stricter (not just for bikes, for all motorists). And, I think to own a gun one should demonstrate some rudimentary knowledge of firearms use, maintenance and safety.
As I said, if such regulation is against the US constitution, that's fine with me, don't do it. However, if I choose a different path here in my own sovereign liberal (note the small l) democracy, I don't think it is a demostratiion of being under the thumb of an oppressive government.
What this has to do with the UN and Bike standards, I'm not sure. However, I think people worry a bit too much about the UN. It is made up of representatives of mostly legitimate governments representing the national interests of their people. I doubt very much if this is about horsepower limits, althogh environmental issues may be (and should be) on the block. Anyway, the US will have a lot of influence - use it wisely.
Finally, some standards are good; fuel nozzle sizes, driving on the correct side of the road, fuel octane requirements, and, although some might not like it, noise and emmissions regulations. I love my high performance bikes, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy clean air and a quieter world either.
To play the devils advocate, I would care if you splatter yourself because I might have to clean up the grease spots you leave or fix your broken body if you live or feed your parentless children if you die or take care of whatever in your life was left unfinished. It is a bit of dilema since on the other hand, I doubt that the majority wants to live in a padded cell. As riders we all probably have the view that the extra risk of riding is well worth taking considering how short our lives are. Not everyone holds that viewpoint. Some people want to save your ischial tuberosities no matter how sorry they think them to be.
If the manufacturers only have to design bikes for one market we will all get to enjoy the cost savings. How tuff do you think it would be to modify these machines to overcome restrictive requirements? Probably not very. I see the aftermarket companies salivating at this prospect. If we all stay involved enough to make sure that the design requirements are not ridiculous this could be a win win deal for everyone.
The "implied powers" argument you mention refers to the "general welfare" clause of the constitution. In the Federalist Papers, Madison states that that particular clause was NOT designed to give the federal government unlimited power. That would effectively negate the rest of the constitution, which was designed to limit the government to a few specific powers (although FDR deep-sixed that notion a long time ago. Considering the constitutionality of a law BEFORE passage has become a taboo.)
Surrendering our liberties and choices to an unelected organization littered with socialists cannot be good no matter how you slice it. I am seriously considering a vote for the Constitution party the next time around. Part of their platform is to withdraw from the UN, and require them to move their headquarters out of the country. When we bow to an organization that purports to represent numerous other countries, we simply surrender our sovreignity, plain and simple. On both gun control and the environment, their current goals are entirely at odds with the United States Constitution and our national interests. How can their rules on motorcycles be any different?
I'm not in favour of too many regulations, but a lot of our EU stuff do make sense (to a degree). And there's NO HP LIMIT ON OPEN BIKES in EU (for now, they tried but failed). Germany with their no top speed limit on the "Autobahns" (except ; if you do have an accident above 130 Km./h ~80 m/h, you're to blame) is the only EU country with a 100 HP limit (you can work your way around it). The only common EU HP limit is 34 HP for young beginners, until 20 years of age.
The current emmision laws are ok, BUT I can't agree on tighting them further when for instance lawnmovers still polute so much. Ie.: to cut the grass on my parents two small lawns roughly equates the same amount of polution their car makes after severeal hundreds of miles driving. So instead of making it harder for motorists they should make rules for ALL utility machinery, ei.: lawnmovers, chainsaws, generators, .... etc.
Common rules for the minimum "quality" of ; light, horn, brakes and the rest of the safety related stuff can't be all bad.