[M13] If a dealer talks a new rider out of buying a ninjette...

[TnNinjaGirl]

I can see where saving lives gets votes, however, I think you should be able to kill yourself however you see fit with no government intervention. If I want to buy a liter bike, so be it. If I want to strap rockets on my car in the middle of the desert, so be it. I don't think others should be able to jeopardize anyone else's life or liberty, though.

So... no mandatory license for motorbikes, but we should have mandatory licensing for soccer moms who want to drive Escalades.

[xSean13]

Let's not forget that old people shouldn't be allowed to drive.

[TnNinjaGirl]

or women

[pomartin]

Originally Posted by TnNinjaGirl

or women

wait...whaaat ... im confused
u`r saing women should not be allowed to drive... but u`r a female??

Anyway i agree... not with this about women... with your previous post

[lgk]

Originally Posted by TnNinjaGirl

I can see where saving lives gets votes, however, I think you should be able to kill yourself however you see fit with no government intervention. If I want to buy a liter bike, so be it. If I want to strap rockets on my car in the middle of the desert, so be it. I don't think others should be able to jeopardize anyone else's life or liberty, though.

So... no mandatory license for motorbikes, but we should have mandatory licensing for soccer moms who want to drive Escalades.

benjamin franklin once said that one who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.

people who try to build safety from laws are not mature enough to grasp the concept of freedom or responsibility.

[akima]

Considering so many of you Americans seem to have such awesome views on freedom... why do you think your federal government is so anti-freedom?

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by akima

Considering so many of you Americans seem to have such awesome views on freedom... why do you think your federal government is so anti-freedom?

To say the entire government is anti freedom is not really accurate, and it's more than just the federal government, I'd say more of the stupid laws come from states and city governments (like the ones I said above). This is also a rather difficult question to answer simply because, a laws sole purpose is to limit what you can and cannot do. Laws remove the freedom to do something whether that is drink a soda or murder someone. Laws are meant to protect people, which they do, even stupid ones.

Soda is bad for you, so we will make it illegal for vendors to sell it. People would be better off not drinking soda but does the gov need to step in on that? Not drinking soda will extend your life. If we compare that to say smoking meth, both laws making these things illegal benefit you, so where do we draw the line? Another difficult question that I will attempt to answer in a simple matter.

There are different types of laws, laws that protect society from you, protect you from society, and protect you from yourself. The first two are required for any society to function, those freedoms must be given up. The 3rd is where the controversy comes from. Does the gov really need to protect people from themselves? I say no, some people say yes. The people that say yes want everyone to think and act like them (actually they want them to think and act like they want them to, not as they do, as these people are very often hypocrites).

Looking back at your question and trying not to ramble so much (I'm trying to keep it short and not write a research paper), lol, I think an accurate view would be that when some politicians get into power, they stop thinking about what their constituents want (and elected them for) and more about what they want for their constituents.

I foresee a very large, complex and interesting thread in our near future

[TnNinjaGirl]

Originally Posted by akima

Considering so many of you Americans seem to have such awesome views on freedom... why do you think your federal government is so anti-freedom?

The people we vote for don't get elected. Our "representatives" often don't truly represent what we believe.

@Jiggles You are smarter than you look.

[lgk]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

I foresee a very large, complex and interesting thread in our near future

cool, let me know when.
i would like the .gov nannies to explain their position.

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by lgk

cool, let me know when.
i would like the .gov nannies to explain their position.

I'm not sure they are smart enough to access the internet

[xSean13]

Actually I think they're too busy occupying something or applying for more government handouts.

[Goom]

Interestingly enough, a kid who I grew up with killed himself on a new-to-him bike a couple of months ago. I believe it was a 929. He had even commented right after buying it that it was crazy fast and pretty scary to ride. Anyway, after he died, his mom went into the dealership where he bought it and raised all sorts of hell. I get it- it's a bad deal, but you can't blame the dealer. They just sell the gun. The rider pulls the trigger.

As for a salesperson pushing someone to buy a bike that is obviously beyond their skill level, that's just poor ethics. The salesperson should be reprimanded by their employer, but legal action wouldn't be right.

[dfox]

1. Soda isn't "banned" anywhere, it's merely regulated. You can buy as much of it as you want, they just regulated that the stores can't give you gigantic cups/unlimited quantities of it.

2. The road way is a public place, paid for by everyone, and managed by the government. I like the idea of a graduated license system based on skill, for every type of vehicle out there, because someone's decision absolutely can affect the outcome of an accident. We regulate passenger vehicles vs rv's vs semi's, etc. why shouldn't we regulate a civic vs an expedition? Vastly different performance from the cars, and i don't think high school kids should be able to hop in them just like they're any other car, because they're not, they're putting themselves into a huge vehicle that can do a lot of damage, when they haven't developed the skills necessary to drive them. Pass a test, and you're good to go, at any age. Same with motorcycles. Show that you have the skill, and move up quick.

it's not a matter of saving the life of the rider, it's a matter of saving the general public from someone who doesn't have the skill yet to ride.

Go ahead and buy that 1400cc bike, just keep it on private property until you earn your license.

[xSean13]

Weird, San Franciscans may beg to differ (and already spreading to NY/Boston):

Under an executive order from Mayor Gavin Newsom, Coke, Pepsi and Fanta Orange are no longer allowed in vending machines on city property, although their diet counterparts are - up to a point.

That was in 2010, I'm sure it's even worse now. It's not 100% banned, because that kind of communistic policy would result in real upheaval, though it wouldn't be all that surprising coming from San Francisco; they're the Quebec of the USA.

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article...es-3182467.php

[Stingray1000]

Originally Posted by dfox

1. Soda isn't "banned" anywhere, it's merely regulated. You can buy as much of it as you want, they just regulated that the stores can't give you gigantic cups/unlimited quantities of it.

2. The road way is a public place, paid for by everyone, and managed by the government. I like the idea of a graduated license system based on skill, for every type of vehicle out there, because someone's decision absolutely can affect the outcome of an accident. We regulate passenger vehicles vs rv's vs semi's, etc. why shouldn't we regulate a civic vs an expedition? Vastly different performance from the cars, and i don't think high school kids should be able to hop in them just like they're any other car, because they're not, they're putting themselves into a huge vehicle that can do a lot of damage, when they haven't developed the skills necessary to drive them. Pass a test, and you're good to go, at any age. Same with motorcycles. Show that you have the skill, and move up quick.

it's not a matter of saving the life of the rider, it's a matter of saving the general public from someone who doesn't have the skill yet to ride.

Go ahead and buy that 1400cc bike, just keep it on private property until you earn your license.

1. Do we live in the same country? Have you ever been to a fast food restaurant or any restaurant for that matter... Free refills unlimited quantity.

2. I agree with you on this, but An SUV and an economy car aren't really the best examples to help your argument, How about a Civic or a corvette.... Think there is a general difference in driving, with these cars then there is with an SUV. Honestly an SUV you just need to keep in between the lines at the same weight to horse power ratio as you do a car really. SUV tend to have more horse power and torque because of the amount of weight of the SUV itself, as per a smaller family car will have less horse power and torque because of the opposite situation (Talking about STOCK vehicles of course)

Now is there a difference between a person who rides a 250 with no gear and lots of experience to a person who rides a 1400 with all gear and little experience? is one person any smarter then the other? Sure we can call them both stupid, but who is more stupid?

[dfox]

Originally Posted by Stingray1000

1. Do we live in the same country? Have you ever been to a fast food restaurant or any restaurant for that matter... Free refills unlimited quantity.

2. I agree with you on this, but An SUV and an economy car aren't really the best examples to help your argument, How about a Civic or a corvette.... Think there is a general difference in driving, with these cars then there is with an SUV. Honestly an SUV you just need to keep in between the lines at the same weight to horse power ratio as you do a car really. SUV tend to have more horse power and torque because of the amount of weight of the SUV itself, as per a smaller family car will have less horse power and torque because of the opposite situation (Talking about STOCK vehicles of course)

Now is there a difference between a person who rides a 250 with no gear and lots of experience to a person who rides a 1400 with all gear and little experience? is one person any smarter then the other? Sure we can call them both stupid, but who is more stupid?

the soda comment was referring to the proposal for NYC to ban sodas over 16oz.

The issue with large cars isn't really acceleration, it's top speed and braking... In a civic, you're talking 130 ft 60-0, an excursion 167 feet. That's a whopping 4ish car lengths, at just 60 mph. How often do you see high school age kids driving at 60 on the highway? Or for that matter, an adult leaving an extra 37 feet when driving a large suv on the highway at 60 mph?

A motorcycle its more acceleration that gets you in trouble. 250r, 120 feet, and a Busa at 112. So the Busa can stop less than a car length quicker, but the issue is how quick you can get yourself in a situation where you need to brake from 60-0.

[lgk]

we have regs on commercial vehicles for a reason.
they are much more: complex to operate, take up a lot more space, tons heavier, carry dangerous chemicals, and handle poorly. they are a poor comparison to personal vehicles.

instead of more regulation, the law should provide an incentives to those who drive well.
maybe lower traffic fines for people who were never at fault during a multi vehicle accident, or give a 2% tax break.

personal responsibility, incentives, and experience makes good drivers.
not laws.

[nickjpass]

When I walked into my dealer and told them I wanted to look at the KLX140L, they asked me to look at their ZX6R...it was an older model...so I think they were trying to get rid of it. Do I look like I can afford a zx lmao

@Jiggles

1) Collect underwear
2) ????
3) PROFIT!

[dfox]

Originally Posted by lgk

personal responsibility, incentives, and experience makes good drivers.
not laws.

highschool kids in gigantic SUV's are dangerous to everyone on the road, period.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by akima

Do you think if there was an audio recording of the conversation which was admissible as evidence, the dealer should still be prosecuted? As-in... do you think it's right to criminally prosecute him for what that dealer did, or do you think the law shouldn't be involved with a situation like that?

Still wouldn't prove that the accident wouldn't have happened on an EX250.