Beedawgy, look again at the text I posted. They are listed.
I figured I was missing it, which is why I wrote "I'm not seeing where the report mentions what types of bikes were involved." I hoped you'd point it out to me.
A "2001 YAMAHA MOTORCYCLE" could be a sportbike, a cruiser, a scooter, or a dual sport.
A "2006 SUZUKI MOTORCYCLE" could be a sportbike, a cruiser, a scooter, or a dual sport.
The mix of sportbikes and cruisers make me wonder if the cruisers were slowing at the ramp while the sportbikes were speeding up. Although there isn't information to say if there was contact.
I'm not seeing where the report mentions what types of bikes were involved.
The sentence makes it sound like an "us vs them" mentality and is putting all motorcyclists into one group.
OK. Now I think I get it. You would have preferred a lead-in sentence like "Afton Council discusses options to deal with motorcycle noise and excessive speeds."
Note that I never disagreed with the content of the article, just the sentence that would preload the reader to think negatively about all motorcyclists.
Or lead a reader to think negatively about some Afton City Council members.
The lead-in grabber kills it for me. "Afton City Council has decided to take a stand against motorcyclists." There is nothing fair and balanced about a sentence like that.
I don't get it, Paul. Can you tell me what's unfair or unbalanced about it?
Do you dispute the facts? Does that statement unfairly malign the Afton City Council?
Do you believe it's unfair to motorcyclists?
Can you rewrite the sentence in a way that you believe is fair and balanced?
"Afton City Council has decided to take a stand against motorcyclists." Geez, why doesn't the writer come right out and provide a disclaimer first, like "I don't like motorcycles, but don't let that get in the way of my objective reporting."
The story seems fair and balanced to me. The writer is objectively reporting that the Afton City Council has decided to target motorcycle traffic for more aggressive enforcement.
My only comment is that it was after dark. I haven't ridden after sundown for decades. I'm old(66)but have survived 50+ yrs of riding. I believe the chances of mishap multiplies by maybe 6 times in the dark. A cool,romantic moonlight ride isn't worth the danger. Guzzi John
Some people don't think any motorcycle ride is worth the risk.
Pat Hahn's first book had a chapter about night riding. It consisted of four words: Don't ride at night.
I always hoped he'd realize that there are lots of things a rider can do to reduce risk at night.
Safe riding is about recognizing and reducing risk, not eliminating it.
When a vehicle slows to the point of making a pass compelling on a double yellow, I always make that one last check to see if they could possibly be turning into a driveway, or making an illegal u-turn. I don't think the rider here had a sense of situational awareness.
BTW, even though blinkers or brake lights were not working, I think the majority of the liability rests on the following vehicle (the rider in this case).
It was after 11 p.m, so it probably wasn't easy to judge the pickup's speed.
“It was an automatic decision,” Caddell said. “I was passing because he was stopping, and I couldn’t stop behind him. The only other option was to go around him, but then he turned left.”
Totally agree with most of what you said, Tim. WSBK has been so much more fun to watch than MotoGP this year. Both of those races were great, and the last lap of Race 2 was amazing.
That was just a totally wild crash in the last turn. I think it would be fair to accuse Melandri of poor judgment. And I don't think Rea had any intentions of causing a crash.
Looks like it. This bike is based on the MotoGP bike, which has no frame.
Article Summary "Ducati has released a series of photos of its revolutionary Panigale 1199 superbike without its clothes on, showing exactly how the bike is held together in the absence of a traditional frame. But while the monocoque chassis is pretty fascinating to look at in the flesh, what strikes us most is just how incredibly compact the bike is - every component has been squeezed into the tiniest possible space. In fact, you can't even see clean through the bike at any point until you reach the rear hugger. This is mass centralisation and weight shaving taken to a whole new level… Good luck trying to service the thing yourself!" http://www.gizmag.com/ducati-panigale-1199-naked-fairings-frame-pictures/22035/ Brent
I rode a brand new Street Glide yesterday. I'm starting to understand the appeal of an H-D, (really enjoyed hearing the stock exhaust) but I've never liked those bar-mounted fairings. I don't think they're designed to work with full-face helmets. Way too much buffeting, and I was starting to get a headache after about two miles at 65 mph.
I also rode a 2001 Road King. The 88 CI (fuel-injected) engine felt smoother than the 103 CI, but the handling felt sloppier. I'm told the '09 and later touring frame is more rigid, which might account for some of the increased engine vibes on the newer bikes. It's hard to believe that the market values a 2001 Road King with 22K miles higher than a '99 996S. I need to find someone who'll let me test ride their '99 996S. I've never ridden a Duc.
Aegerter suffered life-threatening injuries and was transported by North Air helicopter to Regions Medical Center in St. Paul. Aegerter said he was wearing a helmet at the time of the crash.
Just want to point out that it's easy to draw faulty conclusions from reports like this one, e.g., he was wearing a helmet, but he still suffered life-threatening injuries, therefore helmets don't really help.
1. There is a wide variety of helmets with widely varying coverage -- half helmets to three-quarter to full-face.
2. Some people wear helmets that are too big for their heads. A too-large helmet won't offer the same level of protection as a properly fitted helmet.
3. A helmet can't protect the rider against all injury. A helmet, for example, won't protect your feet and legs. Protecting your head, however, DOES make increase the odds that you'll survive a serious injury to your feet and legs.
Show Posts
