From: randy@megatek.com (Randy Davis)
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
Subject: Re: Harley Fashionable == Deaths
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:31:31 GMT
Reply-To: randy@megatek.com
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California

In article <LOTTO.92Oct8080623@lamia.harvard.edu> lotto@lamia.harvard.edu (Jerry Lotto) writes:
|>>>>> On 7 Oct 92 20:37:59 GMT, randy@megatek.com (Randy Davis) said:
|Randy> Stats can be made to say anything you want...
|Randy> Personal experience, friends that are (were) cops and a girlfriend and
|Randy> other friends that work at hospital trauma rooms that are aware of
|Randy> bikes tend to feel that Harley's are over-represented in the larger
|Randy> bike accidents
|
|Have you looked at the market share recently?  They are not
|over-represented, there are just more of them.

  If you were replying to the phrase of mine that you re-printed, you need to
read it again.  This was people's (not mine) perception of the amount of
Harleys that were over-represented in the trauma's and traffic accidents
that they actually personally delt with, NOT market-share.  In fact, you
making this statement actually backs up my supposition - if the market share
is not greater, why would a personally-perceived accident rate be greater?

|Randy>   Well, I *do* tend to personally think that a Harley is more dangerous
|Randy> in traffic than a more nimble (read: lighter, better handling) bike.
|
|It is no more dangerous in traffic than any other motorcycle,

  Your opinion... Mine differs.  Neither is my viewpoint as uninformed as you
may like to think.

|mostly a MENTAL skill.  Ignoring the scope and limitations of the
|rider, the environment, or the equipment  prevents you from managing
|those risks.

  That equipment is EXACTLY what I am referring to - the bike *IS* a major
portion of the equipment you are managing.  If it limits your abilities, you
should consciously be aware of them and manage that risk accordingly.

|  No two motorcycles handle the same way.  Harleys tend to
|be more visible in traffic, do not bog down under load, provide
|relatively even power output and good throttle control.

  You left out: Have less power, are harder to steer in tight places, and
weigh far more than is needed (IMHO); all of which is why I haven't expended
the $5000 or more extra to buy a motorcycle that won't do half of what the
bike I *did* buy will do (in fact, I can put that saved money into buying
something like a 900RR!!).  I don't beleive that they are "more visible in
traffic" than any other liter bike.  Sure, they are more visible than a
scooter, as are most any other bikes of sufficient size or differing
coloration.  In fact, I would hazard a personal opinion that the neon graphics
found on some SMALLER sport bikes would enable somewhat more visibility than
the simple size of a large bike.

|You may not enjoy the style of riding that (the particular model of)
|Harley-Davidson motorcycles (you feel represent the marque) were
|designed for.

  I've ridden an Electra-Glide, a Heritage Softail, a 1200 Sportster as well
as the 883 model, and ONE *huge* full-size touring rig that I don't presently
remember the name to (possibly a fat-boy, or whatever the name was).  [Before
I ever ride something that slow and heavy, I'll buy a NICE muscle-car
convertable for about the same price.]  You are free to interpret which one
of those represents the marque that you obviously feel I've slandered.  You
seem to like to think that I am uninformed.  Feel free to delude yourself in
that way, if it helps you feel any better.

|hazard on one.  You accuse Harley riders of being deluded and
|narrow-minded, but you demonstrate the same behavior!

  How so?  I have very open-mindedly tried and rejected ALL cruiser-style
motorcycles from being able satisfy my personal criteria for riding.  Never
*once* have I stated that *you* are an idiot for doing so, since I FULLY
realize your desires out of the motorcycling experience may be totally
different than mine, and I have no problem respecting that.  However, when
you or anyone starts talking *objective* viewpoints outside those subjective
reasons you chose what you ride, then you *are* open to criticism.

  If a person doesn't like cruisers in general, then Harley is very easy to
criticise for the simple fact that all the bikes they build fall loosely into
the cruiser class.  Lest you feel picked on, neither do I like full touring
rigs (domestic OR foreign made) or ANY cruiser style for my personal use.
Then again, you rarely encounter owners of such bikes trying to brag about
their bike in the ways that many Harley riders choose to do so - ways that
are clearly ridiculous.  I have no problem with the Harley-Davidson marque
or its riders (unless they are idiots braggin in the fashion or waving the
bogus "made in America" banner).  If Harley would make a bike as capable as
the one I ride in the same price range, I would buy it.  They don't, nor can
I justify spending $14k on a Harley-powered sport-bike that isn't up to the
capabilties that I've come to expect.

  If I SHOULD accept inferior abilities out of a more expensive machine, then
perhaps I missed that rule in the rulebook.

|  If you could
|transcend your narrow view of waht makes motorcycling enjoyable,
|perhaps you could appreciate all marques a little more.

  Why?  I LIKE motorcycles in general, and, if no sport-bikes existed, I would
be happy to ride a standard, followed by a touring, followed by a cruiser
style.  The geometry of the motorcycle greatly affects the effort required 
of the rider and the amount of control and feedback that is afforded to the
rider.  Why should I settle for less than what I can have and what would
limit me more?  If you want to (in my opinion) accept those limitations for
something else that satisfies you, that is fine with me...

Randy Davis                            Email: randy@megatek.com
ZX-11 #00072 Pilot                            megatek!randy@uunet.uu.net
DoD #0013                                     ucsd!megatek!randy