A Tough Lesson Learned at a Motorcycle Dealership

[Mjames]

Everyone bought a first bike at some point in time.

 

Ain't that true.

 

I bought my first bike, a 650 BSA Thunderbolt in 1969. Didn't have a motorcycle endorsement, didn't know how to ride, and didn't even have a salesman like this one who bothered to show me how.

 

Not wanting to learn on Brooklyn's then infamous Interboro Parkway (think nasty-fast traffic, narrow lanes, windy turns, a high concrete center median, and potholes), I trailered the bike home with a rented U-Haul and learned to ride the black and chrome beauty by reading the owner's manual.

 

After a few stalls and five minutes riding around the block, I headed into town wearing half-helmet, jeans and a dungaree jacket. I dropped the bike at a stop sign along the way, picked it up and kept going. I was a little embarrassed but that’s how I learned how to respect the weight of the bike. A week later I was riding to work on the Interboro.

 

I guess the point is that not everyone has the opportunity or the desire to take a motorcycle course or even has a friend with a bike to show him how. These kind of learning accidents are quite common, sometimes expensive, but rarely serious.

 

Maybe a more rational, reasoned and cautious approach would have been better for this rider. But since when has motorcycling become a rational, reasoned and cautious endeavor?

 

I don't think the salesman did anything wrong other than to maybe not suggest more suitable gear, but after all, it was a Harley dealership and they have their own culture. I guess he might have also told the guy what might have seemed too obvious -- to take it a little easier -- but it sounds like this fellow had to learn that lesson the hard way.

 

What if I were there? I might have loaned the fellow my leather jacket, at least for his first ride. That's what a friend of mine did when I first got back into riding. I kept it about a week before I bought my own.

 

Thank's for the loan, Roger.

[Jim VonBaden]

I have to admit, I was shocked at the salesman's cavalier attitude, but I agree with Kathy. We as riders must all take responsibility for our own actions, or inactions as the case may be.

 

I am personally sick of people trying to blame every problem on someone else. That's one of the reasons I like the BMW community. They admit responsibility for thier mistakes.

 

It's time we face the fact that we are imperfect and will always be. You cannot leglislate danger from living. If you tried we would all be in cages.

 

It's not certain that the dealer didn't try to get the guy to get some training, and the salesman may have done his best with an insistant customer. His attitude could be from a lack of caring, or a cover for feeling guilty and bad about what happened. Either way, it was a good story with a valid moral.

 

Thanks for sharing!

 

Jim

[Dennis Andress]

Wait a minute here ya’ll!

 

Those of us who learned to ride before the MSF was around started slowly and learned, at least the basics, before we went flying down the road. In the first 50' with his new bike this guy gunned the engine two or three time before holding the throttle open and blasting towards a curve. I recognize the dealership from Tony’s pictures, that isn’t a curve he crashed in as much as it’s a sharp 90 degree turn. Describe all the preventive actions you can think of but let’s not lose sight of the fact that this guy’s right wrist is what got him into trouble. As much as I admire David’s approach to correcting people, if I had been in Tony’s place I too would not have stepped in. In Socal, and maybe elsewhere, the setting of a young man picking up his new Harley in front of two friends is a macho thing and any interference would be met with scorn and anger. Been there, done that.

[Ford R]

I'm sorry you had to witness the accident. That said, I lay total responsibility on the rider. The only part about the dealer's actions I don't particularly like is the chuckling over the anticipated repair costs.

Everyone bought a first bike at some point in time. There was also a time when MSF courses were not available, and they are not required now (although I think it makes sense for new riders to take the beginning course). Driver training consisted of the being walked through the control functions by the salesman then riding away. Most people I know that acquired their first bike in this manner (me included) were very conservative. This guy was obviously having problems with judgement (WOT!). Showing off what a great brave biker he could be, he learned a painful lesson.

About the only thing I could imagine to let the rider off the hook would be a sticking throttle or other mechanical issue, but the description doesn't indicate this.

 

Me too. 1968 in London. Bought a Triumph Bonneville T-120. Had riden a Honda scrambler for 5 minutes. Dealer put the bike out front, gave the key, said the shift was on the English side - good bye. Left in the middle of London, survived, and rode since.

 

Interesting thread. Are we responsible for our actions or are do we now depend that someone else knows better and chooses for us?

 

Some are clearly in - you do it, you live with your choices.

 

Others are - you need to be protected in spite of your choices.

 

How much this sounds like politics and the direction of our future. Wake up one morning, look up and live with ??????

[leikam]

We as riders must all take responsibility for our own actions, or inactions as the case may be.

 

I am personally sick of people trying to blame every problem on someone else.

 

If I were that rider, I certainly wouldn't blame the salesman for my poor judgement. And if I were the salesman, I'd like to think I wouldn't send someone home on a bike without knowing that they had at least some sort of training (which is probably why I'm not in sales). It's not the salesman's fault that the guy crashed, but it's similar in my mind to giving a drunk the keys to his car.

 

At some point the salesman (and ultimately the owner) ought to take a look at how his actions could have prevented that crash.

[jim c]

nothing personal but some of you are smoking something. forget about the generalization of "the harley crowd"

the asian motorcycle crowd will sell any bike to anyone whio either pays cash or finance's it. they will sell (not all) the biggest fastest bike to the scrawnyist least experienced kid who is barely able to wipe his butt. harley honda bmw etc. if someone wants to buy a bike, if the salesperson doesn't act they lose the deal. dealers are not in business to hold buyers hands they are there to make money.

conscience wise suggesting a rider course prior to buying a bike is a plus. the HD dealers around here DO SPONSER msf classes. more so than either japanese or german for that matter.

yes fliers are up in noticable areas.however there is no obligation to force the class on anyone. having been in MC sales myself. HD to be more specific. i did suggest either a smaller displacement mc as a first ride as well as some form of rider education. as i also did when selling firearms. ignorance is more dangerous than knowledge.

had this been at a bmw dealership what would the response be?

[Jim VonBaden]

...

had this been at a bmw dealership what would the response be?

 

Jim,

 

I honestly think it would be the same, or even harder on the dealer if it had been a BMW dealer.

 

Most were not blaming the marque, just the sales practices. Even at that, it seems the majority feel that the rider is most to blame for his stupidity!

 

Jim

[Ford R]

.....

At some point the salesman (and ultimately the owner) ought to take a look at how his actions could have prevented that crash.

 

 

And that point is? You sir just paid $25 thousand for this bike. We the salesman and owner decided it is too much for you even though you state you can ride it. You may not have your bike. Come back with an MSF Certificate and we will let you hve it.

 

Ergo, pass a law that no one that has not a obtained governmental certificate can ride a purchased bike off a retail lot. Works, if that is what you want to give up. Actually, have a licenced governmental employee (for a large fee) required to be at the sale and test the rider before transfer. The California DMV would love this as job security. Might take a couple months for an appointment but we do save an accident with the 1 in 10,000 purchaser.

 

One stupid ass wipe could re-adjust the 500,000 sales made the 3 months before. That is the American way - demote all experiences to worst example and legislate/measure/tax everyone from the abberational moron.

 

Let no person purchase a bike and ride it away until passed by a governmental "expert". Solves the whole problem. So easy. So 21st Century. Who can argue the rationality of such a direct solution? When the DMV person can show up (months later) and test each new purchaser, the owner and salesman are absolved from resposibility. Heck, it would be harder to get a bike than to purchase a firearm but all would be safe from the abberational and statistically irrelevant asswipe. WE ARE SAFE!

[David]

Interesting thread. Are we responsible for our actions or are do we now depend that someone else knows better and chooses for us?

 

That's a false dichotomy. Individual freedom is not incompatible with our responsibility to suggest a direction for the freedom others take. In the end it is just a suggestion, not impinging on the freedom others crave, even if it only allows them to pursue death. It is a connected world, folks. It's okay to step into a situation without being required to do so on on any legal or moral basis.

[sshallen]

I'm sure the rider will behave differently in the future.

 

Two questions... will the salesman behave differently in the future?

 

What do you think the owner/sales manager's reaction was upon hearing the story?

 

Sam "Happy to be in an interesting but non-combative off-topic discussion" Shallenberger

[fnyrt]

This is very similar to something that I experienced. In the late seventies we had an exchange student staying with us (licensed driver) and a couple of mopeds - light enough that you can pick them up and toss them in a pickup, a top speed of 25 miles per hour, and the acceleration of a lawnmower - a push lawnmower. Well we give her the instructions in the back yard (very large & flat). There were no gears on the mopeds just a throttle and brakes and she confidently says that she can do it. Across the yard she goes, up an incline and straight into a stone wall - throttle wide open all the way. To this day I am amazed that anyone could panic on a moped like that. At the time, there was no licensing requirement for mopeds - in fact you could get a moped license before a drivers license. Had we been a dealer this could have taken place on the street and at the first intersection she would have been spam. Its not just the size of the bike - its the rider. On a 250cc/650cc bike she would have been spam. There is no way that the acceleration of the moped was pulling her throttle hand to open it up some more. I think if the dealer had pointed him to a 650 the guy still would have crashed.

 

Anytime I have ever been around a new rider I always relay this story to beat into them that they need to remember to roll off the throttle.

[ghaverkamp]

A human resources director I know calls it 'courageous communication' - in the workplace and in life. It's tough and scary - but in some cases necessary.

 

Well, I'm sure John R. would have some great things to say about this...

 

Personally, I'd love to be able to say something in such instances. But I also know that I'd have to see something incredibly extreme to be watching a conversation from a distance and then walk over and inject myself into it. I tend to have a number of opinions on most issues (some that apparently frighten some folks), but giving them to people having a private conversation is beyond what I typically find myself capable of.

 

"Courageous communication" in the workplace I can do. But then, I'm expected to be an expert, I'm there because I'm an expert, and I don't have many qualms when it comes to preventing folks from heading down paths I consider inappropriate. That's what they've hired me to do.

 

In "life," the situation is different. Breaking into someone else's conversation upsets "social order" and intrudes into their space. I don't have any standing in their eyes, they have no reason to value my opinion, nor do I have any reason to give my opinion value. The difference from offering it here is that you've asked for opinions, and they didn't.

 

We're not all the same, even if we can often be pretty neatly categorized (John had a description the other day that seemed to trace my life from childhood, even though I wasn't the topic.) The things that make it easy for David to hand a guy $5 to buy a new ice cream cone and to believe he'd try to prevent this incident are likely the things that allow him to sell his services, have meaningful services to provide, and to have a successful business.

 

You can't kick yourself because you "knew" something might happen. You don't even know if you'd done any good, and you'd be wondering, "Should I have been more forceful?" And what if he'd decided to simply have the bike delivered? You'd probably wonder from time to time the state of the guy. (Well, I would. Maybe a personality that would do such a thing wouldn't be bothered by those thoughts, having felt they did what they had to do.)

 

As it happened, you did everything you could be expected to do. You and Kim took charge of a horrid situation, tended to the guy when it sounds like the dealership really let him down, and planted the seed of training in him, assuming he still wants to ride at all. The guy was lucky to have you two around.

 

Greg

[russell_bynum]

I tend to have a number of opinions on most issues

 

You don't say.

 

[leikam]

The point, Ford, is that we as decent human beings ought not to be sending lambs to the slaughter with a smirk.

 

You've gone off the deep end with your anti-legislative rant. I never said that we should pass a law mandating some level of training or that the dealership shouldn't sell the guy the bike. Some of us self-taught riders actually made it home safely. But could more dealers offer free delivery as the default or push the upsale of gear or have more MSF literature laying about? There are plenty of options short of the Orwellian future you saw in my words.

 

What I'm suggesting is that the dealers ought (that's a moral ought, not a legal one in case you're still not clear on what I'm saying) to take more responsibility for their role in putting novice riders on the street.

 

And no, it won't save everybody from themselves, but if we're going to harp on the personal responsibility of the rider for himself, how about the personal responsibility of the more knowledgable for the less experienced? My parallel with the drunk is this: you can hand the drunk his keys and say it's his choice to drive just as you can hand the guy with zero experience the keys and hope for the best in both cases. But it's sheer denial in my eyes to think that one has no opportunity to personally affect the outcome even if it is 1 in 10,000. The choice one makes in that situation says a lot to me about one's character.

 

And lastly, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the inflation that goes on around here, but the bike this guy was buying was closer to $10k, not $25k. HD does list MSRPs on its site.

[Z-Man]

Hmmm, the conversation is becoming more heated, so here's another take on the issue. The dealership was grossly irresponsible by not only giving the drunk the keys to his car but showing him the ignition, brake, and accelerator too, thus encouraging the drunk to join sober society and endanger them along with himself. Damn the idea of selling protective gear! That dealer turned a complete greenhorn loose on the rest of us, and next time that wild, stupid, zero-experience rider could endanger me or my family. Not acceptable, dammit, and it's still a joint responsibility to keep him away from me.

 

Ahhh, that sure feels better.

[TonyM315]

 

Wow - pleeeeeeeeze everyone take a deep breath and not let this get out of hand. There's some great thoughts being shared on this. Thanks for continuing to keep it spirited and civil.

 

What I'm suggesting is that the dealers ought (that's a moral ought, not a legal one in case you're still not clear on what I'm saying) to take more responsibility for their role in putting novice riders on the street.

 

Very well stated, Michael - IMHO. Similar to what David pointed out about the choice of stepping in to say something or not.

 

Legal obligation to do anything? No. Moral obligation? In some ways, yes - but that is purely a matter of opinion.

 

It's great what H.D. is doing with Rider's Edge training. It's great that BMW and other brands give you tuition reimbursement for taking the class. It's great to have signs up, brochures, and posters creating awareness. I didn't see anything to that effect in this dealership, but in others I have.

 

Dare I say that with the rise in popularity of motorcycling that people considered 'authorities' or 'experts' in the sport (ie: dealers, some journalists, safety instructors, veteran riders, racers, manufacturers, MSF, AMA, etc...) are almost ambassadors of the sport to a point? I don't know.

[Ken H.]

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What do you think? What would you have done in the same scenario?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would have said something.

Me too. They might have told me to MYOB and go pound sand, but so what? I have thick skin. I mean it’s not likely it would have deteriorated into a fistfight or anything to keep the guy off the bike. But maybe, just maybe, he was so all caught up in the moment of brand getting his first motorcycle, and not wanting to loose face in front of friends standing there, that an intercession might have given a moment of pause to what he was about to. Heck, if it then seemed like there was an ounce of sensibility going on, I might have even offered to ride it home for him.

 

Of course I’m doing a certain amount of Monday morning quarterbacking, and you were there Tony and I was not. So I’m really not judging.

 

I just think too often we’re too reluctant in this society to intervene in something when we know in our heart/head we should. And this being such a litigious and violence based society doesn’t help; making people reluctant to do anything is similar situations.

[sshallen]

I just think too often we’re too reluctant in this society to intervene in something when we know in our heart/head we should. And this being such a litigious and violence based society doesn’t help; making people reluctant to do anything is similar situations.

 

I'll say this much.

 

Prior to reading this thread, I would have NEVER said anything in a similar situation (where I knew none of the players).

 

After reading this thread... I won't promise to claw the keys from the hands of a kickboxer, but I will seriously and quickly consider how I could make a difference. And likely step in.

[Ken H.]

had this been at a bmw dealership what would the response be?

The same as far as I'm concerned. As was said at the start of the thread, the brand is irreverent to the core of the conversation.

[Stir]

For the past few weeks, ...

 

OMG!!!

 

That is awful. That guy and anyone who saw him go down just joined the ranks of people who believe that motorcycles are inherently dangerous.

 

The dealer said that once the person leaves the lot, they are on their own. Lets say that the person ran into someone else and killed them. Do you think that civil law would side with the dealer that they were blameless? It would be the same as giving someone a drink and setting them on the road.

 

BTW, do they let you test drive the Buells? Jane has her license. We are selling the 650GS. It is just too much bike for her and I think a Buell could be a better bike.

[Voodoo]

I agree that the moral obligation is the real issue here. However, that turns into a slippery slope fairly quickly as well.

 

If it's the dealer's moral responsibility to ensure - to the best of his abilty - that a rider can operate a vehicle he sells him, what about the manufacturer? What about the manufaturer's advertising and lease programs? Is it morally responsible for a manufacturer to advertise vehicles that are capable of pulling wheels off the ground in fifth gear at over 100 mph at "no money down" rates for "any" approved buyers? Where's their moral responsibility?

 

Similar to the tabacco industry, their product is inherently dangerous and addictive (come on...give me that one ) to the target audience. Without greater education, those dangers go un-respected by most users and end in catastophe. Let's hope that the motorcycle manufacturers never get to the point where they are killing off their target market faster than they can replenish it. I don't see the horsepower decreasing, or barriers to entry increasing at any rate in the future.

[Stir]

... a girl with zero experience was buying a Suzuki Katana 750 because she liked the color. The sleazeball sales lizard was going along with her, like this was an ideal first bike. I pulled her aside, told her to take MSF first and then start on a GS500. I hope she listened.

 

A young man, early 20s saw me and my friend pull up on our bikes. He said he wanted a GSX... I asked him if he had ridden before. He said no but that he heard the GSX was the bike to get. I told him that it was the bike to get if he wanted to die. The color left his face. I told him, MSF, smaller bike to start. I hope HE listened.

[Ken H.]

Prior to reading this thread, I would have NEVER said anything in a similar situation (where I knew none of the players).

 

After reading this thread... I won't promise to claw the keys from the hands of a kickboxer, but I will seriously and quickly consider how I could make a difference. And likely step in.

Well then I think this has been a very valuable thread indeed.

 

999 times out of 1000 it may (one might even say probably) not help. But 1 out of 1000 is better than 0 out of 1000. And we'll all in the, "A single drop of water behind the dike" sense, be better off because of it.

[TonyM315]

Not to get off topic...

 

BTW, do they let you test drive the Buells? Jane has her license. We are selling the 650GS. It is just too much bike for her and I think a Buell could be a better bike.

 

Michael-

 

We got Kim's Buell Blast at Palm Springs Harley Davidson and Buell. They have two shops - one in Palm Springs and one in Palm Desert. We dealt with Alice at the Palm Desert shop and she was wonderful.

 

Aynways, we found most Buell dealers are now doing demo rides on the bikes. In fact, they've got a thing going now where if you do a demo ride, you get a free sling bag which is kind of cool. Kim is just a tick over 5 feet tall and but 95-100 pounds and with the low seat they offer for the Blast, she's able to flat foot it no problem and ride the bike with no problem at all.

 

Levers are easy to reach, and no suspension lowering necessary.

 

Best part? The first week she had it she dropped it in a parking lot (uneven pavement). Total cost of damages? A whopping 6 bucks for a left rear turn signal. Nothing else was harmed. Woo hoo!

 

 

She really had her heart set on an F-650CS... but after talking about it and looking at the cost, combined with what it would take to get it low enough for her, we agreed this would be a better starter bike for her - and then the BMW will be something she can grow into after a period of time.

 

She absolutely loves the Blast and is dragging me out for after-dinner rides and parking lot practice every evening. It's pretty hilarious and a lot of fun.

[SDMike]

If I were that rider, I certainly wouldn't blame the salesman for my poor judgement. And if I were the salesman, I'd like to think I wouldn't send someone home on a bike without knowing that they had at least some sort of training (which is probably why I'm not in sales). It's not the salesman's fault that the guy crashed, but it's similar in my mind to giving a drunk the keys to his car.

 

At some point the salesman (and ultimately the owner) ought to take a look at how his actions could have prevented that crash.

 

Ahh, but you see the salesman DID provide at least some rudimentary "this is what this does" type training. That the guy buying the HD grabbed a handful of throttle 'cause he didn't know his rear end from a hole in the ground is NOT the salesman's fault.

 

I know I've personally been in the situation: "you do this, this and this to make the bulldozer blade to this, this and this, got it?"

Me: "yeah, sure." (the whole time thinking I'll figure it out as a I go.)

 

Admittedly, driving a D7 dozer around in the woods ain't the same as grabbing a handful of throttle on the streets, but the sentiment is the same.

 

Its the same thing as not asking directions when you're misplaced (I'm NEVER lost...).

 

M

[ittech]

Friend from a few years back and some decent miles away now called me up yesterday to let me know he just got a 2002 SV650. Wanted to meet up and go for a ride sometime. I was asking him what he paid and what else he got, and when he just mentioned a black helmet, I asked about the rest of the gear, gloves, boots, jacket etc... to which he replied he didn't get any of that. Well as he sold his car to use the bike as his only transportation I let him know he better go figure out what gear is comfortable and protective and get some, and get something for rain as well. I asked if he had signed up for an MSF course, and after explaining what it was, pretty much demanded he take it before we go for a ride.

 

He took it rather well and told me he would sign up tomorrow and go look for some gear this weekend.

 

I think it's the responsibility of any rider who has the opportunity to help another, to do so. Do I think the dealer should have asked all those questions, yes, but It's not their fault. We can't protect everyone from common sense with laws, but we can take responsibility for ourselves, and help those that are friends/riding buddies become better and safer riders.

 

Personally I took the MSF because I was required to have a certificate to get my licence (under 21) in california. I feel it helped a lot, and with some practice on my father's virago, felt I was ready to start looking for a bike of my own.

 

Would I have taken the course if it were not required? Probably, but a good reason from a dealer or friend or DMV worker would make it pretty important in my mind. It would be interesting if they made MSF reqired to get a license. Not sure I agree with forcing it, but it should most definetly be reccomended strongly by those involved in the "new rider" process.

[John Ranalletta]

I agree that the moral obligation is the real issue here.

Not IMHO.

 

If a bar and the bartender can be suffer civil penalties for "overserving" a customer who ordered and paid for every drink, why couldn't a m/c dealer suffer the same penalties for "overserving" a buyer?

 

In both cases, the buyer is asking and paying for a product that he may be ill equipped to handle safely. If a bartender has an obligation to assess the capability of the patron to "handle" the next and subsequent drinks, why wouldn't a dealer be required to insure or at least try to assure that vending the product would not cause harm to the buyer or others?

[Jim VonBaden]

I agree that the moral obligation is the real issue here.

Not IMHO.

 

If a bar and the bartender can be suffer civil penalties for "overserving" a customer who ordered and paid for every drink, why couldn't a m/c dealer suffer the same penalties for "overserving" a buyer?

 

In both cases, the buyer is asking and paying for a product that he may be ill equipped to handle safely. If a bartender has an obligation to assess the capability of the patron to "handle" the next and subsequent drinks, why wouldn't a dealer be required to insure or at least try to assure that vending the product would not cause harm to the buyer or others?

 

That is a very dangerous and slippery slope you are treading on.

 

How would you prove the dealer exercised due diligence? How could a dealer prove he did, or a driver prove he didn't?

 

It is established that its dangerous to ride a motorcycle. How can you blame, legally, a dealer for selling a bike to an unqualified rider? How can a dealer be forced to judge such competence? How long would it be before dealers would fold up and quit selling bikes when faced with this issue.

 

Just my 2nd $0.02.

 

Jim

[Kathy R]

If a bar and the bartender can be suffer civil penalties for "overserving" a customer who ordered and paid for every drink, why couldn't a m/c dealer suffer the same penalties for "overserving" a buyer?

 

How can a bartender know when a person has .09 or whatever in their blood stream? The bartender can only more likely tell when the person is pretty drunk, not a little drunk.

 

How can the salesman know? To what degree could they be lied to or fooled?

 

I think having a motorcycle license makes sense in that case, I'll grant that for sure. But, how does a salesman know the person won't pull out of their lot and kill themselves in the first mile? They cannot. How do you prosecute this crime?

[John Ranalletta]

How can a bartender know when a person has .09 or whatever in their blood stream? The bartender can only more likely tell when the person is pretty drunk, not a little drunk.

Kathy, I don't know how one does that but I do know that the liability issue for bars is very large. One restaurant chain was successfully sued for overserving and the court used the fact that they served 48 oz margaritas as evidence of the overserving. One of my clients immediately destroyed all of their 48 oz margarita glasses.

 

This entire thread started on the topic of responsibility...whose, when, how to express it, etc. How much responsibility does one have when one sells a product to miminize danger to the buyer and others? Beats hell out of me. I just know there are dozens of areas where the courts have ruled the vendor has a clear legal responsibility to unsuspecting, unwitting or ill-informed buyers.

 

Your city is trying to hold gun dealers responsible for selling a product they claim is inherently dangerous, yet, a gun left untouched harms no one. Does the gun dealer have a responsibility to assess the buyer's ability to handle the item?

[John Ranalletta]

It is established that its dangerous to ride a motorcycle. How can you blame, legally, a dealer for selling a bike to an unqualified rider?

And, we all know that it is often dangerous to drink alcohol; yet, cities and towns license its legal dispensing but, courts regularly hold the sellers liable when they fail to properly assess the buyers ability to use the product and when use of the product causes harm. (google "dram shop").

 

I'm not taking a position here, just trying to point out the inconsistencies in positions. What do we owe each other in this society?

• In most jurisdictions, home sellers must disclose all defects
• Cigarettes have a cancer warning on the pack
• Beer and wine warn of dangers to pregnant women
• Drugs come with a 1000-word warning of side effects and interactions
• Automobile sun shades have a "do not use while driving" tag on them
• BIC lighters are almost unusable because of the child proof safety interlocks

Now, you want to tell me that a m/c dealer should be able to look the other way just because someone can fog a mirror and fork over $10,000 large for a new Gixxer? Let's not forget that in most cases, the dealer is "pushing" product. I'm not aware of any part of the country where there's a shortage of motorcycles in the showrooms and people are begging dealers to buy them. Hence, the dealer is not only making the product available for sale but enticing, persuading and motivating people to buy. In fact, the dealer is probably jumping through hoops to find financing to move the bike.

 

I can't say where the line should be drawn, but likely the courts will draw it and no one will like where they draw it. That's what the courts do: they step in when one's self-interest causes harm to others.

 

At the extreme, one could argue as Adam Smith did in his The Theory of Moral Sentiments:

"The prudent man is not willing to subject himself to any responsibility which his duty does not impose upon him. He is not a bustler in business where he has no concern; is not a meddler in other people's affairs; is not a professed counsellor or adviser, who obtrudes his advice where nobody is asking it."

I guess the rub here is defining "duty".

[TonyM315]

Well talk about irony...

 

Looks like we're not the only ones examining this topic....

 

Did you catch the CBS Evening News tonight? If you didn't, here's a link to a transcript of the undercover investigation they did investigating the sales practices of ATV Dealers in Southern California. It deals with keeping kids off of 'adult' ATVs...

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/eveningnews/main3420.shtml

 

Oh boy... I was thinking this thread had run its course. Please keep it cool.....

[SteveB]

Read that and swap out MC for ATV and it may be next weeks big story.

[Agent_Orange]

I'm quite sure that before too long "Berney,the attorney" will be involved in this one.

[Kathy R]

How much responsibility does one have when one sells a product to miminize danger to the buyer and others? Beats hell out of me. I just know there are dozens of areas where the courts have ruled the vendor has a clear legal responsibility to unsuspecting, unwitting or ill-informed buyers.

 

I don't know how this is supposed to work either?

 

It seems that we (legal system, the guy on the street, etc) have a hard time with the gray area. I want the individual to hold the greatest responsibility, within reason, for their own welfare.

 

I guess what I don't like to see is the move in this country to blame someone else, for my mistake. It's an easy way out.

 

When folks can put the blame on someone else (the dealer) rather than themselves (the rider) I think we've gone off into the gray area.

 

If I'm going to choose to ride, it's my job to take care of my saftey. My gray area is very small. I go from "The state has to license me and insure I've covered these basics" and "It's up to me to know what I'm doing" -to- " she turned left in front of me and now it's her fault".

 

If I have a single bike accident on my new bike...I bit off more than I could chew. The dealer sells bikes. The state certifies my worthiness for the roadway. I'm the final arbiter of what I know. Whatever the laws were in that state that dealer followed them. Morally he was a turd. But I wasn't party to all that went on. That fellow could have lied about his experience. That guy could have seemed confident. I still don't get the part about the legalities of riding off a bike lot with no license. Is that legal in CA?

 

I don't have a "The dealer who sold me my first bike has a responsibility to insure I know what I'm doing" area. They checked my license for the M class designation and their responsibility should and did end there.

 

I wrote a huge thing on bartenders, but I'm getting off topic somewhat. <snip> :-) (My emoticons are gone...who took my emoticons? ;-) )

[SageRider]

I still don't get the part about the legalities of riding off a bike lot with no license. Is that legal in CA?

In California, a learner's permit or a license is required. In most cases, for a new rider, the learners permit will have to do since the license requires a motorcycle to obtain.

 

Learner's permit limits the rider to daytime operation, no freeways, and no passengers.

[ghaverkamp]

In California, a learner's permit or a license is required. In most cases, for a new rider, the learners permit will have to do since the license requires a motorcycle to obtain.

 

A rider who doesn't hasn't passed the CMSP class will need a motorcycle to obtain a license. However, there's a very small business in renting small-displacement bikes for people to take the test. So, they won't have to own a motorcycle. And they won't have to buy one new.

 

Greg

[ian408]

In California, a learner's permit or a license is required. In most cases, for a new rider, the learners permit will have to do since the license requires a motorcycle to obtain.

 

Learner's permit limits the rider to daytime operation, no freeways, and no passengers.

 

In California, no motorcycle is required to obtain a license. There are

two licensing options. First, obtain a permit and using your own motorcycle,

take the skill test. Second, take the California Motorcycle Safety Program's

basic rider class. The BRC is run by the MSF these days. Upon successful

completion, take your certificate to the DMV, pass the written exam and you've

got a license--with less than 8 hours of riding time.

 

I know some of you are MSF instructors and I'm sorry if this offends you.

The BRC is too basic. I would go so far as to say that anyone that has

8 hours of riding a 125cc or less POS bike is in no way prepared to ride

a larger motorcycle. I would suggest that the BRC and the 1 year learner

permit is a far better option. And it's not that instruction is poor but

that a new rider lacks the experience a full license assumes (does that

make sense?). I am in favor of graduated licensing (all classes).

 

It's one thing for a dealer to sell an experienced motorcyclist a bike that

he chooses to ride off the lot in a t-shirt and shorts. Quite another to sell

that same bike to a new and unlicensed rider who likely does not posess the

knowledge to decide for himself whether a t-shirt and shorts ae "appropriate"

riding gear.

 

One thing the dealer should have done is inquire about the license. No License,

enroll the customer in an MSF class right then and there. Offer to deliver the

bike. But to have the guys first experience be a wreck?

 

Ian

[TonyM315]

 

Nice post, Ian, and thanks for being candid about the BRC. Recently the curriculum did change, (since MSF took over) - and it is a tad more in-depth (compared to the old curriculum), but the amount of time spent riding, etc... is about the same. It's definitely the basics....

 

I threw up a question in this thread earlier and I think it may have gotten buried. I'm wondering if you know - or perhaps someone from Europe / Canada / or Australia is reading this - what are the policies / practices in these countries by dealers? How does one get a license? What do you need to buy a motorcycle in those countries?

 

Is it any different over there?

[GoGo Gadget]

I agree that the moral obligation is the real issue here.

Not IMHO.

 

If a bar and the bartender can be suffer civil penalties for "overserving" a customer who ordered and paid for every drink, why couldn't a m/c dealer suffer the same penalties for "overserving" a buyer?

 

In both cases, the buyer is asking and paying for a product that he may be ill equipped to handle safely. If a bartender has an obligation to assess the capability of the patron to "handle" the next and subsequent drinks, why wouldn't a dealer be required to insure or at least try to assure that vending the product would not cause harm to the buyer or others?

 

That is a very dangerous and slippery slope you are treading on.

 

How would you prove the dealer exercised due diligence? How could a dealer prove he did, or a driver prove he didn't?

 

It is established that its dangerous to ride a motorcycle. How can you blame, legally, a dealer for selling a bike to an unqualified rider? How can a dealer be forced to judge such competence? How long would it be before dealers would fold up and quit selling bikes when faced with this issue.

 

Just my 2nd $0.02.

 

Jim

 

It is easy. The state determines if a person is qualified to ride a motorcycle by issueing a license. From a dealers perspective, no license = no bike.

 

Dealers could make money by having a course set up and renting POS bikes to practice on. Put in throttle limiters and crash bars and rent the bike for $20/hr. Set up the same course that the DMV uses for the license test. Then sell the guy a bike after he is licensed and you made a few bucks off the rental fees.

 

 

That is called due diligence. Selling a bike to someone that the state has yet to determine is fit to operate a bike on the public highways, is called negligence.

[Kenny2]

Congratulations on getting your license.

 

I am beyond words, reading the event(s) you watched unfold. I can not understand why anyone would allow that to happen, Dealer, Salesperson, Staff, and friends. I don't understand???

[TonyM315]

Congratulations on getting your license.

 

Kim says "Thank You!" (Got to get her registered on here)....

[John Moylan]

wish we could nail better helmets to their heads and send them to 3 weeks of remedial MSF school but that ain’t going to happen.

 

Dennis - why isn't that going to happen? and Venturello....do you mean you did NOT have to spend 2 years on the 34bhp - how come - it's an EU-wide law...?

 

I used to think it was stupid, now I don't. I think it's a good idea, actually.

 

I sold my wife's K75C last week end. It was a beautiful bike, and we really didn't want to sell it - low seat kit, short shock etc, and all, but she couldn't get insurance, so it had to go..........sold it to a guy moving up from a Honda 250 Rebel - he was really short, and a few kgs' over, too........he couldn't flat foot both feet on the lowered K. So, he comes, looks, rides it up my drive (not on the road), very, very slowly, and gingerly - he even made me nervous. Then he says 'how much?' - I countered by saying before we do that, are you sure this bike is for you, that I'd prefer to NOT sell than to sell the wrong bike to the wrong person ? (I should point out I think he will be ok as he has experience on the 250, but he was nervous, and it was his first 'big' bike - which of course, he didn't own, and he was afraid to drop it). He responded he was happy to buy it, and that he'd take his time to familiarise himself with it, on his own turf, so to speak.

 

We agreed a price, but I said I would insist on delivering it, and you should have seen the relief on his face......it just took away some of the fear of spending 150 miles on a bike he didn't know, that was 3 times the size of his last mount.

 

So, I made a pallet, strapped it up like the factory guys do, and delivered it to his door - the truck has a tail lift and it was easy-peasy. He rang me later to say he was delighted with it, and was glad he bought it - and that delivering it was a much better idea than riding it home. Cost to me? Euro 20, and two happy bunnies out of that.

 

As regards the original post, I think it's disgusting that the dealer operates like that - I know it gets done; but in the UK few years ago, at a place called DockGate20, the biggest HD dealer in the UK, they told us they ALWAYS give riding lessons to all newbie-HD owners when they collect their bikes.

 

As for helmets/etc, well around here, it's a given....it's the law. And quite rightly, IMO too. Actually, it's part of the 'uniform' that binds us together over here, and nobody easier to start a conversation with than another helmet-wielding guy/gal.....

[John Moylan]

..Whats the motivation of the salesperson such that he "should" have done that? -- Spike

 

Spike, the "should" can be described simply as "commerce", or good business sense. Everyone knows that the best customer is the repeat customer. This forum in fact, is testament to that. Look how we extoll the virtues of all those we have good dealings with.....and lash out at all the others...QED, methinks.

 

The other school of thought, the screw them once, and screw them big, eventually commits hari-kiri, financially...... a kind of 'just' dessert, really.

 

In the UK there is CBT - Compulsory Basic Training - and you can't get a bike without it. Period. The UK has, in my opinion, the best riding standards in the world. (which is NOT to say they don't have twits on the road...)

 

My 0.02

[ian408]

Nice post, Ian, and thanks for being candid about the BRC. Recently the curriculum did change, (since MSF took over) - and it is a tad more in-depth (compared to the old curriculum), but the amount of time spent riding, etc... is about the same. It's definitely the basics....

 

I threw up a question in this thread earlier and I think it may have gotten buried. I'm wondering if you know - or perhaps someone from Europe / Canada / or Australia is reading this - what are the policies / practices in these countries by dealers? How does one get a license? What do you need to buy a motorcycle in those countries?

 

Is it any different over there?

 

I think the difference in curriculum is insignificant. The learning materials

are better and the integratation with the DMV is tighter. This has evolved as

the state began to accept training in liu of the testing it administers.

 

The old classes were based around an MSF curriculum to begin with and I would

suggest the largest change was for the instructors. Using consistent teaching

methods and changing the style of teach to one of encouragement being the

most significant. Also, the old class utilized two full days and mixed

theory with practice, the new class gives the theory in one four hour chunk

and practice in two range sessions.

 

Don't get me wrong. The MSF has done a lot to improve education but I think

the amount of class time is too low and the skills taught too basic to consider

it adequate for the purchase and unlimited operation of a motorcycle. I don't

have any suggestion for what might make it better either (other than BRC and

a year's permit riding).

 

The TUV offeres some hints as to licensing in the EU. Not enough for me

to determine exactly what I'd need to take if I were in the EU though

 

Ian

[ian408]

It is easy. The state determines if a person is qualified to ride a motorcycle by issueing a license. From a dealers perspective, no license = no bike.

 

I'm ok with this.

 

 

Dealers could make money by having a course set up and renting POS bikes to practice on. Put in throttle limiters and crash bars and rent the bike for $20/hr. Set up the same course that the DMV uses for the license test. Then sell the guy a bike after he is licensed and you made a few bucks off the rental fees.

 

That would be similar to what Tony saw in the parking lot. A sales person

trying to teach someone how to ride a motorcycle.

 

It would be negligent to place the licensing function in the hands of the

people who sell motorcycles. There is no check and balance here.

 

What would be a good idea is for local dealers to work with the MSF to

host classes that customers could sign up for an attend in short order (in

the SF Bay Area, classes in some cities are very difficult to get in to.

Especially in the summer months which are high selling season).

 

This way, the dealer has no influence on the outcome of the test.

And the MSF has either passed or failed the rider allowing them to apply

for a license or not.

 

 

Ian

[Jim VonBaden]

I agree that the moral obligation is the real issue here.

Not IMHO.

 

If a bar and the bartender can be suffer civil penalties for "overserving" a customer who ordered and paid for every drink, why couldn't a m/c dealer suffer the same penalties for "overserving" a buyer?

 

In both cases, the buyer is asking and paying for a product that he may be ill equipped to handle safely. If a bartender has an obligation to assess the capability of the patron to "handle" the next and subsequent drinks, why wouldn't a dealer be required to insure or at least try to assure that vending the product would not cause harm to the buyer or others?

 

That is a very dangerous and slippery slope you are treading on.

 

How would you prove the dealer exercised due diligence? How could a dealer prove he did, or a driver prove he didn't?

 

It is established that its dangerous to ride a motorcycle. How can you blame, legally, a dealer for selling a bike to an unqualified rider? How can a dealer be forced to judge such competence? How long would it be before dealers would fold up and quit selling bikes when faced with this issue.

 

Just my 2nd $0.02.

 

Jim

 

It is easy. The state determines if a person is qualified to ride a motorcycle by issueing a license. From a dealers perspective, no license = no bike.

 

Dealers could make money by having a course set up and renting POS bikes to practice on. Put in throttle limiters and crash bars and rent the bike for $20/hr. Set up the same course that the DMV uses for the license test. Then sell the guy a bike after he is licensed and you made a few bucks off the rental fees.

 

 

That is called due diligence. Selling a bike to someone that the state has yet to determine is fit to operate a bike on the public highways, is called negligence.

 

I completely disagree!

 

What incentive would the dealer have to teach the so called students how to really ride?

 

Where would you average urban dealer find the space to safely set up a riding school?

 

What a liability nightmare that would be for a dealer.

 

The dealer wouldn't make any money on bikes that were rented in that fashion. They would be destroyed in short order, and the cost of repairs, facilities, insurance, and instructors would never be cost effective.

 

I still believe the responsibility lies with the purchaser. No one is so stupid that they think riding a motorcycle is as safe and easy as driving a car.

 

Jim

[J Mart]

Well here's sort of a different take on this post. I've already posted my opinion earlier (responsibility on both parts). But thinking about this from a legal perspective - the "consummation" of the sale involves either a) the customer riding off the lot or b) the dealer delivering the bike to customer's house. It appears that the dealer did not offer, or customer did not ask for, (b). For now, let's ignore the possiblity that one of the customer's friends had a license and could have ridden the bike off the lot. Therefore, the completion of this sale requires the commission of a crime (unlicensed riding). Therefore, by some definition, the dealer is guilty of accessory. I spoke with a buddy who is in sales, who told me that as long as the customer is over 18 and signs a waiver, the dealer bears no liability. I just wonder how the government has chosen to ignore that particular faux pas.

 

Another thing to think about, for those who say that it's all the customer's responsibility: if the general public starts hearing about dealers (and customers) like this, they might just perceive a "menace" to society (as if we aren't already perceived that way by non-riders). Seeing such, they will want to legislate tougher laws - whether they be background checks for all motorcycle purchases, 5-day waiting periods, or the like. And they will be paid for by higher license fees, additional motorcycle taxes, etc. So if we don't want to find ourselves in that boat, we (riders and dealers) might want to try policing ourselves a bit better than the dealer described in the OP.

I'm up to $0.04 now.

[Jim VonBaden]

Interesting take, but wouldn't the same then HAVE to apply to cars? A car is far more dangerous in the hands of an inexperienced driver than the motorcycle.

 

I know, they already have laws stating the need for a driver's liscense. But an MSF course and a state liscense does not really prepare an 18 year old kid to ride a 1200CC HD or crotch rocket.

 

At some point the driver has to become responsible for his actions. I have seen licensed people in both cars and on bikes that should NOT be driving! As have we all.

 

Anyhow, this horse is no longer breathing.

 

Jim

[Dennis Andress]

Dennis - why isn't that going to happen?

 

John,

 

I’ve thought all day about how to respond to your question. The easy answer would be “Because this is the USA.” But, a better explanation is that in our society it would be difficult for the government to implement motorcycle (and automobile) operator training as it’s known in Europe. We don’t want the government to legislate our safety, we don’t trust them with it and don’t like their way of doing things i.e. my expression “nail helmets to their head.”

 

Another aspect, and please allow me to generalize here, is that in 95% of our country the only acceptable day to day transportation is the automobile. Public transportation here compared to Europe is a joke. We need a car, or motorcycle, to hold a job, buy food, visit friends, etc. Most families plan and depend on a child getting their license and driving at the age of 16. To add the rigorous training, testing, and experience that you are familiar with would delay, or perhaps prevent, this and change quite a few family plans. That’s the best example of “it ain’t going to happen” that I can come up with.

 

I wish we did teach people to drive as is done in Europe. I’d love to see beginners drive small low power cars or bikes with “Lerner” L’s on the back of them. I doubt if it will ever happen though