Motorcycles, Post if you got em

Fred, I'm an engineer-turned-lawyer. I'm trained to think the way I do. I got my start in the late 70's figuring out why a beer keg exploded and turned my firm's client into a quadriplegic. I did, thousands of kegs were recalled and nobody else got hurt. So I make no apologies for what I do or how I think.

So tell me, why are those bars on a Harley, anyway? I can see them on a BMW boxer motor. But what's the point on that machine?

What model is it? Road King?

Remember,I'm old school--in my day it was an FLH--just a big a$$ touring bike--the crash bars would keep you from going down all the way if you lost it--all & all it is quite a safety feature--but, if you go into a turn way faster & way sharper then you thought,you could be in trouble.I started taking our youngest girl 19 now,riding when she was 4--the helmet came down over her ears(little brain bucket)she knew how to hold on & I was real careful out on the road with her--remember my past statement? sh_t happens--well,it does--it's just damn unfortunate & I personally wouldn't go blowing smoke up anybodys skirt about liabilities.Maybe a shot when H.D. was a Mom & Pop co. but not now they have hit wall St.Just remember,H.D. don't scimp on safety features or put them on w/o a team of engineers going over them---rideing on a 2 wheel vehicle,18 inches above the black top in itself is a risk & a personal choice--don't get me wrong--most bike/cage accidents are caused by the cage---I didn't see him,I didn't hear him,Pay Attention dumb ass---I have a feeling that was not the case in this situation

OK, I get that it's a damned heavy machine that nobody'd ever pick up alone if it went over. But those bars can't be stock, can they?

Yes,as a safety feature

stockingfull wrote:OK, I get that it's a damned heavy machine that nobody'd ever pick up alone if it went over. But those bars can't be stock, can they?

OK, I give up: what's the logic that those bars are a "safety feature?"

I told you in the 1st post--But, if you were to lose control & go down,they would probably keep your legs from being taken--yes,it's a real heavy bike--like you mentioned,even dropping it at a stand still,& unfortunatly people do that,wait,I did it once drunk way back when on a friends bagger--Jon,think about it,it's that much more between you & the black-top

stockingfull wrote:OK, I give up: what's the logic that those bars are a "safety feature?"

The problem with that logic is that we all know that, when bikes go down, people's legs don't stay wrapped around them. And the trade-off that it's somehow better to have a bike that can't handle a corner so it's easier to pick it up or to save a glass bag is a tough "safety analysis" to defend in a double-death case.

If those are stock bars, I'd be looking at roll-bar cases in a heartbeat.

Jon,I think your training is strange & that your cross examination process is ridiculous.I hate to be the one to say this considering the situation,but,I've been riding Harleys since I was 15, I am now 64---the bike was not at fault here from what I've read & visualize,your friend or not friend was--again,the whole situation sux take your concerns to court,obviously none of my answers seem to satisfy your curiosity---5000 miles & a credit card don't make you a biker, by the way,if you are hit sideways,chances are your legs will stay w/ the bike as it slides to where-ever--but your right,a front or rear hit will send you flying

Fred, if you are hit sideways, those roll bars ain't gonna help you either. There's a way to evaluate "safety" decisions in the design process, and it ain't making the bike less safe to ride in order to make it easier to pick up.

Bottom line: if the roll bar makes it impossible to bank the bike to evade an accident, it's not a "safety" feature; it's a launch device into oncoming traffic.

tomorrow morning i will take pics of my bagger and the crash bars. they cannot be put into the road without first destroying the foot boards as they hit first, then the pipes then the bars and then by that time the tires are not gripping as they are on the sidewalls.

yes the bars help keep the legs from liquid form. my bagger weighs in at 905# stock. the bars help right the bike when you have a little dropsy issue... ride long enough on em and it happens.

the protect the cam cover and the primary cover. the term crash bars has been adopted by most but they are known as engine guards.....

Poconoeagle wrote:tomorrow morning i will take pics of my bagger and the crash bars. they cannot be put into the road without first destroying the foot boards as they hit first, then the pipes then the bars and then by that time the tires are not gripping as they are on the sidewalls.

If they're not the first (inflexible) thing to touch, that does change the analysis.

on the baggers the first are the foot boards or foot pegs for the less affordable crowd. they both pivot a fair amount and at the point where they are maxed flexed the bike is in trouble for most drivers. there is a lot to be said for the movement of the rider at this juncture also as thier weight shift can often reek havoc on the drivers intention as well as the vector dynamics.

i am in twisty road country and have been able to whip the big batwinged bike like a crotch rocket. i believe tho that 35+ years of riding extends the envelope for doing that.

its hard to guess what happened there without knowing the road before that turn..

he prolly high sided the scooter after whipping it out of the evil women driver's way... .....

just kidding. the cel phone thing is a REAL big issue for us bike riders as we look at that stuff up close and personal too often....

the 32 yr old wing did good tonite in the pouring freezing rain......

I've got 4 bikes, all Jap, from a stroker Kawi KE100, to an EX250, a ZX-6E and a Yammy FJR for the big miles. When my wife and I are all loaded up on the FJR, we're a bit over half a ton. And that's plenty for me. So I understand why nobody wants to pick one of these big boys up.

But it's hard to comprehend why anybody would want to ride a machine that didn't use up the tires before the hard stuff hits and unweights those tires. And nearly impossible to understand what design department would let that happen.

If that's not the case, well, "Nevermind." If it is, I want to know why.

Fred, you're right, for reasons Sir Isaac Newton discovered, motorcycling is inherently dangerous to a degree. But what I must gather in after an accident like this is why, if it's true, it should be MORE dangerous for reasons which easily could be avoided.

Wow ... so much for posting 'em if we got 'em.

Maybe this should have been another topic, perhaps?

stockingfull wrote:Well, here's the other side of it, boys. I'm off tomorrow morning to the funeral of a rider I never knew.

And his 11-year-old son.

That's a sad story. I often rode my son with me when he was 11. He is now 13 and as tall as me and much heavier so I don't ride him around anymore cause my bike is lighter and the extra weight is really noticable.

I hate Harley's and all of the big heavy cruisers. I'm sorry to offend. Nice bikes and great for a slow ride but the handling is no where near a Yamaha, BMW or Suzuki touring style bikes. That poor guy died in the twisties. More bikers die in single vehicle (motorcyle) collisions in corners than in any other type of collision. I was taught this stat in the PA Motorcyle Training Course, MSF