After reading a thread on another board, I felt it might be interesting to create a poll here. Just for shits-n-grins.
The situation:
Say Bob wakes up on his 18th birthday, which happens to be a beautiful Saturday morning in June. As he's sitting down, eating his wheaties, he sees some guy cruise down his street, on a "crotch rocket" and thinks to himself, "Wow, that guy is cool. I think I'm gonna take the $12k that mom and dad gave me for my birthday and go buy one of those."
So he heads down to the local motorcycle dealership, which happens to be a Suzuki shop. Walks in. First bike he sees is a Hayabusa. "Wow. That thing is cool." He sits on it, sees that the speedometer goes to 220mph. "I have to have this thing", he thinks.
Salesman walks over, they get to chatting. The salesman tells him all about how much hp it has, how it's the baddest thing on two wheels. Bob thinks to himself how cool he'll be when he shows off to his new friends.
Eventually, Bob can't take it anymore. The $12k is burning a hole in his pocket. He pulls out his wallet, hands over the crisp $12,000 bill to the salesman. They write up the paperwork, the salesman goes over the basic controls of the bike, and off Bob goes.
Bob pulls out on to Golf Rd. The curiosity is killing him. He HAS to know what 160hp feels like. So he whacks the throttle open, and the bike takes off. The bike buries it's 220mph speedo before running into the back of a parked semi truck that was unloading crates for Bob Evans restaurant. Bob dies instantly.
Who is at fault? (morally, not legally)
That's a tough one to call.
I say Mom and Dad, for not teaching the kid anything to begin with. Like respect.
Mike
All three are at fault....
Bob: He is responsible for his actions (idiot)
The Shop: Come-on now, you know he is going to kill himself.
Parents: They should have exposed him to the hazard of speed (just like kids and guns). If they did, then there was nothing they could do.
Dawn
Better question......who cares?
The person at fault is the person with the throttle in their hand.
QuoteThe person at fault is the person with the throttle in their hand.
That is exactly MY opinion. I won't go into justifying it just yet.
I'm surprised with some of the responses so far (from a poll here as well as the other board...)
Tuesday of this week, here in Rockford Illinois, a 22 year old male killed himself while drag racing his Cobra Mustang against a Camaro on State street (the main strip in this town - 45 mph). This was at 4pm in the afternoon, during the start of rush hour, and was possible due to the stoplights being timed to each other and having open street in front of them. They were going something like 130 mph when someone pulled out from a side road and the guy in the Mustang swerved to avoid hitting that car and ended up losing control and rolled his car for 100's of feet.
In my opinion this was bad decision making ability and is so common now days. We have definately reached a point in history where people try and put the blame on things other than their own actions. At 18 years old you've gone thru 12 years of school, can vote for elected officials, and are starting life on your own outside of school or going on to college. Yes these individuals basic training in decision making ability may have been flawed along the way by their parents or others, but ultimately at this stage in life you are considered an adult and are responsible for your own actions.
In both of the examples given, their personal decision to do what they did, where they did it, is what caused those unfortunate results. If they had wanted to do what they did they could have chosen to do it somewhere there was not other vehicles to worry about, a place that had space to stop within there field of view. I am not saying that doing this on the street is right, but at least use a little common sense!
The dealer is in no way at fault. You use a busa in this question it does not matter if it was an ex 250 if he cracked the wick on that for too long he would ball up. I doubt there is a dealer out there who has not sold a bike squid. I'm sure the family would head right to the lawyer. The guy who bought the " OWCH I just spilled hot coffe on my little toe I need to go and call my lawyer to get paid from the coffe shop, cup manufacturer and Juan Valdez. ;D
QuoteThe person at fault is the person with the throttle in their hand.
Yea, EXACTLY... BOB has a brain. Bob can think for himself. So... If I go out and buy a ferrari, and get a speeding ticket b/c I was told it could do over 130 mph, could I blame the dealership and make them pay for it?
This is almost, but note quite as stupid as the absurd try at sueing McDonald's b/c their food caused people to get fat.
Right on Diesel.. that was another RIDICULOUS lawsuit
True story. Roger and I were at a local bike resale shop. I think it was when Rhiannon bought her FZR400. Anyhow, we're standing outside talking to the sales guy when a kid (read: squid) is picking up a GSXR 750.
The sales man who sold him the bike asked him if he knew how to ride, saw he had no gear, and offered to drive the bike to his house. The squid said he was fine, proudly mounted his new purchase, turned the key, put it in gear, and "opened" the throttle. He did a nice, tight squidly 360 just before letting go of the bike, where it sputtered and died with at least $2000 worth of damage. Luckily, no one was hurt and nothing else was damaged. Who's fault? Squid's fault. Have respect for yourself, others and the machines you use. However, saying that here is like preaching to the converted.
It's no one's fault. Bob was successfully removed from the gene pool.
Anyone who thinks the dealership is even slightly at fault is a lawyer's wet-dream.
Why do you think the dealer should have any responsibility for selling a completely legal piece of equipment? The dealer knows that to legally ride the bike, the guy needs to have a license. An idiot can get killed on roller-skates just as easily.
Would you like it if you wanted to buy something and the local dealer of that said, "no, I can't sell you because my gut feeling is such and such. COME ON!
This mentality is exactly why the families of the victims of the east cost "Sniper" feel that they can sue Bushmaster, the maker of the gun he used. Yet no one is filing suit against Chevrolet, even though they drove a Chevy Caprice. People need to realize S#!t happens and people need to be accountable for their own actions.
IT IS SOLEY THE FAULT OF THE IDIOT WHO BUYS THE BIKE AND THINKS HE IS INVINCEABLE.
Ptak, you must love watching me get my fur up! ;)
In 37 years, I have NEVER seen a gun jump off of a table and kill someone...
I have never seen a motorcycle spontaneously jump to life and T-bone a minivan in the middle of an intersection...
I have never seen that red-haired clown strapping customers to benches and force-feeding them Big Macs... (eeew! What a visual!)
Sadly, it is so much easier to blame others for our problems than it is to do actually TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OURSELVES. Blame the school system and popular media because your child is an illiterate delinquent. Blame the tobacco companies and the liquor distillers because your lungs and liver are rotten with disease. Blame Krispy Kreme for your clogged arteries and insulin dependency.
These same people are so quick to chime in about their RIGHTS... but conveniently ignore the accompanying RESPONSIBILITIES .
Sorry for the rant.
I told myself I would not comment on my choice above, but alas, I have been drawn in.
I do not think gun-makers kill people, people kill people, and I am in no way a lawyers wet dream, so here goes my thoughts:
I think the biggest question above is "MORALLY" - Legally, Bob is at fault, he bought the bike, ripped the throttle, and splat.
However, I feel that the Dealer had a moral responsibility towards Bob and the rest of society - to maybe check Bob's qualifications of previous bike ownership, riding ability, etc. If he found Bob lacking in those, maybe push him towards something a little smaller - more rider friendly, and not push (hard sell) the busa to Bob.
Herein lies two problems
A - A smaller bike sale would cost the dealership money - This could prevent the dealer from even mentioning a smaller/cheaper bike if Bob showed interest right away for the busa. If this was the case, then this is where I feel the dealership could be morally at fault.
B - What if Bob continues to "push" the dealer to sell him the busa, then in my opinion, Bob becomes at fault, b/c the dealer filled his moral responsibility to try to "prevent" a possible problem.
Remember - the question was "Morally" and I am not the only one who felt at least a little this way - since there are 3 votes to date.
Flame away, just my worthless $0.02 - :P :P
In theory, you have a point of debate, morally. But legally is a different matter.
You don't have to be licensed to buy a motor vehicle in this country, just possess the necessary means of purchase.
Secondly, Bob, is morally obligated to control himself. By acting in a rash manor, he endangers not only himself, but others as well.
The other thing Bob isn't doing is thinking about others who might depend on him. Does he hold a job? Does he have family who needs him? Pregnant girlfriend? Where do his responsibilities lie?
We can only control one person in our lives, and that is ourself. If someone lies to you, i.e., if the salesman told Bob the bike was checked out and the brakes failed, that's another story, legally and morally.
We live in a litigious society. It costs us as consumers and as citizens in many ways each day. It could be higher taxes, more expensive products, or lost "rights" because someone didn't want to own up to their own responsibility.
Hypothetically, Bob paid the ultimate price for his actions.
BTW...I forgive Bob. Can I buy the bike?
I did the right thing. Started with a 50cc, then 70, 125, 250, 400. Moved to the street. 550, 650, 750, 900, 1100. 20 years of bike ownership, and I wasn't ready for 150HP. My ZX11 nearly killed me on our third night together. I couldn't believe that familier old country road had shortened up that much, and I went right off the end into a field. My previous bike had been a 900 Ninja. Imagine the difference if the fastest thing you've ever driven was a Ford Tempo?
A guy could turn 21, buy a bottle of Everclear, and die of alchohol poisioning that night. I thought I was ready for a ZX11, but it took a year before I could sport ride the thing with confidence, and I was no beginner when I bought it. Does anyone in the world NOT KNOW that guns, alchohol, and motorcycles are dangerous? You choose to use any of these things, and you are suddenly at the mercy of your own decision making abilitys. Fools die. I got lucky...
Selling high performance bikes to low performance riders can lead to another problem. The government may step in to 'fix' things. Of course anytime the government becomes involved, things usually get screwed up. How many recall the attempted sportbike ban of the late 80s?
Hmm.
Well, perhaps I had a wrong choice of words?
Morally vs. Legally.
My thoughts were, that LEGALLY, if you hired a big enough lawyer, you could find everyone BUT Bob responsible for his actions. (i.e. lawsuit over McD's hot coffee, etc.) Whereas truthfully, we (or I at least) know that it's really Bob's fault.
One thing is for sure. Bob had some big balls. :o
Would any one object to system like Englands, making it illegal for newbies to buy da big bikes?
Matt
Yea Harb, got somewhat of a point, but that's almost like saying that anytime someone wants to buy a car that goes faster than 90 MPH, the dealer should check their drivers' license record and see if they had any speeding tickets. If the dealer thinks they're a reckless driver than not to sell them the car?
I'm sure the salesman morally felt bad b/c he was the one who made the sale... just as a bartender may feel morally wrong that he served a guy who got a DWI that same night, and just as I felt bad when my friend left my late nite kegger at my apartment at 6:30am and got a DWI b/c he was 'legally' drunk... the cop would have never noticed except that he had highlighter ink on his bald head from where we drew on it when he passed out for an hour earlier. Was it our fault b/c we drew on his head? or b/c he drove. We didn't do anything against the law, he did.
Who is at fault, (morally, not legally)? ...the person who had control of their own actions. They didn't have to walk into that dealership, and they didn't have to drive home drunk.
Okay you guys...you've got my attention with this one.
The answer is that just because you have the right to do something, doesn't neccesarily make it the right thing to do.
The real problem lies not in the fact that the dealership has the right to make money, but in the fact that lawyers also have the right to make money.
The kid did something foolish, he paid the ultimate price, and the rest of us "irresponsible people who ride motorcycles" now have to listen to those same lawyers (along with minivan driving Moms, politicians, and other cause driven individuals) drone on and on about how motorcycles are sooooo dangerous and we should ban them in this country because after all, "you don't know whats good for you, you should let me tell you what's good for you."
I'm not certain because I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure that's what our fore fathers got into ships and sailed the hell away from!
With rights come responsibilty and there are a certain amount of people that aren't responsible enough to exersize those rights in a responsble manner. But who has the right to tell those people they can't be trusted to make those decisions?
This is the paradox of a free society.
...also there is no such thing as a $12,000 bill ;D
Quote...also there is no such thing as a $12,000 bill ;D
Obviously you have never thrown a big party! :D
My only thought is that Bob's parents were willing to give there son 12K for a birthday, now they are out one son. Does anyone know how I can contact them to offer my services as a replacement "Bob"? That 12K could go a long way toward a race season, not to mention, think what I'll get for Xmas :o
QuoteMy only thought is that Bob's parents were willing to give there son 12K for a birthday, now they are out one son. Does anyone know how I can contact them to offer my services as a replacement "Bob"? That 12K could go a long way toward a race season, not to mention, think what I'll get for Xmas :o
Ok you guys are starting to crack me up... LOL...
Get in line buddy. I'm callin "dibs", it's my story. You'll have to run me over with a 'busa first...
QuoteWho is at fault? (morally, not legally)
QuoteIn theory, you have a point of debate, morally. But legally is a different matter.
spyderchick - thats why I responded - the question was "Morally" and I feel that it was morally the salesman responsibility to direct Bob towards his best interest - whether Bob accepted his advice or not is a whole new can of worms - we can debate this til we die - but in the end it was Bob's fault, he chose, he did, and he died - however there are other things to consider when the moral issue is thrown in.
Quotejust as a bartender may feel morally wrong that he served a guy who got a DWI that same night, and just as I felt bad when my friend left my late nite kegger at my apartment at 6:30am and got a DWI b/c he was 'legally' drunk
When you throw in the moral issue and talk about bartenders - I think they have a legal obligation as well as a moral obligation, not that I necessarily agree - but there have probably been lawsuits against bars where drunks have driven off and killed people - again, I don't necessarily agree that the bar or bartender should be held liable, but I would imagine this has happened in the courts, as sue happy as people are nowadays.
I think we should just all agree that Bob was an idiot and paid the ultimate price for his idiocy and go on from there. ;D
As someone mentioned earlier, Bob could have been on a much smaller bike and been trying to wrap the speedometer around twice and still killed himself! In theory Bob could have been swayed to purchase a smaller bike by the dealer and still had the same end result.
QuoteOne thing is for sure. Bob had some big balls. :o
Would any one object to system like Englands, making it illegal for newbies to buy da big bikes?
Matt
I've thought about that. I am all for it until I start to think about it in this light:
Who is the government, to tell ME what I am capable, or NOT capable, of doing.
As a motorcyclist of several years, I can TOTALLY see the benefits of going to a system like Europe. The current test (I'm speaking of IL since that's where I'm from) is WAY too easy. Anybody can roll up and take their test on a Nighthawk250 (like I did), get their license, and go out and buy a GSX-R1000. As any one of us will agree, it takes a bit more skill to handle a GSX-R1000 over a tiny-arse 250 4-stroke.
Going to a graduated licensing system MAY lower the number of unqualified people from buying bikes that exceed their capabilities or experience level. It may also just increase the # of "improperly licensed" riders.
However, going to a graduated system, we're sorta-kinda giving up the right to decide for ourselves what we're capable of riding. :-/
In missouri - you can show up without a bike, take the written portion, go to the license bureau, get your learners permit, go buy what ever you want.
I was riding my first bike (cbr900rr) without a full bike license - the only stipulation - no passengers and stay within 100 miles of home.
Hows that for a great system. :P
Being a former bike sales person I know the dilema of selling bikes to "not quite ready for prime time riders" True story ..... a customer walks in the door one day all googly eyed :o over a 600 Ninja. We talk and I find out this will be his first bike. He being rather physically small I figured he was a better candidate for a 250 or 500 Ninja. Well the guy bought the 250 after much discussion. Ride it for a year blah, blah, trade it in when ready for a bigger bike, etc. I was also able to sell him a helmet, jacket, gloves etc. He left the store a happy camper promising to practice on side streets, the whole nine yards. ::) Well, he rides this thing about 3 weeks, goes out of town with some buddies and realizes this bike won't run with the 900's and 1000's his pals own. He comes back to the store on my day off, talks with a different sales person and promptly
trades the 250 in for a 600. Two weeks later his buddy comes in and tells me the guy wrapped his new Ninja around a pole. He's in critical in a hospital somewhere.
So, who's at fault? The right wrist that is connected to the weak brain of the guy on the seat. Nobody else. He couldn't hurt himself fast enough on the bike I sold him so ........... ::)
There are many more stories, just ask any bike salesman.
I'm no stranger to this situation. I own a gunstore in the Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. I am proud to sell thousands of firearms a year. I have a very knowlegeable and professional staff. We do a fantastic job of training and counseling on everything from safety to selection. I have stood in front of countless people and told them in plain english when I thought they were making an inappropriate decision. We have provided firearms education to many, many people. Then one of those people will do something they were instructed not to do and guess what? Guys like me still get sued by morons like Mr Hyabusa.
QuoteIn missouri - you can show up without a bike, take the written portion, go to the license bureau, get your learners permit, go buy what ever you want.
I was riding my first bike (cbr900rr) without a full bike license - the only stipulation - no passengers and stay within 100 miles of home.
Hows that for a great system. :P
IL is only slightly different. In IL, you can show up to the DMV, without a bike, take the written test (20 questions, ridiculously easy) and obtain a permit. Only restrictions on riding with a permit is A) no riding at night, and B) You must be in the presense of a licensed rider at ALL times. I don't know about the passenger part.
Tho you don't even need a permit to go buy a bike. You don't need anything. Some dealers won't let you leave without proof of insurance (typically because it's required of the loan.) I'd imagine if you paid cash, nobody would ask you for anything except the cash.
And Weggie... man I've heard sooo many stories just like yours. Most of my friends and family currently (or have in the past) work in bike shops around here. Some of the stories I've been told are hilarious!
QuoteIt's no one's fault. Bob was successfully removed from the gene pool.
RIGHT ON!!!
And now, somehow, I feel safer for it.
I think I'll go run with scizzors. ;D
That's my chicken Dave! ;D
QuoteThat's my chicken Dave! ;D
LOL
I need somethin' cool to replace the chicken.
What do ya got??
QuoteThe person at fault is the person with the throttle in their hand.
Yes, potentially, the salesman might have some personal moral responsibility in this case.
But again, doesn't Bob have the moral responsibility to make his own reasaonable choices, right or wrong. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink.
The responsibility must lie in the throttle hand first. Claiming that someone shouldn't have sold it to you is a cop out.
Drinking... I think it is the same thing. Yes, the guy drinking has the primary responsibility to stop at the right time. Unfortunately, some don't take that responsibility, and now the legal profession has thrown that "moral" and "legal" responsibility to the bar tender/owner. It is good that a bar tender knows when someone has to be cut off, though...
QuoteDrinking... I think it is the same thing. Yes, the guy drinking has the primary responsibility to stop at the right time. Unfortunately, some don't take that responsibility, and now the legal profession has thrown that "moral" and "legal" responsibility to the bar tender/owner. It is good that a bar tender knows when someone has to be cut off, though...
Scary, isn't it?
My friends and I sometimes joke about being "overserved". What's sad is that's actually turning out to be legitimate grounds for lawsuits these days...
I don't think the dealership is "at-fault", or even remotely liable for anything, but I do believe they should have at least recommended "Bob" start out on a different bike.
Plain and simple - Bob (R.I.P.) is a.....was...an idiot.
Parents? Well, a little common sense passed along from mom and dad may have saved Bob, but ultimately, Bob is the one who decided to buy a bike, decided which bike to buy, and decided to pull the trigger on said bike without having a clue what the consequenses might be.
No one is at fault except Bob.
My $.02 1/2
QuoteI've thought about that. I am all for it until I start to think about it in this light:
Who is the government, to tell ME what I am capable, or NOT capable, of doing.
As a motorcyclist of several years, I can TOTALLY see the benefits of going to a system like Europe. The current test (I'm speaking of IL since that's where I'm from) is WAY too easy. Anybody can roll up and take their test on a Nighthawk250 (like I did), get their license, and go out and buy a GSX-R1000. As any one of us will agree, it takes a bit more skill to handle a GSX-R1000 over a tiny-arse 250 4-stroke.
Going to a graduated licensing system MAY lower the number of unqualified people from buying bikes that exceed their capabilities or experience level. It may also just increase the # of "improperly licensed" riders.
However, going to a graduated system, we're sorta-kinda giving up the right to decide for ourselves what we're capable of riding. :-/
Just an additional thought, not an argument: The government tells me I am not capable of driving a semi. I don't like too much gov. control, but it's ok with me that I'm not allowed to drive one without training.
Matt
QuoteJust an additional thought, not an argument: The government tells me I am not capable of driving a semi. I don't like too much gov. control, but it's ok with me that I'm not allowed to drive one without training.
Matt
A clever loophole... maybe ;)
Restricting a motorcyclist from riding a bigger bike, protects him from himself. Restricting a person from driving a 50,000-lb+ semi truck without proper training, protects other people from him.
I don't want the government protecting me from myself. They can protect me from other people tho. I can be just as dangerous to others riding a FZR400 as I can riding a ZX-11. But the local Billy-Bob can be 10x more dangerous to others driving a loaded-down semi truck, as he would be driving his '78 Chevy Luv truck...
i don't know about anyone else, but i can't afford a salvage bike to race, much less buy a small bike just for it to lose resale value, so I can sell it for a bigger bike ,and so on. unless the government wants to pay for my upgrade, what i ride is no concern of theirs. our system is just fine. it gives us bikes to fix up.
You let the government start telling you what you can and can't buy and you are opening a can of worms! It is bad enough already.
I hope everyone realizes that there may be people out there who purchased a Hyabusa or GSXR1000 as their first bike and never had an accident or close call and enjoyed the hell out of their purchase for years. There are also people out there who chose a Ninja 250 as their first bike and got killed doing something stupid.
QuoteYes, potentially, the salesman might have some personal moral responsibility in this case.
Super Dave, I bet you have sold trailers to people who planned to tow it (at least initially) with a vehicle that was way too small to safely pull it. What would your boss, or the buyer, say if you told a person, "I'm not comfortable selling you this. Come back when you get a dually!"
QuoteI hope everyone realizes that there may be people out there who purchased a Hyabusa or GSXR1000 as their first bike and never had an accident or close call and enjoyed the hell out of their purchase for years. There are also people out there who chose a Ninja 250 as their first bike and got killed doing something stupid.
My first bike was in 1990 and was a 1986 Ninja 900. My 2nd bike was in 1991 and was a 1991 Ninja ZX11. These were the only motorcycles I had ever ridden in my life up to that point and I had great respect for their capability. I've never had an accident on the street riding a motorcycle or driving any vehicle for that matter. I've had my share of possible bad situations, but I am always looking ahead and trying to predict what others are going to do, before they do it, so I can be prepared to avoid them if needed.
I think common sense is somewhat difficult to accurately judge a person for ahead of time during the minimal time spent purchasing a motorcycle. Most people that don't know me well think I am Mr. Conservative and don't do anything wild, I believe this would be the image I would project to a salesman and would ultimately be mis-guiding that person as to my future actions. I believe that unless they actually knew me they would never figure that I was ever going to be racing at top speed on that very bike. I think this is a good example as to why the dealer being a judge as to who to sell to would be a mistake.
I don't think that requiring a new rider to take a safety course before being allowed to get their license is a bad idea at all. Being that they would get classroom and on bike training it certainly couldn't hurt, and may ultimately get them to see what can happen if abusing this privilege of motorcycle riding (thru showing the results of past motorcycle accidents to the students). In this envirionment over the course of several weeknights an instructor would have a much better idea of who may need a little extra common sense instruction and do it on a one on one basis. At least the people that took the course wouldn't have an excuse of saying they didn't know about some general aspect of motorcycle riding.