GL1800Riders Forums banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part of this month's Ride of the Month Challenge!

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am wondering ... we all know how attorneys can take a little fact and twist it into a big deal in front of a jury that doesn't know the difference. Remember O.J.?

So to those of you running CTs, if you get into an accident, and some lawyer for the party who hit you discovers that you are running a car tire on a motorcycle, and he makes the case to the jury that the reason you lost control of your motorcycle and crashed into the side of his 136-year-old school nurse client's '48 Dodge Pioneer is because you were running a tire on a motorcycle that is intended for a car and that bastardized modification which the manufacturer would never approve of was the cause of your inability to stop in time to avoid the collision!

Has a case ever come up with the motorcycle attorneys (Russ Brown, Law Tigers, etc.) where they have had to defend the motorcyclist's choice of tires?

Has anyone ever actually contacted Law Tigers or any of the other motorcycle lawyers and asked them flat out, "Would the fact that I am running a CT on the rear wheel of my Gold Wing jeopardize a case in any way where the tires mounted on the bike came into question?"

I would be curious to know their position on defending a client who must prove that the CT in no way affected the rider's ability to maneuver the motorcycle, and makes the claim that in fact, the collision could not have been avoided even if a manufacturer recommended, factory issued MT was mounted instead.

Do you darksiders have an attorney who is ready to defend your CT choice? Is he collecting DATA that he can point to in defense of your choice? You know it is only a matter of time before some hot shot lawyer tries to turn the case against you based on this issue. I guess you know that if a case comes up and things are pointing to HONDA (Read: deep pockets) as the responsible party (ex: accidents caused by the faulty swing arm on the early 1800s) you can bet your safety chrome that HONDA's lawyers will try to get out of paying by saying that a CT was mounted ... when their owner's manual specifically states which tires are recommended ... yadda yadda ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,714 Posts
It's a sore subject on the darkside forum but yes I'm sure lawyers would use every thing they could fine. We know that the CT would not be the cause of the accident, those of us who use cts, but sure a lawyer would probably have the smoking gun if he knew a CT was on the bike. On the flip side, the CT is dot approved so that would help but as you propose, the CT is not designed for use on the motorcycle and the fact that is stated in the manual doesn't help either. ****! Were screwed. In the real world, I doubt that it would make any difference as the insurance would pay and everyone would be happy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,624 Posts
Once upon a time I had a cup holder on my bike. I took it off because I was afraid I might have an accident while quenching my thirst.

Not really, never have had a cup holder. But it is the same. A case could be made from anything.

I have Traxxion suspension on my bike, it has changed the dynamics of the entire bike and for sure is not factory. If I were to run though a school zone and hit a child while doing 60 mph would either a CT or the suspension be a factor??

If I am sitting at a stop light and get slammed, would any tire be a factor?

Things have to be proven, and as far as I know it never has been in regards to a CT. I have put that challenge up many times, for anyone to bring forth a documented case of denial of insurance claim or other situation due to the use of a CT.

It never has happened, and I am sure if it did exist , some naysayer would find it and try to rub my nose in it.

Relax and run the CT if you so chose to do so.

Kit
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,161 Posts
Lawyers will go after anything to make a buck. I wouldn't worry about it. The ambulance chasers are good at manufacturing evidence!:22yikes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
As I think about this more, it seems rather self-defeating to run a car tire on a motorcycle to save money, if the cost of an accident would be many hundreds of times higher, should your claim be denied.

In my 2012 owners manual, on page 206, it reads:

"The tires that came on your motorcycle were designed to match the performance capabilities of your motorcycle and provide the best combination of handling, braking, durability and comfort.

When replacing, use the original equipment tires or equivalent tires of the same size, construction, speed rating, and load range as the originals."


It is followed by a warning in a box:

"Installing improper tires on your motorcycle can affect handling and stability. This can cause a crash in which you can be seriously hurt or killed.

Always use the size and type of tires recommended in this owners manual"


SURELY a competent lawyer is going to photocopy this page and pass it out to a jury! Doesn't that worry you at all?

I know you guys live on the edge, but ... gosh. I can see the court trial now ...

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

"Mr. Biker. It seems that you lost control of your motorsickle in that turn. Why do you think you did that?'

"Well, it is because your client pulled out into the intersection while putting on a sweatshirt and it was pulled over his head when he entered the road!"

"I see heah, that your motorsickle has been modified! (eyebrows raise as he turns to the jury). You took off the rear tire and put a ... well this must be a mistake! It says heah that you put a autermobile tire on your motorsickle! Is that true?"

"Yes. lots of Goldwing riders replace their rear tire with a car tire because ..."

"I wonder ... Mr. Biker. Did you replace any other motorcycle parts on your sickle with car parts?"

"What do you mean?"

"Well, did you, for instance, take off your handlebars and replace them with a steering wheel?"

"No! Of course not! that would be silly! you see ..."

"Well did you take off your exhaust pipes and install a set of Midas mufflers onto your sickle?"

"No! you're being ridiculous. Those are car parts and ..."

"and the CAR TIRE (again turning to the jury) on the back of your motorsickle is not a car part? Wasn't it designed specifically to be used on a car?"

"Yes, it was intended for a car, but motorcycle riders have recently discovered the advantages of mounting a car tire onto the real wheel. You see it gives us better mileage and a softer ride ..."

"Do you own a boat, Mr. Biker?"

"A boat? Well, yes, I own a motorboat. Why do you ask?"

"Did you replace your boat's propeller with an airplane propeller or a jet *****'?"

"No! That would be silly!"

"Sillier than puttin' a CAR TIRE on a motorsickle? Should airplanes have bait tanks installed in case the passengers get hungry, Mr. Biker?""

"You're trying to make my decision to ride on a car tire seem foolish. It is a very sensible choice! I am a mamber of a group called The Darksiders ..."

"Is that a motorsickle gang?"

"NO! It is a group of Goldwing riders who, just like me, have made the decision to ignore Honda's advice and ride on a car tire instead of a ..."

"So a whole bunch of you have decided that you know better than the manufacturer, is that it? Do you think the members of this jury should run out to their cars and replace their steering wheels with handlebars, Mr. biker?"

"Of course not! We're not talking about that. A tire is a tire!"

"A tire ... is a tire! I see. (Turning to the jury) So, if you got a good deal on a bulldozer tire, would you put that on the back of your motorsickle?"

"No! That would be stupid! You're trying to make my choice look foolish and irresponsible!"

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. You have just heard the defendant declare that it makes sense to put certain parts of a car onto a motorsickle, but it doesn't make sense to put certain motorsickle parts onto a car. Nor is it logical to put airplane parts onto a boat or vice versa. Yet the defendant wants you to believe that his choice to ignore the instructions on page 206 of the owner's manual for his own motorcycle, instructions written by Honda, a company with a loooong history of manufacturing motorsickles and I dare say a whole lot more engineerin' experience than Mr. biker and his biker gang has, ... that his choice is wise and the accident was not his fault, even though Honda says otherwise in their warnin' box ... here it is ... it reads:

"Installing improper tires on your motorcycle can affect handling and stability. This can cause a crash in which you can be seriously hurt or killed.

Always use the size and type of tires recommended in this owners manual"


"The defense rests, your honor."



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,183 Posts
As Kit has mentioned, we have tried to find any such case without success.

Don't forget, however, that one would also have the opportunity to defend oneself. It would be easy to demonstrate that the CT provided better traction under all road conditions (on a GL1800), and I'd be happy to demonstrate that for the court. Add to that the CT has a higher load capacity and a run-flat sidewall (in my case) to safely support the motorcycle in the case of rapid loss of air; something none of the moto tires will do. Part of my demonstration would also be to take the valve core out of my run-flat CT and have someone else do the same with a MT-shod GL1800 and then both bikes would be filmed through a series of mountainous turns at highway speed.

So, if a motorcycle law firm ever needed a witness to dispel such, I'd be happy to oblige. BTW Gravedigger, if you ever do come up with a documented case, please let us know.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
31,974 Posts
"SURELY a competent lawyer is going to photocopy this page and pass it out to a jury! Doesn't that worry you at all?"
Not a bit :nojoke:
What I worry about is trying to make the best out of everyday and not waste any minute of it. But this is just what I do, maybe not for everyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,341 Posts
Tire I use doesn't have "car tire" written anywhere on it, nor does it have "for use on automobiles only". It is DOT certified. That is good enough.

Therefore I call


YMMV
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
Please refrain from using common sense while on the forum!
You have been warned!:coffee1:

Tire I use doesn't have "car tire" written anywhere on it, nor does it have "for use on automobiles only". It is DOT certified. That is good enough.

Therefore I call


YMMV
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,341 Posts
Thanks for getting me back to "reality" Hazle. Whew, that was close. LMAO
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,496 Posts
ROFLMAO..

it is documented here for all the world to read..

After YOU crash, I wonder what your lawyer is going to say when he finds out that you loosened the bolts on your Goldwing and then beat twisted and bent the front forks to correct a perceived alignment problem.
http://gl1800riders.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3489155&postcount=26

I'm sure he'll be asking "on what page of the owners manual does the manufacturer approve THAT maintainence procedure?"

..or worse, when someone else who took your beat the forks advice crashes and involves you in their lawsuit as the source for their maintenance procedures.

too funny...

Dennis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
What is funny Dennis is how you convert a side force "thump" on a tire into "Beat, twist and bend" the fork tubes.

I never suggested doing any of these things. I DID suggest a slight ROTATION of the tubes in the triple tree to correct the problem, and whether you like it or not, when the triple tree bind is loosened slightly and the tire is thumped on one side the fork tubes will rotate "a few thousandths of an inch." I believe I used the words "we are only talking about a few thousandths of an inch here." That would be a few thousandths of an inch of rotation of the fork tubes in the triple tree, not beating, twisting or bending the tubes themselves. Do facts matter to you?

Understand that I am NOT saying your choice to ride on a CT is wrong. I am only saying that some (not all) lawyers are sleazebags, and I can see the case being made as he grasps for straws to get his client off. I am also saying that you are putting a lot of faith into a jury to believe that they will agree with your logic. 12 people who have never ridden a motorcycle will have a hard time believing that a CT is a better choice.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,496 Posts
twisting small facts is what lawyers do..
(read the first paragraph of your OP)
"we all know how attorneys can take a little fact and twist it"

You've obviously never spent any time in prison yet?

I'm reading what you just wrote and it sounds like you're on the witness stand already..
..good plan.

Dennis

What is funny Dennis is how you convert a side force "thump" on a tire into "Beat, twist and bend" the fork tubes.

(YOUR HONOR..) I never suggested doing any of these things. I DID suggest a slight ROTATION of the tubes in the triple tree to correct the problem. I believe I used the words "we are only talking about a few thousandths of an inch here." That would be a few thousandths of an inch of rotation, not beating, twisting or bending.

Do facts matter to you?
Yes, they do..
.. from your posts and now in the public domain record:
..You can also do this with a large rubber mallet
and a trusted friend, since someone needs to apply opposing force (aka twist) to the handlebars...
.. so that a good thump (aka beat)
.. turn the handlebars quickly (aka twist)
.. don't bash (aka beat) your fender or wheel covers
.. Or you can use your rubber mallet
.. the front wheel at about the 2-o-clock position..because you need your "thump force" to create a twist(aka TWIST)
.. The solution is to "THUMP" (aka beat) your tire against the thumper with a quick and forceful turn (aka bend) of the handlebars, or a sharp thump (aka beat) with the mallet

the prosecutor says:
I'm sorry, but I cannot find the definition of "thump" in the maintenance manual..
So is that "thump" like the rabbit makes in the cartoons when he taps his foot?..
or is that "thump" like a 747 makes when it impacts the ground from 35,000 feet?

I'm sure any good prosecutor will also notice...
Now, after you testify, you are going to have to convince the jury that it takes TWO "bikers"
(.. prosecutor, aside and winking to the jury...
"it is common knowledge that bikers are often large people with superhuman drug induced strength")
to rotate fork tubes a "few thousandths of an inch"??..
(not to mention that you suggested that altering the front end by a few thousandths of an inch is actually going to make a difference in correcting a problem?)
After they listen to and dismiss your testimony,
I'm guessing they'll probably add perjury to the charges against you.

Do facts matter to you?
Yes, they do ... see above...

Gravedigger...
again, welcome to the board.
Newbies are always welcome.:thumbup:
.. but prophets of doom and regurgitators of baloney found elsewhere on the internet are usually crucified.

thanks for the entertainment...
.. my stomach hurts from laughing...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,818 Posts
My question is.............are you seriously thinking about running a CT and wanting info or are you just trying to help the darkside see the light? :wrong:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
Grave digger, In the interest of everyone's safety, please ask the following on the appropriate forum. If you truly are not a troll seeking to stir the pot and interested in everyones safety, you would.

I am wondering ... we all know how attorneys can take a little fact and twist it into a big deal in front of a jury that doesn't know the difference. Remember O.J.?

So to those of you towing trailers, if you get into an accident, and some lawyer for the party who hit you discovers that you are towing a trailer with a motorcycle that the manufacturer advises against doing, and he makes the case to the jury that the reason you lost control of your motorcycle and crashed into the side of his 136-year-old school nurse client's '48 Chrysler New Yorker is because you were towing a trailer with a motorcycle that is not designed to and that the bastardized use which the manufacturer would never approve of was the cause of your inability to stop in time to avoid the collision!

Has a case ever come up with the motorcycle attorneys (Russ Brown, Law Tigers, etc.) where they have had to defend the motorcyclist's choice to tow?

Has anyone ever actually contacted Law Tigers or any of the other motorcycle lawyers and asked them flat out, "Would the fact that I am towing a trailer with my Gold Wing jeopardize a case in any way where the trailer towed by the bike came into question?"

I would be curious to know their position on defending a client who must prove that the trailer in no way affected the rider's ability to maneuver the motorcycle, and makes the claim that in fact, the collision could not have been avoided even if they were not towing a trailer.

Do you towers have an attorney who is ready to defend your choice? Is he collecting DATA that he can point to in defense of your choice? You know it is only a matter of time before some hot shot lawyer tries to turn the case against you based on this issue. I guess you know that if a case comes up and things are pointing to HONDA (Read: deep pockets) as the responsible party (ex: accidents caused by the faulty swing arm on the early 1800s) you can bet your safety chrome that HONDA's lawyers will try to get out of paying by saying that you were towing ... when their owner's manual specifically states it is not recommended ... yadda yadda ...


It still absolutely amazes me that there is such venom against a car tire when there has been absolutely no solid evidence to prove it is more dangerous, yet it is obviously more dangerous to tow a trailer, and no one questions that choice and even embraces it.

I have absolutely nothing against towing since it can be done safely if the person doing it properly prepares and uses the proper technics, I merely point out the irony that CT's are venomously attacked, whereas trailers are accepted without question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,624 Posts
What is funny Dennis is how you convert a side force "thump" on a tire into "Beat, twist and bend" the fork tubes.

I never suggested doing any of these things. I DID suggest a slight ROTATION of the tubes in the triple tree to correct the problem, and whether you like it or not, when the triple tree bind is loosened slightly and the tire is thumped on one side the fork tubes will rotate "a few thousandths of an inch." I believe I used the words "we are only talking about a few thousandths of an inch here." That would be a few thousandths of an inch of rotation of the fork tubes in the triple tree, not beating, twisting or bending the tubes themselves. Do facts matter to you?

Understand that I am NOT saying your choice to ride on a CT is wrong. I am only saying that some (not all) lawyers are sleazebags, and I can see the case being made as he grasps for straws to get his client off. I am also saying that you are putting a lot of faith into a jury to believe that they will agree with your logic. 12 people who have never ridden a motorcycle will have a hard time believing that a CT is a better choice.
Actually if I was a jury member and some yahoo zips around the right side of a car , slams on the brakes and causes an accident, I would be looking at the actions of the rider. I would not be real worried about what kind of tire he had. I may decide in the favor of the driver and not the rider, but the tire would have no bearing.

If a car slams into the back of a bike, I would be looking at the actions of the driver, not the rider.

Ya figure we cannot think........Lol!

Kit
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,714 Posts
Actually if I was a jury member and some yahoo zips around the right side of a car , slams on the brakes and causes an accident, I would be looking at the actions of the rider. I would not be real worried about what kind of tire he had. I may decide in the favor of the driver and not the rider, but the tire would have no bearing.

If a car slams into the back of a bike, I would be looking at the actions of the driver, not the rider.

Ya figure we cannot think........Lol!

Kit
I agree with this. All these theoreticals are just that and the odds of having a jury trial over a car tire is pretty low.

But to others, don't beat up on gravedigger for bringing this up. It's good conversation and a worthy topic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,246 Posts
If a lawyer needs this thread to build a case against the use of CTs, then he is not a very good lawyer.
That's not what I suggested, just how you chose to interpret it.

While a good prosecutor can surely gather ideas from many sources, your constant stirring the pot only works to increase visibility of the issue you wish to highlight. Why not do your own research and make your own decision regarding the use of CTs, and let others do the same?
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top