Motorcycles are engineered with a weight range in mind. In the manual it provides a max weight. Go over that, and you've gone over the design limit.If changing anything on the bike impairs the original engineered design, how do they account for the variety of riders weight? After all, we are talking about changes to the original design, which I would think includes weight. One rider could weigh 105lbs while the next guy could weigh over 400. Notes on the saddlebag and trunk warn of exceeding 20lbs because it might change the balance of the bike. Really? but taking miss widestride Matilda for a ride doesn't?
Now, don't ya think a lawyer would have to prove that the CT actually caused an accident rather than just being on the bike? That goes back to my previous point of rider reaction time. Some riders out right freeze up and do nothing to avoid and accident. Would that be attributed to the CT, recurve windshield, missing reflector off the saddle bag or maybe the cup holder on the handle bars.
You're arguing common sense. Little of this process is contrained by reason. Lawyers on different sides of an issue spin facts into a story they hope a judge or jury will vote for. Rare is the lawyer who will tell you that a civil suit is a sure win. The smart ones will say, "Well it's never a sure thing, but I believe we've got a good chance to win." If you're blood-alcohol is too high and they have a document that shows that, they will argue you're impaired. They most likely won't argue reaction times unless they've got a doctor saying, "I have examined this rider, and he/she is neurologically impaired, and I told him/her never to operate a motorcycle." If they have that, you bet they'll argue it, but without that they'd consider the possibility of getting such an argument past a judge or jury, and then they'd probably say, "No, that dog won't hunt." (I once had a lawyer say that to me.)
So now that lawyers are starting to consider this "what tires did they have on their wheels" angle, and given the amount of "DO NOT DO THIS" advice published by both motorcycle and tire makers, it would not be a stretch to show all those warnings and to convince a typical, non-motorcycle-riding juror, one who thinks we're a bunch of wild-eyed, anti-social, chain-swinging maniacs, that we'd deliberately scoffed at all that clearly printed, widely disseminated, easily available advice and carelessly endangered our passengers and other law-abiding citizens riding in cars where we should all have been in the first place.
Fuss and fume all you want. Tell lawyer jokes. It simply doesn't matter what you know to be true. All that will matter at the end of a trial is what a lawyer has convinced a judge or jury is true. If a judge or jury doesn't buy the premise, you're off the hook. If a judge or jury buys it, you're on the hook. The end.
So once again: This "what kind of tire was it wearing" issue has now poked its head above the horizon. Hungry-hyena lawyers are aprowling. Make of it what you will. Fuss and fume. Tell yourself whatever soothes you. Ridicule and insult whoever warns you. It is what it is. Ride in peace. (Fill in whatever cliche I have left out.) No one cares what tires you're wearing except you. (And just maybe an opposing lawyer.)