[Roadking522]

LaMonster stated on another board, " it has been brought to our attention that because we (Direct Line) have not said anything against the car tire debate that in fact we are encouraging such a modification"

Tell me - what kind of an idiot would suggest this? I mean, I know it takes all kinds but this line of thinking is just so beyond normal that these persons should not be allowed to own motorcycles or have a driving liscense. Sometimes (frequently) I just sit and shake my head . . .

 

[Guest]

Not to cast all lawyers in a bad way but it would probably be a lawyer.

 

[ShaneStump]

I just hope in the end that the # of idiots don't cost more $$$$ to HDL than the non-idiots spend at HDL!

If they do, this board will cease to exist :twisted: :twisted: !

Best Regards,

Shane

 

[Guest]

LaMonster stated on another board, " it has been brought to our attention that because we (Direct Line) have not said anything against the car tire debate that in fact we are encouraging such a modification"

The key word there is "debate". If all of the discussion was PRO CT then I could see the point being made that HDL is granting "tacit" approval of CT substitution, but since ther seems to be a lot of CON discussion about the issues, I cannot see where there is a problem in a discussion.

Secondly, what about Automobile oil filters that are adapted to MC, how about Fuel cells?
I seem to remember someone here that made a fuel cell that was strapped to the back seat. Surely thats not DOT approved, did your silence infer approval of those things, surely not, but those threads were not removed/moved.

Your on a slippery slope here HAL.
JMHO

 

[csherrill]

Well, as heard on Blue Collar, "You can't fix stupid" , or in this case "Idiots".

 

[Redneck Dave]

:wink:

As Mr Sherrill put it and an "AMEN" to that. :wink:

 

[White Gold]

LaMonster stated on another board, " it has been brought to our attention that because we (Direct Line) have not said anything against the car tire debate that in fact we are encouraging such a modification"

The key word there is "debate". If all of the discussion was PRO CT then I could see the point being made that HDL is granting "tacit" approval of CT substitution, but since ther seems to be a lot of CON discussion about the issues, I cannot see where there is a problem in a discussion.

Secondly, what about Automobile oil filters that are adapted to MC, how about Fuel cells?
I seem to remember someone here that made a fuel cell that was strapped to the back seat. Surely thats not DOT approved, did your silence infer approval of those things, surely not, but those threads were not removed/moved.

Your on a slippery slope here HAL.
JMHO

So are you a lawyer? :?

 

[All Boots No Saddle]

... Your on a slippery slope here HAL.

I strongly disagree. Why would anyone offer a discussion board and then be required to police it to make sure that the only postings allowed on the board were ones that they agreed with, and all the ones they disagreed with would have to be deleted?

To have a discussion would mean that people would sometimes post things that others (or you) would not agree with. Anyway, I think the statement below, on every page, covers it quite well.

The representations expressed are the representations and opinions of the gl1800riders.com forum members and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and viewpoints of the site owners or moderators.

 

[Guest]

LaMonster stated on another board, " it has been brought to our attention that because we (Direct Line) have not said anything against the car tire debate that in fact we are encouraging such a modification"

The key word there is "debate". If all of the discussion was PRO CT then I could see the point being made that HDL is granting "tacit" approval of CT substitution, but since ther seems to be a lot of CON discussion about the issues, I cannot see where there is a problem in a discussion.

Secondly, what about Automobile oil filters that are adapted to MC, how about Fuel cells?
I seem to remember someone here that made a fuel cell that was strapped to the back seat. Surely thats not DOT approved, did your silence infer approval of those things, surely not, but those threads were not removed/moved.

Your on a slippery slope here HAL.
JMHO

We don't see it as a slippery slope. We took the appropriate action on this subject because of the huge volume of posts.

I don't read all of the posts on this board and neither does Lamont. We are primarily concerned with things that have serious consequences if they fail.

We also look at who the manufacturer is and see if they have appropriate liability insurance to handle any problem.

This problem was different because the product (a car tire) was being used in an application for which it is not approved. And it could have severe consequences if it failed.

Its not a perfect world but I feel a little more secure with our actions on this product.

So lets not beat it to death.

 

[Guest]

... Your on a slippery slope here HAL.

I strongly disagree. Why would anyone offer a discussion board and then be required to police it to make sure that the only postings allowed on the board were ones that they agreed with, and all the ones they disagreed with would have to be deleted?

To have a discussion would mean that people would sometimes post things that others (or you) would not agree with. Anyway, I think the statement below, on every page, covers it quite well.

The representations expressed are the representations and opinions of the gl1800riders.com forum members and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and viewpoints of the site owners or moderators.

The problem is that this is a new legal issue and while some courts have issued opinions on this subject it does not yet have a universal acceptance in all courts.

So we are doing what we can to take a "safe" approach.

If you are a non-lawyer you may be surprised to learn that different court districts can and do rule differently than other court districts. So whats good in New York could be different in California. Its typically the US Supreme Court that has to resolve these court district conflicts but it takes a very special case to cause them to do so.

 

[sherob]

As a moderator for another MC forum, I find it disturbing that a few on here play grade school games to skirt Hal's request... the Admin/Owner of this forum.

How about we just adhere to what he asked us to do and move off of this subject :roll: How hard can that be :?

 

[Guest]

This is getting silly!! Trying to sensor car tire use? How about the one gallon water jugs bolted to the brake reservoirs? How about the non oem windshields? How about when Honda Direct sells a 70 series tire to a customer? Trailer hitches? Any modifications to the oem lighting system?

The list could go on and on and on and on!! There is so much non oem equipment being used on the Goldwings and other makes that to single out one item is non sense. Liability insurance will not erase law suites we go after businesses every day that hold liability insurance policy's.

The entity of Honda Direct has waivers of liability to shield them in their participating agreement section of using this free board to cover any issues on the use of any equipment or suggestions made by the voluntary participants who express their own ideas or suggestions, and I have not read one thread or statement from any authoritative person from Honda Direct stating anything resembling the pro or con against using any aftermarket non oem equipment.

So why try to sensor one specific item?? And why not go back and ask your lawyers about all the non oem items you sell, as I know that even with a liability policy you still stand in a state of being sued by a lawyer over the driver hitting his hand on a Butler mug and causing a accident?

So my original question is isn't this getting silly?????

Goodluck,,Rick Mays

I have given the real reasons in many of my other posts. So now I must say "because we want to". If you don't understand then you don't understand.

 

[Guest]

We don't see it as a slippery slope. We took the appropriate action on this subject because of the huge volume of posts.

I don't read all of the posts on this board and neither does Lamont. We are primarily concerned with things that have serious consequences if they fail.

So have we seen the last of the fuel cell threads?

This problem was different because the product (a car tire) was being used in an application for which it is not approved. And it could have severe consequences if it failed.

Here is my quote from another thread, I wrote about this topic

HAL,
reagrding C/T's... (I really could not care less one way or another.)
But another poster asked a very good question that was never addressed.
He asked about how you would deal with other types of parts that may not be intended for use on a MC.

for example the following
GPS units... it flies off smashes someones windshiled... screeech crash
The list could go on and on.

However I must agree that a CT on a bike is a unique proposition / situation though, as it is about the only thing I can think of that is DESIGNED, yes specifically designed for another totally type of viehicle, (car) and will FIT on a GW.

My question to you is... do YOU sell car tires.
Do you sell car tires specifically for this purpose? Mail/or Brick & Morter.
If not the the liability could/would be nill, since I believe that this BBs would fall under the area of the total disclaimer of the message board itself.

Discussion of a particular topic does not consitiute endorsement of a particular subject. Especially since you have publicaly stated your aversion (?) to this subject.

Or perhapes as additional protection how about no longer selling car tires of the size that can be adapted to a MC, or at minimum, NOT selling them to anyone in your database that has previously purchased any motorcycle items. (limit the prohibitions to anyone that tries to buy a tire of that particular specification). My guess it would be easier to just stop selling that particular specification / size of tire.

good luck with this one

What I meant about slippery slope is that action of watching threads looking for items that are being used for "out-of-scope" purpoese, can get unweildly, and very hard to manage.
Where when does it stop.

 

[Guest]

... Your on a slippery slope here HAL.

I strongly disagree. Why would anyone offer a discussion board and then be required to police it to make sure that the only postings allowed on the board were ones that they agreed with, and all the ones they disagreed with would have to be deleted?

By "slippery slope" I meant that the list of topics NOT to discuss because of Potential liability COULD become quite, large. It could also consume most of the topics that are discussed here.
Bottom line is where do yo draw the line between DISCUSSION" and Tacit approval.
I think that "legally" is where HAL is getting his concerns about.

 

[Guest]

Lamont and I will decide what is inappropriate. You are asking a question that has no answer.

I did not see a fuel cell thread, I didn't read a fuel cell thread. But if it becomes a voluminous issue like the CT we will take a look at it and make a decision.

Thanks for your concern.

 

[Sid Moen]

All I know is, people who bring up the term "slippery slope" are usually lawyers - not always, but that is a term lawyers like to use.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that!" :lol:

 

[Guest]

Lamont and I will decide what is inappropriate. You are asking a question that has no answer.

I did not see a fuel cell thread, I didn't read a fuel cell thread. But if it becomes a voluminous issue like the CT we will take a look at it and make a decision.

Thanks for your concern.

How about these

Dont get me wrong... I see your point, I just wonder about the consequences and how far this could reach

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 12:04 am Post subject: Anyone ever install a Tour Tank onto their Wing?

http://www.gl1800riders.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=74983&highlight=fuel+cell+seat

 

[kikker]

You guys are forgetting to use the legal description, CTOM (car tire on motorcycle)

 

[Guest]

Lamont and I will decide what is inappropriate. You are asking a question that has no answer.

I did not see a fuel cell thread, I didn't read a fuel cell thread. But if it becomes a voluminous issue like the CT we will take a look at it and make a decision.

Thanks for your concern.

How about these

Dont get me wrong... I see your point, I just wonder about the consequences and how far this could reach

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 12:04 am Post subject: Anyone ever install a Tour Tank onto their Wing?

http://www.gl1800riders.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=74983&highlight=fuel+cell+seat

If you want to worry about it then do some homework. Who is it made by? What model is it? Does the manufacturer have a certificate of liability insurance that he will send you? What else do you know about it? Why do you think its an issue? How many have been sold? Is the manufacturer aware that you think its a problem?

Aything else that you find if you will provide this information we will then look at it. Thanks.

 

[Guest]

If you want to worry about it then do some homework. Who is it made by? What model is it? Does the manufacturer have a certificate of liability insurance that he will send you? What else do you know about it? Why do you think its an issue? How many have been sold? Is the manufacturer aware that you think its a problem?

Aything else that you find if you will provide this information we will then look at it. Thanks.

No Im not worried, just pointing out that this could also fall under the
stupid-things-to-do-with-a-GW-and-I-might-get-sued-if-someone-reads-about-it-on-my-board" category.
cya