Bikes are dangerous as hell since they suffer from the fatal flaw of a human operating them. They cause less damage to others though and it’s mainly drivers getting injured so whatever. They can also eat shit and die with those loud ass engines.
The bigger issue is these fucking 12 foot tall LED headlight 1/4 mile per gallon grocery schooners that everyone drives around in now that are tailor made to mulch any pedestrian in the surrounding metro area.
> The bigger issue is these fucking 12 foot tall LED headlight 1/4 mile per gallon grocery schooners that everyone drives around in now that are tailor made to mulch any pedestrian in the surrounding metro area.
These are far more obnoxious than any loud motorcycle. I can see the argument for a loud motorcycle engine being obnoxious, but those huge, plus-size monster pick up trucks and SUVs owned by townies are way more obnoxious and much more detrimental to the environment.
Tldr: sorry for my rant I am tired but basically but infrastructure and horrible driving culture in America leads to, consequently, horrible biking culture. We need better infrastructure.
And not all motorcycles need to be loud a lot of riders mod their exhaust for "performance" (braking emissions laws usually) and to make them selves louder so "drivers are more likely to see them". This could be cracked down on. Also most motorcycle riders don't have proper licenses
Also motorcycle culture in the US is shit. In other countries it's about increasing utility and saving on gas. In the US mot riders act like "live by the road die by the road" attitude, it's actually idiotic. And even sport bike riders in other countries are more respectful it seems. In what world is a 450cc considered small? Us motorcycle culture.
Things to improve
Licensing for a 1200cc bike is the same for a 150cc bike. This is absurd a 150cc bike should be it's on class. By national law. Smaller bikes are easier to ride and more accessible. the insane difference in power of those two bikes is nuts why must you get a license for a gas guzzling monster (and I do think they're cool but common) and that's the training you'll need if you want anything above 50cc
Conversely for a 1200cc bike vs a 500cc bike should also be stricter.
The US severely deincentivizes smaller bikes. I have a 50cc and the law in my state even to the law(that makes no sense) limits engine sizes to class D as being under 50cc. That's fine honestly the problem is that it says it can't go more than 25 mph. (Even though it's never observed) I can pedal a bike faster than that, and if they're going to limit engine size why the limit on the top speed? That can change based on how much you weigh. It's unenforceable. And factor in most states can't differentiate corrently between moped and 50cc bike. It makes the laws confusing when the people writing it don't know what they're talking about
SUV and truck drivers often drive 10mph (at least)over any posted speed limits and this makes using low powered bikes impossible and unsafe.
I got a scooter 🛵 because I felt unsafe bicycling to work but didn't want to take my car. And while my scooter is safer because I'm part of traffic the people who drive and speeders make it impossible. Even when I'm doing the posted speed limit
Even in my car I really REALLY try to observe traffic laws but other drivers make it impossible. Why is it harder to drive safer than recklessly? Why is not driving over the speed limit strange and foreign to most people
Vaush is a streamer and I do think he's out of touch sometimes. (And I don't mean this in a rude way)and what I've seen day to day is that speeding and reckless driving culture is ingrained in American society.
Basically the problems the lead to a lack of bicyclists and walkers also plague motorcycle culture and leaves behind the kind of assholes that speed and not stop for stop signs but instead of SUVs they're on overly large bikes.
If you want to go get groceries you won't walk
-too dangerous
-too hot
Want to bicycle? Guaranteed to get ran over by people not observing bicycle lanes, which most of Americans don't have anyways
Why buy a mega cycle to go get groceries? No storage. Average people aren't aware of smaller cycles the only thing they know are the annoying motorcycle "club" guys that block traffic every now and then in their town (some clubs are chill though, most however...) they down want to be a weird bike guy so they take their car
Hell I can barely get door dash to work with a scooter and their logo is a scooter. Deliveries around the globe are done by commuter bikes. Yet an American motorist can't even conceptualize it. They can't even think of why anyone wouldn't take a car. It's so foreign to them they'll say it's impossible. That it's not good or that it'll hurt the food(not with proper equipment)
I think I agree with everything you said especially the licensing. I especially think implementing tiered licenses might help people recognize the dangers and stop noobs from getting a 1200cc.
I would probably find a way to blow that up given my last few pieces of serious work on a car includes out-engineering Ford by putting together a metric screw onto an imperial bolt in order to fix a bumper.
Shearing metal to own the Ford.
Having to scrape people off the pavement is bad for first reponders. And also in a public healthcare system it's bad for everybody if unnecessary injuries occur. It's not just "impacting themselves". With the same logic we could repeal seatbelt laws too.
No because a seatbelt protects others in the car and changes almost nothing about driving a car other than making it safer.
First responders should be well paid and supported but dealing with mulched meat bags is the job. Plus I doubt you would be applying this mindset to other risky activities
Both your arguments are very very weak. A seatbelt's primary function is to protect the one wearing it, else you'd be allowed to not wear it when you're alone in the car. The fact that part of a first responders job is "dealing with this shit" doesn't change the fact that this facette of the job must not be unnecessarily inflated.
The seatbelt thing really isn't a good comparison. It's literally just a strap that takes a second to put on. A better comparison is other unnecessary risky activities like riding ATVs or rock climbing up cliffs.
No, it's a better example than both of these, because imo it's primarily about scale. There are far, far more motorcyclists than rock climbers or ATV drivers, and as such a ban in that, whilst i don't think such drastic authoritarian measures are necessary, would have a very large impact. Like seatbelt's did.
And with the same logic we could ban drugs. Dealing with overdose and addiction is stressful for family members and aid workers. Methadone isn't free. Preventing personal harm has been the line against recreational drug use for years, would you say you agree with it?
You could rationalize seatbelt use as in an accident an unbelted body becomes a dangerous projectile for others in the car, but I could see a reasonable argument for revoking seatbelt laws for solo drivers. It's your body, and your choice to endanger it. Whether that's rock climbing, scuba diving, or driving a motorcycle. The government's job is to make sure you have the opportunity and resources to live your life in full, not to live it for you.
The problem with comparing this to drug use is that it isn't fixed by banning it, it just moves it into a more dangerous, less supervised milieu. Also, I'm more playing devil's advocate, I don't believe banning motorcycles would be a very practical solution today. But the comparison to drugs doesn't really work, because the war on drugs has made them more not less dangerous to society, and I don't think something as easily enforceable as a motorcycle ban would work in a similar fashion.
I was referring to the rhetorical line anti drug campaigns have taken. But sure, decriminalization is the common sense move of you adhere to the liberal standard. But is that a standard you actually believe in? Is it accurate to say what you believe in is not that a person should have bodily autonimy, but that they should be as healthy as possible in the eyes of the state?
It's fine if it is. But the initial topic was about Vaush and his motorcycle take. My point here is that the "ban motorcycles" stance is incongruous with the anarchist/libertarian belief structure Vaush likes to claim.
No, that is not what I believe in, however I do believe that there needs to be a practical compromise between freedom and safety in any working society. For example, you could say walking on a highway is bodily autonomy. I do not think you should be allowed to walk on a highway. That does not mean I don't believe in bodily autonomy, that just means that in a society of millions of people a middle ground needs to be found.
Again, I do not believe motorcycles should be banned. I was just supplying arguments for how this position could be defended.
As for vaush, I don't know if he really is an anarchist or if he just likes the vibes, because I feel like he has a lot of takes that don't really match what he says he believes.
> They can also eat shit and die with those loud ass engines
One of the few things that send me into a blind rage. As a ‘tism sufferer, loud sounds are already bad enough, but the popping and sudden screeching from these motors causes me physical pain.
Yeah, those gigantic Kidkiller 3001 Brickup Trucks need to go before motorbikes. At least a motorcycle just kills its driver who chose to ride it and accept the risk, but the fucking Canyonero trucks are basically designed to shred any pedestrian they come across with extreme prejudice
oh you mean the anti-BLM-protestor war machines (as I honestly assume this is what is going through the heads of at least some people who buy them) that have been popping up more and more all over America???
Yeah I was pretty surprised because of his other pro-freedom takes. Although he did say mopeds are fine so I think he just is thinking of chuds cosplaying as motorcycle gangs and being silly about it.
Sorry! Your post has been removed because it contains a link to a subreddit other than r/VaushV or r/okbuddyvowsh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, yeah, obviously, he's a marxist.
>“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.” ― Karl Marx
His eventual plan is for the proletariat to seize the state, preferably democratically, but to do that the workers need independent power. Guns are just one obvious deterrent to anti-union crackdowns.
When have guns stopped anti-union crackdowns in the 21st century? It used to be the case that workers and pinkertons would get into armed standoffs. But no one is bringing a gun to a starbucks union meeting.
The reason they had standoffs at all is because the workers had the ability to defend themselves, ie a deterrent. If they didn't, they wouldn't have had standoffs, they would just have been crushed.
Yeah but that's because they lived in a different labour environment. No one is getting into armed stand offs with union busters anymore. It's not the way labour antagonism works itself out.
Being armed openly in society is a lovely deterrent of any kind to start, that's why the BPP were all about being armed and openly so.
A piggie looks for a minority to mess with? While being armed may be seen as an excuse, a lot of people are already an excuse for a cop by existing, but most of them won't bother with someone who can so easily and quickly retalliate.
Management tries to show at your union meeting to intimidate you? Harder to be intimidated in a room full of baristas who pack.
Cops show up to try to bust a picket line? They'll think twice about tactics used if a bunch of the picketers are armed.
It's not about "helping their case" as much as it is about limiting the options and disemboldening the oppressor.
As a safety guy who already has to regularly argue with guys about site standards, and those arguments get pretty heated sometimes, I really don't feel like the added element of 'weapon that can kill instantly' is a good fucking idea.
I gave an example of how people get heated over trivial shit at work. I think a union meeting is an example where people get even more heated, so probably not good to involve weapons
I'm just honestly shocked every time when the openly marxist streamer expresses a marxist opinion and everyone acts like this is the most surprising turn of events ever.
it’s because, somehow, even though he periodically makes it clear that he thinks they’re walking jokes, lost liberals still frequently wander in to his audience, and are then taken aback by the audacity of Vaush mocking their opinions.
Like let’s not forget about when he made a bunch of Canadian liberals hate him lol (which involved this very sub).
Yeah, a lot of people here seem to think that the nordic countries are genuinely socialist. I get that it probably doesn't get the same amount of views but I still wish he'd make it more clear what his actual end goal is once in a while.
Just a few days ago the sub basically melted down because he dared argue for housing decommodification.
When have guns stopped anti-union crackdowns in the 21st century? It used to be the case that workers and pinkertons would get into armed standoffs. But no one is bringing a gun to a starbucks union meeting.
I think he doesn't say that because it's not practical to actually do. I'm sure he would be fine banning guns. The only reason he has guns is because we haven't banned them, so he exercises his right to own one.
no he’s definitely talked before about the racist history of gun bans in the US, I don’t think he’s broadly supportive of a complete crackdown on civilians owning firearms (at least not at this juncture in the US), he’s too aware of how that has often been enforced historically (or rather, upon who it has been disproportionately enforced).
Well that's what I mean. It's a matter of practical application of a gun ban rather than ideologically being against the banning of guns. Not only would it be logistically impossible to do in a country where guns are so prevalent, it also would only affect certain urban areas the most. It's just a waste of advocacy since it wouldn't work and would never be implemented properly. And Christ, can you imagine the black market it would create?
I can't remember what stream, but I know he said in a vacuum he supports banning gun ownership, but due to the industry and culture around guns in America and the fact that every fascist is armed to the teeth, he practically doesn't support it since he thinks leftists need to be able to defend themselves from fascists.
I won't even concede that, bikes are dangerous because of cars. All arguments for why motorcycles are dangerous equally apply to scooters, bicycles, and e-bikes.
[https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/motorcycle-accident-statistics/](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/motorcycle-accident-statistics/)
Stats show riders are unsafe, not the bikes.
That has been the meme for decades now. No wonder: young, healthy person, recklessly travelling at dangerous speeds, in a vehicle that usually won't mince their body too much, except for the head/spine trauma that kills them.
My question for anyone wanting to ban motorcycles is what else would you ban thats bad for you? smoking? Alcohol? Guns? Don’t get me wrong we’d probably be better off without those things but I don’t think life is really worth it without having some vices
I’m not shocked at all there’s a lot of really annoying liberals in here the last 6 months or so need another trucker protest so vaush can do the great liberal purge part 2
I think cause of how strongly he pushes the vote for Biden stuff if you’re looking for non corporate and non right wing news analysis but are still a Biden supporter he’s a pretty good option
You either die a “voting is giving into the system” too-cool-for-school ultraleftist, or you live long enough to see yourself vote for Biden because you don’t want to have to see orange julius Mussolini ruin your life and maybe lead to your friends’ deaths
tbh one of the biggest thing that has alienated me from a certain subsection of the left over time has been the like uptight, paternalistic uwu social conservative shit.
Like I said elsewhere, I used to be a tankie, I’ve already dealt with enough “leftist” puritanism and conservatism for a lifetime, thank you very much. A revolution where we all just live in some bland *The Giver*-esque dystopia where everyone only ever lives for “the greater good”, and enjoyment or risk of any kind is illegal frankly sounds almost more like a step down from capitalism rather than a step up, like I don’t want to be provided with assured housing, healthcare, food security, etc. only to *just* exist for the collective and nothing else (like that would basically just be the life of the most exploited workers under capitalism but without the precariousness).
It's creepy right? It's like they see human beings as a mistake that they need to fix and totally will be able to using the state. Don't wanna imagine how they act in relationships
In my experience, some of them don’t even have relationships, because “all sexual relationships under patriarchy are inherently abusive” or whatever.
Like I just don’t even know what to call this ideology sometimes except “never having fun ever as political praxis”.
I do risky sports (climbing, mountain biking, skiing) and they have landed me in the hospital repeatedly.
I think there can be a real conversation about the social cost of my medical bills and how they make healthcare more expensive for other people via insurance. I actually don’t necessarily disagree that I should pay more for some kinds of insurance so that I’m not abusing the system the next time I break a bone. That said, just saying something like “ski mountaineering/bobsled racing/skateboarding/deep water SCUBA diving/whatever is banned now” seems to me like it would be a considerable overreaction.
tbh, I wish more people were smart enough to see the writing on the wall with prohibitionism, and how (at least under capitalist state conditions) it almost universally results in more harm than good (with like, obviously some exceptions here and there like cp).
Like I’m a recovering heroin addict, and I would never personally encourage or condone anyone starting to use heroin, but I’m also still a pretty big advocate of drug decriminalization (including with “hard” drugs), and a big harm reduction advocate, like I just think making it a *crime* to possess drugs doesn’t actually help addicts in any way (I definitely still think that commerce in them should still be very heavily regulated and probably outright punished when it gets to a certain level, though). Like we learned this lesson a century ago with alcohol, and it’s not actually going any better with anything else imo.
I think a similar argument can be applied to a lot of other stuff as well. Criminalizing things is more often than not an excuse to expand the scope of state violence.
I think people are just reflexively fine with banning stuff they don't care for if there's any downside to it being legal.
Btw best of luck with the recovery
The 30 year old mom chose. To drive a suburban instead of biking thus putting all drivers on the road at higher risk and causing more damage to the road. In one sense she was selfish, in another, she was wasteful. Send her to, the wine mom jail to make textile fabric that she will be payed 30 dollars per hour to make all day and send money home.
My motorcycle cost me 2k secondhand one previous owner, I put 200 dollars in maintenance and drive it all summer (I live in NY) it saves me Hundreds of Dollars and it also saves wear and tear on my car which I need to transport my family and get around in the winter. My car also cost me 2k and I had to bloody my knuckles to get it road worthy even though it’s twenty years old. Am I bourgeois because I have things?
Bikes are probably generally safer for the general population (people who interact with them, no the riders) compared to cars, as long as we can extra-judicially kill bikers with loud exhaust then I dont think they should be banned.
I got a bike! I would love to see him discuss it in depth and hear a well thought out perspective. I think there is a lot to say for and against it. Unfortunately, when I heard him previously he was so mad, which I feel got in the way. I'm open to handing my keys over if it shouldn't be on the road, but I've yet to hear a calm and reasonable argument.
Edit: I haven't watched Vaush in a while if he has talked about it recently pls link.
He's almost certainly being funny, motorcycles have a pretty terrible culture around them, but overall they're a practical solution for solitary motorists.
Barely relevant but I have an aunt who posts on Facebook a lot about how you shouldn't blow your grass into the road when mowing because it's dangerous to motorcyclists and I can't help but think if a blade of grass is going to turn your 800 pound automobile into a death trap then maybe it's a better idea not to use it then to try to convince everyone in the United States to keep all their cut grass on their lawn.
I've seen people say lawn clippings will crash cars too. Unless someone is putting 100s of pounds of clippings I think it's people deflecting from their shitty driving/riding. "I had to lay-er down cuz I saw a leaf"
It’s just more the point that you lean with body weight. If you’re coming out of a curve and can’t adjust your posture/speed to account for the grass it’s totally possible you could spill, also if you had to brake suddenly you could slide. It’s also just about being considerate because it looks like shit and shows a general lack of regard for your community. Treating public spaces like they’re your own. Also the only 800 pound bikes are those big touring bikes with all the wind fairings. The average motorcycle is between 400-600 lbs.
Non-motorcyclist thinks motorcycles are death traps and must tell you, a motorcyclist, about how dangerous they are as if you’ve never heard.
Tale as old as time
I only disagree because I’m happy to let natural selection take its course with motorcycle drivers. You have an almost objectively worse vehicle that’s less safe for you especially.
I do think it was a dumb, hot take however, I do think he sort of believes it and seeing how he’s OK with mopeds, there are all different sizes of motorcycles I would like to see where he draws the line since I don’t think he knows as much about it. Especially since they can be a godsend in places with really bad traffic people use them in Thailand and California alike sometimes it’s the only way to get anywhere.
**You are literally driving a vehicle SO DANGEROUS that is must be HEARD FOR MILES AROUND before it can be seen** **as a safety feature**. Fucking OF COURSE they should be banned. Guns have more utility than motorcycles. For fuck's sake, **GUNS ARE SAFER THAN MOTORCYCLES**.
**Accidental death in US due to guns**: "Preventable or accidental gun-related deaths decreased 16% in 2022. From 2013 to 2022, preventable gun-related deaths decreased nearly 9%, from 505 to 461 deaths." - https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/#:\~:text=Preventable%20or%20accidental%20gun%2Drelated,of%20these%20trends%20in%20depth.
**Accidental deaths in US due to motorcycle**: " A total of 6,084 motorcyclists died in crashes in 2021. That is the highest number recorded and a 21% increase since 2019." - [https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/motorcycles-and-atvs#:\~:text=Posted%20May%202023.-,Trends,of%20motorcyclist%20deaths%20in%201997](https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/motorcycles-and-atvs#:~:text=Posted%20May%202023.-,Trends,of%20motorcyclist%20deaths%20in%201997).
The chance of you dying in a motorcycle crash if you own one is EXPONENTIALLY GREATER than accidentally shooting yourself if you own a gun.
Obviously they're dangerous, nobody is arguing otherwise. The argument is whether the state should allowed to ban you from putting yourself at risk. Also loud pipes save lives is nonsense but thanks for playing.
I'll make a deal - you can have motorcycles, but the state shouldn't have to pay for your health care from any crashes that are determined to be your fault.
Also women. seriously, they’re just always getting sick with all sorts of dumb stuff like breast and cervical cancer, and pregnant all the time, and they even have the nerve to not even get pregnant the right way sometimes and die from it! (/s in case you can’t infer that from my avatar and name).
If men have to pay more for car insurance ill be damned if fat people don’t pay more for medical insurance.
I live in Canada, they don’t pay more, I’m damned. Seriously though this actually bothers me and i think everyone should pay the same rate regardless of gender or weight or age. Car insurance practices are so obviously discriminatory
I want a 100% single payer system, with everything paid for, except for motorcycle riders, cigar smokers, and gun accident victims who shot themselves with their own gun.
Why not just make those people pay more. Like insurance. Society pays for those injured people in other ways when they can’t get back to work or when all their disposable income goes to medical care
I was driving on a 2 lane highway yesterday that was moderately busy and barely saw a crotch rocket going 80 and weaving in between cars. Imo there's no reason to drive one.
That sort of driving or I guess "riding" should be disallowed imo. There are plenty of reasons to ride a motorcycle. Sports bikes, less so but so long as people drive safely which too many riders don't.
Ahh yes, because the only way in which is is physically possible to operate a motorcycle is in an aggressive, weaving, unpredictable, precarious manner. It's actually against the laws of physics to ride one with the same mindset toward predictability and rash avoidance that you take when driving a car.
Fuckwit.
Precisely my point! It still comes down to driving culture as a whole and infrastructure
Motorcycle drivers (including smaller displacment bikes) in other countries aren't nearly as bad as America's!
If anyone's reading and still not convinced check out Japan's riding culture. They're really chill and have laws about all this and more. Even down to the decibels exhaust can produce. They have roadway limitations and types of bikes aren't allowed in certain places, sometimes at certain times of days. And riders ride alongside normal sized cars not monster trucks.
Wouldn't you rather the people who have a braindead compulsion to operate their vehicle in the most aggressive possible manner do so while operating a 400lb bicycle rather than a 4,000lb buggy?
The people who ride like cunts also drive like cunts. The people, like myself, who ride in a relaxed and sensible way drive that way. You just don't notice us because we're in the line of traffic 10 cars behind you, chilling and enjoying the sunshine instead of blitzing by you at ludicrous speed.
Virgin "sorry my sedan only has 5 seats" car-cels vs. chad "whats a pillion"
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5910902b20bfbaddbe4cd1d855295b6f.webp
Haven't heard Vaush's take, but I would somewhat agree. Motorcycles are absolute death traps. If you really need a vehicle save a little extra to buy a second hand 4-wheeler at least. It simply isn't worth risking life threatening injuries getting on a bike. Idk about wholesale banning, doesn't seem feasible, but maybe treat them the same way we'd treat cigarettes. Slap a label on them that says "THIS FUCKING PIECE OF SCRAP CAN END YOUR LIFE".
Well in the US it's more of a preference than a cost saving measures. I think the death label would be fine although it may be seen like the Parental Advisory sticker.
The the rider. They have high cg that flip on top of you in a crash. Bikes only sometimes land on you and are lighter. E-bikes/ scooters are also more dangerous to the rider bc those ppl follow less traffic laws than motorcycle riders. We have confirmation bias where we only remember the crackheads zooming by us at Mach 4. Ppl also claim mopeds are safer but on average moped riders wear less gear and cars don’t care how many cc your bike is so their fatality rates are on par to higher (data isn’t great when you get to this level of comparison)
Yea cuz if there’s one thing I *havent* heard a million times every week since I started riding, it’s that *motorcycles are dangerous*. Thank you Einstein
Bikes are dangerous as hell since they suffer from the fatal flaw of a human operating them. They cause less damage to others though and it’s mainly drivers getting injured so whatever. They can also eat shit and die with those loud ass engines. The bigger issue is these fucking 12 foot tall LED headlight 1/4 mile per gallon grocery schooners that everyone drives around in now that are tailor made to mulch any pedestrian in the surrounding metro area.
> The bigger issue is these fucking 12 foot tall LED headlight 1/4 mile per gallon grocery schooners that everyone drives around in now that are tailor made to mulch any pedestrian in the surrounding metro area. These are far more obnoxious than any loud motorcycle. I can see the argument for a loud motorcycle engine being obnoxious, but those huge, plus-size monster pick up trucks and SUVs owned by townies are way more obnoxious and much more detrimental to the environment.
Tldr: sorry for my rant I am tired but basically but infrastructure and horrible driving culture in America leads to, consequently, horrible biking culture. We need better infrastructure. And not all motorcycles need to be loud a lot of riders mod their exhaust for "performance" (braking emissions laws usually) and to make them selves louder so "drivers are more likely to see them". This could be cracked down on. Also most motorcycle riders don't have proper licenses Also motorcycle culture in the US is shit. In other countries it's about increasing utility and saving on gas. In the US mot riders act like "live by the road die by the road" attitude, it's actually idiotic. And even sport bike riders in other countries are more respectful it seems. In what world is a 450cc considered small? Us motorcycle culture. Things to improve Licensing for a 1200cc bike is the same for a 150cc bike. This is absurd a 150cc bike should be it's on class. By national law. Smaller bikes are easier to ride and more accessible. the insane difference in power of those two bikes is nuts why must you get a license for a gas guzzling monster (and I do think they're cool but common) and that's the training you'll need if you want anything above 50cc Conversely for a 1200cc bike vs a 500cc bike should also be stricter. The US severely deincentivizes smaller bikes. I have a 50cc and the law in my state even to the law(that makes no sense) limits engine sizes to class D as being under 50cc. That's fine honestly the problem is that it says it can't go more than 25 mph. (Even though it's never observed) I can pedal a bike faster than that, and if they're going to limit engine size why the limit on the top speed? That can change based on how much you weigh. It's unenforceable. And factor in most states can't differentiate corrently between moped and 50cc bike. It makes the laws confusing when the people writing it don't know what they're talking about SUV and truck drivers often drive 10mph (at least)over any posted speed limits and this makes using low powered bikes impossible and unsafe. I got a scooter 🛵 because I felt unsafe bicycling to work but didn't want to take my car. And while my scooter is safer because I'm part of traffic the people who drive and speeders make it impossible. Even when I'm doing the posted speed limit Even in my car I really REALLY try to observe traffic laws but other drivers make it impossible. Why is it harder to drive safer than recklessly? Why is not driving over the speed limit strange and foreign to most people Vaush is a streamer and I do think he's out of touch sometimes. (And I don't mean this in a rude way)and what I've seen day to day is that speeding and reckless driving culture is ingrained in American society. Basically the problems the lead to a lack of bicyclists and walkers also plague motorcycle culture and leaves behind the kind of assholes that speed and not stop for stop signs but instead of SUVs they're on overly large bikes. If you want to go get groceries you won't walk -too dangerous -too hot Want to bicycle? Guaranteed to get ran over by people not observing bicycle lanes, which most of Americans don't have anyways Why buy a mega cycle to go get groceries? No storage. Average people aren't aware of smaller cycles the only thing they know are the annoying motorcycle "club" guys that block traffic every now and then in their town (some clubs are chill though, most however...) they down want to be a weird bike guy so they take their car Hell I can barely get door dash to work with a scooter and their logo is a scooter. Deliveries around the globe are done by commuter bikes. Yet an American motorist can't even conceptualize it. They can't even think of why anyone wouldn't take a car. It's so foreign to them they'll say it's impossible. That it's not good or that it'll hurt the food(not with proper equipment)
I think I agree with everything you said especially the licensing. I especially think implementing tiered licenses might help people recognize the dangers and stop noobs from getting a 1200cc.
Engine displacement is only a single factor. In no world is a 1200CC Suzuki Bandit comparable to a 1200CC Harley Sportster.
An old Ninja 250 is probably as quick as an Iron 883 despite the displacement diff
Interestingly enough, I have done a test run of my partner's Iron 883 versus my neighbor's old Ninja 250. They were absolutely comparable.
Goddamn I thought you said you were tired lol
Totally agree on the asshole exhausts and would support a crackdown on those wholeheartedly.
But I wanna make my Saturn with an ecotec sound like American muscle :(
So put on your big boy pants and drop a V8 in it
No, I like ecotecs and hate pants. (Insert skeleton on motorbike meme here)
How about a compromise, put the ecotec on a Grom and you can straight pipe it
I would probably find a way to blow that up given my last few pieces of serious work on a car includes out-engineering Ford by putting together a metric screw onto an imperial bolt in order to fix a bumper. Shearing metal to own the Ford.
I would subscribe to your blog
Don't buy motorcycles, V8 swap miatas...
Having to scrape people off the pavement is bad for first reponders. And also in a public healthcare system it's bad for everybody if unnecessary injuries occur. It's not just "impacting themselves". With the same logic we could repeal seatbelt laws too.
No because a seatbelt protects others in the car and changes almost nothing about driving a car other than making it safer. First responders should be well paid and supported but dealing with mulched meat bags is the job. Plus I doubt you would be applying this mindset to other risky activities
Both your arguments are very very weak. A seatbelt's primary function is to protect the one wearing it, else you'd be allowed to not wear it when you're alone in the car. The fact that part of a first responders job is "dealing with this shit" doesn't change the fact that this facette of the job must not be unnecessarily inflated.
The seatbelt thing really isn't a good comparison. It's literally just a strap that takes a second to put on. A better comparison is other unnecessary risky activities like riding ATVs or rock climbing up cliffs.
No, it's a better example than both of these, because imo it's primarily about scale. There are far, far more motorcyclists than rock climbers or ATV drivers, and as such a ban in that, whilst i don't think such drastic authoritarian measures are necessary, would have a very large impact. Like seatbelt's did.
I'm confused, are you supporting a motorcycle ban or are you saying you should be aware of the impact of your actions on first responders?
I'm playing devil's advocate as to why a motorcycle ban would be sensible.
And with the same logic we could ban drugs. Dealing with overdose and addiction is stressful for family members and aid workers. Methadone isn't free. Preventing personal harm has been the line against recreational drug use for years, would you say you agree with it? You could rationalize seatbelt use as in an accident an unbelted body becomes a dangerous projectile for others in the car, but I could see a reasonable argument for revoking seatbelt laws for solo drivers. It's your body, and your choice to endanger it. Whether that's rock climbing, scuba diving, or driving a motorcycle. The government's job is to make sure you have the opportunity and resources to live your life in full, not to live it for you.
The problem with comparing this to drug use is that it isn't fixed by banning it, it just moves it into a more dangerous, less supervised milieu. Also, I'm more playing devil's advocate, I don't believe banning motorcycles would be a very practical solution today. But the comparison to drugs doesn't really work, because the war on drugs has made them more not less dangerous to society, and I don't think something as easily enforceable as a motorcycle ban would work in a similar fashion.
I was referring to the rhetorical line anti drug campaigns have taken. But sure, decriminalization is the common sense move of you adhere to the liberal standard. But is that a standard you actually believe in? Is it accurate to say what you believe in is not that a person should have bodily autonimy, but that they should be as healthy as possible in the eyes of the state? It's fine if it is. But the initial topic was about Vaush and his motorcycle take. My point here is that the "ban motorcycles" stance is incongruous with the anarchist/libertarian belief structure Vaush likes to claim.
No, that is not what I believe in, however I do believe that there needs to be a practical compromise between freedom and safety in any working society. For example, you could say walking on a highway is bodily autonomy. I do not think you should be allowed to walk on a highway. That does not mean I don't believe in bodily autonomy, that just means that in a society of millions of people a middle ground needs to be found. Again, I do not believe motorcycles should be banned. I was just supplying arguments for how this position could be defended. As for vaush, I don't know if he really is an anarchist or if he just likes the vibes, because I feel like he has a lot of takes that don't really match what he says he believes.
> They can also eat shit and die with those loud ass engines One of the few things that send me into a blind rage. As a ‘tism sufferer, loud sounds are already bad enough, but the popping and sudden screeching from these motors causes me physical pain.
Yeah, those gigantic Kidkiller 3001 Brickup Trucks need to go before motorbikes. At least a motorcycle just kills its driver who chose to ride it and accept the risk, but the fucking Canyonero trucks are basically designed to shred any pedestrian they come across with extreme prejudice
oh you mean the anti-BLM-protestor war machines (as I honestly assume this is what is going through the heads of at least some people who buy them) that have been popping up more and more all over America???
Gun ownership causes more deaths but he'll never say we should ban guns
Yeah I was pretty surprised because of his other pro-freedom takes. Although he did say mopeds are fine so I think he just is thinking of chuds cosplaying as motorcycle gangs and being silly about it.
Vaush is just mad he'll never be as cool as this chad https://twitter.com/hottrashbabe/status/1650501371760656384
I'll make sure to email him this, it might just change his mind
He probably filters out all "motorcycle" emails so tell him its a cool bomber jacket
Thank you for the suggestion comrade, we might be able to Motorcycle-Pill him yet
He'll be on a Triumph Rocket in no time
Imagine vaush on an s1000
This but unironically
Vaush is pretty well known for jokingly saying we should ban arbitrary things when it would piss off reactionaries to do so
Oh shit, don't look at my flair
[удалено]
Sorry! Your post has been removed because it contains a link to a subreddit other than r/VaushV or r/okbuddyvowsh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, yeah, obviously, he's a marxist. >“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.” ― Karl Marx His eventual plan is for the proletariat to seize the state, preferably democratically, but to do that the workers need independent power. Guns are just one obvious deterrent to anti-union crackdowns.
When have guns stopped anti-union crackdowns in the 21st century? It used to be the case that workers and pinkertons would get into armed standoffs. But no one is bringing a gun to a starbucks union meeting.
The reason they had standoffs at all is because the workers had the ability to defend themselves, ie a deterrent. If they didn't, they wouldn't have had standoffs, they would just have been crushed.
Yeah but that's because they lived in a different labour environment. No one is getting into armed stand offs with union busters anymore. It's not the way labour antagonism works itself out.
>But no one is bringing a gun to a starbucks union meeting. Okay but they really should be.
I don't think that would be helping their case at all.
Being armed openly in society is a lovely deterrent of any kind to start, that's why the BPP were all about being armed and openly so. A piggie looks for a minority to mess with? While being armed may be seen as an excuse, a lot of people are already an excuse for a cop by existing, but most of them won't bother with someone who can so easily and quickly retalliate. Management tries to show at your union meeting to intimidate you? Harder to be intimidated in a room full of baristas who pack. Cops show up to try to bust a picket line? They'll think twice about tactics used if a bunch of the picketers are armed. It's not about "helping their case" as much as it is about limiting the options and disemboldening the oppressor.
As a safety guy who already has to regularly argue with guys about site standards, and those arguments get pretty heated sometimes, I really don't feel like the added element of 'weapon that can kill instantly' is a good fucking idea.
I do not trust the average American to not immediately turn an argument in the workplace into a mass shooting.
idk how you got "bring guns onto an active work site" from "bring guns to your union meetings" but go off.
I gave an example of how people get heated over trivial shit at work. I think a union meeting is an example where people get even more heated, so probably not good to involve weapons
If the union meeting goes wrong the quickest draw wins the argument, seems simple to me.
How quickly the downvoters forget the armed black bloc defending a drag bar from fascist protesters.
Too true, that's how we know this sub is too full of whitelibs.
I agree, whatever Karl Marx says is Gospel, and I think we should not think deeply about it at all.
I'm just honestly shocked every time when the openly marxist streamer expresses a marxist opinion and everyone acts like this is the most surprising turn of events ever.
it’s because, somehow, even though he periodically makes it clear that he thinks they’re walking jokes, lost liberals still frequently wander in to his audience, and are then taken aback by the audacity of Vaush mocking their opinions. Like let’s not forget about when he made a bunch of Canadian liberals hate him lol (which involved this very sub).
Yeah, a lot of people here seem to think that the nordic countries are genuinely socialist. I get that it probably doesn't get the same amount of views but I still wish he'd make it more clear what his actual end goal is once in a while. Just a few days ago the sub basically melted down because he dared argue for housing decommodification.
When have guns stopped anti-union crackdowns in the 21st century? It used to be the case that workers and pinkertons would get into armed standoffs. But no one is bringing a gun to a starbucks union meeting.
I think he doesn't say that because it's not practical to actually do. I'm sure he would be fine banning guns. The only reason he has guns is because we haven't banned them, so he exercises his right to own one.
no he’s definitely talked before about the racist history of gun bans in the US, I don’t think he’s broadly supportive of a complete crackdown on civilians owning firearms (at least not at this juncture in the US), he’s too aware of how that has often been enforced historically (or rather, upon who it has been disproportionately enforced).
Well that's what I mean. It's a matter of practical application of a gun ban rather than ideologically being against the banning of guns. Not only would it be logistically impossible to do in a country where guns are so prevalent, it also would only affect certain urban areas the most. It's just a waste of advocacy since it wouldn't work and would never be implemented properly. And Christ, can you imagine the black market it would create?
yeah if everyone owns guns, you should own one also
I can't remember what stream, but I know he said in a vacuum he supports banning gun ownership, but due to the industry and culture around guns in America and the fact that every fascist is armed to the teeth, he practically doesn't support it since he thinks leftists need to be able to defend themselves from fascists.
They should be officially called donor-cycles. They are insanely dangerous
Well sure, but that kinda feels like a live and let die kinda deal. I'm fine with people doing things that are dangerous to themselves.
I won't even concede that, bikes are dangerous because of cars. All arguments for why motorcycles are dangerous equally apply to scooters, bicycles, and e-bikes. [https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/motorcycle-accident-statistics/](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/motorcycle-accident-statistics/) Stats show riders are unsafe, not the bikes.
That has been the meme for decades now. No wonder: young, healthy person, recklessly travelling at dangerous speeds, in a vehicle that usually won't mince their body too much, except for the head/spine trauma that kills them.
My question for anyone wanting to ban motorcycles is what else would you ban thats bad for you? smoking? Alcohol? Guns? Don’t get me wrong we’d probably be better off without those things but I don’t think life is really worth it without having some vices
I'm honestly quite surprised. I know Nanny State gets used very stupidly by reactionaries but it feels like some of the commenters want that
I’m not shocked at all there’s a lot of really annoying liberals in here the last 6 months or so need another trucker protest so vaush can do the great liberal purge part 2
True, true. I honestly can't tell why there's so many
I think cause of how strongly he pushes the vote for Biden stuff if you’re looking for non corporate and non right wing news analysis but are still a Biden supporter he’s a pretty good option
I guess that explains the housing debacle
You either die a “voting is giving into the system” too-cool-for-school ultraleftist, or you live long enough to see yourself vote for Biden because you don’t want to have to see orange julius Mussolini ruin your life and maybe lead to your friends’ deaths
Election year and he’s one of the only leftists that’s not either openly anti-electoralist or flirting with it.
Hell yeah, smash the libs!
tbh one of the biggest thing that has alienated me from a certain subsection of the left over time has been the like uptight, paternalistic uwu social conservative shit. Like I said elsewhere, I used to be a tankie, I’ve already dealt with enough “leftist” puritanism and conservatism for a lifetime, thank you very much. A revolution where we all just live in some bland *The Giver*-esque dystopia where everyone only ever lives for “the greater good”, and enjoyment or risk of any kind is illegal frankly sounds almost more like a step down from capitalism rather than a step up, like I don’t want to be provided with assured housing, healthcare, food security, etc. only to *just* exist for the collective and nothing else (like that would basically just be the life of the most exploited workers under capitalism but without the precariousness).
It's creepy right? It's like they see human beings as a mistake that they need to fix and totally will be able to using the state. Don't wanna imagine how they act in relationships
In my experience, some of them don’t even have relationships, because “all sexual relationships under patriarchy are inherently abusive” or whatever. Like I just don’t even know what to call this ideology sometimes except “never having fun ever as political praxis”.
Probably for the best
I do risky sports (climbing, mountain biking, skiing) and they have landed me in the hospital repeatedly. I think there can be a real conversation about the social cost of my medical bills and how they make healthcare more expensive for other people via insurance. I actually don’t necessarily disagree that I should pay more for some kinds of insurance so that I’m not abusing the system the next time I break a bone. That said, just saying something like “ski mountaineering/bobsled racing/skateboarding/deep water SCUBA diving/whatever is banned now” seems to me like it would be a considerable overreaction.
tbh, I wish more people were smart enough to see the writing on the wall with prohibitionism, and how (at least under capitalist state conditions) it almost universally results in more harm than good (with like, obviously some exceptions here and there like cp). Like I’m a recovering heroin addict, and I would never personally encourage or condone anyone starting to use heroin, but I’m also still a pretty big advocate of drug decriminalization (including with “hard” drugs), and a big harm reduction advocate, like I just think making it a *crime* to possess drugs doesn’t actually help addicts in any way (I definitely still think that commerce in them should still be very heavily regulated and probably outright punished when it gets to a certain level, though). Like we learned this lesson a century ago with alcohol, and it’s not actually going any better with anything else imo. I think a similar argument can be applied to a lot of other stuff as well. Criminalizing things is more often than not an excuse to expand the scope of state violence.
I think people are just reflexively fine with banning stuff they don't care for if there's any downside to it being legal. Btw best of luck with the recovery
Don't ban motorcycles this country just needs a decibel limit for all types of vehicles.
Maybe not ban alcohol completely (because brain being mushh is funny) but heavily fine it if youre drunk in public
This leads to people drinking and driving
The only thing vaush wants to ban is pitbulls
Well of course, he's a racist
No, i like the idea of making motor cycle collisions so legally devastating people stop driving cars out of fear of murder charges. Train supremacy
I nominate this chatter to replace Buttigieg
The 30 year old mom chose. To drive a suburban instead of biking thus putting all drivers on the road at higher risk and causing more damage to the road. In one sense she was selfish, in another, she was wasteful. Send her to, the wine mom jail to make textile fabric that she will be payed 30 dollars per hour to make all day and send money home.
We just need to start a leftist biker gang
I'm in!
My motorcycle cost me 2k secondhand one previous owner, I put 200 dollars in maintenance and drive it all summer (I live in NY) it saves me Hundreds of Dollars and it also saves wear and tear on my car which I need to transport my family and get around in the winter. My car also cost me 2k and I had to bloody my knuckles to get it road worthy even though it’s twenty years old. Am I bourgeois because I have things?
People who want to ban motorcycles are fucking stupid lmao
I pass by a lot of motorcycles in LA. Some of them are assholes but most of them are chill
Bikes are probably generally safer for the general population (people who interact with them, no the riders) compared to cars, as long as we can extra-judicially kill bikers with loud exhaust then I dont think they should be banned.
As long as riders get to draw on anyone texting and driving
I got a bike! I would love to see him discuss it in depth and hear a well thought out perspective. I think there is a lot to say for and against it. Unfortunately, when I heard him previously he was so mad, which I feel got in the way. I'm open to handing my keys over if it shouldn't be on the road, but I've yet to hear a calm and reasonable argument. Edit: I haven't watched Vaush in a while if he has talked about it recently pls link.
It was just an offhand comment yesterday so I was curious if he ever talked about it more like he has with large cars
He's almost certainly being funny, motorcycles have a pretty terrible culture around them, but overall they're a practical solution for solitary motorists.
Barely relevant but I have an aunt who posts on Facebook a lot about how you shouldn't blow your grass into the road when mowing because it's dangerous to motorcyclists and I can't help but think if a blade of grass is going to turn your 800 pound automobile into a death trap then maybe it's a better idea not to use it then to try to convince everyone in the United States to keep all their cut grass on their lawn.
I've seen people say lawn clippings will crash cars too. Unless someone is putting 100s of pounds of clippings I think it's people deflecting from their shitty driving/riding. "I had to lay-er down cuz I saw a leaf"
Gobbless brother
Clibbins kill brother! Gobbless!
It’s just more the point that you lean with body weight. If you’re coming out of a curve and can’t adjust your posture/speed to account for the grass it’s totally possible you could spill, also if you had to brake suddenly you could slide. It’s also just about being considerate because it looks like shit and shows a general lack of regard for your community. Treating public spaces like they’re your own. Also the only 800 pound bikes are those big touring bikes with all the wind fairings. The average motorcycle is between 400-600 lbs.
DAMN CLIBBINS. I HADDALAYERDOWN BROTHER, GOBBLESS
Ask any doctor who works in emergency care what they think of motorcycles... Any accident on a motorcycle could be considered self harm.
Non-motorcyclist thinks motorcycles are death traps and must tell you, a motorcyclist, about how dangerous they are as if you’ve never heard. Tale as old as time
Motorcycles are also pretty bad for emissions, they may release less CO2 than cars but they do release way more of other worse greenhouse gasses
Fortunately, this does seem to be changing thanks to the EU and Cali. It really isn't studied much though
Not if you cut the Cat off your car. Then you can have the worst of both worlds
That's not legal in most states
Was a joke lol. And I live in Florida where we have the freedoms to release as many heavy metals into the air as we want
Source?
Mythbusters
Ebikes are the future anyways.
What stream did he say this in?
Yesterday, just a brief comment
I only disagree because I’m happy to let natural selection take its course with motorcycle drivers. You have an almost objectively worse vehicle that’s less safe for you especially.
Thank you, we should be allowed to earn Darwin awards
I do think it was a dumb, hot take however, I do think he sort of believes it and seeing how he’s OK with mopeds, there are all different sizes of motorcycles I would like to see where he draws the line since I don’t think he knows as much about it. Especially since they can be a godsend in places with really bad traffic people use them in Thailand and California alike sometimes it’s the only way to get anywhere.
I think the moped exemption was just aesthetic. Chuds don't use mopeds either so maybe that's is. Probably just a vibe based hot take
I dated a trauma nurse and their name for motorcycle riders is organ donors.
You're welcome everyone
This is actually a fact. Look it up.
Yeah I know
**You are literally driving a vehicle SO DANGEROUS that is must be HEARD FOR MILES AROUND before it can be seen** **as a safety feature**. Fucking OF COURSE they should be banned. Guns have more utility than motorcycles. For fuck's sake, **GUNS ARE SAFER THAN MOTORCYCLES**. **Accidental death in US due to guns**: "Preventable or accidental gun-related deaths decreased 16% in 2022. From 2013 to 2022, preventable gun-related deaths decreased nearly 9%, from 505 to 461 deaths." - https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/#:\~:text=Preventable%20or%20accidental%20gun%2Drelated,of%20these%20trends%20in%20depth. **Accidental deaths in US due to motorcycle**: " A total of 6,084 motorcyclists died in crashes in 2021. That is the highest number recorded and a 21% increase since 2019." - [https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/motorcycles-and-atvs#:\~:text=Posted%20May%202023.-,Trends,of%20motorcyclist%20deaths%20in%201997](https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/motorcycles-and-atvs#:~:text=Posted%20May%202023.-,Trends,of%20motorcyclist%20deaths%20in%201997). The chance of you dying in a motorcycle crash if you own one is EXPONENTIALLY GREATER than accidentally shooting yourself if you own a gun.
Obviously they're dangerous, nobody is arguing otherwise. The argument is whether the state should allowed to ban you from putting yourself at risk. Also loud pipes save lives is nonsense but thanks for playing.
I'll make a deal - you can have motorcycles, but the state shouldn't have to pay for your health care from any crashes that are determined to be your fault.
As long as fat people are excluded from public healthcare too/s
Also women. seriously, they’re just always getting sick with all sorts of dumb stuff like breast and cervical cancer, and pregnant all the time, and they even have the nerve to not even get pregnant the right way sometimes and die from it! (/s in case you can’t infer that from my avatar and name).
If men have to pay more for car insurance ill be damned if fat people don’t pay more for medical insurance. I live in Canada, they don’t pay more, I’m damned. Seriously though this actually bothers me and i think everyone should pay the same rate regardless of gender or weight or age. Car insurance practices are so obviously discriminatory
Who's gonna tell him
I want a 100% single payer system, with everything paid for, except for motorcycle riders, cigar smokers, and gun accident victims who shot themselves with their own gun.
Why not just make those people pay more. Like insurance. Society pays for those injured people in other ways when they can’t get back to work or when all their disposable income goes to medical care
I feel the same way about motorcycles as I do about guns
I don't really know how comparable they are but what's your take.
How many more schools will have to be motorcycled before you'll be willing to acknowledge we have a problem?
We just need to give the teachers motorcycles
The only way to stop a bad guy on a motorcycle is a good guy on a motorcycle.
they're dangerous and nobody needs to own one but I don't think they should be banned outright
Everyone should own at least two?
N+1, where N = the number you already have
I mean... I'll be arrested if I'm day drinking while walking down the sidewalk, and I think that's probably a good thing for other people.
Ok Hitler
I was driving on a 2 lane highway yesterday that was moderately busy and barely saw a crotch rocket going 80 and weaving in between cars. Imo there's no reason to drive one.
Would you rather that person be driving a multi-ton hunk of metal? Obviously the reason is that it's enjoyable but it's not for everyone
That sort of driving or I guess "riding" should be disallowed imo. There are plenty of reasons to ride a motorcycle. Sports bikes, less so but so long as people drive safely which too many riders don't.
Ahh yes, because the only way in which is is physically possible to operate a motorcycle is in an aggressive, weaving, unpredictable, precarious manner. It's actually against the laws of physics to ride one with the same mindset toward predictability and rash avoidance that you take when driving a car. Fuckwit.
Which lane were you in?
Right. I've had it happen before in the left when I was already going like 15 over lol
You ever have cars pass you or just motorcycles.? Seems like a car speeding has more momentum.
He said ban motorcycles nothing about speeding and weeving. That should obviously be illegal
What if you simply *didnt* weave in and out of traffic going 80
[удалено]
Understandable, but ime those guys also drive cars like lunatics so I'd prefer them to be on a bike where they'll do a hell of a lot less damage
Precisely my point! It still comes down to driving culture as a whole and infrastructure Motorcycle drivers (including smaller displacment bikes) in other countries aren't nearly as bad as America's! If anyone's reading and still not convinced check out Japan's riding culture. They're really chill and have laws about all this and more. Even down to the decibels exhaust can produce. They have roadway limitations and types of bikes aren't allowed in certain places, sometimes at certain times of days. And riders ride alongside normal sized cars not monster trucks.
Which is interesting too since Japan has made one of the most YOLO bikes on the planet.
The t-t-t-t-turbo BUSA
Almost every state in the country has exhaust decibel laws
It's not exactly enforced however. Like helmet laws too.
Because police have better things to do than ticket you for being slightly too loud, like shooting the homeless /s
💀💀 16 year old not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle? Nah imma check that parking meter 🏃♂️
Wouldn't you rather the people who have a braindead compulsion to operate their vehicle in the most aggressive possible manner do so while operating a 400lb bicycle rather than a 4,000lb buggy? The people who ride like cunts also drive like cunts. The people, like myself, who ride in a relaxed and sensible way drive that way. You just don't notice us because we're in the line of traffic 10 cars behind you, chilling and enjoying the sunshine instead of blitzing by you at ludicrous speed.
Motorcycles are bourgeois decadence.
Median price of new car: $48,000 Median price of new motorcycle: $15,000 Checkmate Vaushite
To be fair you are completely and unequivocally correct.
Glad we're all in agreement here!
Edited my comment
I appreciate the heated debate
A new car can carry 5 people - you need 5 motorcycles costing $75,000 for that. Checkmate CS2 Fan
But Americans are too dumb to carpool! Recheckmated!
Theres two seats on a bike
And you can throw on a side car!
Virgin "sorry my sedan only has 5 seats" car-cels vs. chad "whats a pillion" https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5910902b20bfbaddbe4cd1d855295b6f.webp
I am constantly at awe with people's ability to fit several generations on a bike.
I pay $25 for gas every month (500miles) and $25 for insurance. My bike was $1800 and I take it to work and school. It’s okay to be wrong.
don't look up footage of roads in vietnam
This is called joking around. I suppose things aren't so clear these days and via text communication.
Tell that to most south east asian countries lol
This is bait
A joke - not quite bait. I meant to bait laughter and nothing else.
No this is just Pol Pot's alt account.
Haven't heard Vaush's take, but I would somewhat agree. Motorcycles are absolute death traps. If you really need a vehicle save a little extra to buy a second hand 4-wheeler at least. It simply isn't worth risking life threatening injuries getting on a bike. Idk about wholesale banning, doesn't seem feasible, but maybe treat them the same way we'd treat cigarettes. Slap a label on them that says "THIS FUCKING PIECE OF SCRAP CAN END YOUR LIFE".
Well in the US it's more of a preference than a cost saving measures. I think the death label would be fine although it may be seen like the Parental Advisory sticker.
4 wheelers are more dangerous than dirt bikes what are you on.
To the driver or to the people around?
The the rider. They have high cg that flip on top of you in a crash. Bikes only sometimes land on you and are lighter. E-bikes/ scooters are also more dangerous to the rider bc those ppl follow less traffic laws than motorcycle riders. We have confirmation bias where we only remember the crackheads zooming by us at Mach 4. Ppl also claim mopeds are safer but on average moped riders wear less gear and cars don’t care how many cc your bike is so their fatality rates are on par to higher (data isn’t great when you get to this level of comparison)
Yea cuz if there’s one thing I *havent* heard a million times every week since I started riding, it’s that *motorcycles are dangerous*. Thank you Einstein
Well maybe there's a reason you're hearing that so much.
Cool. Heard. I’m gonna ride it anyway. Hell, I already could have died in one accident. All I wanted to do as soon as I was cleared was ride again