G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile


Buell Motorcycle Forum » XBoard » Buell XBoard Archives » Archive through February 11, 2009 » Buell Racing License ?? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hogs
Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 05:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Just rob this of another post:

Buell is not making a acception between drag and road racing.

So Just wondering then, IF one Drags his Buell to say, Can one get a Racing license to be able to buy Buell race GEar, Like their ECM ?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Skinstains
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2009 - 10:49 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I don't know for sure but I can't imagine why not. You need race parts on the 1320 just as you would on a road course.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Court
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2009 - 04:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I think, working from memory, that as long as it is an "accredited" racing organization you are in good shape.

In other words, it's be some group like the NHRA not a letter from Bob's Country Drag Strip.

They, just like you would, are just covering their butts and making sure that you, not Buell, is liable for any misuse.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hogs
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2009 - 04:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Hey Court,

Yeah, well I`m a Big Boy, If I buy a product from Buell say... Say a Hot exhaust....Now, Also buy one for a car say from Bob's Country Drag Shop OR any other of the 1000 Plus shops out there... does that make poor old Bob liable or the same for Buell for that matter ?
If So for what?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Slaughter
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2009 - 07:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Actually based on the lawsuit against Powercommander, Bubba's "Exhaustz R US" might be liable IF their exhaust were to be used on the street.

Powercommander lost nearly 2.5 MILLION $$$ in CA. $10K per violation.

That lawsuit threw a wet blanket over the whole aftermarket industry and now NO factory makes "racing" engine gear available to non-racers... for something like a couple years now... the only exception is stuff that doesn't affect EPA emissions (suspension, final drive, lights). Small shops can still get away with it. Their liability is the same but their pockets are nowhere nearly as deep.

These discussions never end. Don't write Buell, don't complain on the internet, write your Congressman.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hogs
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2009 - 08:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Interesting Slaughter....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Court
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2009 - 10:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

>>>does that make poor old Bob liable

Absolutely.

Salient difference is Country Bob likely doesn't have $700,000,000 cash in the bank and get sured 2,200 times a year.


Don't write Buell, don't complain on the internet, write your Congressman.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Court
Posted on Monday, February 02, 2009 - 11:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

This is old but it may help some . . .


quote:

Posted on Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 12:30 pm:
These are exciting times and there are exciting things going on.

In the coming weeks, we're going to revisit some of the basics of customer service.

Some of this will be Buell related, some won't be. I submit that some of the basic principles are fairly portable between various brands and products.

Topics will range from simple human nature and behavior, we'll talk about processes and procedures to see what you like and don't like and I'm going to entertain some discussion to encourage some creative input as to what Buell could do to provide world class customer service.

In addition, I'll share some of my personal thoughts on some of the less effective means of achieving resolution.

For those of you who are interested, I'll periodically be making reference to a number of books in my personal library. If you want details, feel free to ask.

The one I am polishing off now is particularly timely given some of the recent scuffles over customer service. Here is the index of my current "bedside light reading"

quote:
PART l: THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT

A. What Makes a Design Defective?

Sheila L. Birnbaum, Unmasking the Test for Design Defect: From Negligence [to Warranty] to Strict Liability to Negligence, 33 VAND. L. REV. 593 (1980)

John W. Wade, On The Nature of Strict Tort Liability for Products, 44 MISS. L.J. 825 (1973)

Richard A. Epstein, The Risks of Risk/Utility, 48 OHIO ST. L.J. 469 (1987)

James A. Henderson, Jr., Judicial Review of Manufacturers' Conscious Design Choices: The Limits of Adjudication, 73 COLUM. L. REV. 1531 (1973)

B. Failure to Warn

James A. Henderson, Jr. & Aaron D. Twerski, Doctrinal Collapse in Products Liability: The Empty Shell of Failure To waft' 65 N.Y.U. L. REV. 265 (1990)

Howard Latin, "Good" Warnings, Bad Products, and Cognitive Limitations, 41 UCLA L. REV. 1193 (1994)


PART II: FOCUS ON THE CONSUMER

Marshall S. Shapo, A Representational Theory of Consumer Protection: Doctrine, Function and Legal Liability for Product Disappointment, 60 VA. L. REV. 1109 (1974)

RICHARD A. EPSTEIN, MODERN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAW (1980)


PART III: PRODUCTS LIABILITY WITHIN OTHER LEGAL DOMAINS

A. Tort Law

William L. Prosser, The Assault Upon The Citadel (Strict Liability to the Consumer), 69 YALE L.J. 1099 (1960)

William C. Powers, Jr., The Persistence of Fault in Products Liability, 61 TEX. L. REV. 777 (1983)

MALCOLM WHEELER, The Need for Narrow Tort Reform: Abolishing Strict Product Liability, in PRODUCT LIABILITY REFORM: DEBATING THE ISSUES (Kenneth L. Chilton ea., 1990)

B. Contract Law

William L. Prosser, The Implied Warranty of Merchantable Quality, 27 MINN. L. REV. 1 17 (1943)

George L. Priest, A Theory of the Consumer Product Warranty, 90 YALE L.J. 1297 (1981)

Grant Gilmore, Products Liability: A Commentary, 38 U. CHI. L. REV. 103 (1 970)

C. Crime and Punishment

Michael B. Metzger, Corporate Criminal Liability for Defective Products: Policies, Problems, and Prospects, 73 GEO. L.J. 1 (1984)

Revised Annotated Reprimand by Chief Judge Miles W. Lord, 9 HAMLINE L. REV. 7 (1986)

David G. Owen, Problems In Assessing Punitive Damages Against Manufacturers of Defective Products, 49 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1982)

Michael Rustad, In Defense of Punitive Damages in Products Liability: Testing Tort Anecdotes With Empirical Data, 78 IOWA L. REV. 1 (1992)


PART IV: THE COLLECTIVE GOALS OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY

A. Safety

George L. Priest, Products Liability Law and the Accident Rate, in LIABILITY: PERSPECTIVES AND POLICY (Robert E. Litan & Clifford L. Winston eds., 1988)

Peter W. Huber, Safety and the Second Best: The Hazards of Public Risk Management in the Courts, 85 COLUM. L. REV. 277 (1985)

Stephen P. Teret & Michael S. Jacobs, Prevention and Torts: The Role of Litigation in Injury Control, 17 LAW, MED. & HEALTH CARE 17 (1985)

B. Insurance

Victor E. Schwartz and Liberty Mahshigian, National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986: An Ad Hoc Remedy or a Window For the Future? 48 OHIO ST. L.J. 387 (1987)

George L. Priest, The Current Insurance Crisis and Modern Tort Law, 96 YALE L.J. 1521 (1987)

Ernest J. Weinrib, The Insurance Justification and Private Law, 14 J. LEGAL STUD. 681 (1985)

C. An Assessment

W. Kip Viscusi, Toward a Diminished Role for Tort Liability: Social Insurance Government Regulation, and Contemporary Risks to Health and Safety, 6 YALE J. REG. 65 (1989)


PART V: THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY CRISIS

A. What Crisis?

Sidley & Austin, The Need for Legislative Reform of the Tort System: A Report on the Liability Crisis From Affected Organizations, 10 HAMLINE L. REV. 2 (1987)

James A. Henderson, Jr. & Theodore Eisenberg, The Quiet Revolution in Products Liability: An Empirical Study of Legal Change, 37 UCLA L. REV. 479 (1990)

Richard L. Abel, The Real Tort CrisissToo Few Claims, 48 OHIO ST. L.J. 443 (1987)

B. The Effect of Liability on Innovation

PETER W. HUBER AND ROBERT E. LITAN, Overview, in THE LIABILITY MAZE THE IMPACT OF LIABILITY LAW ON SAFETY AND INNOVATION (1991)

Robert M. McKenna, The Impact of Product Liability Law on the Development of a Vaccine Against the AIDS Virus, 55 U. CHI. L. REV. 943 (1988)


PART Vl: PERSPECTIVES ON PRODUCTS LIABILITY

A. Focus on the Product

ANITA BERNSTEIN, Product Dynamism and the Law, in MEANING. MEASURE, AND MORALITY OF MATERIALISM (Floyd Rudmin & Marsha Richins eds., 1992)

B. Feminism

Leslie Bender, Feminist (Re)Torts: Thoughts on the Liability Crisis, Mass Torts, Power, and Responsibilities, 1990 DUKE L.J. 848 (1990)

Joan E. Steinman, Women, Medical Care, and Mass Tort Litigation, 68 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 409 (1992)

Frances P. Kao, Pornography as Product

C. Economics

Guido Calabresi and Jon T. Hirschoff, Toward a Test for Strict Liability in Torts, 81 YALE L.J. 1055 (1972)

Alan Schwartz, The Case Against Strict Liability, 60 FORDHAM L. REV. 819 (1992)

D. Moral Philosophy

John B. Attanasio, The Principle of Aggregate Autonomy and the Calabresian Approach to Products Liability, 74 VA. L REV. 677 (1988)

David G. Owen, The Moral Foundations of Products Liability Law: Toward first Principles, 68 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 427 (1993)

E. Comparative Law

J.A. JOLOWICZ, Product Liability in the EEC, in COMPARATIVE AND PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW ESSAYS IN HONOR OF JOHN HENERY MERRYMAN ON HIS SEVENTIETH BIRTHDAY (David S. Clark ed., 1990)

GARY T. SCHWARTZ, Product Liability and Medical Malpractice in Comparative Context, in THE LIABILITY MAZE: THE IMPACT OF LIABILITY LAW ON SAFETY AND INNOVATION (Peter w. Huber & Robert E. Litan eds., 1991)

H. Patrick Glenn, Judicial Authority and the Liability of the Manufacturer, or Jusqu'ou Peut-on Aller Trop Loin? 38 AM. J. COMP. L. 555 (1990)



You'll find two of my all-time favorite authors in that list (yes, I read REALLY DULL crap!) and we may touch on a few product liability issues, but generally just to dispel some of the myths of the internet.

We're going to start on the premise that the very purpose of CUSTOMER service is customer oriented, not driven simply by avoidance of liability.

These are fascinating times and I'll be eager to get some help and input.

Court




See the type of crap I read for fun in the motorcycle industry . . . MAKING bikes and RIDING bikes are quite different animals.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

B00stzx3
Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 09:38 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Wow, glad I don't live in California. So how is it a company's fault if the person misuses it? When are they gonna get Ford and Honda for people who drag race in their cars, or Remington when someone robs a bank with a shotgun. Thats crazy! Isn't there personal responsibility anymore?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Metalstorm
Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 01:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I think personal responsibility went away in the 80's.

The lady who sued McDonalds because she burned herself sipping hot coffee (isn't it supposed to be hot?) changed the world.

She made it acceptable and rewarding to be either really stupid or really shifty.

No one has to take responsibility for one's self anymore. All you need is a good lawyer.

Pretty disgusting in my book : (
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Court
Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 01:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

>>>>Isn't there personal responsibility anymore?

It's on vacation.

Watch the lawsuits that result from the successful ditching of the U.S. Air flight in the Hudson River.

Folks were given $5,000 for their luggage (which they got back, albeit wet . . but they "lost" nothing) and were given top upgrade status for a year.

A group of them begin to squeal like stuck pigs about what the airline "owed" them.

In the old days there was a think called ""assumption of risk". When you get on an airliner there is, although very small, some degree of KNOWN risk. You boarding the plane is tantamount to saying you understand and agree to that risk ABSENT and negligence on the part of the airline.

The airline has a duty to exercise a high (not "standard") duty of care. There are degrees. . "negligence", ordinary negligence" and "gross negligence" within which differing situations fall.

We've evolved to a very "entitlement" oriented society. Whereas you or I may commend the airline for the exemplary job of handing the emergency, there are less principled among us who see it as their "gravy train" ticket to laziness.

We have some of this in our own family. My wife's young niece, now 20, has been in 2 vehicle accidents (both her fault) and successfully sued BMW twice for "burns" she got from the airbag and recovered $100,000 on both occasions. I, personally, find it somewhat objectionable.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Metalstorm
Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 01:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

This has reminded me of a story my sister told me back in the late eighties.

My brother in law was a nuclear tech so they moved around a lot. Instead of renting a new house every year or two they bought a trailer and went from trailer park to trailer park all across America for a good 10-15 year span.

At one such park there was a pond that had ducks in it. Amongst the ducks were ducklings.

Thew kids that lived at the park would go to the pond and handle the ducklings, often mangling and killing them.

Now you'd think the logical thing to do would be to teach those kids right from wrong. Teach them about how the ducklings are fragile and that they must be very careful around them.

But no. The parents of that park (my sister excluded) decided to remove the ducks instead.
No ducks, no mangled ducklings. Problem solved.

I was still a teenager when I heard this and I remember getting really pissed off about it. I just couldn't believe the ignorance.

And now it's the same with Power Commander.
We're going to take down Power Commander. No ducks, no problem right?

And lookee! We can get a whole lot more $$$ outta Power Commander than we ever could if we went after the individuals who actually broke the law!

Yippee!!


I'm sorry but I fail to see the logic in this other than it was a really easy way to strongarm a couple million out of a successful company.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Boltrider
Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 01:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

The wording in Court's product liability post reminds me of when I had to read Descartes in college
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

B00stzx3
Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 04:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Pretty soon everythings gonna be friggin illegal. Kids can't sled at the local country club because of douchebag lawsuits. Anyways, whats to keep someone from buying the ECM for you? I don't think its routine for cops to check for off-road ECMs when you get pulled over! I've never even gotten in trouble for my loud as hell Jardine, and I live in the most nitpicky nanny state area south of New York City. Google it - montgomery county maryland! We can't even smoke anywhere on my college campus, even the parking lot. And yeah, Court uses some crazy words and language, I just assume he knows what hes talking about!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Metalstorm
Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 06:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

By 2014 you will be required to have a license to use your bathroom.

They will be available in three classes.

Class one allows one thousand flushes per year.

Class two allows two thousand and class three allows three thousand.

More than three thousand flushes per year and you will be required to buy a commercial bathroom license.
In addition you will be required to buy all the permits pertaining to having your residential bathroom rezoned as a commercial bathroom.


You laugh now but it could happen.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Court
Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 06:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

>>>>And yeah, Court uses some crazy words and language, I just assume he knows what hes talking about!

Court's full of shit.

>>>>No ducks, no mangled ducklings. Problem solved.

Ducks have always elicited innovative solutions. . . . I have but one word about that . . . PEABODY.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Slaughter
Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 07:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I have tried to get support for my Government control of indiscriminate and unauthorized penis usage for some time now.

Due to aids, MORE PEOPLE die due to aids than in combat and gun crime - and since (according to AIDS project Los Angeles) fully 70% of all aids cases are spread by males, MORE people are therefore killed by penises than by firearms.

THEREFORE - join me in my crusade to get congressional support for GOVERNMENT MANDATED PENIS CONTROL - join me now before it's too late.

NOBODY needs to use a penis (hereafter referred to as a "UNIT") more than twice in a month's time.

Use of a UNIT in social situations will be by issuance of "Tags." You will have a Congressionally determined tag limit in a given season. Unused tags expire at the end of the season.

Unauthorized UNIT usage will incur significant fines.

Repeated usage of UNIT will be cause for confiscation.

Unauthorized discharge in public will be cause for significant fines.
ARE YOU WITH ME???
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Slaughter
Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 07:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

(oopsie - I hijacked this thread) my bad
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Oddball
Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 07:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Peabody....

That's it! Mr Peabody can fix this.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hogs
Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 07:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

No HighJAck Slaughter,All within the Theme of the post

and I`m


WITH YA LoL...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Skinstains
Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 - 12:08 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I can't believe that a lot of you were un aware of the Power Comander law suit. I never bought one but can't believe they didn't have some sort of disclaimer on them in this day and age.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Court
Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 - 06:35 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Hehehehehe . . . obviously no one has seen the famous Peabody Duck Walk . . . . my units no no threat of being fined.

:0
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Petebueller
Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 - 08:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

>>>>Isn't there personal responsibility anymore?

It's on vacation.

Watch the lawsuits that result from the successful ditching of the U.S. Air flight in the Hudson River.

...


Maybe the payout would end up less if the landing attempt failed and all on-board were lost. It's a terrible indictment on life in a legal age.
« Previous Next »

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and custodians may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Post as "Anonymous" (Valid reason required. Abusers will be exposed. If unsure, ask.)
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration