Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Nelson_Gremdella t1_jac3q50 wrote

Reply to comment by DfcukinLite in Highway to nowhere and dirt bikes by brYzmz

Would it make you feel better if whoever upset you edited their post from “large majority” to “roughly 20%”?

Is that your real issue here?

−2

DfcukinLite t1_jac56dd wrote

The real issue is no claim made here is backed by facts.

4

Nelson_Gremdella t1_jac6ozd wrote

I hear you, and I agree. Throwing incorrect numbers around to back up your claims is wrong.

You have been successful in demonstrating to readers that possibly 20% of the dirt bikes are stolen, rather than “a large majority.”

Personally, I don’t think whether or not the bike was stolen is “the” problem. “The” problem is kids riding dirt bikes illegally in the city and endangering the public.

I feel like those who’ve taken it upon themselves to prove to the world that only a few of the dirt bikes are stolen got lost down a go-nowhere alleyway (motorcycle theft).

Isn’t the real issue the fact that the dirt bikes are ridden illegally?

That plus 20% stolen makes the OP’s venture one absolutely no one is putting any money into, ever.

The 20% stolen is just sugar on top of why no one wants to invest in something like this.

4

YoYoMoMa t1_jacvt79 wrote

> “The” problem is kids riding dirt bikes illegally in the city and endangering the public.

How many people in the public have been hurt by them?

3

DfcukinLite t1_jaca5kc wrote

Those 2 things have nothing to do with which other. Because plenty of people have had these every same idea, regardless of the 20% or what you feel.

1

MotoSlashSix t1_jacaafo wrote

But that’s not the problem the commenter cited. The comment starting all this back and forth over numbers cites as literally the #1 issue the idea that a “large majority" of the bikes ridden illegally are stolen. When someone begins with a false premise people who disagree with their conclusion are going to question that premise. That is natural. If you don't have a factual premise your argument is a house of cards.

If it’s a red herring (or “sugar”) why even bring it up?

IMO that claim reads like an ad hominem. And here's why: Let's say we knew for certain that 100% of the bikes being used were bought legally; would that make the street riding any better/safer? Of course not. Unsafe riding is unsafe riding. (aside: I've been riding motorcycles for over 15 years and I'm not aware of anything proving a stolen motorcycle is less safe than a legally purchased one. Seems like that would be covered in the MSF Motorcycle Safety Course. The pavement hurts just as bad when you land after a high-side at speed regardless of how you got your bike)

If the issue upsetting folks is unsafe street riding, then providing a non-street place to ride is a good starting point. So debate that idea on the issues that you can verify; not dubious numbers and ad hominem attacks leveled at the riders.

1

Nelson_Gremdella t1_jaexjja wrote

I’m pretty sure you and I are on the same page about whether the bike is stolen or not has no effect on the fact that it’s being ridden illegally and dangerously. It doesn’t.

The sugar on top part, I’ll explain.

OP is making a suggestion to try and make some positive moves in this city with regards to this particular issue.

The poster you’re referring to entered the discussion, implied that this topic and this particular solution has been discussed before, and listed two things that always come up.

One of those things was over exaggerated.

You or someone else pulled some statistics and proved that rather than “a large majority,” only 20% of these dirt bikes are stolen.

Congratulations to whoever that was. Seriously.

However, that does absolutely nothing to change the fact that this topic and this particular solution has been discussed before and two specific things always come up.

To simplify, no one is investing in a bike park (OP’s suggestion) if there’s a possibility 20% of the bikes in there are stolen. That’s like throwing money away.

I don’t understand the race baiting.

1