View Single Post
Old 02-17-2014, 05:12 PM   #249
Kommando
Grumpy Young Man
 
Kommando's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Spacecoaster FL
Oddometer: 7,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andyvh1959 View Post
This reply was to another poster that said when in doubt, make the bike lean, because it most likely will do it! Sure it takes trust, trust in the bike, trust in the traction, trust in your own riding abilities, trust in having the guts/balls,cojones to get it done.

But the quote above, makes it sound like the track is the only place this works, or that the tires won't hold.
Perhaps, especially in the context quoted, but how something "sounds" or "seems" is often very different from reality. You may interpret something completely differently because of your own pre-existing biases. That's your choice. Which statement is factually correct though? The generalization or my mentioning of exception?

Quote:
I say it is FAR more likely the tires WILL hold and the bike WILL make the turn.
Again, that can depend on the circumstances. Given certain circumstances, it could be far more likely that the tires don't even have enough traction to maintain a straight line of travel on a slightly-crowned road. Given other circumstances, it COULD be far more likely that the tires WILL hold and the bike WILL make the turn.

Quote:
But, SO many riders never approach what the bike can do, or has to do, and is so doing give it up to whatever results, that being "the bike wouldn't make the turn." I say it is likely the bike will make, so don't give it up. Why ride on the "sometimes" attitude when the bike/tires will perform? Go for it when you have to.
For the most part, and in the most common riding conditions on public roads in this country, I agree, but when I see people generalizing, I often correct them. Why generalize if it is usually incorrect to do so and there is a much better way to state something? There is often at least one exception to most generalizations, and a few of us discussed this the last round. General rule of thumb: Try not to make generalizations if you don't want somebody picking them apart.

Here's an example of a blatant generalization I recently noticed...I just took a CCW permit class, and the instructor flat out told us that there is no legal open-carry in FL for private citizens in public. I disagreed. There ARE exceptions, so her wording was incorrect and misleading. Many LEOs in FL are even usually oblivious to one major instance that a private citizen can legally open-carry in FL, which is somewhat shocking and disturbing, if you ask me. People legally open-carry in large numbers every year in this state...participating in licensed hunting and fishing. Are they out there shooting deer, pigs, turkeys, pythons, fish, cottonmouths, and whatever else that's legal with just their "PEW! PEW!" fingers? Do the LEOs in most states that allow hunting on public land freak out whenever they see somebody open-carrying?

Generalizations, IMO, are usually WAY more misleading than presenting info while STILL allowing for exceptions. Try allowing for exceptions in your statements, instead of generalizing. It can take some practice, but you'll probably find yourself making fewer false/incorrect statements.
__________________
Some are guard dogs of the flock. Some herders, search/rescue, or companions. We Devildogs are those, and also retrievers. Hell is our blazing dogpark, our frigid swimming hole. The fallen are our tennis balls. We don't leave the fallen behind, even if the master has to bring them home for us. Semper Fi, my friends.
Kommando is offline   Reply With Quote