Stopped in at Bob Dron's Harley dealership in Oakland, to say hi to everyone's favorite Harley salesman, Arnie Araujo.  Arnie is a custom guy, who just got back from the dealer's convention in Las Vegas.  I asked if the Super Low was in, and he took me in the back where they had JUST uncrated the first one.

Fabulous bike.  It feels really light, and very easy to handle.  Looks cool, has cool wheels and a great look.  Honestly, reminds me of the motorcycles I loved when I was starting to ride.  

This will be a very satisfying ride for newer rides, a can't lose proposition.  Easy to get into, easy to ride, tons of fun, and looks like what is -- a real Harley. $7,999 and Sturgis, here we come.   

And as a bonus, there just isn't a better person to get you started on one than Arnie. 

Motorcycle riders are increasingly being seen as averaging 54 years old.  Harley Davidson just announced a new "super low" motorcycle.  Harley has always used the Sportster as an entry level motorcycle.  This bike has new rider specific features to ease handling, while retaining all of the features and values that are associated with Harley, at a price that begins slightly under $8,000.00. Harley has also targeted women riders.  They are clearly to be applauded for this.

On the other hand, Harley is a particular part of the market that does not have universal buy in.  In the 60's, many, many riders were introduced to motorcycling by inexpensive light-weight motorcycles that had a cool image for young riders, and required no buy-in to any particular set of conventions.  Those buyers quickly moved up to larger, faster, more expensive bikes, and many of them continue to ride today.

Putting aside Harley's efforts, it is tough to find a great choice in a starter motorcycle.  Even the big bikes in the 60's were less than 70 horsepower.  Today, most 600's are closer to 100 horsepower. This just isn't as safe and comfortable a place to start.  Far too many new riders crash within days of taking up the sport.  Competition has forced the industry to provide faster, more exciting, etc. at the expense of more reasonable.  Comfortable bikes with reasonable luggage and carrying capacity are pretty much only found in the scooter segment.

If you ask existing riders to name a good first bike, many will suggest an SX-650.  I agree that this choice has a lot going for it.  At 70 horsepower, it is a reasonable amount of power, without being overwhelming.  It would be nice to have a lot of choices in this segment, but there aren't many.

I personally believe that starter bikes should have great handling, excellent brakes, luggage capacity (so that they are useful for everything), and enough power to be safe on a freeway without an engine designed to over-encourage hooliganism.  Theoretically, this will provide a new rider with a good chance to learn riding skills while learning to enjoy riding.

There is no particular need to have everyone on the planet riding motorcycles.  From one perspective, it doesn't matter how many riders there are, if motorcycles are plentiful for those of us who want them.  From most perspectives, riders benefit from greater numbers in many ways. The more of us who ride, the more likely those driving cars will learn to look for us.  The more riders, the more choices.  Of course, the more riders, the more we can interact with each other.

With so many people looking for fun, and given the base economics of motorcycle riding (at least in California where riding is possible year round), Harley is to be congratulated for addressing this need.

Where are the rest of the manufacturers? 

The motorcycle industry and riders all across the country are looking forward to Sturgis, and wondering who is going to attend.  Factors include the aging of the V-Twin riding population, the continued downturn in the economy, and the length of the current recession.

Of course, once everyone gets there, none of this matters.  Sturgis is the great granddaddy of riding events, and the most mandatory of any.

Daytona has had a drop in participation, and no one is sure why.  Hopefully, Sturgis can withstand even the worst economics in a lifetime.  Certainly, for those who already have a motorcycle, the big questions surround taking time off from work.

As an interesting side note, the Victory Vision has really had incredibly good reception from the Harley riders, who see it as an American V-Twin, and practically one of their own.  This is a good thing, particularly for Victory riders.

I have been lax in reporting on the Victory, which I originally promised to do.  I can say that it has been every bit as reliable as Kevin Ness and the folks at Arlen Ness said it would be.  No problems to date, and I have put more miles on it than any other motorcycle I can remember.  Of course, this is easy given the incredible comfort.  Why wouldn't you, if all it takes is gas and occasional service (Oh, and a tire or two)?  Good stuff all around.  Of course, I still get comments left and right, but ever more people know what the bike is, and then comment on it.  A few weeks ago, I ended up pulling over with a motorcycle cop, who really liked the bike.  (No, I did not get a ticket, thank you!)

Anyway, good and safe riding to all of you headed to Sturgis.  Nothing is as good for the economy as a great time. 

OK, we all know that revenue raising is related to the number of tickets being given to riders.  We also know that governments everywhere is hurting.  Add the fact that this is ticket season, and you have the makings of a slaughter.

Problem is, not only are the tickets expensive, but they raise your insurance even more.  Economically, it makes sense to fight every ticket.  Of course, this is a time consuming pain in the butt.

In California, you can file a form with the court to request a "trial by declaration". You write up your defense and send it in.  The officer then has to respond in writing.  If he doesn't, you win.

If you lose, you can demand a regular trial.  How cool is that? 

Moreover, the process will take some time, delaying your conviction, which is always a good thing.  Convictions run from the day of the violation, so the longer it takes to finish the case, the less time the conviction actually shows on your record. You don't get points until DMV is notified of the conviction, so this could save your license in the right situation. 

Of course, sending in a declaration denying that you are speeding is not likely to be successful, since the cop will undoubtedly send in a declaration saying that you were, that he clocked you (or got you on radar), that the car or radar gun was calibrated, etc.

Much smarter is to use this process to raise your technical defenses.  For example, if you exceeded the speed limit in a "business district", you could look up the definition of "business district".  It defines a "business district" as being an area of a highway where, "for a distance of 600 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for business . . ."

Having checked this definition, you notice that a lot of the buildings are empty, because business have closed.  Your declaration says that this is not a business district, because the buildings are not "in use for business".  

It is unlikely that the officer will be prepared to take on this kind of a technical challenge within the available time frame.  Even if he does, you might win.  At the very least, you will get a written statement from him that you can use to prepare your defense for trial.

You will find the form to use here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/fillable/tr205.pdf

And the instructions are here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/fillable/tr205.pdf 

There, now you have it.  You have no excuse for not at least trying to beat your ticket.

For many years I have been a fan of covering the front brake.  Other riders rarely or never cover the brake.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with the terminology, we are talking about whether or not to keep two (or three) fingers on the brake lever at all times, even when working the throttle.

Numerous investigators and motorcycle journalists have done various experiments to determine whether one choice is better or safer than the other.  No one has come up with an answer that seems definitive.

Every summer I have something that I work on to improve my riding.  In the course of looking carefully at what I do, I have begun switching between covering and not covering the brake.  My choice depends in part on how much importance I am placing on throttle control at a given moment, and how detrimental use of the brakes would be.

What I have discovered is that covering the front brake takes away substantially from my ability to make finer use of the throttle.  In some instances, I am better able to control the bike if I have a full hand on the throttle, and my fingers aren't getting ready to do something else.  I haven't looked at how this is impacted by the adjustment of the angle of the front brake lever relative to the wrist, which may put a fine tune on my thinking.  However, I have found the same thing on different bikes, so I believe that this is a valid approach.

At low speeds, like in a parking lot, front brake use can interfere with maneuvering, and locking the front brake will cause the bike to drop.  In fast turns, using the front brake is also not a good idea, and should be preceded by getting the bike more upright.  In either situation, there is no advantage to covering the brake, and your best throttle control is critical to success.

Of course, I don't consider myself to be the arbiter of the proper choice for every rider.  Your experience may differ considerably, and you may be dealing with very different factors.  However, this seemed like something worth passing on to my readers. 

I just had a problem with suits from a tailor I have been using for more than 20 years.  Some of my measurements changed, but when I got the suits, they were way off in areas that we didn't change.  For instance, the jackets were way too long.  Believe me, I'm not getting taller.

In a similar vein, my new glasses have to go back.  They are just unwearable.  The left lense only works if I tilt my head one way, the right if I tilt it a different way.  It is impossible to see clearly from both sides at once.

This not uncommon state of events got me thinking about what it takes as a motorcyle accident attorney to process a case correctly.  People often wonder what the difference is between lawyers.  Here's my answer.

Initially, it is important for me to know what motorcycle is involved.  This tells me something about the rider, and it sets the parameters for the mechanics of the accident.  A sport bike may be quick and maneuverable, but it also has great brakes.  Does the seating position lead to having a foot hovering over the rear brake?  Is it the kind of bike that is more likely ridden with two fingers covering the brake, or more likely not?  How upright is the rider?

From the first phone call, the level of detail is completely different from what other lawyers are doing.

The injuries in motorcyle accidents tend to cluster as well.  Lots of lower limb and foot injuries.  Many shoulder injuries.  Too many head injuries.  Often a concussion is missed while the emergency room looks for or treats broken bones.  A sensitivity to these issues leads to pursuing injuries that others miss completely.

Early on, we have a conversation about the property damage.  Motorcycles frequently have after market parts, are often difficult to value compared to cars, and loss of use damages are based on motorcycle rental costs, not the cost of a rental car.  Patience is required to walk clients and insurance adjusters through these difference.  It takes time. 

When we sit down together for the first time, we will discuss what the process will be for valuing the case.  This leads naturally to a discussion of what needs to be done so that the insurance company will understand the nature of the injuries, and how they affect the particular client.  This needs to be done in a way that works with the insurance carrier's internal systems.  If not, it simply does not get into the computer, and does not count when the insurance company evaluates the claim.  I explain how the client can work with their treating doctors to document the different aspects of the injuries in a way the insurance company will understand.

I think it is important to know what the course of the case will be.  We'll talk about the steps involved, how we will handle each step, and how to prepare so that you feel confident and in charge of the process.  There is no reason to go to a deposition and feel like the other attorney is beating you up.

Part of success in a case is making sure that the doctors have all of the information, so that their records and reports are complete.  The same information needs to be provided in writing, in answers to the written questions, called "interrogatories" that the other side will send.  The same information should be presented a third time in person, in a "deposition" that will take place before a court reporter.  It will be presented a fourth time to a defense doctor when they do a defense medical examination.  If only pieces of the puzzle are presented, these four presentations of information will differ in parts.  This creates questions and uncertainty, and works against getting a good settlement.  The lawyer needs to make sure the client understands the important issues, and is prepared to explain them completely in a way that will be understood by the insurance company.

The first time we meet, we will go over the way in which fees are charged, and how costs will be covered for the case.  Necessary paperwork needs to be correctly prepared, so that we can get the police report, medical reports, proof of wage loss, evidence of damage to the motorcycle and gear, and so that investigation can be done.

Basic information must be organized and recorded so that the needed documentation and proof can be put together.

Unlike most lawyers, I make it a regular practice to file suit immediately.  I have learned that there are many benefits to this.  Most important, insurance companies love to stall.  By starting the lawsuit immediately, as much as two years can be cut off the amount of time the case will take.  Most lawyers wait until the injury is permanent and stationary, then they try to settle, and only then do they file suit.  There is no reason that the case cannot be settled after suit is filed.  In most places, it takes at least a year to get to trial.  This is usually more than enough time for the injuries to become stable enough to evaluate.  If it happens that the injury is still in a state of flux, a motion can be made to the court to allow additional time before setting a trial date.  On the other hand, if a lawyer does not start the suit immediately, it is very unlikely that a court will allow a case to jump its place in line and get an early trial date.

As soon as the suit is filed, it needs to be served on the defendant by a process server.  Another advantage of filing suit immediately is that it helps avoid losing the defendant because they moved after the accident. 

Earlier I mentioned "interrogatories".  In California, these questions have been standardized in a form created by the judicial council.  In other words, we know what the questions will be even before we receive them.  Our office sends these questions to our clients soon after we file suit.  In other offices, they wait until they get the questions, then send them out, and then often have trouble getting the answers out in the time allowed.  This is handled by getting a continuance of the due date.  Because our clients begin working on the answers before the questions are ever received, we can take the time to do a thorough job on the answers, and we can send them out early.  It creates a very different impression of how we view our case.

While this is going on, we are coordinating getting the medical records, and reviewing them so that we can work with our clients in getting medical treatment and any special diagnostics or specialist workups that may be needed to prove an injury or treat something that is going untreated.  This needs to be completed if the insurance company is to be satisfied that the medical records support the claims being made.  If the medical workup is not complete, it is hard to prove the injuries, and impossible to convince an insurance company to pay for them.

After the defense has the interrogatory answers and the medical records, they will set a deposition.  This is a critical step, because it is where the defense attorney gets to ask questions with a court reporter taking it all down.  It is the one chance they have to see how you will come across at trial.  We see this as the best opportunity you will have to explain your case, and to provide details about the way in which your injuries interfere with your life.  From the first time we meet, we will be preparing to make the most of this opportunity.  By the time the deposition happens, you will be completely ready to do your best.  Further, because we will have provided full, complete, and useful interrogatory answers, the defense attorney will have all the information needed to explore your case in detail.  This helps everyone, because the interrogatory answers, medical records, and deposition answers should work together to leave few unanswered questions.  Open questions make insurance companies nervous, and this makes it difficult to settle a case for full value.  We want and need to provide the answers.

After the deposition, the insurance company will set an appointment with a doctor they have selected to examine you.  Typically, these doctors charge thousands of dollars for an examination that usually costs only a few hundred dollars.  Many of these doctors make a half million dollars a year, or more, by doing these defense medical examinations.  Believe me, for that kind of money, the insurance companies get some very biased and often untruthful reports.

It is common for attorneys to send their clients to these examinations with little preparation, and no one to go with them.  We make it a practice to set limits on these examinations and often negotiate what will take place.  We are known for being willing to go to court to protect our clients from improper examinations, such as examination that includes irrelevant parts of the body.  We don't allow extensive "second depositions" where a doctor abuses the examination history taking to ask improper questions or to probe old history that isn't relevant.

Some firms send someone other than an attorney to these examinations.  That works if the person is properly trained.  However, our normal practice is to go with you, and we tape record everything that takes place.  That way, if there is a dispute about what was said, we have evidence.

Once the defense medical examination report is complete, your case is getting ready for settlement.  At this point, we review everything we have, and look at whether anything else is needed.  Somewhere along the line, we may decide that your case needs expert testimony on one or more issues.  Maybe we need to find a specialist who has expertise with one of your injuries.  We have the medical records, but we may ask for medical reports if something needs amplification. 

Of course, if we need experts on motorcycle related issues, we know the best experts, and we work with them regularly.

At this point, we are ready to make a demand.  Sometimes this is done in conjunction with a settlement conference at the court.  Sometimes we set up a private mediation.  The insurance companies actually take less than 2-3% of their cases to trial.  The settlement process involves convincing them that your case should be paid as opposed to going to trial. 

Look at the preparation that has gone into the case up to this point.  Do you think that the insurance company wants to go to trial on a case that is this well prepared?  Of course not.  They are looking for the cases that are not prepared, or that have issues they think they can win.  They are not looking for big losses.

Settling your case as opposed to going to trial typically saves you tens of thousands of dollars.  Better yet, if you settle before the pre-trial expert depositions, you can save even more thousands of dollars.  This is why our firm makes every effort to get your case processed correctly and in a timely fashion.  It leads to better results, and far less cost and hassle.

Even so, on some occasions, trial is necessary.  In these instances, your case is well prepared, and the small issues have been identified and handled if possible.  You have the best chance of success that you can have, and the confidence of knowing that you are ready to go, with no unneccessary surprises.  I won't get into the many things that need to be done to get the case ready for trial.  However, exhibits demonstrating the injury may be necessary.  These can include drawings  based on x-rays or MRI'S, portions of the medical records, enlargement of photographs, and many creative exhibits to show the jury what took place.  Jury instructions need to be prepared.  Motions are made to the court to exclude material that should not be allowed into evidence.  Opening and closing statements have to be written.  You need to be prepared to take the stand.  Experts and doctors need to be lined up, and juggled as the schedule changes.  Witnesses need to be lined up and prepared to come to court when needed.

Sometimes the trial date is shifted or changed, and all of this starts again.

While anyone can make mistakes, we work hard to see that each of these steps leads to a good result for our clients.  After all, that's why they come to our firm and recommend us to their friends.

OK, we all know that ear plugs are the way to go, and also illegal unless they are fitted by an audiologist.  I have written in the past about how easily your hearing is damaged by wind noise in a relatively short period of riding.

Our riding enjoyment varies dramatically depending on whether or not the helmet leaves us with irritating sound, and some of us like to ride with Ipods or other sound in addition to the exhaust and wind noise.  It's a lot to deal with.

Webbikeworld.com has a very cool article posted, and they include sound clips of various helmets.  This is the best attempt I've seen to help you pick out a helmet.

Take a look at this article.  It should be useful when you buy your next helmet:

http://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcycle-helmets/helmet-noise.htm

Inattentive drivers seem like the greatest avoidable threat to motorcycle riders, but no one seems to have a real solution.

I have always liked the Muth rear view mirrors that incorporate a turn signal into the mirror, so that the mirror itself contains red turn arrows.  Particularly at night, these are very visible, and unusual enough to demand attention.

Finally, these mirrors are available for motorcycle use.  Unfortunately, only the BMW LT and Honda Goldwing gets them for now.  

They are so very cool, and a great safety item, that I hope more universal models are made available soon. 

From where I sit, the clear threat to motorcycle riders is inattentive motorists.  Of course, there are always going to be single rider accidents, but I don't see those being dramatically affected by anything that NHTS could do.  (Other than promoting track days).

As a result, it is interesting that Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin has introduced legislation to prevent NHTSA from using its funding to lobby the states to pass helmet laws.  Instead, he wants the NHTSA focus to be on "accident prevention".

Clearly, I agree that we should not be funding one government agency to influence other government agencies.  I choose to wear a helmet, but helmet laws requiring everyone to wear a helmet have been controversial since the first one was passed. Fifty plus years of experience with helmet laws has not produced a consensus, and I don't see one coming.

On the other hand, inattentive drivers cause more avoidable accidents than almost anything else.  A steady stream of cell phone users, drivers putting on makeup, drivers looking at maps, drivers fooling with the radio or changing CDs, and drivers simply not paying attention cause untold numbers of accidents.

I don't know how to make drivers pay attention, but it seems obvious that continuing to supply the means for distraction is not helping.