Kevin Schwantz has issued another statement in response to the press releases put out by both the Circuit of the Americas and Dorna, concerning his legal proceedings over the case. In the press release, Schwantz lays the blame for the situation at the feet of the Circuit of the Americas, and claims they attempted to obtain the contract to organize the MotoGP race in Texas by forcing him out of the deal with Dorna. The full statement issued by Kevin Schwantz is after the jump.
After news emerged at the end of last week that Kevin Schwantz is suing the Circuit of the Americas (COTA), the track in Austin, Texas where the third US GP is to be held in 2013, attention turned to the details of just who held the contract to organize the event. In their lawsuit, Schwantz’ company 3FourTexasMGP alleged that the COTA had attempted to defraud him out of the rights to organize the race, something which the circuit denied in a press statement, with COTA claiming that Schwantz had never held a contract to organize the event.
In a statement issued by Dorna, the Spanish rights holders to the MotoGP series clarified the current legal situation between the various parties. The statement shows that both Schwantz and COTA are right: Dorna states that it signed a contract with both COTA and Schwantz’ company 3FourTexasMGP for the event, with Schwantz being granted the rights to organize the race, subject to being able to show he had come to an agreement with the circuit.
However, when asked by Dorna to provide the proof that he held a contract with COTA which would allow him to organize the MotoGP race there, Schwantz was unable to, and the contract was then passed to the Circuit of the Americas. COTA currently holds the rights to organize the event.
The chances of a MotoGP round taking place in Austin, Texas seem further away than ever. Yesterday, Kevin Schwantz filed suit against the Circuit of the Americas (COTA), claiming an attempt to fraudulently deprive the 1993 500cc World Champion of the rights to organize the MotoGP race that would be held at the circuit outside of Austin, Texas.
In the lawsuit, Schwantz accuses COTA of going behind his back to arrange a deal directly with Dorna to organize the Austin round of MotoGP, while Schwantz’ company, 3fourTexasMGP, has a ten-year contract to organize the race. In a statement issued tonight by the circuit press office, COTA denies that Schwantz holds any rights to organize the event.
In introducing its 2013 line-up of returning models (as well as the updated F700GS & F800GS), BMW has announced that it has made anti-locking braking systems (ABS) a standard option on all of its motorcycles. The move is a part of larger safety initiative called Safety 360, which sees the Bavarian company taking a three-pronged approach to rider safety by focusing on: safety technology in the vehicle itself, safety derived from rider equipment, and safety derived from rider training.
Pre-empting the likely introduction of laws making ABS required on all motorcycles in the European Union by 2016, BMW is the first motorcycle manufacturer to make the braking technology standard on all of its models. Fittingly, back in 1988 the German company was the first motorcycle manufacturer to introduce ABS to production motorcycles, and again is the market-leader in this space.
The US Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued an interesting report regarding the economic impact of motorcycle helmet laws, based on data from 2008-2010. While the takeaway shouldn’t surprise anyone, as it doesn’t take a genius to understand that more riders helmeted means fewer fatal crashes from motorcycles, the figures coming from the CDC with that observation are a bit shocking.
According to the statistical analysis done by the CDC, riders wearing helmets during a motorcycle crash were 37% less likely to receive fatal injuries than riders that were not wearing a helmet. Additionally, states with universal helmet usage laws are estimated to have save 4x as much in economic costs associated with medical, productivity, insurance, legal, and other expenses. For 2010, the total economic impact of having helmeted riders topped $3 billion in savings. Chewy.
Choosing to forgo a legal career and instead blog about motorcycles for a living, I of course have to comment on an interesting case that is about to hit a federal court in South Carolina, which concerns whether motorcyclists have a constitutional right to perform a burnout on their motorcycles. Before we all have a collective eyeroll on legitimizing squidly behavior on city streets, consider the central fact of this case is that the behavior in question was not preformed on a public road, but instead on private property.
The issue here stems from a biker hangout know for its burnout competitions, as Suck Bang Blow of Murrells Inlet, South Carolina found its permit for hosting biker parties to include an interesting outright ban on motorcycle burnouts for the 2012 rally season. This differs a bit from previous years, as past permits from Horry County simply limited the hours and locations that such activities could occur (from noon to 9pm, at the back of the building).
Calling the noise from the burnouts a nuisance, the county has banned all burnouts within its borders, stating it has the right to do so under state law (presumably that reasoning stems from basic nuisance analysis in tort law). SBB disagrees however, and after winning an emergency injunction, has taken the case to federal court. Arguing that burnouts are a protected form of speech that display male machismo (our words, not theirs), the biker bar hopes that federal judges will find that the act of performing a burnout is an action protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
If you haven’t heard of the motorcycle rider who is suing BMW and Corbin seats for causing a lasting erection, then you have likely been living under a rock for the past few days. First reported by Courthouse News, the story has swept the pages of motorcycle blogs around the world, and has even garnered serious mainstream media attention. There is a reason this story is going viral, right? Our inner-child loves a good dick joke, and the setup on how a motorcycle has made a man erect virtually sells its comedic self. There is of course the “damn lawyers” angle as well, which makes for a nice one-two punch.
As you can imagine, the bulk of the commentary, both from readers and from professional journalists, has centered around the absurdity of the claim, with even jokes being offered about how an aged BMW rider should be thanking the German motorcycle brand for saving him money on Viagra, etc. The situation reminds me of the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit. You know the story, right?. A woman buys a cup of coffee at McDonald’s, spills it on herself while in the car, and sues the bastards for her incompetence. True to litigious American form, the unthinkable happened, and a jury awarded this gold-digging woman millions of dollars. It is repudiating, and it stands for everything that is wrong with the legal system, or so we would be lead to believe — especially by the media.
As I sat back this weekend and watched the comments flood in about the story, I realized that we the media (myself included) have done a huge disservice to the public at large — an act I thought I would never do. We offered up this story to mass consumption knowing full well the headline chasing/link-baiting were we about to commit. You see, I know a thing or two about the McDonald’s coffee case, and how that story was pitched by the media. Sitting in my first-year torts class in law school, our professor baited his trap and we walked right into it when he offered up the same premise as I have done above. How dare someone sue over some spilled coffee! How dare this man sue for an erection! Whether or not the seat caused it even!
The photo you see above is of Stella Liebeck, the 79-year-old grandmother who spilled 190°F coffee on herself while in a parked car, and suffered third-degree burns on her thighs, pelvic, groin, and genitalia. If that photo shocks and offends you, then I have made my unapologetic point. But what is truly shocking is the full-story behind Stella’s injuries and “frivolous” lawsuit. I have republished the account of her story after the jump, but hopefully it sheds a different light on the plight of our BMW rider, who claims to have had painful, uncomfortable, year-long lasting erections.
After a four-hour ride on his motorcycle, one BMW owner realized that he had a problem. Namely, a problem with his erect penis, which after some waiting would not subside. Now while most of us would cheekily reply that such a state is the sign of a good motorcycle ride, this San Francisco Bay Area native is not laughing, and has filed suit in the Superior Court of San Francisco County (CGC-12-520316) against BMW Motorrad North American and Corbin-Pacific. Saying that the motorcycle and its dealer-installed custom motorcycle seat have caused priapism, the man is suing for lost wages, personal injury, medical expenses, product liability, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
While we are excited and anxiously awaiting the AGV PistaGP helmet, one American helmet manufacturer is less-than-thrilled with the Italian company’s latest offering: Del Rosario. A small boutique firm based out of New York, Del Rosario’s aim was to bring to market helmet designs that were “caught up to the rest of the industry.” Showing off a number of CAD renders since its inception, Del Rosario has clearly missed its late-2011 shipping date, and as far as we can tell, has not actually produced any physical prototypes or finished models.
Getting a fair bit of press and then falling off the radar, Del Rosario is back in the limelight as the company sent a worded warning to AGV through its corporate Facebook page. According to a message posted by Del Rosario on its social media portal, one of the company’s former advisors showed AGV Del Rosario’s stylebook, and now three years later the PistaGP has emerged with a shell design that has some obviously similar characteristics to Del Rosario’s renders.
I ride bikes for a living, in case you didn’t know this already. I ride more miles on two wheels in a year, than the average American does in their automobile (I put more four-wheel miles down a year than the average American does as well, if that gives you any idea how much of Asphalt & Rubber is written while on the road). With all this riding, I’ve become increasingly concerned over my hearing, as I’d like still to have it when I’m older. Thus for my own personal benefit, I’ve been trying out the different kinds of ear protection that are available to motorcyclists, as well as a variety of helmets from manufacturers (articles surely to ensue).
So when the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America published a study titled “Aeroacoustic Sources of Motorcycle Helmet Noise” in which the various frequencies and decibel levels of helmet-generated noise were measured and tested, I became very interested in the study’s findings. Bear in mind I’m a staunch believer in helmet laws and riding with a full-face helmet (my apologies to the Libertarians in the group), so when the study suggested that my two main concerns regarding my head may be at odds with each other, it piqued my interest.