| Author | Message | ||
     Daddio |
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/02/16/5 0-states-ranked-for-highest-motorcycle-ownership.a spx What I find interesting, is that the top 10 are cold-weather states. And yes, California has almost as many motorcycles as South Dakota has people. That's OK, as long as the Californians stay there. | ||
| Fltwistygirl |
Good article, thanks for posting. What I found interesting is Wyoming and Florida. I thought Wyoming would have less ownership, and Florida, with all its retirees and trike owners, would have more. | ||
| Kev_m |
Interesting numbers, but crap article, ranked by a moron who obviously doesn't know many people with bikes. The whole thing is predicated on population vs. bike registrations, ASSUMING (drink) that people only own ONE BIKE each. When, if you think about it, MOST riders (at least most that I know) have more than one, and many have a bunch of bikes. | ||
| Uncle |
Just curious Kev, why would you call him a moron? Unless I'm missing something, comparing population to registrations would exactly be the method to determine these numbers. And if people owned more than one bike that would only further substantiate the rankings. | ||
| Kev_m |
Unless I'm the moron (and it's possible) I read it that he is comparing simply # of people to # of registrations and drawing the conclusion that X out of Y number of people you meet on the street have a bike. But although it's not a universal truth, anyone who has had any significant exposure to motorcycles knows that a large portion (don't know that I'd call it 50% but I bet it's close give or take a bit) of motorcyclists have MORE THAN ONE BIKE. Meaning his conclusion is complete and utter nonsense, since it is based on the premise of ONE OWNER PER REGISTRATION "To put this staggering number into perspective, out of every 36 people you meet in the U.S., one of them probably has a motorcycle" So from that point forward the data is relatively useless. You could argue that # of bikes is still potentially useful to say an advertising company that wants to target motorcyclists regionally in that a swing of hundreds of thousands of bikes from one state to another should also mean there are more motorcyclists in said state, but you really can't be sure. The data could reflect differences in wealth or tendency to have larger collections etc. So if he's going to publish data with an analysis, I would say he should do a better job understanding it. (Message edited by kev m on February 19, 2014) | ||
| Pwnzor |
California has almost as many motorcycles as South Dakota has people. That's OK, as long as the Californians stay there. The one and only thing I truly miss about California is the ability to legally take advantage of the ability to split lanes. I used to commute on the bike all the time, now it gathers dust and sucks up insurance payments. If I can't at least filter to the front at a red light without being ticketed, then I see absolutely no reason to expose myself to the elements and the additional risk that goes along with riding. I've got a motorcycle for sale, btw. | ||
| Ljm |
I think it is an interesting article. I ride frequently in two of the states in the mid-range (Alaska and Arizona). I can say that a factor not covered here is how much people ride. In states with similar ownership numbers, in Alaska you see literally hundreds of motorcycles in a day in a smallish city (when there is no snow), while in Arizona it is much more rare to see one. In AZ, people won't ride when it is too cold (say 45) or too hot (90+), so while the numbers are similar the riders are different. | ||
| 46champ |
What is the deal with Texas Louisiana and Mississippi. You people are in a climate where you could easily ride 10 months out of the year. | ||
| Kev_m |
Maybe a lot of people in the cold states horde bikes to feed our jones during the winter (see my previous criticism of the numbers), and perhaps we also appreciate the warm days more (since they're more rare) so we scurry all about like squirrels looking for nuts in the fall. |
