Some of you may recall that the surviving spouse of a guy who bought a wide glide without anti-lock brakes filed a lawsuit against HD claiming the bike was unreasonably dangerous because anti-lock brakes were optional, not standard, and her husband bought his bike without the AL brakes. he was killed when he locked up the brakes to avoid a left turning car. A few days ago the jury held that the bike was not unreasonably dangerous.
http://www.lexology.com/library/deta...5-3e6fef04f933

There is another similar case in Texas. Hope it goes the same way.

 

You know what's dangers? Left turners. Why didn't she go after them?

Also no one forced him to buy a bike without ABS. And depending on when the person turned in front it may not have helped anyway.


I understand her grief, hopefully she finds some peace.

 

You can rest assured, the ABS angle wasn't the grieving widow's idea. No doubt suggested by a slick talking, ambulance chasing member of her local Bar Association.

 

They weren't unreasonably dangerous for 100 years.
I must have missed the lawsuit when they went from drum to disc.

 

Having locked up the rear wheel on a bike without abs and on a bike with abs I am of the opinion that a bike without abs is unreasonably dangerous.

 

Then by all means, buy one with ABS. I wondered how long it would take you to get here, yet another topic that's been beaten to death over the years.

 

What do people who rely on ABS braking systems with no experience of riding without ABS do when the ABS system fails?

 

Edit: My bad, I misread the question. The correct answer is "They crash, then sue the company that made the bike."

 

Nothing different. With ABS you can feel the brakes pulsate and the wheel doesn't really lock up.

 

I have ABS on my sportbike and not once did I feel the brakes pulsate under extreme braking.