I’m actually more of a “find two head-to-head spots and pull through the first so I’m nosed out of the second” kind of guy. I claim it’s because my bike doesn’t have a reverse, but it’s honestly because I’m lazy.

If someone has their signal on as they approach an open spot, begins slowing down and angling themselves to go in to the spot, yeah, they’re an ignorant dildo. You’d have to be a complete moron to misinterpret their intent.

Not that I want to recommend confrontation, but I have gotten out of my vehicle and gone right over to the driver’s window for that. You either get them to move, or you get a free scrap. Either way, you feel better.

Do people really get annoyed at people for backing in? I honestly don’t think I’ve ever once gotten upset at someone for that.

This isn’t a debate, the correct answer is to find two back-to-back open spots so you can pull forward through the first, and be pointing nose out in the second. Big brain move, right there.

I honestly think the bigger issue is in mindset. In North America and Europe, moving to a higher budget for cars is rarely “move up trims on the same model”, but more often “move up to the next size model”. The conversation when I was at Ford wasn’t “My budget is between $16K Canadian and $24K Canadian, show me the SE…

Human tastes like pork, apparently.

I don’t disagree. I was hoping that by pointing out that they’re making things less safe with their selfish driving they’d smarten up, but apparently that was too much to ask from an individual whose IQ and shoe size are the same number.

I don’t use Nextdoor, unfortunately. Heck, I don’t even use the Facebook app.

They’ve been stupid for years. Suzuki recently dropped the VanVan 200, DR-Z200S, TU250X, GW250 and Burgman 400. Yamaha recently dropped the WR250R, SMax, and BWS50. Why did so many of their little bikes get dropped? Because the emissions targets on smaller bikes are too hard to hit, so they’re better off just only…

They aren’t wrong. As much as the enthusiast in me despises it, the vast majority of the buying public doesn’t care. They’re fine with “performance” SUV trims. Hatchbacks basically exist solely as entry-level vehicles at this point. Making fast, expensive versions of them is chasing a non-existent market.

“Sorry for intrudin’ on your pickup crash, eh?”

I’d imagine getting that much momentum on a 1971 Ford F-150 wouldn’t be possible in the first place.

Nah man, my condolences on that. I totally get the frustration.

Harley essentially shuttered their brand and used their R&D for the LiveWire. But they retain the ownership rights to the brand, unfortunately.

I’m acutely aware of the reference, my point is, I could see the courts honestly thinking this is a good idea, based upon some of the stupid decisions I’ve seen them make.

There was only ever 349 F50s in the wild, and there’s probably a lot less now. Let’s not recommend destroying them because the courts are too stupid to make an actual ruling.

Yep. That one should be a simple case of: Sucks for you, but go after the seller.

Am I missing something, or would the correct answer for ownership not be Paolo: The guy who actually owned the vehicle at the time of the theft. Yes, for the others who thought they bought it, it sucks, but that should be a lawsuit between them and the seller.

Harley Davidson owns the brand outright, no one else could bring them back.