Yesterday I posted Chasing Value: Harley-Davidson (HOG) looking on down the road and actually bought a few shares. Late in the day I received a comment from one of our frequent readers whose opinions I have grown to respect, although he can be a little harsh at times. This reader raised some interesting points I thought worth some consideration. He wrote:

• "I don't like the stock. I see it as a luxury item for aging Baby Boomers. The ones who always wanted one, (or who) already own one. The younger generations aren't interested. I also think you're making a classic mistake when you speculate by saying "if it returns to its former level within the next few years."

He is correct that there is no assurance a stock will return to past glory. It is entirely possible that a company may fade away, just like Levi Strauss did when competitors stormed its castle from all sides with cheaper products, fancier products, variations on a theme and jeans made by other strong brands that extended their product lines into Levi's historic stronghold.

Similar things are happening now to Harley-Davidson (NYSE: HOG) as Honda Motors, Yamaha, Kowasaki and Suzuki take on "style and look" of the classic American "HOG" ride. They do it cheaper, with less effort and even borrow American icons like eagles and flags to promote their machines. They also offer a smoother ride in many cases, as Harley clings to the past and continues producing motorcycles with what it calls "edgy" (read "rough") rides. It is also true that younger motorcycle enthusiasts do not appreciate the Harley mystique in the same way as Baby Boomers have.

According to a newly issued report, the average American spends almost a full work week each year trapped in traffic, burning up an extra 26 gallons of gas. The Texas Transportation Institute's 2007 Urban Mobility Report estimates the cost of this problem at $710 per traveler, not including the price of blood pressure medication, cell phone minutes used and horn-exacerbated hearing loss. The results represent a 270% growth in delay time since 1982.

Among very large urban areas, you drivers in Los Angeles and environs are the most tortured, with 72 hours of your life squandered in traffic per year, followed by SF, DC, and Atlanta at 60 hours, Dallas/Ft. Worth at 58, and Houston at 56 hours. The northeastern seaboard cities all finished in the 38-46 hours-wasted range.

If you hate congestion, you might consider moving to Buffalo (11 hours), Cleveland (13 hours), Pittsburgh (16 hours) or Kansas City (17 hours). Of course, the extra 60 hours Californians spend on the freeway could be spent with the top down, catching rays, something Buffalo drivers might willingly trade for when zipping home quickly in the midst of winter.

Among the steps the study points out that can reduce congestion are

• Freeway entrance ramp metering
• Freeway incident management programs (I humbly suggest shooting those who slow down to rubberneck at accident sites)
• Traffic signal coordination
• Increase roadway capacity (duh)