State bans loud exhausts... fatalities jump 18% in one year!

Discussion in 'The Perfect Line and Other Riding Myths' started by wiseblood, Mar 22, 2013.

  1. duck

    duck Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Oddometer:
    10,403
    Location:
    Seattle (Berkeley with rain)
    RE: Darwinism.

    Guess what? Your chances of suffering a fatality riding with a helmet are much greater than your doing so while driving a cage. Is that Darwin in action too?

    If you truly believe in Darwinism then sell your fucking bike!
    #41
  2. baloneyskin daddy

    baloneyskin daddy bikaholic

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Oddometer:
    2,177
    Location:
    southcentral PA.
    They should ban riding motorcycles while drinking large sodas too.:rofl
    #42
  3. It'sNotTheBike

    It'sNotTheBike Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Oddometer:
    704

    I know the above is a joke. But the OP wasn't joking,
    which proves that he takes his own views as worthy of
    being forced on the rest of us, and that is a fundamental
    error in cognition.


    What really needs to be banned is busybodies who think they
    know what is best for everyone else.


    We all get to make choices. Some make poor choices,
    some make better choices, but when you start wanting
    to take away the freedom to choose, you'd better be ready
    to rock and roll, and I am not talking about music
    or dancing. Spineless losers in the U.K. have allowed such
    garbage to be rammed down their throats, but not all Americans
    are going to passively sit by and allow the same to be done to them.



    .
    #43
  4. Nick Minneeesotin

    Nick Minneeesotin Kawi Rider

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    Oddometer:
    392
    Location:
    USA - Minnesota
    Helmet saved my chin and potentially my life in a 55mph t-bone crash! Minnesota MC helmet is not required but it is on my bike by me!

    [​IMG]
    #44
  5. single

    single Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2012
    Oddometer:
    121
    The first study (NHTSA) was a study done over three years, with over 100k motorcycle crashes involved. Throughout the study you will notice the incredibly small numbers they are using to reach their conclusions:

    Head injury (unhelmeted vs helmeted)
    Serious 517 (2.9%) 412 (1.6%)
    Severe 693 (3.8%) 606 (2.4%)
    Critical 322 (1.8%) 262 (1.0%)

    Facial Injury (unhelmeted vs helmeted)
    Moderate 464 (2.6%) 439 (1.7%)
    Serious 3 (0.0%) 2 (0.0%)

    Neck Injury (unhelmeted vs helmeted)

    Moderate 2 (0.0%) 4 (0.0%)
    Serious 6 (0.0%) 14 (0.1%)

    (Notice neck injuries are more common with helmeted riders?)

    Thorax Injury (unhelmeted vs helmeted)

    Serious 1,073 (5.9%) 1,807 (7.1%)
    Severe 227 (1.3%) 434 (1.7%)
    Critical 2 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

    (Again, do helmets actually hurt here? Bigger % differences then head injuries even)

    etc. etc. etc.

    The numbers show less then a hundred cases between helmeted and unhelmeted riders showing serious head injuries out of 100k cases. The numbers are simply so small that it's a very weak conclusion to say that helmets make any difference whatsoever, any more then it is to say that helmets actually increase neck injuries. The methodology used reached a dramatic conclusion concerning helmet effectively, but looking at the actual numbers and the conclusion is very very underwhelming.

    Your second source (IIHS) makes the same mistakes as your original post. Cherry picking numbers to make a dramatic conclusion. No information about endorsement numbers, motorcycle sales, miles ridden. Just two numbers and a bold conclusion. We need to do better.
    #45
  6. single

    single Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2012
    Oddometer:
    121
    Exactly right. It amazes me how people can get so self righteous over this issue and so easily call other riders idiots all the while hiding behind pseudo intellectual nonsense to stand on their soap box.

    If increasing your risk is darwinism, ride the bus, or better yet, never leave the house.

    And while we are cherry picking numbers to prove our points how about this:

    http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

    From 1994 to 2005 more non-motorist pedestrians were killed then motorcyclists. Better start lobbying for those pedestrian helmet laws guys.
    #46
  7. wiseblood

    wiseblood Hall Monitor

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Oddometer:
    13,619
    Location:
    New York City
    There are far, FAR more motorcycles on the roads in Europe than in the US, so they must know a thing or two... :deal
    #47
  8. randyo

    randyo Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Oddometer:
    1,807
    Location:
    Northern NewEngland
    not sure what Darwin has to do with helmets and living or not, if his theories applied, we'd have thicker skulls and not need helmets
    #48
  9. wiseblood

    wiseblood Hall Monitor

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Oddometer:
    13,619
    Location:
    New York City
    :rolleyes

    Don't worry about my reputation. I'll be just fine. :freaky

    For the last three+ years I've been involved in motorcycle advocacy in NY. (NYMSTF.org :deal) Our group has lobbied the city (NYC) and state (NY) on behalf of motocyclists. I've met with the community boards in NYC to promote motorcycle issues so many times that eventually I was asked to become a member of their board.

    So, you could say I'm a bit more interested in this issue than some people.

    If you're not interested in this issue, feel free to find another thread to ramble in. It's a free country. Busy-bodies like you shouldn't be telling anyone else what they can and cannot talk about, anywhere they damn please. :freaky
    #49
  10. slartidbartfast

    slartidbartfast Love those blue pipes

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2003
    Oddometer:
    5,030
    Location:
    Southern Louisiana or Southern England or ...
    I know you're just trying to make a point but the analogy with smoking is very poor. Someone else's choice not to wear a helmet while riding doesn't have a "second hand" impact on my health, nor make me and my clothes stink like an ashtray after a visit to a restaurant.

    Smoking makes a much better analogy for phone usage while driving because that DOES affect other people. In one 30-mile drive yesterday I nearly had a collision with one phone-jammed-in-ear driver and was delayed by two texting drivers who sat at green lights until they went red again. I could hardly have cared less if I'd seen a helmetless motorcyclist go by, although I would have called them an idiot.
    #50
  11. cliffy109

    cliffy109 Long timer

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Oddometer:
    1,797
    Location:
    Spotsylvania, VA
    Perhaps I wasn't totally clear. I am not comparing smoking with riding. Clearly there is a big difference that you correctly point out. My point was that those who poo-poo the slippery slope danger can look at this issue for a real example of how it works. It works over a long period of time in a very incremental way. Nobody in the 70's was calling for smoking to be banned. They would have been laughed out of the halls of congress. Today, things are a lot different and it is because of a consistent line of logic and each time they score a victory, they apply the same logic to the next incremental step.

    It is this incrementalism that defines the slippery slope. If helmet laws save lives, then maybe requiring more gear will save more. We could save even more if we make a tiered license system. We could save more by limiting engine displacement. How about speed governors? Well golly... couldn't we save even more by just getting rid of them altogether? The logic doesn't change if you follow it to its conclusion.

    Not realistic? Maybe not. But at what point do we stop on that logical progression? I would rather not try to justify why one thing is good yet the next step is bad. I would rather just argue that people are free to live (or die) with the consequences of their adult choices.
    #51
  12. DAKEZ

    DAKEZ Long timer

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Oddometer:
    19,747
    Location:
    OR

    He can't because the insurance study found that it was almost a statistic wash. :1drink
    #52
  13. baloneyskin daddy

    baloneyskin daddy bikaholic

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Oddometer:
    2,177
    Location:
    southcentral PA.
    I have a son who has a thick skull ,at least that's what all his teachers said.:lol3
    #53
  14. bwalsh

    bwalsh UUU, UUU!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Oddometer:
    12,417
    Location:
    Helltown
    Don't quit your day job...:rofl

    http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html


    Or this...

    http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/costs.html

    Generally speaking, any person who doesn't have insurance or adequate insurance will ultimately drive up the cost for everyone else, be it having no helmet in an accident, falling down steps in their house or jay walking across the street.


    Where's your "insurance study" link Dakez??? :deal
    #54
  15. JimVonBaden

    JimVonBaden "Cool" Aid!

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Oddometer:
    55,316
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    I took it as informational. State allows riders to choose, many choose not to wear helmets and die at an incread rate of 18%.

    Choose what you like, but be informed.

    Without this information it is hard to tell the real effects of helmetless riding. States like Florida have a higher number of deaths because helmets are optional, combined with a year round riding season.

    Jim :brow
    #55
  16. advNZer?

    advNZer? Long timer

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Oddometer:
    2,967
    Location:
    Wellington,New Zealand
    there might have been 18 percent more riders too
    #56
  17. JimVonBaden

    JimVonBaden "Cool" Aid!

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Oddometer:
    55,316
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    So they all died? That is pretty unlikely!:deal

    Jim :brow
    #57
  18. single

    single Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2012
    Oddometer:
    121
    There was also a 19% increase in fatalities from 2009 to 2010 with absolutely no change in the helmet laws:

    http://publications.michigantrafficcrashfacts.org/2011/10yr_9.pdf

    But since that doesn't advance anyone's agenda or high horse, we'll just sweep that data point under the rug? :deal
    #58
  19. RFVC600R

    RFVC600R SAND EATER!

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Oddometer:
    3,123
    Location:
    SAND LAND
    Whether law or not, I'm wearing the helmet. ever see someone land on their face wrecking a bicycle or skateboard?? yeah that aint gonna be me on a motorcycle.

    If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine by me, but I ain't riding with ya! I've seen enough dead motorcyclists lying out on the road around here as it is. :cry Thank god its law out here, too many dip shits.
    #59
  20. DAKEZ

    DAKEZ Long timer

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Oddometer:
    19,747
    Location:
    OR
    Dead people do not accrue hospital bills. :deal

    Lidless riders die more often than those wearing helmets and helmeted riders also sustain injuries... Thus negating the argument that it is an increased cost in medical bills that the Public/state picks up.

    It was brought up and proved during the debates when Nevada was considering the new helmet mandate that there is no measurable increase in the cost to society.

    Let those who ride decide.
    #60