Big Ben is a f'n retard

[TommyD]

Big Ben is a f'n retard

> I agree 100% that a helmet SHOULD be worn by all riders,but making it a law where you have no choice would be a sticking point for me too. As a pro athlete,he should have known better,but in his defense he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time,this accident was in traffic,and I'm sure it's not the first time he's ever rode that bike. He wasn't speeding thank God,or he'd surely be dead and I'd miss a chance to see him try and lead the Steelers to a repeat,and this time make it a convincing win. Another thing I will say in his defense is that even though riding in actual traffic without a helmet is not the smartest thing to do,at least he didn't ride his Huyabusa into a parking block at 35,without a helmet or another soul in the parking lot,like Kellen Winslow. Tommy D.

[Black Mariah]

It changed my vision,it was hot..and worst of all I could not hear a god damn thing!

A GOOD helmet won't restrict your vision at all. The heat falls into the "deal with it" category. As for hearing... I guess you've never ridden in a car with the windows up, right?

Bring me whatever lameass anti-helmet arguments you want. I'll shoot them down like they were the Dallas Coyboys Cheerleaders kneeling in front of Peter North on Free Kneepad Day.

[Black Mariah]

I agree 100% that a helmet SHOULD be worn by all riders,but making it a law where you have no choice would be a sticking point for me too.

Why? Is it also a sticking point that drivers have to be licensed?

[thetroy]

I'd have to look up exact figures, but I'm pretty sure this qualatative statement is true:

There are a lot more deaths from head injuries in automobile accidents than there are in motorcycle accidents.

So why don't we require people to wear helmets in cars?

[VitaminG]

is that per capita of bike riders vs car occupants? A lot more people drive than ride. And how current are these figures you aren't quoting?

Many head injuries sustained in cars used to be because occupants weren't wearing seatbelts. The ol' bounce the head off the steering wheel thing, poke it through the windscreen, or bounce it off the metal dash of your '57 Chev, if you were the passenger.

[Black Mariah]

I'd have to look up exact figures, but I'm pretty sure this qualatative statement is true:

There are a lot more deaths from head injuries in automobile accidents than there are in motorcycle accidents.

So why don't we require people to wear helmets in cars?

Because numbers lie. To say something like "12,983 people died as a result of head injuries in cars, while only 3,873 died because of head injuries on bikes" totally ignores the larger picture, which is that THERE ARE FAR MORE CARS THAN BIKES ON THE ROAD. That 12,983 may be out of 753,924,659,236,y98,532 cars compared to 3,873 out of 4,000 bikes. Your argument is flawed, and stupid to begin with.

[RacerX]

I see you're reading your copy of "How to win friends and influence people" again Mike!







Your name's Mike, right?

[MetalMedal II]

I'd have to look up exact figures, but I'm pretty sure this qualatative statement is true:

There are a lot more deaths from head injuries in automobile accidents than there are in motorcycle accidents.

So why don't we require people to wear helmets in cars?

It may be true, but there are exponentially more cars on the road than bikes; thus, cars have more accidents.
It would be more fair compare the head injury death as a percentage of all auto accidents, and of all bike accidents. It's likely that the numbers would show that head injury death occurs more often in a bike accident vs auto.

[charvelguy]

I saw this the news on this right after it happened and expected a post about it.. surprised I didn't see one until now.

Busa, no license, no helmet.. and given a bum left turn in traffic..
Given the damage to the car and bike.. he is lucky he ain't being force fed from a tube.

And Spaceace.. the helmets they make today are far more comfortable than the ones they made 20 years ago..but they do take some getting used to. Just like when you wear glasses or contacts for the first time, you do have to acclimate to them.
Its like a welder saying he's not going to wear a facemask, or me not having my hair tied back when operating a high speed machine... safety is there for a reason.. ignore it and no matter how careful YOU are... being a defensive operator ain't going to help you when you hit that time when you can't avoid it,whether you made the mistake or not.

I guess one can chalk it up to "well, if its my time its my time-gonna die someday"

[thetroy]

Why do you have to compare percentages? I'm talking about which laws will save the most people. A person dying on a motorcycle should not be more significant than someone dying in a car just because there are less motorcycle accidents.

Edit: Looking stuff up now, will post as I find things.

14.9 per 100,000 people died from a motor vehicle traffic injury in the US 2001 (National Vital Statistics Report, CDC, 2003)
1 per 100,000 motorcyclists died from injury in traffic motor vehicle accident in the US 2001 (National Vital Statistics Report, CDC, 2003)

[Black Mariah]

Why do you have to compare percentages? I'm talking about which laws will save the most people. A person dying on a motorcycle should not be more significant than someone dying in a car just because there are less motorcycle accidents.

The number of accidents has nothing to do with it. The number of RIDERS does. Yes, a person dying on a bike is more *STATISTICALLY* significant because they account for a larger percentage of the riding populace than a single driver counts towards the entire car driving populace.

[VitaminG]

you have to compare percentages. It's not about drivers or riders being more significant than the other. It's misinformation to simply state that 1,000 drivers were killed in accidents compared to 100 bike riders without giving that info context. What if that was 1,000 drivers out of a possible 1,000,000, compared to 100 riders out of 500? Not to slant this argument in any particular direction, but in my example, you can see that the percentage of drivers killed is significantly less than those of riders killed from their respective groups, even though the number of drivers killed is higher.

Also, your originally statement referred to deaths due to head injuries. Your supporting figures make no mention of head injuries. In fact, the "1 in 100,000" referred to in the 2nd statistic may comprise a portion of the "14.9 in 100,000" in the 1st.

[MetalMedal II]

Why do you have to compare percentages? I'm talking about which laws will save the most people. A person dying on a motorcycle should not be more significant than someone dying in a car just because there are less motorcycle accidents.

Edit: Looking stuff up now, will post as I find things.

14.9 per 100,000 people died from a motor vehicle traffic injury in the US 2001 (National Vital Statistics Report, CDC, 2003)
1 per 100,000 motorcyclists died from injury in traffic motor vehicle accident in the US 2001 (National Vital Statistics Report, CDC, 2003)

Of course, each life is a important as another, but you need to be realistic of who will wear protective gear. I bet it's true that if everyone who drives a car to work beginning tomorrow also wears a motorcycle helmet, that this will reduce the number of accident-related head injury...but who's gonna do that? There's many epidemiologic studies that look at this type of thing.

[thetroy]

you have to compare percentages. It's not about drivers or riders being more significant than the other. It's misinformation to simply state that 1,000 drivers were killed in accidents compared to 100 bike riders without giving that info context. What if that was 1,000 drivers out of a possible 1,000,000, compared to 100 riders out of 500? Not to slant this argument in any particular direction, but in my example, you can see that the percentage of drivers killed is significantly less than those of riders killed from their respective groups, even though the number of drivers killed is higher.

Also, your originally statement referred to deaths due to head injuries. Your supporting figures make no mention of head injuries. In fact, the "1 in 100,000" referred to in the 2nd statistic may comprise a portion of the "14.9 in 100,000" in the 1st.

I talked about head injuries only since we're talking about helmets. I don't know yet what fraction of the .0149% of people died due to head injuries. I was also assuming that the 1 was included in the 14.9 quoted.

I'm simply trying to make the claim that helmets would save more lives in cars than they will on motorcycles.

I know how statistics work, I'm an MIT student.

[Black Mariah]

I talked about head injuries only since we're talking about helmets. I don't know yet what fraction of the .0149% of people died due to head injuries. I was also assuming that the 1 was included in the 14.9 quoted.

I'm simply trying to make the claim that helmets would save more lives in cars than they will on motorcycles.

I know how statistics work, I'm an MIT student.

You student status means absolutely nothing with regard to statistical knowledge. Don't act like it does, unless your major is in some kind of mathematic field related to statistics. All of my statistics are pure bullshit, but I admit this up front.

Your claim that helmets in cars would save lives is probably correct, however you are treading into the incredibly dangerous world of "straw man" arguments, also know as "really fucking stupid statements that do nothing but make you look like a right ponce". Nobody wears a helmet in cars because automobiles already achieve an acceptable risk factor. Minor accidents won't injure you severely like they can on a motorcycle. It takes a LOT to make a car crumble. It takes comparatively little to make the human body crumble.