Big Ben is a f'n retard

[VitaminG]

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.

I know why you spoke of head injuries, but your statistics don't support your argument.

I also know what you are claiming. But none of your evidence so far bears that out. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you are going to make an argument, support your argument already. So far you've provided nothing to support your case.

For example, of the 14.9 quoted, how many were head injuried related car accidents? "Motor vehicles" is a pretty broad description, which might encapsulate cars, 4WDs, trucks, motor bikes, etc etc. All we know so far is that 14.9 per 100,000 people died compared to 1 per 100,000 motorcyclists. How many of the people in the first category also fall into the second category? Also by comparing "people" to the more exacting "motorcyclists" you are comparing trees to oranges.

I'm glad you know how statistics work. A hammer can be a useful tool too, if you know which end to hit a nail with...

[khabibissell]

Black Mariah hit it on the head (no pun intended). The same accident that would be a minor fender bender in a car could be a fatality for a motorcyclist.

[thetroy]

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.

Eh, every major here requires at least 1 term of stats (usually more like 3) but that's not the main point here.

If 40,000 or so deaths per year in this country is an acceptable number to you then fine. I've been trying to look up better numbers but http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ doesn't seem to load for me and I'd rather practice guitar then continue googling.

@VitaminG
I don't feel the need to prove my claim is correct, if you don't believe it feel free to prove it incorrect.

[VitaminG]

If 40,000 or so deaths per year in this country is an acceptable number to you then fine.

who the hell send anything of the kind? We're just asking you to back up your claims. You keep trying to derail the conversation with sensational left field distractions like "If 40,000 or so deaths is acceptable to you" and suggesting that anyone here is commenting on the relative significance of rider deaths vs drivers. You should put your skills in evasive maneuvering to good use and go into politics.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm genuinely interested in some more information. But apparently we can make any fatuous claim about road safety we like around here and the onus is on everyone else to prove us wrong, rather than back up our claim with any real statistics.

You know, 1 in 3 people reading this thread will die sometime next week in a fiery collision with an oil tanker. I have statistics supporting that, but don't have time to look them up for you. And I know statistics - I studied applied maths in high school.

[RacerX]

fatuous

Kudos Gary, for using that word in a sentence!

[Tetsuo]

I am dumb enough to ride without a helmet sometimes. I admit it and I know it is dumb but on little local rides I do it.

[atomic charvel guy]

It took you guys a long time to pick up on this. Here's a guy that wears more gear on the field than just about anyone, except hockey players maybe. The game is now played where a QB is more protected than the Prez. He gets millions of bucks. He is just a stupid fuk that should have been wearing a brainbucket. He's lucky he ain't dead. I have no sympathy at all for him.

no sympathy at all? that's kinda fukked up. but it's your mind not mine, and you're free to do with it what you wish.

[fett]

I guess I was a little testy when I said that. I'm not really that nasty. I really do hope he's OK.

[thetroy]

who the hell send anything of the kind? We're just asking you to back up your claims. You keep trying to derail the conversation with sensational left field distractions like "If 40,000 or so deaths is acceptable to you" and suggesting that anyone here is commenting on the relative significance of rider deaths vs drivers. You should put your skills in evasive maneuvering to good use and go into politics.

Black Mariah said automobiles have an acceptable risk factor. I assume he means the amount of people that die in them is acceptable. It doesn't seem terribly evasive to me. You can poke holes in any stats I can post, and I doubt I have access to enough information to make it really worth while to spend hours and hours researching. It just doesn't seem worth it to me to spend that kind of time on an internet argument.


edit: I'd love a career in politics. They make tons of money for sitting around and talking. I'm afraid I hate politics as much as the next guy though and would rather say exactly what I think.

[VitaminG]

well that's your assumption, that when BM said "acceptable risk" he meant "acceptable number of deaths". That seems a bit of a stretch to connect the two.

the issue with your stats is that for them to actually mean anything at all, you have to compare like with like, and you haven't.

all we need is something like xx percent of drivers killed in car accidents die from head injuries compared to yy percent of motorcyclists. This can be further qualified by looking at the relative number of motorcyclists on the roads compared to the number of drivers. In case you missed it, I'll quote my earlier point:

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.

[StukaJU87]

Add into the mix the number of miles driven yearly vs the number of miles ridden yearly. The average for an auto is like 12,000 miles a year. I know I put that many+ on my car each year. I bought my current bike in 2001. It has a little over 3,000 miles on it.

Most people in the USA who commute a decent distance will drive their car most of the time. The bike is for casual use. Yes, I know there are exceptions to this.

[StukaJU87]

Add into the mix the number of miles driven yearly vs the number of miles ridden yearly. The average for an auto is like 12,000 miles a year. I know I put that many+ on my car each year. I bought my current bike in 2001. It has a little over 3,000 miles on it.

Most people in the USA who commute a decent distance will drive their car most of the time. The bike is for casual use. Yes, I know there are exceptions to this.

[RacerX]

I used to use the bike/car 50/50

ie, 6,000 miles on each per year

[Black Mariah]

Black Mariah said automobiles have an acceptable risk factor. I assume he means the amount of people that die in them is acceptable.

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

You have no clue what an acceptable risk is? What the hell DID they teach you in that statistics class, anyway?

Here is a gun. It can hold six bullets. There are five bullets chambered. Putting it to your head and pulling the trigger is not an acceptable risk. You have one chance in six of surviving. So let's make it more acceptable. Let's have 1,000 guns that each hold 100 rounds. There is one bullet in one of the guns. You pick which gun, put it to your head and pull the trigger. 99,999 times out of 100,000 you will survive. That is an acceptable risk.

There is danger in everything we do. You minimize those risks as much as you can. In a modern car with all the safety equipment they have, driving falls WELL within the bounds of an acceptable risk. It takes a hell of a crash to kill you if you follow basic safety guidelines.

On a motorcycle the risks are greater, but still negligible if you wear the proper gear. I suggest you read the Hurt Report. It's a study done in the early 80's on motorcycle crashes. http://www.clarity.net/~adam/hurt-report.html The MAIDS report is a similar undertaking, done in Europe. http://maids.acembike.org/

[thetroy]

I guess this all depends on what your goals are. You guys all just want to make motorcycles safer relative to other means of transportation or so it seems. I'm thinking in terms of what would save the most lives. Throwing helmet legislation at motorcycle riders will save less lives than using car drivers.

What exactly are you guys trying to prove here anyway? Saying I am wrong and a fucking retard does NOTHING for this issue. What the hell is your solution?

Put your own ass on the line and let me shoot holes at any argument you try to create, asshole.