Helmets are law again in Louisiana
41 - 60 of 236 Posts
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
Re: Screw 'em!
The problem with the liberal party is that they gave up liberalism for smiling fascism a long time ago. I'd love it if they actually were liberal. They ain't. Their Gohd is centralized govt domination of the public from cradle to grave. Both parties are in the hands of the powermad who care only about increasing that power.
The problem with the liberal party is that they gave up liberalism for smiling fascism a long time ago. I'd love it if they actually were liberal. They ain't. Their Gohd is centralized govt domination of the public from cradle to grave. Both parties are in the hands of the powermad who care only about increasing that power.
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
Re: you're clouding the issue.
My personal opinion is that motorcycles are just as safe as cars if you pay attention and wear good equipment. Saying she probably would have been safer if she drove is fine, but she didn't, she rode or was a passenger on the bike.
Had she been wearing a helmet she most likely would not have suffered as bad a head injury. You know that as well as I do. Maybe here injuries were internal, or didn't involve her head at all, maybe this guy is making up this sad tale to prove a point, who knows, maybe they were all drunk.
I personaly support helmet laws, and seat belt laws and I think they should ban tobacco as well. I know that's not a real popular position to take, and I know you're an experianced rider and a mature adult, but the fact is there's alot of stupid f**ks around who don't know what they're doing. When they tear them selves up on bikes we all suffer from the fallout.
If they kept themselves off bikes and stuck to golf or tennis or something, then fine we don't need helmet laws because were all responsible enough to make a choice. Since they don't and since we get enough bad press as it is, something as common sense as a wearing helmet is a small consession to make.
You can always stick your head out the window or buy a 10 speed if you want the wind in your hair
My personal opinion is that motorcycles are just as safe as cars if you pay attention and wear good equipment. Saying she probably would have been safer if she drove is fine, but she didn't, she rode or was a passenger on the bike.
Had she been wearing a helmet she most likely would not have suffered as bad a head injury. You know that as well as I do. Maybe here injuries were internal, or didn't involve her head at all, maybe this guy is making up this sad tale to prove a point, who knows, maybe they were all drunk.
I personaly support helmet laws, and seat belt laws and I think they should ban tobacco as well. I know that's not a real popular position to take, and I know you're an experianced rider and a mature adult, but the fact is there's alot of stupid f**ks around who don't know what they're doing. When they tear them selves up on bikes we all suffer from the fallout.
If they kept themselves off bikes and stuck to golf or tennis or something, then fine we don't need helmet laws because were all responsible enough to make a choice. Since they don't and since we get enough bad press as it is, something as common sense as a wearing helmet is a small consession to make.
You can always stick your head out the window or buy a 10 speed if you want the wind in your hair
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
Re: Cheap shot by MO
You're getting ready to make a fool of yourself again, aren't you.
Step back, take a few deep breaths, go to your happy place for a minute.
Ready? Now the issue isn't statistics, it's helmet laws. What do you have to say about that?
You're getting ready to make a fool of yourself again, aren't you.
Step back, take a few deep breaths, go to your happy place for a minute.
Ready? Now the issue isn't statistics, it's helmet laws. What do you have to say about that?
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
I always wear a full face helmet, even on a Harley. I could give a shyt less what anyone else thinks about that.
On the other hand this thread points up something that is sadly missing from our society. That is the ability to say, "Mind your own business." Fascism with a smile is still fascism.
That being said, riding a normal motorcycle without a helmet while wearing flip flops has got to be less dangerous than riding a flexy flyer rigid chopper sans front brake even with a full face helmet and full protective gear.
And riding helmetless on I-80 through Wyoming is far less dangerous than riding fully protected down I-110.
Speaking of Wyoming, we went to Denver a couple of weeks ago and saw loads of Harleys coming back from Sturgis on I-80. Surprisisngly 99% were riding and not on trailers.
There was even one guy on a old HD 80" flathead. Now that takes balls. The brakes are probably better and the frame stiffer than that Ridgeback's though.
On the other hand this thread points up something that is sadly missing from our society. That is the ability to say, "Mind your own business." Fascism with a smile is still fascism.
That being said, riding a normal motorcycle without a helmet while wearing flip flops has got to be less dangerous than riding a flexy flyer rigid chopper sans front brake even with a full face helmet and full protective gear.
And riding helmetless on I-80 through Wyoming is far less dangerous than riding fully protected down I-110.
Speaking of Wyoming, we went to Denver a couple of weeks ago and saw loads of Harleys coming back from Sturgis on I-80. Surprisisngly 99% were riding and not on trailers.
There was even one guy on a old HD 80" flathead. Now that takes balls. The brakes are probably better and the frame stiffer than that Ridgeback's though.
Re: you're clouding the issue.
I'm not clouding anything. Contrary to your personal opinion, motorcycles are NOT as safe as cars, even if you pay attention and wear good equipment. That is equivelent to saying you are safer not wearing a helmet. If she rode or was a passenger on a motorcycle then she is accepting a higher risk of being injured or killed. If yo ucan't accept the risk, don't get on the bike. Sorry if you don't like my choice to go without when I want. from what I understand, you don't have that choice.
I'm not clouding anything. Contrary to your personal opinion, motorcycles are NOT as safe as cars, even if you pay attention and wear good equipment. That is equivelent to saying you are safer not wearing a helmet. If she rode or was a passenger on a motorcycle then she is accepting a higher risk of being injured or killed. If yo ucan't accept the risk, don't get on the bike. Sorry if you don't like my choice to go without when I want. from what I understand, you don't have that choice.
If you use the MO logic
No here is a analogy. Similar study, of the millions of tabaco smokers only a few thousand get lung cancer of women have die from it in larger numbers say by a few hundred. Is the difference considered statistically significant damn straight is. Just because there were only a few hundred deaths and thousands of riders and the difference in deaths from one year to the next was a few tens doesn't mean it is not statistically significant. The population size doesn't mean anything it's the difference that is important. Remember a sample size can be as small as a few thousand and still predict things about a population.
If you follow MOs logic. All medical studies that involve prevention treatment would not statistically significant. i.e. because there is so many cigratee smokers the fact that there are only a few that get lung cancer means that the difference between male and female victims is not statistically significant. follow me.
This is absolutely wrong.
No here is a analogy. Similar study, of the millions of tabaco smokers only a few thousand get lung cancer of women have die from it in larger numbers say by a few hundred. Is the difference considered statistically significant damn straight is. Just because there were only a few hundred deaths and thousands of riders and the difference in deaths from one year to the next was a few tens doesn't mean it is not statistically significant. The population size doesn't mean anything it's the difference that is important. Remember a sample size can be as small as a few thousand and still predict things about a population.
If you follow MOs logic. All medical studies that involve prevention treatment would not statistically significant. i.e. because there is so many cigratee smokers the fact that there are only a few that get lung cancer means that the difference between male and female victims is not statistically significant. follow me.
This is absolutely wrong.
michael moore approach? would that be "Logic"? You IMPLY that riding is just as safe without a helmet by saying that riding w/o helmet isn't much more dangerous than lots of other things that kill people. If some kid takes that to heart, rides helmetless and becomes braindead, congratulate yourself.
Statistics for dummies
Fact 1. The fact there were only a few hundred deaths vs thousands of riders is irrelevant. There are a few cancer deaths per millions of people. Does that mean that if cancer deaths increased 125% in one year because a drug was not used is the statistic not significant. Hell no.
Fact 2. The death rate increased 125% that is significant. The fact that were only a few deaths vs. the number of riders is not important.
Fact 3. The number of riders could of increased is important but assume that it increased 5% a year. The death rate still would of increased significantly. It's the delta that is important not the population size.
Fact 1. The fact there were only a few hundred deaths vs thousands of riders is irrelevant. There are a few cancer deaths per millions of people. Does that mean that if cancer deaths increased 125% in one year because a drug was not used is the statistic not significant. Hell no.
Fact 2. The death rate increased 125% that is significant. The fact that were only a few deaths vs. the number of riders is not important.
Fact 3. The number of riders could of increased is important but assume that it increased 5% a year. The death rate still would of increased significantly. It's the delta that is important not the population size.
Statistics for dummies and MO staffers
Fact 1. The fact there were only a few hundred deaths vs thousands of riders is irrelevant. There are a few cancer deaths per millions of people. Does that mean that if cancer deaths increased 125% in one year because a drug was not used is the statistic not significant. Hell no.
Fact 2. The death rate increased ~125% in this case (from 35 to 79) that is significant. The fact that were only a few deaths vs. the number of riders is not important.
Fact 3. The number of riders could of increased is important but assume that it increased 5% a year. The death rate still would of increased significantly. It's the delta that is important not the population size vs the number of deaths.
Fact 4. Comparing only two years is probably not conclusive but I would not as MO does consider it statistically insignificant.
Fact 1. The fact there were only a few hundred deaths vs thousands of riders is irrelevant. There are a few cancer deaths per millions of people. Does that mean that if cancer deaths increased 125% in one year because a drug was not used is the statistic not significant. Hell no.
Fact 2. The death rate increased ~125% in this case (from 35 to 79) that is significant. The fact that were only a few deaths vs. the number of riders is not important.
Fact 3. The number of riders could of increased is important but assume that it increased 5% a year. The death rate still would of increased significantly. It's the delta that is important not the population size vs the number of deaths.
Fact 4. Comparing only two years is probably not conclusive but I would not as MO does consider it statistically insignificant.
Joined
·
579 Posts
A viw from the O.R.
My wife is an anesthesiologist. She works on trauma victims every day. You'd think that would make her pro-helmet law right?
Wrong.
It's better that these people should die of massive head trauma. All the idiotic little brainbuckets do is postpone the inevitable death. Instead of DOA, we get to pay for 2 months of treatment in the ICU, when these morons are going to die anyway.
You like that little skull cap? Listen up, you're better off without it.
I would never support a helmet law. It's not my job to use the state to save adults from their own stupidity.
Its your bike, it's your head, its your life. You should make the decision. Just don't cry to me about the tragedy of it, because I'll only laugh at you.
My wife is an anesthesiologist. She works on trauma victims every day. You'd think that would make her pro-helmet law right?
Wrong.
It's better that these people should die of massive head trauma. All the idiotic little brainbuckets do is postpone the inevitable death. Instead of DOA, we get to pay for 2 months of treatment in the ICU, when these morons are going to die anyway.
You like that little skull cap? Listen up, you're better off without it.
I would never support a helmet law. It's not my job to use the state to save adults from their own stupidity.
Its your bike, it's your head, its your life. You should make the decision. Just don't cry to me about the tragedy of it, because I'll only laugh at you.
Testimonial
I now have on my shelf two badly beaten up Arai helmets. I have them where I can plainly see them every time I head towards my bike. Both lids show significant damage to the cheek area and chin bar. If I had been wearing a half helmet I would have spent several months eating through a straw, both times. If I hadn't been wearing a helmet at all???? Im all for freedom of choice, but please people, choose to wear a helmet.
I now have on my shelf two badly beaten up Arai helmets. I have them where I can plainly see them every time I head towards my bike. Both lids show significant damage to the cheek area and chin bar. If I had been wearing a half helmet I would have spent several months eating through a straw, both times. If I hadn't been wearing a helmet at all???? Im all for freedom of choice, but please people, choose to wear a helmet.
41 - 60 of 236 Posts
