Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (
-   Misc News (
-   -   Twenty-year high. But not the good kind. (

sarnali 09-19-2005 06:06 PM

Re: Twenty-year high. But not the good kind.
Hang on, I bet my .303 Enfield can tag him....

sarnali 09-19-2005 06:10 PM

Re: Lies, dammed lies and statistics
The best one I read is that celebrity shooters like Chapman and the gyt that shot Ronnie Rayguns all lived almost excuslivly on McDonalds......

sarnali 09-19-2005 06:18 PM

Re: Lies, dammed lies and statistics
I take your point and agree that a modern sportbike, even though it handles and brakes better will get you in trouble faster, but.....

Howling into a 20mph corner doing 60 on an old Norton/BSA/ BMW/Ducati with rubber frame, rock hard trials universal tires and Girling pogo stick shocks, not to mention cable operated drum brakes while wearing a jean jacket, 3/4 Bell helmet and Levi's will either teach you to ride or show you what pain is....

Saying older bikes were safer because they were slower just exposesd your ignorance.

edward44 09-20-2005 12:18 AM

Re: Lies, dammed lies and statistics
Helmet? We never wore 'em. I don't know if the stats are available from olden times, but I will bet they would prove you the ignerent one.

edward44 09-20-2005 01:20 AM

Re: Twenty-year high. But not the good kind.
I think anything that would require extensive experience on a smaller bike could only be an improvement. The real problem is that to be a biker you must suffer from "unrealistic optimisum" i.e., it's not going to happen to me. I would make mandatory the MSF course although I don't know if they are enough of them to accomodate all who would apply. I took the course as a returning rider and at the end of the course there was a test running thru most of the exercises. The guy ahead of me kept stalling his bike on take off and then wobbled thru the turns. And he passed. They should have failed him as after all that intensive rideing that was the best he could do, he really wasn't cut out to be a rider.

sarnali 09-20-2005 03:04 AM

Re: Lies, dammed lies and statistics
Though you just stated that you never wore a helmet....Hmmm

edward44 09-20-2005 04:28 AM

Re: Lies, dammed lies and statistics
I had to think awhile on that to get your drift, but my point was: in spite of no helmet...Comprende?

As to s*it brakes and frame, the frame was good enough for the power available, the crap tires meant lowsides, and the gear box was used for deacceleration and in extremis the broadslide was possible. Safe and easy.

orcyclist 09-20-2005 06:30 AM

Re: Twenty-year high. But not the good kind.
Without some detailed breakdown of how these folks died, we really cannot do more than speculate.

How many died because they were killed by a drunk cager?

How many were run off the road by cell phone SUV drivers?

How many paniced when they entered a curve too fast, locked up and went straight off of the road?

What make/model was the person riding?

And of course how many were not wearing helmets?

How many of the riders had been drinking?

It's not that complicated, just takes some research.

Only then can we decide what to do. It is truly a bad thing when anyone dies in any crash, but it does happen. I am not minimizing the impact to friends families and others who know and love the person killed.

Let's figure out what the biggest risk is and address it. Life is all about risk management, isn't it?

Learning to ride well reduces risk

Wearing a helmet reduces risk.

Wearing the gear reduces risk.

Riding sanely reduces risk (take it to the track for red mist isues.)

Keeping your brain in the game reduces risk.

Pretty simple really.

I have been riding for over 30 years and I still get on the bike each time believing I can learn something to allow meto ride better and more safely. In that vein, in November, I am taking another riding school - Freddie Spencer's this time. Yeah, it's expensive, but a trip to the emergency room is far more so.

How many of us have practiced a max perfomrance stop in the last 30 days?



Look where you go; go where you look.

I didn't think that this would turn into a semi-rant, but so be it.

jeffs 09-20-2005 06:41 AM

Re: Twenty-year high. But not the good kind.
All you pro-helmet pukes make me sick.

I can't imagine why any of you care so much whether others are wearing their helmets. Death rates? Highly doubtful. Honestly, how many of you REALLY care how many motorcyclists dies in Montana, or North Dakota, or Florida last year?

Maybe I'm all alone, but I couldn't care less.

Insurance rates? Well, look at it like this... if they're dead you don't have to worry about them continueing to wreck bikes, so maybe your motorcycle insurance will actually go down. Maybe, their deaths will scare a couple wives, making their incompetent husbands (I'm assuming so if they were p**** enough to quit because their wife said so) quit riding - saving everyone the cost of their wrecked bikes.

As a motorcyclist, I just don't see what you're getting out of this fight. Rather than ***** for more laws, why not spend your time encouraging riders to attend rider training. Encourage people to wear bright colors instead of the all-black so many end up with. Do something positive yourself, or quit pretending you care.

eddyline 09-20-2005 10:01 AM

Re: Twenty-year high. But not the good kind.
Actually, if I read the article correctly, registrations went up 52%, not 37%. 34,433 into 17,978...ah. Different time period. Curious that they don't give us enough data to draw conclusions, i'nt it?

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:24 AM.