Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (
-   Paranoid News Clips (
-   -   Helmets are law again in Louisiana (

BMW4VWW 08-26-2004 10:45 AM

Re: Why don't you just bend over and spread 'em for the authorities?
Don't tell anyone, but I have agreed with every thing that you've said in this thread. VWW

pattonme 08-26-2004 12:35 PM

I know how to solve it!! looking at NHTSA data
somebody posted the link. I have a quick "fit it right now to be seen as doing *something*" solution. (tongue in cheek mind)

Mandatory training for 40+ year olds.

The youngsters are steadily declining as a %age of dying - they either are getting a clue or insurance rates are "helping them" or more likely their parents are demanding they gear up, or their young reflexes and bodies withstand a lot more damage without kicking the bucket (probably a bit of the last 2).

The 20/30's folk haven't changed much to notice but probably have wives that have said "if you love me/the children you will get some training or quit riding that *thing*". Those that do ride either have the cash for the first time because they have a real job for once and want to try it while they've still got a decent supply of

testosterone still in the blood and consider themselves worthy of "confident grown man" status (20-29yr olds in particular).

I strongly suspect only graduated licensing or mandatory training programs (for example) will make a dent in the 20-39 crowd. Left alone we will always have those percentages in USA society and they will remain essentially constant as they have for 10 years already.

The big-time spike is in the 40+ group. I suspect if we carved into the DMV records we'd find that a whole ton of them (%age wise) are returning riders that back in 1980 were those 'kids' in the 29 on down sector which also happened to coincide rather nicely when motorcycles really took off in this country. (Table 5)

They have the financial ability now to buy a HD or similar "cruiser"-type that generally displaces over 1000cc. Have no formal training (they "learned" to ride 20 years ago on some 100cc dirt bike or smaller than CB350). And likely as not don't have kids at home so have no moral incentive to wear a helmet or otherwise reduce their risk exposure. They are likely "rewarding" themselves with a long-delayed toy and no damn gubmint is going to tell them how to live and they definately don't need some punk-ass telling them they don't know how to ride. They "remember" what it was like to crash on their bikes 20 years ago and hey, they lived through that well enough, why would anything be different now?

The big spike in injury/deaths is really nothing more than a huge surge in the 40+ age group buying bikes again. (Table 5)

And 40+ year old bodies don't exactly crash as well as 20 something's either.

I have a sneaky suspicion though that 50 years from now if we come back and tabulate the data, the big surge we're seeing will only be a short-lived thing and will disappear just as soon as the damn 60's generation (that has done so much damage to this country in so many ways) dies off already.

Not to say that as a %age of the riding population, the 40+ group won't be a little higher than it was observed to be in 1993 but it will return to baseline.

We need the crash data from 1980 though to make a better hypothesis, however. It's easy to jump to the conclusion that "It's displacement, stupid" since that also correlates rather nicely but I think that just happens to be a totally unrelated factor: 40+ yr olds buy bling-bling in the form of cruisers is all. What would be VERY interesting is if we actually had graduated licensing in this country and the 40+ crowd was FORCED to start on 250's. Then the displacement metric might be more useful.

Motorcycle Consumer News did a recent article on rider deaths (as opposed to injuries) vs SUV sales and they too had a very interesting correllation pattern that bears much closer study. I don't remember if they addressed rider age...

Correllation is not causation, however. "Pundits" and those who write "social-awareness" books etc. can't get that through their head.

Anyone want to take my bet that as soon as the 60's people are out of the rider population the %ages will go right back to say 1993's values even while raw numbers continue to drop due to ever smaller population size?

seruzawa 08-27-2004 03:15 AM

Re: Getting your facts from is a problem.
Psychiatrists are murderers.

kjam68 08-28-2004 10:39 AM

Re: Helmets are law again in Louisiana
First, I do like boobs so keep it coming. My only point is that Fascism is an overused/ mistated term. The following conditions need to exist for the term to be applicable:

Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, to varying degrees, some of the following hallmarks:

1. Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.

2. Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.

3. Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others

4. Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.

5. Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.

6. Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.

7. Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.

8. Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.

9. The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.

10. Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.

11. Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power

12.State consolidation of the means of production

NLG Civil Liberties Committee

Sept. 27, 1992 by Chip Berlet

Although I agree with Seruzawa's points, to a degree, we continue to have a Constitution and electorate. Therefore, the state is tempered against major infractions. I would agree that during the Clinton administration the attack on the Branch Davidians bordered on a Fascist action. Were you frogs supposedly not in the gradually warming water moved to action, or were the Davidians too different to matter? (see point 8)

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.