| Author | Message | ||
     Jprovo |
Ben, I hope that you can convince the Boss to keep the S2 and get a second bike. James | ||
| Lake_bueller |
Ben...If the boss doesn't let you keep it, let me know. I may be able to swing another bike. I'd cut you a check and pick it up. I'll just need to justify 3 Buells  | ||
| Blaster420 |
Lake bueller, I am going to sell the S2. I have someone who came forward already, I told them how much and I'm waiting to hear back if they do not take it, then You will be next. The price is $2500. P.S. Aren't you in the Chicago area? | ||
| Lake_bueller |
Blaster...I'd have to consider at that price. That's what I paid for my S3 (almost an S1 now). I figured I'm only into it for about $2K after the conversion (see profile - right side bike). I still think the S2 is a modern classic (along with the S1W). BTW...used to be in the Chicago area. I'm in Green Bay now. Go Pack Go | ||
| Mikej |
Food for thought seeing as how we're about to go under the microscope: http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jul03/154864.asp?format=print edited by mikej on July 14, 2003 | ||
| Mikej |
(double-post, oops) I couldn't get the included graphic to post due to not having editing ability here at work (go figure). Maybe someone else could edit it down to size: http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jul03/154890.asp edited by mikej on July 14, 2003 | ||
| Darthane |
"I want people to realize motorcycles have the right to be out there, too." <~~From Mikej's posted article Damned skippy. The two times that I have literally been run off the road (forced onto the shoulder) I was either under or had JUST PASSED an electronic highway sign decrying the need to 'look twice for motorcycles'. Fucking cars...however, I will note that it is very satisfying to buckle a door panel in with a kick. | ||
| Road_thing |
Here's an excerpt from the graphic Mikej mentioned, describing helmet use among the fatalities in the Wisconsin study.  It's your head, you should decide what it's worth to you, but this tells me all I need to know. (that is to say, it confirms my prejudice!) Of course, this is just in Wisconsin and just for the first half (or so) of 2003. YMMV. r-t | ||
| Jmartz |
Why doesn't the government simply outlaw the use of this high-risk mode of transportation. Time after time studies have shown 2-wheelers to be at least an order of magnitude more dangerous than 4-wheelers. This is an irrefutable fact independent if helmet use. We as a society would be better served if this issue would be put to rest by deliberate elimination. This would end the statistical manipulations, helmet contributions or lack thereof and rid us once and for all of the annoying noise pollution associated with power enhancement modifications. | ||
| Bluzm2 |
Ok Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Daschl! Let's do it! | ||
| Mikej |
It is a known fact that there are more automobile fatalities and crashes each year than motorcycle fatalities and crashes, therefore ban automobiles if you want to ban something.   How about seatbelts for all schoolbuses carrying school children, after all it's for the children.  | ||
| Aaron |
R-T, that just shows distribution of helmet usage amongst fatalities. Pretty meaningless unless you also know distribution of helmet usage among all riders. | ||
| Buelliedan |
Aaron, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at? I see that chart showing that of the people who died in motorcycle accidents 3/4 of them were not wearing helmets. Less than 1/4 who died were wearing them. Obviously there is some correlation to not wearing a helmet and dying in an accident. Does that mean you are 75% more likely to die in a crash if you are not wearing a helmet? No, but I think it shows there is some validity that wearing a helmet saves lives. I for one have survived a crash while wearing a helmet and saw the gouges that my helmet took instead of my face. Not to mention the impact it absorbed instead of my skull. I'll keep wearing my lid thank you.  You just never know when the green monster is going to bite you!! edited by buelliedan on July 14, 2003 | ||
| Mikej |
I believe the point is that the charts do not tell the whole tale. A few weeks ago I was riding southbound on a freeway onramp and looking left when something pinged hard into my helmet visor/faceshield, like a rock or something kicked up from the car's tire in front of me. Looking where it hit the shield and factoring in my head angle the object would have hit me near the temple or my right eye. Don't know if it would have knocked me out, don't know if it would have caused me to crash, just know that it hit the faceshield instead of my face. What this has to do with the charts and statistics is that this type of data does not show up in the data. Neither does fogged face shields. Neither does debris in the eyes of helmetless riders. Neither does debris in the eyes of helmeted riders riding with their face shield up. The bottom line is that charts and statistics give a limited view of some causalities and some conclusions, but rarely show the whole story. I 99.9% of the time wear a helmet when I ride, but I have on occaision rode lidless. Just like I 99.9% of the time wear a seatbelt in a car, but I have on occaision drove beltless. If you want to have the greatest effect on reducing motorcycle fatalities then cut out drinking and riding, and get greater awareness of cager drivers. A tailgating car is a greater risk to my safety than a bug in the eye. Crashing suck regardless.  | ||
| Road_thing |
Jose, I thought my post might inspire you to chime in! How's the seat project coming? r-t | ||
| Road_thing |
Aaron, is your point that, if 75.9% of a group of riders go lidless, then a 75.9% rate of non-helmet use among the fatalities in that group doesn't say anything, positive or negative, about the correlation between helmet-wearing and fatal injuries? I guess the logical extension of that argument (and I use that term in the mathematical sense--I'm not argumentative!) would be that, if the rate of non-helmet use in that group were significantly less than 75.9%, then there would be a negative correlation between helmet use and fatality. Conversely, if the group's rate of non-helmet use were significantly greater than 75.9%, then helmet-wearing would contribute to the likelihood of dying in an accident.(jose, how's that for being even-handed?) Did I read you correctly? r-t | ||
| Jmartz |
Doing fine RT. Just got a proseries seat pan to use in the project (doesn't have the insie on the side for the hold strap). You reeled me in RT..! Mikej, I read somewhere that although there are far many more cars (400 to 1 is the running ratio in metro Atlanta) than motorcycles, those killed in bikes represent a large proportion of the total road fatalities. With a little math the "risk" comes out to be 13 times more likely if you die on the road to have been on a bike. The only country that really understands this concept is Australia. Knowing full well (we do too but choose to ignore it) that the majority of head injuries occur in cars (social burden theory) then is stands to reason that targeting cagers will have a larger impact on saving lives/reducing the cost of treating injuries. The Australian parliament has considered helmets in cars as a possible law. | ||
| Mikej |
Okay, then let's look at bike wrecks that include involvement of a car or truck and those that did not include a car or truck. The answer to helmets in cars is airbags. A few years ago H-D was advertising locally for engineers with airbag technology experience. Publically advertised therefore public knowledge. Don't know what the project was for, might have been they were thinking of getting back into golfcarts to retain market share of retiring babyboomers. | ||
| Jmartz |
This discussion should be limited to those members living in the 20 mandatory helmet states. The rest if you do what you like, you have the choice. BTW Nebraska (an anomaly since it is dyed-in-wool Republican state) and Pennsylvania are poised to allow lidless riding in their next legislative cycle. Thaw would make it 32/18. | ||
| Mikej |
That's always been in interesting aspect of helmet laws for long distance riders when picking cross country routes. West coast is no longer reachable without a lid. East coast is reachable if you take a boat from Ohio to Maine. I still remember the California rider with the bicycle helmet with a DOT sticker peeled out of a helmet and stuck on back of it. | ||
| Jmartz |
The momentum is in favor of choice. 5 states (soon to be 7) have repealed their laws after President Clinton signed legislation removing all federal holds for highway money in 1993. Only drinking age of 21 remains. | ||
| Aaron |
Yes, RT, that's right. Daniel, how do you know whether 75.9% of fatalities being lidless is an over or under representation of all lidless riders? I mean, if 90% of all riders in WI go lidless, it's an under representation. A person could conclude that it's safer to go lidless! Of course, if say only 50% of all riders in WI go lidless, it's an over representation and a person could conclude it's safer to wear the helmet. You seem to be assuming it's an over representation, and it may well be, but not enough data was presented to draw that conclusion. | ||
| Buelliedan |
Aaron, You are correct but isn't it also true that using those statistics if you ride without a helmet in WI you are more likely to die than someone who does wear a helmet? Yes, you really need more info but just using those statistics isn't that correct?? | ||
| Aaron |
How do you figure? I don't understand how you can draw that conclusion without knowing whether 75.9% is an over or under representation of the helmetless riding population. If, for example, 75.9% of the people in the state don't wear helmets, and 75.9% of the fatalities are people who don't wear helmets, they're perfectly represented and you can't say riding helmetless makes it more or less likely you'll be killed. Right? | ||
| Mikej |
Dead is dead, helmet or not. Politics is politics, valid data or not. Statistics are statistics, they can show anything you want. The answer is "D", all the above. | ||
| Aaron |
I disagree. My point is that those numbers are totally, completely, 100% meaningless because there is not enough data. They could just as easily show that it's safer to ride without a helmet. We have no way of knowing. | ||
| Buelliedan |
Aaron, Yes, more info is needed but if you just go strictly by those numbers you are more likely to die if you go lidless(statistically) then if you wear a helmet. This is exactly how lawyers and politicians make a living! Find the statistic that works for your cause even if it really doesn't mean anything. Your taking this too serious Aaron. I'm just playing with the numbers. | ||
| Road_thing |
"There are Lies, There are Damned Lies, and there are Statistics!" --author unknown to me r-t | ||
| Aaron |
"Yes, more info is needed but if you just go strictly by those numbers you are more likely to die if you go lidless(statistically) then if you wear a helmet. " Let me ask you this ... every year, roughly 53% of the people in this country who dies is female, right? Therefore you're more likely to die this year if you're female? Well, if the population was 50-50 male vs. female, I'd buy that. But the population is 53% female. So they are not over represented in the death rate, and therefore you're no more likely to die just because you're female. Same exact thing. They tell us 75.9% of the people who died were lidless. But that doesn't mean squat by itself. You have to know what percentage of the people riding motorcycles go lidless to determine if 75.9% is an over or under representation. Only then can you draw a conclusion about likliehood of death versus helmet non-use. And the data wasn't provided. | ||
| Aaron |
RT, I disagree, this is not a case of lying with statistics. I have no reason to belive they're lying or misleading at all. People are just reading more into it than what it says, drawing a conclusion that can't be drawn. |
