ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > The perfect line and other riding myths
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-23-2014, 06:46 AM   #301
JohnCW
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Dec 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Oddometer: 1,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bentall View Post
I have never owned not will ever own a Harley. However I think the OP's post closely approaches "Harley-Rider bashing".
Am I the only one who can see the irony in the above statement?
JohnCW is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014, 06:47 AM   #302
scootrboi
Beastly Adventurer
 
scootrboi's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Vermont
Oddometer: 1,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by 390beretta View Post
I single them out for my question because they are by far the riders who wear little to no gear. My conservative guess would be, here in AZ, 90% or fewer wear nothing but sunglasses.
Knock, knock
__________________
42 years on a Heinkel Tourist
scootrboi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014, 06:57 AM   #303
blk-betty
bam-a-lam
 
blk-betty's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Charleston, SC
Oddometer: 2,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by 390beretta View Post
I single them out for my question because they are by far the riders who wear little to no gear. My conservative guess would be, here in AZ, 90% or fewer wear nothing but sunglasses.
Funny, here in coastal SC sportbike riders, just like HD riders, generally wear no gear, of course most of the sport bikes riders are under 30.
__________________
Any day on a dirt road is a great day
blk-betty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014, 07:14 AM   #304
390beretta OP
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Phoeniz, AZ
Oddometer: 1,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherguy View Post
So what? Live your own life. Your question was answered a long time ago.

Don't start with the "social cost" bullshit. And that's exactly what it is. So many preach propaganda as fact it's sickening.
Hey , I was responding to someone who asked a polite question.
__________________
I came into this world kicking, crying and covered in someone else's blood. I have no problem leaving the same way.
390beretta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014, 07:39 AM   #305
Bar None
Beastly Adventurer
 
Bar None's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: WNC SWFL
Oddometer: 4,230
Yep, the tooth fairy will cover the social cost.
__________________
Vince @ SWFL or WNC
2001 Kawasaki W650
2012 Dong Fang DF250RTB
2014 Ice Bear PBZ110-1P sidecar
2015 Ural cT on order
Bar None is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014, 08:34 AM   #306
scootrboi
Beastly Adventurer
 
scootrboi's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Vermont
Oddometer: 1,462
How did this happen?

http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=38393
__________________
42 years on a Heinkel Tourist
scootrboi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014, 08:42 AM   #307
MotoTex
Miles of Smiles
 
MotoTex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Tool Shed
Oddometer: 1,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnone View Post
Yep, the tooth fairy will cover the social cost.
"Social costs" are usually a straw-man argument used to persuade legislators to pass an onerous law requiring the use of safety gear by some specific user-group. Usually with faulty logic in the documentation prepared to substantiate the need.

The fact is that most riders with the potential for medical care are new and inexperienced riders, those most likely to be involved in an accident, and who are likely to carry medical insurance.

The few who are injured and whose medical costs are passed on to society are probably no greater percentage-wise than any other similar specific demographic. Bicyclists come to mind as a good comparison.

Besides, with Obamacare (Tooth Fairy?) this is no longer an issue in the U.S. (and other countries with socialized medical coverage), right?
__________________

This is The Internet. Confirm for yourself anything you may see while visiting this strange and uncertain land.

MotoTex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014, 09:17 AM   #308
DavidM1
Adventurer
 
DavidM1's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Oddometer: 57
__________________
2013 Hyperstrada
1990 R80GS
DavidM1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014, 10:38 AM   #309
Bar None
Beastly Adventurer
 
Bar None's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: WNC SWFL
Oddometer: 4,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoTex View Post
"Social costs" are usually a straw-man argument used to persuade legislators to pass an onerous law requiring the use of safety gear by some specific user-group. Usually with faulty logic in the documentation prepared to substantiate the need.
I know you are going to discredit this site's information but I'll post it anyway.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/p...ike/costs.html
__________________
Vince @ SWFL or WNC
2001 Kawasaki W650
2012 Dong Fang DF250RTB
2014 Ice Bear PBZ110-1P sidecar
2015 Ural cT on order
Bar None is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014, 12:29 PM   #310
MotoTex
Miles of Smiles
 
MotoTex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Tool Shed
Oddometer: 1,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnone View Post
I know you are going to discredit this site's information but I'll post it anyway.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/p...ike/costs.html
Did you look for faulty logic, missing criteria, etc. when reading, or, do you simply take it for granted that someone with an agenda will take care to avoid biasing their report in favor of the outcome they want?

For instance,
"Another study found that 57 percent of the patients listed a government program as the principal payer" could just as easily read,

"Another study found that 57 percent of the patients interviewed listed a government program as the principal payer..."

By omitting which patients were even asked, and of those how many didn't respond at all, it paints it as though all were. But, in no way does it deny that this may not be the case at all. What was the specific question being put forth? By what criteria were the interviewees selected?

We know these things can be set up to bias the answer. Have you ever taken a survey where the nature of the question left you feeling the limited answers offered didn't quite fit?

Example: Have you ever been caught masturbating at work? Yes or No.
If you say no it still infers you do masturbate at work, right?

There's not enough information there to know what else might have changed during the study period or how the numbers were arrived at.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

I side with Mr. Clements on the matter and prefer to remain wary.

Here's a book I came across while searching for the above quote. (connect with "Example" above for pun content in this sentence)

It's sub-title "The Manipulation of Public Opinion in America" sums things like this up nicely.



Is it then considered un-American to question these things?

Quite the opposite I would think. Though it is clear not everyone prefers to suffer the pain of complex thought processes.

On another note entirely, I have enjoyed looking at your Dong in the KillBoy thread.
__________________

This is The Internet. Confirm for yourself anything you may see while visiting this strange and uncertain land.


MotoTex screwed with this post 01-23-2014 at 12:43 PM
MotoTex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014, 01:44 PM   #311
JimVonBaden
"Cool" Aid!
 
JimVonBaden's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Alexandria, VA
Oddometer: 50,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoTex View Post
Did you look for faulty logic, missing criteria, etc. when reading, or, do you simply take it for granted that someone with an agenda will take care to avoid biasing their report in favor of the outcome they want?

For instance,
"Another study found that 57 percent of the patients listed a government program as the principal payer" could just as easily read,

"Another study found that 57 percent of the patients interviewed listed a government program as the principal payer..."

By omitting which patients were even asked, and of those how many didn't respond at all, it paints it as though all were. But, in no way does it deny that this may not be the case at all. What was the specific question being put forth? By what criteria were the interviewees selected?

We know these things can be set up to bias the answer. Have you ever taken a survey where the nature of the question left you feeling the limited answers offered didn't quite fit?

Example: Have you ever been caught masturbating at work? Yes or No.
If you say no it still infers you do masturbate at work, right?

There's not enough information there to know what else might have changed during the study period or how the numbers were arrived at.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

I side with Mr. Clements on the matter and prefer to remain wary.

Here's a book I came across while searching for the above quote. (connect with "Example" above for pun content in this sentence)

It's sub-title "The Manipulation of Public Opinion in America" sums things like this up nicely.



Is it then considered un-American to question these things?

Quite the opposite I would think. Though it is clear not everyone prefers to suffer the pain of complex thought processes.

On another note entirely, I have enjoyed looking at your Dong in the KillBoy thread.
Your arguments can work both ways!

I'm not taking sides, but there is statistical data proving both sides of this argument.
JimVonBaden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014, 01:58 PM   #312
waveydavey
happy times!!
 
waveydavey's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Location: Pulling dragons from the ground again
Oddometer: 9,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnone View Post
I know you are going to discredit this site's information but I'll post it anyway.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/p...ike/costs.html
Better be careful with that social cost rhetoric or we won't be riding at all. Atgatt or not.
__________________
"...once the honey was gone he wandered off, farting and too soon satisfied."



FUCK CANCER!!!!
waveydavey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014, 02:06 PM   #313
cascadiabound
n00b
 
Joined: Jan 2014
Location: Middle of Flatistan
Oddometer: 3
Harley rider here(although i'd never go bigger than a sportster personally), and even I have no clue. I've been car free for 3 years now and riding a Harley for two. I've never once even ridden across the street without a full face helmet and armored jacket on. I commute during rush hour every day in freezing cold and scorching heat. Have toured plenty as well. I'm definitely not a bandana wearing trailer totting weekend rider. Heck, the only reason I don't have the same question is that I've learned not to stereotype someone for what they ride. Their's all kinds of folks that break the mold in this world. Personally I love all bikes equally, I still swing by and rock my dads unused rebel 250 to work sometimes just because it's fun, in fact it's like a go-kart on two wheels.

I just think to myself, 'isn't your brain worth $250 dollars of protection?' when I see those types, and I sure as hell don't wave back.
__________________
cascadiabound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014, 02:38 PM   #314
Mat
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Mat's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Heidiland
Oddometer: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherguy View Post
So what? Live your own life. Your question was answered a long time ago.

Don't start with the "social cost" bullshit. And that's exactly what it is. So many preach propaganda as fact it's sickening.
Insurances calculate their premiums so they cover their expected costs plus some margin. In that simplest form of social cost people with no accidents subsidize hospital fees of people with accidents. That is fine and how the system works, and no bullshit at all.

But it opens the question of just how much we (or the insurances, but I prefer a democratic decision) want to keep those costs down by limiting some people's freedom. This is not a question of who is right and who is wrong, but of what degree of limitation is acceptable, like always when it comes to optimization of freedom (individual freedom always needs to be restricted in order to distribute it equally - or it would be tyranny where the tyrant has the maximum of personal freedom at the cost of everyone else's).

If one piece of safety gear greatly reduces costs, then maybe it might be appropriate to "force" people to use it?

That said, of course this is also correct:
Quote:
Originally Posted by waveydavey View Post
Better be careful with that social cost rhetoric or we won't be riding at all. Atgatt or not.
Apart from all that, if you have family and/or friends, they are also indirectly affected by your decisions, hence my "selfish prick" argument before. I still believe that if you are no hermit, you should at least consider that, instead of just throwing a tantrum about "freedom" and blah blah. Again, Davey's rule above applies here as well.

Besides, how come we did not discuss guns yet in this thread?
__________________
I think there might be a more scenic route somewhere...
Mat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014, 03:28 PM   #315
MotoTex
Miles of Smiles
 
MotoTex's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Tool Shed
Oddometer: 1,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimVonBaden View Post
Your arguments can work both ways!

I'm not taking sides, but there is statistical data proving both sides of this argument.
That was kinda the point I'm pointing at.

When there isn't adequate data, or more accurately, when the analysis of the data isn't sifted in an honest attempt to prove AND to disprove an argument, then the data will likely show a bias toward the concept the person sifting the data was looking for.

Seek and ye shall find. The corollary being you won't find what isn't being sought.

This idea of honestly looking at both sides is the basis of the scientific method. It is ponderous, and absolutely demands the ability to honestly take the side of the devil's advocate in order to return balanced, factual data painting a picture closer to true. Rarely do statistics reflect any sincere dedication to this approach.

There have been plenty of experiments conducted proving conclusively that the person performing any study or experiment will often affect the results unwittingly merely by their having a conscious intent toward a particular outcome. It takes discipline to even consider avoiding this influence. It may be impossible to avoid it entirely.

See "The Field" by Lynne McTaggart as a study that offers references to research along these lines in many disciplines of the scientific community, from sociology to quantum physics.

A film covering similar findings was "What the bleep do we know?"

Suffice it to say that each person has a small influence over the things around them. Measured to be on average around the 1% level. Sometimes 1% in your favor is all you need. (in a 50/50 situation 1% tips the scales) So, believing that riding without gear is safe offers some miniscule degree of leverage of it being true. For that individual. Likewise belief in ATGATT does as well. And, riding without gear or with, and repeatedly thinking about crashing lends the same 1% influence on that as well.

Ah, the power of positive thinking has been proven, conclusively. As has the power of negative thinking.

Keep that in mind next time you throw a leg over the saddle.
__________________

This is The Internet. Confirm for yourself anything you may see while visiting this strange and uncertain land.


MotoTex screwed with this post 01-23-2014 at 03:52 PM
MotoTex is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 07:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014