Jounrnalist wants to BAN the motorcycle.

[catamount]

"Driving is not a right — it’s a privilege, granted by us, the American people, to those deemed responsible enough to exercise that privilege."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/citylink...,4414821.story

[Pittenger5]

Cant say I argue with that. But we should ban bad drivers too

[Stromper]

Only the freedom of the press is guaranteed by the constitution, all other media is a privilege perhaps we should ban self righteous a holes from that.

Yeh Yeh I'ld be 1st

Boy banning motorcycles I am sure Daimler heard that first in what 1867. Who's paying that idiots salary

[scottieducati]

You're joking right? While he makes an argument based on some less-than-brilliant statistical fact finding, he clearly ignored the research behind the causes of said accidents.

I am however, all for a national law that if you are injured due to NOT wearing a helmet, taxpayers are exempt from footing the bill.

[Slyder]

The bottom of that article has a 5 star rating. You all can imagine what I gave it...along with the majority of other readers.

1.08 from 258 ratings

[Kurlon]

If we're going to go by the deaths per 100000 system for choosing things to ban, lets look at the numbers for say... smoking?

[markbvt]

The author is obviously in his teens or early 20s, judging by his references to the accident victims he knows. Immature minds often take highly reactionary positions like this.

More disturbing is that actual adults have said motorcycles should be banned too. Luckily everyone ignores them.

--mark

[e30addict]

New topic! What's worse? Cigs, Beer OR Motorcycles?







Oh, if you want to really reduce traffic fatalities ban the dumb ass driver instead.

[Manny]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

Let's ban cars. I bet if we banned cars we would reduce motorcycle fatalities and car fatalities!

[scottfromboston]

I don't give a second thought to anything written by a guy with an aol email address.

[Garandman]

His email is kanga573@aol.com

[Stoneman]

'...A friend’s older brother — only in his early 20s —'

Obviously written by a teenager...

[BSR6]

This is why I hate people who use stats to argue something. They insist on viewing the data only in a way that supports their point, then insist they are right because the stats back them up.

[SRTie4k]

As stupid as the article is, I'm not worried in the least. Motorcycles are never going away for good.

[Degsy]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A400 Safari/6531.22.7)

I don't give a second thought to anything written by a guy with an aol email address.

First thing I noticed

[Stoneman]

This is why I hate people who use stats to argue something. They insist on viewing the data only in a way that supports their point, then insist they are right because the stats back them up.

ZACHARY! He states that m/c comprise 11% of all motor vehicle fatalities. So the other 89% MUST be comprised of 4-wheeled road-going vehicles, one must assume by the context of his 'article'. I'd say at that rate, it'd be FAR more advantageous to ban the major culprit of motor vehicle deaths, no?

[gadget]

I would rather someone use empirical data like statistics to back up their conclusions instead of anecdotal stories. This guy uses both poorly.

I sympathize with the author on the recent tragedies ijn his life but it actually proves that he is no longer qualified to look at the situation objectively instead of proving that he has personnal knowledge concerning the safety concerns of riding.

[mzdagrl]

ZACHARY! He states that m/c comprise 11% of all motor vehicle fatalities. So the other 89% MUST be comprised of 4-wheeled road-going vehicles, one must assume by the context of his 'article'. I'd say at that rate, it'd be FAR more advantageous to ban the major culprit of motor vehicle deaths, no?

What I'd like to know is what percentage of operators hold a motorcycle endorsement? Not currently have a bike. Of those who hold the endorsement, how many are deemed at fault in car/truck crashes vs. motorcycle accidents. Then compare those results to crashes with both types of vehicles where the driver at fault did NOT have a MC endorsement.

[BSR6]

What I'd like to know is what percentage of operators hold a motorcycle endorsement? Not currently have a bike. Of those who hold the endorsement, how many are deemed at fault in car/truck crashes vs. motorcycle accidents. Then compare those results to crashes with both types of vehicles where the driver at fault did NOT have a MC endorsement.

Exactly. The problem is you have to be sure you understand the reasons behind why the data appears as it does.

Ever heard of an auxilary hypothesis?

For example what if there was some outrageous figure like say 90% of all fatalities were riders with less than 6 months of experience on the bike? Kind of puts a whole new twist on things doesn't it? That would completely debunk the idea that bikes in general are dangerous, and now your stats demonstrate bikes are only dangersous for new riders making the author's point null and void.

Granted thats a bogus stat I just gave but the point is there is more data behind the data, and sometimes it can completely change the direction of the argument. You can never know all the facts and thats the problem. It seems as though anyone who uses stats to prove a point ignores this fact.

[Stoneman]

Exactly. The problem is you have to be sure you understand the reasons behind why the data appears as it does.

Ever heard of an auxilary hypothesis?

For example what if there was some outrageous figure like say 90% of all fatalities were riders with less than 6 months of experience on the bike? Kind of puts a whole new twist on things doesn't it? That would completely debunk the idea that bikes in general are dangerous, and now your stats demonstrate bikes are only dangersous for new riders making the author's point null and void.

Granted thats a bogus stat I just gave but the point is there is more data behind the data, and sometimes it can completely change the direction of the argument. You can never know all the facts and thats the problem. It seems as though anyone who uses stats to prove a point ignores this fact.

That's basically where I was heading with my last post. That is, he only throws out a couple very basic 'statistics' to get his point across. Like Keira points out, let's see the 'at fault' numbers compared to the statistic of 11% fatality that he cites...

[Chippertheripper]

Since all I really know how to do with a computer is check email and talk smack, how does one instantly have no credibility because of an email address?

[NobodySpecific]

Since all I really know how to do with a computer is check email and talk smack, how does one instantly have no credibility because of an email address?

This doesn't answer your question, I just thought it was funny and sort of relevant. I feel the same way, but probably because my mom has an aol email address and that ruins it for everybody else.

[SRTie4k]

What if you have a gmail address because you're too cheap to buy a domain with mail forwarding?

[NobodySpecific]

What if you have a gmail address because you're too cheap to buy a domain with mail forwarding?

Since you actually know what the words domain and mail forwarding mean, the description from The Oatmeal seems to be spot on

[Stoneman]

gmail's the shit, by the way. My ISP recently went to it and I was reluctant as shit. Very impressed to be entirely honest...