- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 5/28/19 at 8:52 am to gorillacoco
And? This is a poor attempt at a gotcha. Motorcycles are dangerous yes. They have laws that apply to them like the helmet laws that some riders bitch about. You can either comply with the seatbelt and helmet laws or you don't and if you get ticketed it's on you.
No one is coming for your guns over this.
No one is coming for your guns over this.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 8:54 am to Sao
frick off, moron.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:02 am to gorillacoco
quote:
Do you also support banning motorcycles since they are much less safe than cars?
No. They don't get in my way.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:03 am to meansonny
quote:
But your kneejerk reaction to a law requiring seat belt use (which is the process of safe driving along with checking your mirrors, using blinkers, etc ...) should equate to a law removing safe motorcyclists from the roads.
So if I understand, you consider wearing a seatbelt to be necessary for ‘safe’ driving. And yet riding a motorcycle can be considered ‘safe’ as well, despite the fact that it is statistically much less safe than driving without a seatbelt.
The problem is that you are calling two things ‘safe’ (riding in a car being safe and riding a motorcycle safely) that are really very different statistically in terms of how safe they are. Unless you have some data that says that motorcyclists driving safely (checking your mirrors, using blinkers, etc) are more safe than riding in a car without a seatbelt.
My point stands that if the statistics say riding a motorcycle, helmet or not, is much less safe than riding in a car without a seatbelt, either it should be illegal too, or going without a seatbelt shouldn’t be illegal. The laws are inconsistent otherwise.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:04 am to Esquire
quote:
No. They don't get in my way.
But people not wearing seatbelts do?
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:06 am to ZappBrannigan
quote:
And? This is a poor attempt at a gotcha. Motorcycles are dangerous yes. They have laws that apply to them like the helmet laws that some riders bitch about. You can either comply with the seatbelt and helmet laws or you don't and if you get ticketed it's on you.
Oh I agree if you break the law you get ticketed. No argument there. The question is if you support laws like this on the basis of safety while still allowing other much more statistically dangerous activities (like riding a motorcycle).
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:07 am to pkloa
Thank you for your cervix.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:08 am to gorillacoco
quote:
statistically much less safe than driving without a seatbelt.
Statistically, it cost less to insure a motorcycle than it does a car.
Do you want to ponder that one and get back to me?
quote:
The problem is that you are calling two things ‘safe’ (riding in a car being safe and riding a motorcycle safely) that are really very different statistically in terms of how safe they are.
No. The problem is that you cannot comprehend what safe behavior is. If we can't get a consensus on that, we are talking past eachother (and no one can help you. And thus no one should respond to you).
First question is, "what makes driving a car less safe than a motorcycle in that it costs substantially more to insure?"
Second question is, "what are safe behaviors for riding a motorcycle. Are there equivalents to car driving? Owning a gun? Is there such a thing as a safe motorcycle rider? Car driver? Gun owner?"
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:12 am to gorillacoco
quote:
But people not wearing seatbelts do?
When did I say that? I posted about cyclists.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:20 am to Randman
This hero in blue likely saved your son's life. Not to mention your son could've caught a June bug in the eye.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:23 am to Esquire
Just wear a seat belt and you’ll be golden. Rather simple and not dumb like sticking your head out of a sun roof
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:28 am to Randman
quote:
Keep in mind that we were driving 30 mph. This wasn’t some highway.
30mph is plenty fast enough to cause serious injuries in the "right" circumstances.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:38 am to meansonny
quote:
what makes driving a car less safe than a motorcycle in that it costs substantially more to insure?
Since you’re asking, I would imagine that it’s because motorcycles are a lot cheaper than cars and cause less collateral damage. I really don’t know though.
quote:
what are safe behaviors for riding a motorcycle. Are there equivalents to car driving? Owning a gun? Is there such a thing as a safe motorcycle rider? Car driver? Gun owner?
I would think that if you follow the normal rules like using turn signals, obeying speed limit, using muzzle control, etc. you are safER when doing the activities you mentioned. But saying any of them are ‘safe’ is a matter of statistics, and it’s relative. No amount of good practice/habits will remove all the danger of these activities, and some of them are inherently much riskier than the others, so you get an answer where a well behaved motorcyclist who doesn’t speed, uses turn signals etc is actually much less safe than a car driver who is reckless.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:41 am to Randman
Subtle “I can afford a car with a sunroof” brag
Posted on 5/28/19 at 9:42 am to Esquire
quote:
When did I say that? I posted about cyclists.
Sorry the original post you responded to I was asking about whether people supported banning bikes and motorcycles for safety reasons. I misunderstood your original reply.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 10:34 am to Randman
You're suffering from an attitude problem.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 10:42 am to Randman
You and your son need to do a cost/benefit analysis of your time but I heard that the National Parks have a 4-hour intervention program (2 hour session with Smokey Bear + a 2 hour victim impact session with Hootie the Owl regarding pollution) to keep entry level offenses like this from being a gateway to other problems in our Parks.
It supposedly seals the offense from your record and cuts the fine down to $45.
It supposedly seals the offense from your record and cuts the fine down to $45.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 11:01 am to gorillacoco
quote:
Since you’re asking, I would imagine that it’s because motorcycles are a lot cheaper than cars and cause less collateral damage. I really don’t know though.
Cars are much bigger. When they hit something, they cause more damage. The liability expenses on car accidents are about 5 times greater than motorcycle accidents. Therefore, cars are more dangerous than motorcycles.
Motorcyclists often use safer riding habits (less traction, less protection in an accident... motorcycle training often makes one a better car driver. It is understood that not everyone is trained to have a motorcycle license. But my guess is that the percentages of riders with 8 hours training after the age of 17 is much greater than the percentage of car drivers (there isn't much natural motion in riding a bike such as counter-steering).
Because of the high cost of motorcycles as toys, the average age of rider and average income is much higher than that for cars. Your 50 something Harley club is generally a safer risk. That is why the cost of a policy for a $30,000 bike is significantly less ($400-$600/yr) than the average cost for the generic 50 something who buys a $30k car for commute.
quote:
you are safER when doing the activities you mentioned. But saying any of them are ‘safe’ is a matter of statistics, and it’s relative.
My previous response above corrects your comprehension of relativity (bikes are safer than cars). The proof is for profit insurance companies.
Are you trying to get into a semantic debate about whether something that is safer can be deemed safe?
I promise you. You can be a safe driver and never be the cause of an accident (car or motorcycle). That doesn't mean that you will never be a victim. Or that you can't hit a dog/animal.
And people aren't perfect. But the imperfection is a lack of adherence to safety. Like a responsible military person who as made great choices all of his life until he unfastened his seat belt and stuck an important appendage outside a vehicle moving 35 mph.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 11:02 am to Tigerhead
quote:
You do have a choice. You can choose to wear a seatbelt or take a ticket. It's people like you, that choose to be hard headed and ignore the statistics that show seatbelts are the best option that make laws like this necessary. Kind of ironic.
FTR I wear my seatbelt and so do my kids. It was required on base when I was in the military and the habit stuck.
Do I think it’s safer? Yes.
I also think it’s safer to wear a life jacket while on a boat, but that’s not required for adults however, a seatbelt in a car is.
This post was edited on 5/28/19 at 11:03 am
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News