LaVar Arrington In Motorcycle Accident

[Mc2guy]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

A couple things:

I don't doubt that riding a motorcycle can be done safely if properly trained. And I don't doubt that most motorbike accidents are the result of the rider doing something wrong.

But at the same time, it's still riskier than a car. If you drive a car safely and properly, and you drive a motorcycle safely and properly, the chances of you being in an accident are both about the same. You keep the probability of an accident nice and low by driving safely and defensively, whether you're on a bike or in a car. But the difference is with accidents caused by some other moron driver. You can't stop other people from driving drunk, running red lights, or looking back to scold little Johnny for punching little Mikey. If you're in a car, and you get in an accident at 25 MPH, you get out of the car and you exchange insurance information, and go on your merry way. On a motorbike at 25 MPH, you're thrown from the bike and seriously hurt (possibly killed depending on how you land). That's the difference. The margin for error is smaller on a bike, because ANY accident can severely eff you up.

But I generally agree that the main reason Lavar is a retard for this one is because he depends on his body for his livelihood, and he didn't have a license.

As for the sensitivity stuff, I think it's nice that some of you guys are sensitive to Lavar and touchy feely about not discussing motorcycle safety until a grace period goes by. But I'm not sensitive and I'm not sorry about it. I'd like to discuss motorcycle safety, if you'd like to be sensitive you don't have to discuss it with me. I just hope the board doesn't go all censorship on these types of discussions just to be sensitive.

Schneed,

Since Lavar is likely going to be fine, I don't have a problem with this debate right now. Your point that riding a bike is inherently more dangerous due to the higher likelihood of injury is well taken and I don't dispute you, but the same arguement could be applied to cars too. Convertibles, small cars, sports cars, pickups for example all represent much higher injury/fatality rates than minivans. Does that mean we all should drive minivans, or that it is "dumb" to drive a smaller car? How about riding a bicycle or walking? More pedestrians are killed per mile traveled than any other mode of transportation in this country...should we label walking as "dumb?"

Motorvehicle transportation has inherent risks no matter what you drive/ride/fly. Just ask the families of the roughly 50,000 people a year who die in auto accidents each year, or of the 3500 who die on motorcycles. My point is that proper training and discipline can mitigate the lion share of those risks. You will never eliminate the risk of a freak accident, but you can put the odds in your favor.

My point is that your choice of transportation has less do with that risk than your behavior while operating your vehicle of choice. Hence I take issue with your labeling motorcycles as "dumb."

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mc2guy

Schneed,

Since Lavar is likely going to be fine, I don't have a problem with this debate right now. Your point that riding a bike is inherently more dangerous due to the higher likelihood of injury is well taken and I don't dispute you, but the same arguement could be applied to cars too. Convertibles, small cars, sports cars, pickups for example all represent much higher injury/fatality rates than minivans. Does that mean we all should drive minivans, or that it is "dumb" to drive a smaller car? How about riding a bicycle or walking? More pedestrians are killed per mile traveled than any other mode of transportation in this country...should we label walking as "dumb?"

Motorvehicle transportation has inherent risks no matter what you drive/ride/fly. Just ask the families of the roughly 50,000 people a year who die in auto accidents each year, or of the 3500 who die on motorcycles. My point is that proper training and discipline can mitigate the lion share of those risks. You will never eliminate the risk of a freak accident, but you can put the odds in your favor.

My point is that your choice of transportation has less do with that risk than your behavior while operating your vehicle of choice. Hence I take issue with your labeling motorcycles as "dumb."

Yeah your point is valid.

First, I do think driving a small car like a Porsche is pretty dumb. They're dreadfully unsafe in crashes. So you're right, the same logic I'm applying to motorcycles definitely applies to very small cars (especially fast ones).

But I do agree that you can mitigate a lot of the risk by driving safely. Just not as much as you could by driving a car safely. That's why I just can never in a million years understand the decision to ride a motorbike, no matter how safely you operate it. It doesn't make logical sense.

But then again riding a bike isn't about logic. People just like it. And to me, doing something that doesn't make the most sense in favor of doing something fun is by definition, unsmart.

But yeah, it's not as unsmart as driving a motorbike recklessly.

[Mc2guy]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah your point is valid.

First, I do think driving a small car like a Porsche is pretty dumb. They're dreadfully unsafe in crashes. So you're right, the same logic I'm applying to motorcycles definitely applies to very small cars (especially fast ones).

But I do agree that you can mitigate a lot of the risk by driving safely. Just not as much as you could by driving a car safely. That's why I just can never in a million years understand the decision to ride a motorbike, no matter how safely you operate it. It doesn't make logical sense.

But then again riding a bike isn't about logic. People just like it. And to me, doing something that doesn't make the most sense in favor of doing something fun is by definition, unsmart.

But yeah, it's not as unsmart as driving a motorbike recklessly.

Fair enough, but making the "most sense" by your definition is a subjective issue. What makes "sense" to you may not to others, so keep that in mind. I don't think commuting to work by yourself in a giant gas guzzling SUV makes any "sense" but a lot of other people seem to disagree with me, so I'll chalk that up to differing sensibilities. That's what makes this country great, the personal freedom to make choices that others can't understand.

BTW I am not poking at your logic, but it is my experience that people who "don't get" riding a motorcycle will never understand. It's like the old WP radio ads..."if you don't get it, you don't get it." No amount of explanation is going to make you understand why people ride... it's in your genes or it isn't. Don't just call it unsmart because you don't understand it. I believe it is dumb to live your life concentrating on how not to die so you can end up crusty and old with limited life experiences.

Under your thread of logic any behavior that isn't the safest possible alternative is "dumb". In that case I want to see you start calling every single footballer we so vigorously cheer for dumb, because they are doing something risky.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mc2guy

Fair enough, but making the "most sense" by your definition is a subjective issue. What makes "sense" to you may not to others, so keep that in mind. I don't think commuting to work by yourself in a giant gas guzzling SUV makes any "sense" but a lot of other people seem to disagree with me, so I'll chalk that up to differing sensibilities. That's what makes this country great, the personal freedom to make choices that others can't understand.

BTW I am not poking at your logic, but it is my experience that people who "don't get" riding a motorcycle will never understand. It's like the old WP radio ads..."if you don't get it, you don't get it." No amount of explanation is going to make you understand why people ride... it's in your genes or it isn't. Don't just call it unsmart because you don't understand it. I believe it is dumb to live your life concentrating on how not to die so you can end up crusty and old with limited life experiences.

Under your thread of logic any behavior that isn't the safest possible alternative is "dumb". In that case I want to see you start calling every single footballer we so vigorously cheer for dumb, because they are doing something risky.

You make a good argument. When making any decision, you weigh risks vs rewards. I see the risks associated with riding a bike as significant, and I think you recognize the risks as well. Where we differ is the reward. I perceive no reward from riding a bike because I see cars/motorbikes as strictly a means of transportation and not at all a joy, but you get a big kick out of bikes. So you're right, definitely chalk that up to differences between us and so I have to admit you are right on that one: to each his own.

With football, I'd perceive the reward (millions of dollars) to be well worth the risks (aches, pains, trouble walking later in life, and a tiny risk of paralysis).

So in the end, I'll retract. I can't call riding motorcycles "dumb" as a general blanket statement. But I will say that, as in Lavar's case, if you have kids and a spouse depending upon you for livelihood, then riding a motorcycle would be considered selfish and a poor decision for their sake.

[jbcjr14]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

A couple things:

I don't doubt that riding a motorcycle can be done safely if properly trained. And I don't doubt that most motorbike accidents are the result of the rider doing something wrong.

But at the same time, it's still riskier than a car. If you drive a car safely and properly, and you drive a motorcycle safely and properly, the chances of you being in an accident are both about the same. You keep the probability of an accident nice and low by driving safely and defensively, whether you're on a bike or in a car. But the difference is with accidents caused by some other moron driver. You can't stop other people from driving drunk, running red lights, or looking back to scold little Johnny for punching little Mikey. If you're in a car, and you get in an accident at 25 MPH, you get out of the car and you exchange insurance information, and go on your merry way. On a motorbike at 25 MPH, you're thrown from the bike and seriously hurt (possibly killed depending on how you land). That's the difference. The margin for error is smaller on a bike, because ANY accident can severely eff you up.

But I generally agree that the main reason Lavar is a retard for this one is because he depends on his body for his livelihood, and he didn't have a license.

As for the sensitivity stuff, I think it's nice that some of you guys are sensitive to Lavar and touchy feely about not discussing motorcycle safety until a grace period goes by. But I'm not sensitive and I'm not sorry about it. I'd like to discuss motorcycle safety, if you'd like to be sensitive you don't have to discuss it with me. I just hope the board doesn't go all censorship on these types of discussions just to be sensitive.

I agree with your response in most cases. I do think that any motorcycle safety discussion should be taking place in a separate thread and I would be happy to discuss it there. I am not a sensitive person by any means, but when someone is injured and the thread was created to spread the news of that injury a debate about MC safety should not take place in that thread. Just my 2 cents, and really its only worth about a penny.

[MTK]

Yes, 3 month bans for all who aren't sensitive to LaVar.

Why would we "go all censorship"? :confused:

It's my personal opinion that hours after someone is involved in a serious accident it's not really the appropriate time to be debating whether or not he should have been riding a motorcycle in the first place.

But hey that's just me, if you disagree you don't have to talk about it with me.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Yes, 3 month bans for all who aren't sensitive to LaVar.

Why would we "go all censorship"? :confused:

It's my personal opinion that hours after someone is involved in a serious accident it's not really the appropriate time to be debating whether or not he should have been riding a motorcycle in the first place.

But hey that's just me, if you disagree you don't have to talk about it with me.

OK cool. That's my fault, sometimes it's hard to separate the Mod Matty from the member Matty. When you wrote your post saying 'I think more than anything we should just focus on LaVar's well being for now.' I thought you might have been laying down the law rather than just giving opinion. I misinterpreted.

[dmek25]

there is one thing that really bothers me. how come the govt can make places no smoking, and ban abortions, all in the eye of public safety. but people can drive a car 65 mph, while talking on cell phone? or you can drive a motorcycle mph, WITHOUT a helmet? isn't this stuff kind of unsafe?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

there is one thing that really bothers me. how come the govt can make places no smoking, and ban abortions, all in the eye of public safety. but people can drive a car 65 mph, while talking on cell phone? or you can drive a motorcycle mph, WITHOUT a helmet? isn't this stuff kind of unsafe?

Actually the government does ban all that stuff, you'd get cited for any of those offenses. It's just impossible to enforce the law upon everyone, cops can't be everywhere to write tickets to every single person who rides without a helmet, rides without a license, or speeds.

PS Not related to your point of course, but Lavar was wearing a helmet, dunno if you missed that detail.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

there is one thing that really bothers me. how come the govt can make places no smoking, and ban abortions, all in the eye of public safety. but people can drive a car 65 mph, while talking on cell phone? or you can drive a motorcycle mph, WITHOUT a helmet? isn't this stuff kind of unsafe?

So when did the goverment ban abortion? Helmet laws are a state issue and some have helmet laws and some don't.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So when did the goverment ban abortion? Helmet laws are a state issue and some have helmet laws and some don't.

back in the 70's?

[irish]

Originally Posted by dmek25

back in the 70's?

Last time I checked abortion (except for partial birth abortion) is legal. Roe vs Wade legalized abortion and now all the debate is about overturning that ruling. Its on the news and in the paper about every-other day.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

back in the 70's?

dmek, whatchu talkin bout, Willis?

You are aware that abortions are legal in the US, right?

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by dmek25

there is one thing that really bothers me. how come the govt can make places no smoking, and ban abortions, all in the eye of public safety. but people can drive a car 65 mph, while talking on cell phone? or you can drive a motorcycle mph, WITHOUT a helmet? isn't this stuff kind of unsafe?

Calm down Karl Marx. The last thing we need are more government imposed restrictions....

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Calm down Karl Marx. The last thing we need are more government imposed restrictions....

amen!!!