GStwin.com GS500 Message Forum

Main Area => Odds n Ends => Topic started by: makenzie71 on June 21, 2007, 06:57:06 PM

Title: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: makenzie71 on June 21, 2007, 06:57:06 PM
...and concluded that you have are in more danger of committing suicide than dieing in a motorcycle accident.

I just thought I'd share that little bit of information.
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: Mk1inCali on June 21, 2007, 07:31:46 PM
Interesting.


Good excuse to keep riding, it keeps me from HAVING to commit suicide!
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: bettingpython on June 21, 2007, 07:40:30 PM
If I didn't ride I might be suicidal, riding is my focus point ex-wife and custody problems, relationship problems, money problems, the loss of my grandmother recently ever since I was 14 getting on a bike makes them dissapear there is no thought in my mind other than riding. I went through a real bad patch and probably was suicidal but I got on my 85 VFR 750 and went from Barstow to San Francisco, down the pacific coast to san diego and down the Baja peninsula and back to barstow. I rode till I was tired found a side road into the woods threw down my sleeping bag and slept got up found a diner ate and rode till I was tired again. I call it high speed meditation :thumb:
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: Unnamed on June 21, 2007, 11:02:59 PM
National Geographic does population:death rate studies?
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: makenzie71 on June 21, 2007, 11:09:25 PM
they apparently did one in 2003...they listed a lot of other things you're likely to die of before a motorcycle wreck, too...like a rogue staple...falling to death...stroke/heart attack...a car accident...beinig hit by a train...tiger...
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: spc on June 21, 2007, 11:13:11 PM
Dude I remember reading NG's from the 80's with that type stuff in it :o :o :o
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: makenzie71 on June 21, 2007, 11:17:40 PM
wtf dude...in the eighties i was looking at them cuz they had boobies but you were reading...
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: spc on June 21, 2007, 11:20:13 PM
I just happened to see the articles about death in between boobies..................mmmmmm in between boobies *drool* :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: Unnamed on June 21, 2007, 11:27:53 PM
Liar. He wasn't noticing the boobies until 1999  :laugh:
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: spc on June 21, 2007, 11:29:28 PM
ehhhh that's about right I was 13/14 in 99 :dunno_white: :flipoff:
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: ledfingers on June 22, 2007, 12:05:12 AM
then how were you reading NG in the 80's?
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: spc on June 22, 2007, 12:19:05 AM
My dad has every issue back to the early 70's :cookoo: :cookoo:  I used to get bored and jacko......err read em :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: makenzie71 on June 22, 2007, 12:26:08 AM
I can see some 8 year old tucked away in the dark corner of the house practicing his "no honey...I...I only read the articles...honest..." routine.
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: PuddleJumper on June 22, 2007, 03:23:47 AM
Have you ever been caught doing you know what in the closet?
























Good hiding place, isn't it? :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: Wrecent_Wryder on June 22, 2007, 05:40:52 AM
Quote from: makenzie71 on June 21, 2007, 11:09:25 PM
they apparently did one in 2003...they listed a lot of other things you're likely to die of before a motorcycle wreck, too...like a rogue staple...falling to death...stroke/heart attack...a car accident...beinig hit by a train...tiger...


Don't tell the politicians. They're about to try to convince every soccer-Mom that they and their kids are in mortal danger just  being on the same road with a motorcycle.

http://gstwins.com/gsboard/index.php?topic=35636.0

Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: blue05twin on June 22, 2007, 07:33:48 AM
Quote from: spcterry on June 21, 2007, 11:29:28 PM
ehhhh that's about right I was 13/14 in 99 :dunno_white: :flipoff:

Crap I'm old
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: Jake D on June 22, 2007, 11:45:52 AM
98 people died in Missouri last year in motorcycle accidents.  My chances of dieing in a motorcycle accident are unknown but probably greater than 1%.  My chances of committing suicide are 0%.
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: makenzie71 on June 22, 2007, 12:06:18 PM
yeah but it's a statistic and statistics are never based on the real world...they're pointless numbers.  more people committed suicide in 2003 than died in motorcycle wrecks...thus, you're more likely to commit suicide than die in a motorcycle wreck.

The 98 people thing is off, too, cuz at least 20 of them were ouot of State dragon surfers.
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: RVertigo on June 22, 2007, 01:01:13 PM
Statistics can be skewed very easily... 

Total car deaths VS total motorcycle deaths == Motorcycles are safer!

Until you add in some more math...

Total Car Deaths/Total Car Drivers vs Total Motorcycle Deaths/Total Motorcycle Riders == ?  Motorcycles still safer?

Keep going...

Total Car accidents that resulted in death/Total Car Accidents vs Total Motorcycle accidents that resulted in death/Total Motorcycle Accidents==  ?  Motorcycle accidents more likely to result in death?

Number of auto accidents/Number of Drivers VS Number of motorcycle accidents/Number of riders == ?  Less likely to get into an accident?

I don't know the actual stats, but I'm guessing they're something like that...



But!  If you total the number of people that died from X and divide it by the total number of people, then jumping off a cliff with no parachute is safer than eating McDonalds every day...  Simply because more people die from heart attacks than jumping off of a cliff with no parachute.
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: Wrecent_Wryder on June 22, 2007, 01:06:07 PM
Quote from: RVertigo on June 22, 2007, 01:01:13 PM
Statistics can be skewed very easily... 

Total car deaths VS total motorcycle deaths == Motorcycles are safer!

Until you add in some more math...

Total Car Deaths/Total Car Drivers vs Total Motorcycle Deaths/Total Motorcycle Riders == ?  Motorcycles still safer?

Keep going...

Total Car accidents that resulted in death/Total Car Accidents vs Total Motorcycle accidents that resulted in death/Total Motorcycle Accidents==  ?  Motorcycle accidents more likely to result in death?

Number of auto accidents/Number of Drivers VS Number of motorcycle accidents/Number of riders == ?  Less likely to get into an accident?

I don't know the actual stats, but I'm guessing they're something like that...



But!  If you total the number of people that died from X and divide it by the total number of people, then jumping off a cliff with no parachute is safer than eating McDonalds every day...  Simply because more people die from heart attacks than jumping off of a cliff with no parachute.

Or, as Heinlein put it, the death rate is the same everywhere... one to one.

Not like you're going to avoid it....  so, you can die, having done the things you like, OR you can die, having avoided the things you like....



Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: RVertigo on June 22, 2007, 01:09:30 PM
 :thumb:

Death only matters to the living.
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: Jake D on June 22, 2007, 01:24:21 PM
Don't forget goth kids. 


Death matters to them too. 
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: bettingpython on June 22, 2007, 01:33:55 PM
Death is highly over rated I would much rather be alive.
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: ledfingers on June 25, 2007, 12:52:41 AM
i respect death. i know i have no clue when it will come, but i personally assure that if i was to die right now, i would be happy with who i am. being passionate about motorcycles and cars is a very large part of who i am. so i'll keep riding while i enjoy being alive. i'll worry about death when i get there.
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: Crucialval on June 25, 2007, 12:00:35 PM
Quote from: ledfingers on June 25, 2007, 12:52:41 AM
i respect death. i know i have no clue when it will come, but i personally assure that if i was to die right now, i would be happy with who i am. being passionate about motorcycles and cars is a very large part of who i am. so i'll keep riding while i enjoy being alive. i'll worry about death when i get there.

Right on :thumb:

I worry about those I'll leave behind, but I will not stop living just to stay alive longer.
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: bettingpython on June 25, 2007, 02:29:38 PM
My wife and son won't be rich but she will be debt free and he will be able to go to college and both will have some change left over in the event something happens to me. Other than the 2 of them the only family I had left who I was ever close with passed away April 13th of this year. I was one of the 2 that had to make the decision to remove all life support and allow my grandmother to pass. I will not go that way. I don't want anyone to have to watch over me while I die. Like I said death is overated. Too many things to do before I go. Life is for living. :thumb:
Title: Re: National geographic did a study in 2003...
Post by: spc on June 25, 2007, 04:47:35 PM
God bless the Army.......If something happens to me, my parets get 200k each :o hmmmmmmm  maybe thats why they don't mind me gettin a new bike :o :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: