Statistics say Chicks on bikes are bloody dangerous!

[bogan]

no, i'm not a math genius but i'm pretty sure the numbers are about right

you read the red highlighted bit i added (may have missed them cos of all the other orsm color usage)?

I get 61% more likely, which makes sense, 11% of women causing 17% of crashes, gonna be quite a few % more likely.

It does seem rather high, cud be survey population skew or summat. Mind you i dont know any women riders, just have to hope i dont get hit by one by the sound of it

[idleidolidyll]

you read the red highlighted bit i added (may have missed them cos of all the other orsm color usage)?

I get 61% more likely, which makes sense, 11% of women causing 17% of crashes, gonna be quite a few % more likely.

It does seem rather high, cud be survey population skew or summat. Mind you i dont know any women riders, just have to hope i dont get hit by one by the sound of it

I think you've forgotten to divide by the total number of riders.

mind you, when road km's travelled are factored in, I'd suggest you are probably closer to the mark

[Virago]

From Lula's link (http://www.motorcycletrader.co.nz/Vi...ght/837.aspx):

Linky no worky...

[idleidolidyll]

Linky no worky...

did Lula take it down?

I'll check again..................hold that thought a sec

[FJRider]

I think the numbers are a bit out. In most cases of joint ownership/insurance ... the male is usually listed first, and as such, those chicks seldom feature in these sort of statistics. Plus those whose bikes were purchased by partners for their (sole) use, but do not feature (was not put on) on ownership forms.

[idleidolidyll]

http://www.motorcycletrader.co.nz/Vi...Night/837.aspx

looks good to me

[flame]

dear flame, personal anecdotes do not statistics make.

i've seen a dog hump a cat but that doesn't mean all dogs hump cats or that all cats enjoy dogs humping them

insurance is irrelevant unless you are trying to make a point BESIDE the fact that chicks are bloody dangerous on bikes

Dear Idleidolidyll......so do you hump cats or dogs? or both? As it seems your would do much better at attracting them.

Ps....much statistical data is taken from insurance company claims in this respect. Many road crashes are not even recorded in any form or means due to non involvement of insurance companies nor the law. Therefore.......I conclude your ranting is that of a scarred man. Wanna come ride sometime? just don't bin it trying to keep up

[idleidolidyll]

I think the numbers are a bit out. In most cases of joint ownership/insurance ... the male is usually listed first, and as such, those chicks seldom feature in these sort of statistics. Plus those whose bikes were purchased by partners for their (sole) use, but do not feature (was not put on) on ownership forms.

conjecture my dear chap, we're talking statistics here; that was opinion

please do find some numbers though, i'm happy to be proven incorrect or better still, more correct

[bogan]

I think you've forgotten to divide by the total number of riders.

mind you, when road km's travelled are factored in, I'd suggest you are probably closer to the mark

nah bro, 1000 riders
110 gals
890 guys
1000 crashes
170 gals
830 guys

percantage chances of crash
170/110=1.54 gals
830/890=0.932 guys

difference = 0.61, or 61%

[Duke girl]

So does that also mean woman who use knives are dangerous as well.

[Virago]

http://www.motorcycletrader.co.nz/Vi...Night/837.aspx

looks good to me

Yeah that works.

Original link has ): on the end, making it invalid.

[idleidolidyll]

Dear Idleidolidyll......so do you hump cats or dogs? or both? As it seems your would do much better at attracting them.

woof!
i aint trying to attract em honey, i'm a fat balding old fart happy with his life and even happier with wife and grandkids

Ps....much statistical data is taken from insurance company claims in this respect. Many road crashes are not even recorded in any form or means due to non involvement of insurance companies nor the law (and your point is? that goes for blokes as much as chicks and may not change a thing). Therefore.......I conclude your ranting is that of a scarred man. Shucks yes, i got a scar right up the top of my groin, wanna see it? Wanna come ride sometime? just don't bin it trying to keep up

a ride? anytime baby, come out with the boys and gals on the SATNR, I'm almost regular

ouch!

looks like i hit THAT spot

ha! ha! ha!

[Quasi]

Off and on for a fair while, many of the bikes I rode were registered to my wife. I rode them much more than she did. She NEVER ever bloody ever rode my bikes (vertically challenged). Even when I almost never rode her bike/s, I always rode at least 5x as many km's per year on my own bike/s.

Perhaps its these blokes such as yourself, hiding behind their wifes skirts, registering their bikes in wifeys name, then binning, that are skewing the above mentioned figures.

[flame]

Off and on for a fair while, many of the bikes I rode were registered to my wife. I rode them much more than she did. She NEVER ever bloody ever rode my bikes (vertically challenged). Even when I almost never rode her bike/s, I always rode at least 5x as many km's per year on my own bike/s.

Perhaps its these blokes such as yourself, hiding behind their wifes skirts, registering their bikes in wifeys name, then binning, that are skewing the above mentioned figures.

lol....for sure, Ive known a few of those......an ex of mine had two bikes rego'd in my name.....he binned them both!

[FJRider]

we're talking statistics here; that was opinion
please do find some numbers though, i'm happy to be proven incorrect or better still, more correct

It has always been my opinion that statistics prove whatever the person listing them wants to prove.

I would prefer you show/prove accuracy of your figures ... not just quoting an article in a magazine.