Statistics say Chicks on bikes are bloody dangerous!

[flame]

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!

Sweet! Im up your way in November....See ya on the start grid at Puke

[idleidolidyll]

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%

you've got your numbers the wrong way around

should be:
170 crashes amongst 110 gals=1.5454 recurring crashes per chick
890 crashes amongst 830 guys=1.0723 crashes per guy

therefore chicks have about 45% more crashes than guys

ok, that's a way to sum it up i'm happy with

ha! ha! point stands apparently

[idleidolidyll]

Sweet! Im up your way in November....See ya on the start grid at Puke

all my races are in the past lady, i have nothing to prove to you or anyone on a race track. you might learn that lesson one day.

besides, i'm a fat balding grandad with a damaged spine (mountainbike accident) and i ride a gutless 60hp chook chaser: if i beat you, you'd have to commit hare krishna; if you beat me i point to the above stats.

you lose either way

however, you can come around and look at my cups and you're always welcome to listen to my exhaust note on the SATNR

[idleidolidyll]

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.

somehow i doubt that accident gender stats are recorded by looking up the owner of the bike

i'd take a wild stab and say they take a peek under your panties or undies.....................nice try tho

[idleidolidyll]

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.

duh! they're not MY statistics.

in fact, they seem to have been offered by a chick and THAT would be the point don't you think?

[bogan]

you've got your numbers the wrong way around

should be:
170 crashes amongst 110 gals=1.5454 recurring crashes per chick
890 crashes amongst 830 guys=1.0723 crashes per guy

therefore chicks have about 45% more crashes than guys

ok, that's a way to sum it up i'm happy with

ha! ha! point stands apparently

well 890 is number of guys and 830 is crashes so pretty sure i had it the right way round.

Goes to show how easy it is to manipulate stats to say what ever is required. What we need is some stats of riding enjoyment, ie what demographic enjoys riding the most, my money would be on ALL OF THEM , cos riding is just that awesome, chance of crashing is a price I can live with.

[Argyle]

I think allot of women ride 250cc and never had any proper motorcycle training. So they brake with the pedal brake and don't know how to use the bike properly.
But then it said allot of the women drove a bike over 750cc.

But anyway, no one should be allowed to drive a bike without proper training. Not even a 250cc bike. Most a Moped on 50cc maybe!

[Str8 Jacket]

But anyway, no one should be allowed to drive a bike without proper training.

I would definately be interested in learning how to drive a bike.

[FJRider]

duh! they're not MY statistics.

You are the one quoting them, seemingly because you wish to believe them ... therefore they are your statistics.

I stand behind my post. I have little(no) belief in the (claimed) accuracy of statistics ... and the "point" of your original post escapes me ...

[idleidolidyll]

oh come on! this is a troll thread, no sucking up for points or sexual favours

you've made the chicks look even worse than my math after all!

[idleidolidyll]

You are the one quoting them, seemingly because you wish to believe them ... therefore they are your statistics.

I stand behind my post. I have little(no) belief in the (claimed) accuracy of statistics ... and the "point" of your original post escapes me ...

whoosh!

rotflmfao!

[Virago]

...if i beat you, you'd have to commit hare krishna...

What, shave her head, wear a robe, and go busking in malls...?

Still, better than ritualistic suicide I suppose...

[idleidolidyll]

I would definately be interested in learning how to drive a bike.

har! are you one of those trolls lula told me about? or are you a bloke in a dress?



send hornyhornet a pm, ya might get lucky

[MsKABC]

Statistics are like bikinis - they are more interesting for what they don't reveal, rather than for what they do.

I would have said that women riders are safer in many respects in the same way that women drivers are safer. There is no testosterone coursing through the right hand, for a start.

[Rashika]

• Of 110,000 registered bikes in NZ, 11% are owned by women.
• Of that 11%, 26% are riding bikes over 750cc.
• Women riders make up only 17% of all Motorcycle crashes.

So let me extrapolate: Only 11% of bike riders are chicks yet they have 17% of the accidents.

See now theres your first assumption, assuming the owners = riders.
Those 2 stats could actually be totally unrelated, i.e. i dont have to own or register a bike to crash it, just have access to it.
So if i rent a bike and crash it I dont fall under that 11% of female ownership, cos I didn't own it, simply borrowed it for a bit, but I would still have found my way into the crash stats.
If I borrowed a mates bike, then flipped it as i wheelied down the road, I would still be in those crash stats.
Do nifty50s come in under bike registration or car? I can never remember.

Stats are funny things, so easy to flip around to suit your point of view, and really mean absolutely nothing without context.

...and we all know III is just after a shit stir, cos chick riders are far better than their male counterparts