Quake3World

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:11 pm**

Tinting your maximum field of view is nothing like partially obstructing your FOV with a helmet. The tint on my car doesn't affect what I can see at anytime. Your position is ridiculous.

A history of vanity over safety. Really?

Please...

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:22 pm**

There's no question about the added safety a helmet provides in case of an accident. If you're going "citation needed" on that one, then you're just playing dumb in an attempt to bog down the discussion.

However, reduced peripheral vision being a problem and actually increasing the risk of an accident is a rather wild, and as far as I'm concerned, speculative argument. It calls for proof much more than the added safety argument. So yeah, if we're talking facts, figures and stats then the ball is definitely in your court.

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:23 pm**

YourGrandpa wrote:
seremtan wrote:gramps bears all the hallmarks of a Trump supporter

"facts are just the opinions of libruls"
Why don't you post some "facts" that support the claim that helmets save lives vs. no helmets preventing accidents.

ok

*10 seconds later*

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/mc/

Helmets saved an estimated 1,630 lives and $2.8 billion in economic costs in 2013.
The United States could have saved an additional $1.1 billion in 2013 if all motorcyclists had worn helmets.
Helmets reduce the risk of death by 37%.
Helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 69%.

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:26 pm**

I remember this thread where I said I was taking riding instructions from a certified instructor (which is pretty much mandatory here in Europe) and you (gramps) were talking shit about how none of that is needed.

Now that I have my motorcycle riding license, I know that pretty much every thing you appear to be wholly uninformed (or wrongly informed) about are things that we focused on during those riding lessons.

I think you'll be shitting your pants out of fear if you had to navigate Dutch roads and highways on a motorcycle because you have no idea how to behave and act in truly busy traffic.

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:35 pm**

YourGrandpa wrote: The tint on my car doesn't affect what I can see at anytime.

Well that's just false and one of the reasons States have tint percentage laws. Plus you took it further and tinted your front windshield which is illegal in every state.

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 5:52 pm**

MotoGP riders don't seem to have trouble navigating turns at over 200km/h with 30 other bikes surrounding them wearing helmets that impair vision and hearing and catch wind. Of course gwamps' trips to Walmart for ammo and microwaved burritos are way more extreme than that.

shaft wrote:Plus you took it further and tinted your front windshield which is illegal in every state.

LOL I forgot about that, what a fucking retard

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:14 pm**

gramps won't admit that the real reason he refuses to wear a helmet is because he thinks wearing a skullface bandana makes him look like a badass

which it does

to a 12 year old

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:32 pm**

While helmets are known to reduce the chances of head injury in a motorcycle accident there is concern that they might increase the possibility of a crash by interfering with the rider’s vision and hearing. This study measured the effects of motorcycle helmets upon both seeing and hearing by having 50 riders operate over a test route, changing lanes in response to an sound signal under three helmet conditions: none, partial coverage, and full coverage. Half of the riders were assessed for the degree of head rotation during the lane changes, while the other half were assessed for the decibel level at which they first responded to a sound signal. Results showed that riders in the vision study increased the degree of head rotation in proportion to the vision restriction imposed by the helmets. While, the degree of rotation did not entirely match the full extent of the restriction, individual differences in head rotation far exceeded the effect of variation in helmets. Riders in the hearing study evidenced no differences in the sound level at which the sound was detected across the three helmet conditions. It is apparent that the effects of helmets upon the ability to see and hear are, at most, far too small to compromise the safety benefits offered by head protection.

The differences in ability to hear for the different degrees of helmet coverage, including with and without a helmet, turned out to be very small; an analysis of variance showed them falling well short of statistical significance (F2,46=2.04, p=.14).

In short, the differences in head turn due to the presence or absence or a helmet paled in comparison to the search habits of riders.
It is noteworthy that the correlation between the extent of head rotation and the time to complete the visual check was small and non-significant (r=.2, p>.05). Differences in time-to- complete across the three helmet conditions were not significant (F=.04, p=.96), meaning that the additional head rotation required by the full and partial coverage helmets did not increase the period of time during which the rider's gaze was diverted from the path ahead.

https://www.msf-usa.org/downloads/imsc2001/McKnight.pdf

Looks like Gramps is completely wrong once again

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:38 pm**

Subjective study is subjective... Anyway, I was busy out doing a beautiful coastal ride with friends while upset nerds were wasting away on a message board arguing a stranger's preference. I would spend a few minutes addressing your frustrations, but I'm off to dinner in my dangerously tinted Audi. Maybe I'll spend a millisecond contemplating this topic as I'm doing a 200 mile group ride tomorrow. Not...

LOL.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:24 am**

YourGrandpa wrote:upset nerds

You painted a "racing stripe" on your PSU.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:25 am**

YourGrandpa wrote:Subjective study is subjective...

seremtan wrote: "facts are just the opinions of libruls"

Right on the mark

Of course YGP's anecdotal evidence is the only truth that matters.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:49 am**

for a family guy, gramps is incredibly irresponsible

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:57 pm**

Road 225miles today. And guess what? I wore my helmet.

That kind of ride is a bitch without a windshield, so a helmet is necessary for so many reasons.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:06 pm**

we're so proud of you brian

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:04 am**

Fuck u, slurpsmanjam.

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:53 am**

Some amazing posts by gramps in this thread, would read again

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:37 am**

YourGrandpa wrote:based on FACTS that happens to be shared by millions of other people.

What a gem!

[lvlshot]http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/bf5a744/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fff%2Feb%2F09e4a2184bf89e83cba50dcfab01%2Ftrump-angry-finger-speech.jpg[/lvlshot]

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:24 am**

I just don't understand why he's arguing that it's safer? It obviously isn't, there's no benefit despite what he's saying. Maybe he's already had a few spills and that's why he's so moronic.

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:26 pm**

Eraser wrote: ....

Fact: Helmets impede vision.
Fact: Helmets impede hearing.
Fact: Millions of people agree.

They are also uncomfortable to wear while riding a cruiser style motorcycle that doesn't have a fairing or windshield.

You gonna be okay?

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:29 pm**

Κracus wrote:I just don't understand why he's arguing that it's safer? It obviously isn't, there's no benefit despite what he's saying. Maybe he's already had a few spills and that's why he's so moronic.

The pipe wielding drug dealer feeling good enough about his own ignorance to call someone else a moron.

You go boy.

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:34 pm**

YourGrandpa wrote: Fact: Helmets impede vision.
Fact: Helmets impede hearing.
Fact: Millions of people agree.

Those clearly aren't facts. They're opinions.
Why don't you click the link I posted. There's a whole bunch of actual facts in there. And I don't mean the conclusions they draw. I mean the actual data which speaks for itself.

YourGrandpa wrote:They are also uncomfortable to wear while riding a cruiser style motorcycle that doesn't have a fairing or windshield.

Eh, no, they really aren't. Maybe you're wearing a $40 helmet you bought at Walmart or something.
I already rode plenty of kilometers on a naked CB650F. No windshield either. My helmet was never an obstruction or uncomfortable to wear.

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:41 pm**

They are facts and I just road 225 miles with a very nice helmet. It was less comfortable than without a helmet.

Get over it.

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:04 pm**

YourGrandpa wrote:They are facts

*Citation needed!

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:21 pm**

^^^Tissue needed.

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:24 pm**

Keep 'em coming Gramps, you're great entertainment value

Quake3World

What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?

Re: What is new in your little world?