Loud pipes save lives?

Buellxb Forum

Help Support Buellxb Forum:

I personally don't like loud. It just gets annoying after a while. But I also don't like stock either. I like a deep low mellow rumble. Guess that's why I built 4 mufflers to achieve what I wanted! LOL A Harley with V&H with quiet baffles is music to my ears. Straight pipes are just ridiculous and annoy everybody.

High visibility saves lives. Ugly bright reflective gear saves lives. Those annoying make your headlights flash save lives. Riding like you are a ghost and nobody can see you saves lives. Being paranoid that every single person is going to cut you off, pull out in front of you, or plow into you saves lives. Loud exhaust.... meh not so much. It just makes you either look cool or annoy everyone! LOL

The Hurt report is a joke. Correlation does not equate to causation.

Low deep and mellow is where it is at. Chest thumping. Heart pounding. I don't want you to hear me coming. I want you to feel me coming!
 
The Hurt report is a joke. Correlation does not equate to causation.
Correlation certainly does not equate to causation. I don't think the Hurt Report, or anyone here, claims that.

While the Hurt Report may now be old, it's hardly a "joke". It's still good reading for any motorcyclist interested in surviving this sport.

While it may not prove that loud pipes don't save lives, it sure calls the assertion into serious question. Never mind that the responsibility to prove the claim still lays with the "loud pipes" crowd, & we're still waiting.
 
Never mind that the responsibility to prove the claim still lays with the "loud pipes" crowd, & we're still waiting.
How so? Since neither side has proven one way or the other, the responsibility falls on BOTH sides of the argument.

Saying loud pipes crowd has to prove positive, is like saying christians have to prove god does exist before the atheists have to prove he doesn't.

Both sides of the argument need to provide proof.
 
the responsibility falls on BOTH sides of the argument
Nope, in public discourse there is a philosophical burden of proof on a party asserting a claim. Demanding that someone who disputes a claim prove their skepticism is an appeal to ignorance which may appear to shift the burden of proof, but logically does not.
Saying loud pipes crowd has to prove positive, is like saying christians have to prove god does exist before the atheists have to prove he doesn't.
I'm not going to touch your religous analogy with a 10' pole, but in the absence of any empirical evidence that loud pipes actually save lives, anyone who does not believe the claim has no responsibility to disprove it. Similarly, if someone claimed that the sky is not blue, I'd have no responsibility to disprove them.

Back to the topic at hand, anybody stating "loud pipes save lives" has an onus to prove that claim. I’m still waiting. :)
 
Does having a loud exhaust make you safe? No. Does wearing a reflective bright neon green jacket and installing flashy lights make you safe? No. Do those things increase your road presence? Yes.
 
I feel that for any real world situation that someone says loud pipes might be safer, one could also say that better riding skills and decision making skills would be the safer yet.

I like my bikes to be loud enough that I can hear the engine well at speed against wind noise. It helps me feel more "in-tune" with the machine. I can tell easier my RPM and speed without looking , but rather listening. Glancing down at the gauges less is safer for me.

I have many bikes on the road, all of them have aftermarket exhaust. My Buell has a Drummer SS, it's perfect. Not sure if that qualifies as loud. It sure sounds nice though. But definitely not obnoxious.
 
Well that is my opinion after reading all the input from my fellow forum members. I do now believe though, that bright colors and audible exhausts are, in general, beneficial to the rider in terms of increasing road presence. Thanks for the input everyone [up]
 
Perhaps this helps settle the debate:
13896_20150326002629_L.jpg
 
Back
Top