ToneTheMoan
Well-known member
LMFAO good one go cytocis! how did you get my home video! [up] [up]
Back to the Hurt Report. As far as I can tell, the Hurt Report makes one claim with regards to loud motorcycle exhausts: “Motorcycles with loud exhausts are over represented in the study”. That is to say, that many of the accidents studied, involved bikes with loud pipes. From this very limited and dated empirical data, the conclusion is often drawn that that loud exhaust have no positive effect in the avoidance of an accident. I have seen very well educated magazine writers, actually purport this hypothesis as fact. Anyone with a high school class in statistical analysis knows better than to draw such linear conclusions from statistical data.
It could simply mean that more bikes on the roadways at the time of the study had loud exhausts. Or perhaps people who tend to ride will loud exhausts drive more aggressively ….or passively. Both of which can cause an accident. There is simply no way in my opinion, to really know from this type of data. But yet the quiet pipe crowd continue to use this flawed example to boost their argument. These are the same people who want your headlight on and you to wear a florescent vest to increase your visibility or sensory display.
So would I but who would take it on?I'd like to see a study specifically aimed at loud pipes vs accidents.
True, and the "loud pipes save lives" crowd continues to avoid their burden of proof.the quiet pipe crowd continue to use this flawed example to boost their argument
Correlation certainly does not equate to causation. I don't think the Hurt Report, or anyone here, claims that.The Hurt report is a joke. Correlation does not equate to causation.
How so? Since neither side has proven one way or the other, the responsibility falls on BOTH sides of the argument.Never mind that the responsibility to prove the claim still lays with the "loud pipes" crowd, & we're still waiting.
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.the responsibility falls on BOTH sides of the argument
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.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.
How do you feel about audible exhausts and their effect on safety?
You just answered your own question...Does having a loud exhaust make you safe? No.