Loud Pipes Save Lives?

[folky15]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

Have you ever been in a car and had a motorcycle pass you?

Of course you're not going to notice a motorcycle coming from behind at 30 over the speed limit on the highway. I'm referring to the cases like here in the city (Chicago) where stoplight to stoplight you are alongside the same group of cars on multi-lane streets.

Louder pipes can announce your presence to cagers, so they know a motorcycle is in the area. Common sense really.

[Jiggles]

Ok, at a stoplight sure, the cager in front of you will probably hear the humdum of your bike but once cars start moving and more noise is made from turbulence and engines, your bike projecting sound backwards not forward and they just won't hear you.

Besides, split to the front, no one is looking

[maggy187]

Originally Posted by M

If loud pipes save lives, imagine how many lives could be saved by those riding defensively...

The man who taught my MSF course said the exact same thing.

[ninjaone]

The city is the most dangerous place for motorcycles, where most fatal crashes happen. The city is also where loud pipes will make the most difference.

I think it's pretty obvious loud pipes save some lives, but in my experience the people relying on them as a safety crutch aren't doing themselves any favors and are more often then not the ones who would probably fail the MSF course on day 1 if they actually took it which they didn't.

Loud pipes are obnoxious, cause noise pollution, are disrespectful to pretty much everyone else in the world, and would be totally unnecessarily with just an ounce of situation awareness and knowing how to locate or upgrade your bike's horn.

[folky15]

In cities, there are enough buildings lining the streets that a slightly louder pipe can be heard by cagers quite well due to the sound reflection. (not just at a stop, but while moving)

But i agree that noone should rely on louder pipes to protect themselves, and defensive driving/attentiveness is always the best way to stay safe.

[n4mwd]

But then in the city, how do you tell bikes with loud pipes from cars with loud pipes? Several times now I hear this loud rumble, look over and it turns out to be a kid in a civic who replaced his muffler with a noiser.

Of course lets be fair in that the Ninja is far more maneuverable than a big Harley. If somebody changes lanes into them, they just have to sit there and take it, whereas a Ninja could either zip, steer or brake out of danger.

[beren]

Let me take a stab at it.

The question as asked- "do loud pipes save lives" should be interpreted as asking a general, not specific question. In other words, it is not asking "is it theoretically possible to concoct and out of the ordinary scenario where loud pipes are a contributing factor to avoiding an accident." It asking whether or not, as a general rule, loud pipes are likely to significantly increase safety. The answer is clearly no.

Human beings tend to think in terms of anecdotes and individual experiences and tend to weigh that one example they witnessed higher than actual data. We tend to extrapolate inappropriately from a single example. This is not an insult, it is a research-established fact about how *all* human brains work.

Research shows that we tend to view every experience in a biased manner and tend to only notice facts that support our opinion. This is called confirmation bias

Research also shows that we tend to extrapolate answers by cherry picking evidence. This is known as the fallacy of incomplete evidence and while it can be done on purpose, it is often an unintentional and accidental thing.

People posting about a specific incident that they feel proves that loud pipes helped are missing the point entirely. Even if I agree that it helped in that one example, that does not affect the larger question. Even many many examples do not. "The plural of anecdote is not data."

Let me give you a real life example. My grandmother once fell asleep while driving. She went off the road and flipped the truck. She was not wearing a seat belt, and had her window down. Her life was saved by these facts as she was flung to safety out the open window. In this limited instance, *not* wearing a seat belt saved her life, or least saved her from significant injury. If I were to use this as an example to argue that seat belts *cost* lives, I would be making a very poor argument indeed. In general, seat belts do more good than harm, even if I am aware of a scenario to the opposite.

The argument that "if it saves on life, ever, it is worth it" is fallacious because it applies equally well many other things. Weaving wildly back and forth in your lave might increase your visibility. Standing as you ride, popping a wheelie, etc might increase your visibility and could, in theory, save your life. But these are not safety maneuvers.

The argument that "if it saves on life, ever, it is worth it" is also fallacious because those making it are unwilling to argue in the reverse. Many more lives could be saved by never riding, or never going on the highway, etc. If one life made it worth it, many many more lives would make giving up biking worth it.

Anyone who buys loud pipes because they think it will save their life, or even increase their safety, is either deluded or lying. This is an issue of fact. For the same money there are far more effective safety measures. If you truly cared about safety primarily, you would spend your money elsewhere.

If you buy loud pipes because you like the sound, want more power, like the look, etc, then that is a personal taste issue, and while I may not share your opinion, it is not wrong, merely different. More power to you.

[greg737]

These "loud pipes save lives" threads sure don't say much for the state of our society and humanity in general. At least not much that's good, anyway.

It confirms the fact that the douchebag will always be part of our world.

[ninjaone]

I think the point is that it doesn't matter if they save lives or not. Slashing everyone's tires so they can't go on the road would also save lives. Having an taser which automatically fires to incapacitate the drivers around you would also save lives. There is a difference between techniques which actually make you safer on the road, and techniques which expose you as a sociopathic moron who who doesn't care about anyone else in the world - guess which one loud pipes falls into?

[n4mwd]

Wait a minute, I will weave back in forth when approaching an intersection so that cars fixing to turn will see me better. Several times I have seen them hit the brakes.
Posted via Mobile Device

[dubojr1]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Wait a minute, I will weave back in forth when approaching an intersection so that cars fixing to turn will see me better. Several times I have seen them hit the brakes.
Posted via Mobile Device

Yeah...that could save your life.

Chances are pretty similar to this nonsense about loud pipes save lives though...

[folky15]

Originally Posted by beren

Anyone who buys loud pipes because they think it will save their life, or even increase their safety, is either deluded or lying. This is an issue of fact. For the same money there are far more effective safety measures. If you truly cared about safety primarily, you would spend your money elsewhere.

There are so many things wrong with the logic here that I don't even know where to start. For many people, I would think that drawing more attention to themselves is a side-benefit to having louder exhaust. Most probably just like the sound/power of aftermarket mufflers, and the fact that more people will notice them is another perk to making the modification.

Nobody is saying that spending $400 on a new muffler is the most cost-efficient way to be safe on a motorcycle. But to compare it to weaving in and out of traffic to gain cagers' attention is pretty silly. Weaving like that does gain attention, but it also highly increases the likelihood that you'll crash, etc. Loud pipes don't increase the danger around you, and if anything, they decrease it.

Listen, it's one thing if you think louder pipes are annoying and should be illegal, etc. But to argue that they can't make you even a little bit safer just doesn't make sense. (btw - i run a stock muffler on my bike)

[beren]

Originally Posted by folky15

There are so many things wrong with the logic here that I don't even know where to start.

That's because you can't find any flaws in the logic to point out.

For many people, I would think that drawing more attention to themselves is a side-benefit to having louder exhaust.

Which does NOT fall under the case you quoted, now does it? Straw man argument. You quoted something I said a "rebutted" by arguing something different than what I said. Whose logic is wrong?

Most probably just like the sound/power of aftermarket mufflers, and the fact that more people will notice them is another perk to making the modification.

Which I allowed for as being an acceptable matter of personal taste.

Nobody is saying that spending $400 on a new muffler is the most cost-efficient way to be safe on a motorcycle.

Which bolsters my case. If it was REALLY about saving lives, peopel would look to more effective methods.

But to compare it to weaving in and out of traffic to gain cagers' attention is pretty silly. Weaving like that does gain attention, but it also highly increases the likelihood that you'll crash, etc. Loud pipes don't increase the danger around you, and if anything, they decrease it.

They can do active harm to you and those around you.

Listen, it's one thing if you think louder pipes are annoying and should be illegal, etc. But to argue that they can't make you even a little bit safer just doesn't make sense.

I see you missed my ENTIRE first point about what the true question was. Well done. It is almost like you only skimmed my post looking for things to disagree with, which, ironically, is one of the fallacies I pointed out in the part you didn't read.

[ninjaone]

Regarding "cherry picking evidence", what exactly constitutes not "cherry picking evidence"? Everything dealing with motorcycles has an extremely limited data set. There is no data for much of anything, and the data that does exist there isn't enough to make any confident conclusions. There is barely enough data to support that wearing a helmet is safer then not wearing a helmet, much less things like loud pipes.

There's a lot of hot air being shot around back and forth by arm chair philosophers on whether loud pipes make a difference or not, but there's a really easy test. Take a ride on a loud motorcycle. Then take a ride on a quiet motorcycle. See if you can tell a difference. I rode my friend's loud chopper and it was pretty obvious that it does make a difference.

Arguing from the position that loud pipes don't make any difference is a losing game and almost a patently absurd position to take anyway. The real argument is that loud pipes are obnoxious and sociopathic and mitigated through riding ability to the point of being superfluous. Just like you don't slash everyone's tires before leaving the parking lot, you shouldn't need to cause irritating noise pollution everywhere you ride just to stay safe.

[beren]

Originally Posted by ninjaone

Regarding "cherry picking evidence", what exactly constitutes not "cherry picking evidence"? Everything dealing with motorcycles has an extremely limited data set. There is no data for much of anything, and the data that does exist there isn't enough to make any confident conclusions.

Well if there is no data for making an affirmative claim, the default position should be to doubt it.

There is barely enough data to support that wearing a helmet is safer then not wearing a helmet, much less things like loud pipes.

Blatantly false.

Take a ride on a loud motorcycle. Then take a ride on a quiet motorcycle. See if you can tell a difference.

This is exactly the wrong sort of test. It produces no meaningful data. Everything it can produce is necessarily anecdotal and uncontrolled. It is the worst sort of test precisely because of the cognitive biases all humans are guilty of.

Arguing from the position that loud pipes don't make any difference is a losing game and almost a patently absurd position to take anyway.

Who is making this argument? The real question is whether it makes a meaningful difference overall.

Just like you don't slash everyone's tires before leaving the parking lot, you shouldn't need to cause irritating noise pollution everywhere you ride just to stay safe.

I would agree with this, while qualifying it by saying that not all louder pipes are loud enough to qualify as sociopathic.

[ninjaone]

Originally Posted by beren

Well if there is no data for making an affirmative claim, the default position should be to doubt it.

Sorry but that just isn't going to fly with motorcycle data. If you are talking about the scientific definition of data then neither the Hurt Report nor Maids Report qualify, because they don't have enough data to reach statistical significance.

Blatantly false.

Let's have fun, show me one.

[beren]

Originally Posted by ninjaone

Let's have fun, show me one.

The Effect of the 1992 California Motorcycle Helmet Use Law on Motorcycle Crash Fatalities and Injuries
Jess F. Kraus, MPH, PhD; Corinne Peek, MPH; David L. McArthur, PhD, MPH; Allan Williams, PhD


from the abstract

—After implementation of the helmet use law, statewide motorcycle crash fatalities decreased by 37.5%, from 523 fatalities in 1991 to 327 in 1992, more than 37%, and an estimated 92 to 122 fatalities were prevented. Motorcycle fatality rates were reduced by 26.5%, from 70.1 per 100 000 registered motorcycles in 1991 to 51.5 per 100000 in 1992. Head injuries decreased significantly among both fatally and nonfatally injured motorcyclists.

You asked for one, but there is so much more.
How about
Motorcycle helmet use and injury outcome and hospitalization costs from crashes in Washington State.
J Rowland, F Rivara, P Salzberg, R Soderberg, R Maier, and T Koepsell

from the abstract

Although unhelmeted motorcyclists were only slightly more likely to be hospitalized overall, they were more severely injured, nearly three times more likely to have been head injured, and nearly four times more likely to have been severely or critically head injured than helmeted riders. Unhelmeted riders were also more likely to be readmitted to a hospital for follow-up treatment and to die from their injuries. The average hospital stay for unhelmeted motorcyclists was longer, and cost more per case; the cost of hospitalization for unhelmeted motorcyclists was 60% more overall ($3.5 vs $2.2 million). CONCLUSIONS. Helmet use is strongly associated with reduced probability and severity of injury, reduced economic impact, and a reduction in motorcyclist deaths.

These are quite easy to find if you want more.

[ninjaone]

Maybe you don't realize this but data which is not statistically significant has the same scientific weight as anecdotes. Both those studies didn't pass the test. Any more?

[beren]

Originally Posted by ninjaone

Maybe you don't realize this but data which is not statistically significant has the same scientific weight as anecdotes. Both those studies didn't pass the test. Any more?

Feel free to show why they are invalid.

But since you asked, yes:
The Effect of the Taiwan Motorcycle Helmet Use Law on Head Injuries
Wen-Ta Chiu, MD, PhD, Chia-Ying Kuo, MPH, Ching-Chang Hung, MD,
and Marcelo Chen, BA

Results. After implementation of the law, the number of motorcycle-related head injuries decreased by 33%, from 5260 to 3535. Decreases in length of hospital stay and in severity of injury and better outcome were also seen. The likelihood ratio χ2 test showed that
severity decreased after the law’s implementation (P< .001). Full helmets were found to be safer than half-shell helmets.

Conclusion. The helmet law effectively decreased the mortality and morbidity from motorcycle-related head injuries.

[ninjaone]

Originally Posted by beren

Feel free to show why they are invalid.

Feel free to demonstrate where they pass the statistical significance test. Burden is on you after all, making the claims.

[ninjaone]

Originally Posted by beren

But since you asked, yes

I'm glad you are just copying and pasting things to try to answer me and aren't really trying to actually understand what I'm asking for. Giving me a p value for a chi squared test is like saying me "see? x = 2" for some equation and not telling me which equation you used.

Regardless I hope you get the idea. Let's switch the topic for a second to make it a bit harder for you. Do you think wearing gloves when you ride is safer then not wearing gloves? Can you find me a non-anecdotal safety study backed by reliable data which tells us that wearing gloves is more safe then not wearing gloves? Because according to you we can't move forward with a discussion about safety without data, and if someone is claiming gloves make us safer we need to first deny the claim before it is proven with data.

[Jiggles]

Ugh.

I'm just going to go on the record and say if I see someone who claims that their loud pipe makes them more visible to drivers and they are not wearing a high visibility vest, I'm gna punch them in the dick

And if your silly pipe saves your life because its making noise why do you not just ride with the horn on? I mean at least that **** is directed forward instead of backward

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by dubojr1

Yeah...that could save your life.

Chances are pretty similar to this nonsense about loud pipes save lives though...

No I don't buy that one. Increasing motorcycle visibility is very much going to reduce accidents caused by cagers. Whether it is headlight modulators, fluorescent vests or weaving, if you get people's attention in a safe way (as opposed to doing a wheelie through an intersection) then they are less likely to run you over.

As far as loud pipes, IFF they hear you in time, they might look before they run you over. But again, even really loud pipes aren't loud enough in the forward direction where its needed, and even if they hear it, it might not register in their brain as a motorcycle as opposed to a loud civic.

[beren]

Originally Posted by ninjaone

Because according to you we can't move forward with a discussion about safety without data, and if someone is claiming gloves make us safer we need to first deny the claim before it is proven with data.

I have said no such thing. I said anecdotal evidence is subject to so many cognitive biases as to be useless in this discussion and that people providing such anecdotes were missing the point. I said there is no evidence of loud pipes saving lives, and I argued that anyone who has them for that reason is deluded.

I also implied there may be other, possibly valid, reasons for them.

[beren]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

Ugh.

I'm just going to go on the record and say if I see someone who claims that their loud pipe makes them more visible to drivers and they are not wearing a high visibility vest, I'm gna punch them in the dick

And if your silly pipe saves your life because its making noise why do you not just ride with the horn on? I mean at least that **** is directed forward instead of backward

Ok, you are a bit violent for my taste, but you point out on of the real problems with their argument. They only do things to "increase vissibility" that they already wanted to do. This strongly suggests that this is a justification, not a reason.

[Bassman]

Blaa blaa blaa, whether loud pipes saves life is just an opinion. The reality is that it annoys people and laws are made to reduce that annoyance. There are states that pull over motorcycles exclusively to verify that helmets meet DOT requirements and that sound levels are within legal limits. Bitch all you want, loud noise pisses people off. Keep your bikes at a reasonable level or be regulated! Now get out there wear your gear and drive defensively/courteously and just enjoy your ride.

[greg737]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

Ugh.

I'm just going to go on the record and say if I see someone who claims that their loud pipe makes them more visible to drivers and they are not wearing a high visibility vest, I'm gna punch them in the dick

Few things in this world have proven as reliably effective as the dick-punch for getting your message across.

[Bassman]

Originally Posted by greg737

Few things in this world have proven as reliably effective as the dick-punch for getting your message across.

Yup, my wife taught me that a long time ago. She does not look like a poodle when she get her hair permed... lesson learned!

[rabies]

revving my motor has gotten attention to those that didnt use their mirrors....they were like "oh my god if i would have hit him....."

[dubojr1]

Originally Posted by rabies

revving my motor has gotten attention to those that didnt use their mirrors....they were like "oh my god if i would have hit him....."

That's what horns are for...

[rabies]

thats what the hatchet on the back of my bike is for...

[rabies]

loud pipes annoy lives

[Jiggles]

loud pipes =

[Rick54]

Every little bit helps! Obviously safe riding technique is the most important key for survival, but every thing you can do to make other road users aware of your presence lowers the odds of them not "seeing" you and coming into contact with you...loud pipes are just one bit helping others to "see" you....

[ai4px]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

See look at that gentlemen. A man who understands that having a loud bike will not save his life. Instead he wants a loud bike for his own personal enjoyment, even if it makes him an asshole

Ya know, sometimes the show South Park just nails it. Watch this video http://www.southparkstudios.com/full...e12-the-f-word and then we can all call Jiggles a fag. Matter of fact, we can call Unregistered a fag too.

[beren]

Originally Posted by Rick54

Every little bit helps!

I assume you wear day-glo orange gear, right?
I assume you have a loud aftermarket horn and constantly blare it, right?
I assume you never ride straight but are constantly doing the smidsy weave, right?


I mean, every bit helps, so we have to make sure we do *everything.* Otherwise we have a dishonest, self-serving justification for what we already wanted.

[GreenNinja]

I don't agree with the loud pipe saves lives. What if someone was annoyed with the loud pipe and purposely ran the person over? Saying a loud pipe saves lives is not accurate. Saying it makes people aware you are there might be more accurate. Saying that it saves a life is like saying you got hit by a car and if it wasn't for the loud pipe, you would be dead because the pipe cushioned the damage.
I wear a neon yellow helmet and a bright yellow vest and it has done a great job alerting people of my presence. My exhaust is stock because I can't stand the loud noise.

[Jiggles]

Were gna need a short bus for 130 people

[adouglas]

Originally Posted by beren

I assume you wear day-glo orange gear, right?
I assume you have a loud aftermarket horn and constantly blare it, right?
I assume you never ride straight but are constantly doing the smidsy weave, right?.

Yes, yes but I hit it only when necessary, and no.

Because I want to be seen and heard but I refuse to ride (or behave) like a jackass.

From time to time I toy with the idea of purchasing a spike strip so I can send a clear message to the a-holes who blast by my house from time to time.

[Rudiger]

I think this slogan was just a ploy used by Harley Lobby groups to let them run straight pipes when the legislature was thinking about setting db level restrictions. And "facts" were an after thought to prove their point. Wasn't that why this slogan was originally created? To stop laws for motorcycle noise levels