See anything incorrect in this video? -JEP-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZzmL6s4dK44
So what is it, exactly, you were wanting us to see?
I think I see a battery tender plug resting on an exhaust pipe (might melt and short out while riding), but it might be on a heat shield. The prices on the bikes seemed reasonable for 2010. (?) The low side rider appears to have been run over by the 3rd guy and the guy going the other way crosses the center line all the way to the far side white line, can't tell if he could see that the coast was clear or if he just screwed up after seeing the accident on the other side.
So what did I miss?
----------------------------------------------------------------
I have a problem with statistics when they are reported in the media. It seems that frequent repeating from one source to another and the need to reword an article to make the writer feel as though he or she is really writing something new causes errors.
For example the text under the video (and the video itself with slightly different wording) says: "The main finding is that motorcycles with antilocks versus without are
37 percent less likely to be in fatal crashes per 10,000 registered vehicle years."
The video says that: "per mile traveled motorcyclists are
37 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die a crash."
The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) (an affiliate of the Insurance Institute quoted in the video) says on their
website that:"Helmets are about
37 percent effective in preventing motorcycle deaths.."
There seems to be a lot of
37s running through these statistics of unrelated items. Yes, related by motorcycles only, otherwise it's helmet vs no helmet; antilock brakes vs standard brakes; and motorcycle fatalities vs auto occupant fatalities all a factor or percentage of
37? I suppose it could be an accurate coincidence, but I suspect a statistical screw up somewhere.
