Brit's leg left 'hanging off' in Thailand crash

36 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Can you prove the member has not watch such videos? No, I didn't think so.

Thailand has one of the highest road death statistics in the world.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/road-deaths-by-country

Therefore, any road transport in Thailand is statistically dangerous than many other countries, and motorbikes are road transport.

Choosing not to ride would therefore significantly reduce the risk of serious injury or death.

Have you absolutely no understanding of what I just posted?

You've completely missed the point.

Nobody is disputing that riding a motorcycle carries more risk than not riding one. That's a truism, not an argument.

What I objected to was the method of reaching that conclusion. It's started with anecdotes ("I've seen videos..."), then jumped to a sweeping conclusion about riding in Thailand. That's not how evidence-based disciplines work.

Road safety isn't based on YouTube videos or personal stories. It's based on engineering, epidemiology, collision investigation and proper statistical analysis.

You're also confusing a higher national fatality rate with the individual risk of every road user. They aren't the same thing.

Thailand's road deaths are overwhelmingly dominated by motorcycles—around 80% of fatalities involve two-wheelers. That tells us something important about vehicle type, exposure and policy. It doesn't justify sweeping statements like "Thai roads are Russian roulette" or "anyone who rides here is reckless."

By your logic, because the USA has around 40,000 road deaths every year, nobody should drive there either.

Once again, you're confusing seeing examples of something with proving a general rule. That's not evidence; it's simply confirmation bias wrapped up as common sense.

If you're going to quote statistics, at least understand what they're measuring before drawing conclusions from them.

Edited 6 hours ago6 hr by kwilco

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

Your examples illustrate exactly why I referred to your reasoning as a collection of false syllogisms.

A valid syllogism is deductive: if the premises are true, the conclusion must follow.

For example:

• All humans are mortal.

• Socrates is a human.

• Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

That's logically valid.

Your argument has a very different structure:

• I've seen videos of people being killed riding motorcycles, base jumping, wingsuit flying and by grizzly bears.

• Riding a motorcycle in Thailand is dangerous.

• Therefore, choosing not to ride is simply common sense, and those who do are taking an unnecessary risk.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

 

You've substituted anecdotal evidence for statistical evidence and then generalised it into a universal conclusion. That's a classic logical error—an overgeneralisation based on the availability heuristic and reinforced by confirmation bias.

 

By the same logic, I could watch enough videos of fatal car crashes and conclude that nobody should ever drive a car. Or watch enough videos of shark attacks and conclude that nobody should ever swim in the sea.

 

The existence of risk doesn't tell us whether the activity is an unreasonable risk.

 

Road safety isn't about asking whether an activity is dangerous—almost every transport activity carries risk. It's about asking:

• How large is the risk?

• What factors increase or reduce it?

• Can the risk be managed or mitigated?

That's the basis of risk assessment.

 

You also conflate very different categories of risk.

Wingsuit flying, BASE jumping and living amongst grizzly bears are voluntary extreme-risk recreational activities with very little societal necessity.

 

Motorcycling is a globally recognised means of transport used by hundreds of millions of people every day. The fact that some countries have poor road safety doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that riding a motorcycle there is irrational. It simply means the risk factors need to be assessed and managed.

 

That's why I object to anecdotal reasoning in road safety discussions. People tend to remember spectacular crashes because they're memorable, then unconsciously inflate the perceived risk. Psychologists call this the availability heuristic. It produces poor risk assessments because vivid stories replace objective evidence.

Good road safety isn't based on dramatic YouTube videos or personal anecdotes. It's based on engineering, epidemiology, collision investigation and statistics.

55 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Have you absolutely no understanding of what I just posted?

You've completely missed the point.

Nobody is disputing that riding a motorcycle carries more risk than not riding one. That's a truism, not an argument.

What I objected to was the method of reaching that conclusion. It's started with anecdotes ("I've seen videos..."), then jumped to a sweeping conclusion about riding in Thailand. That's not how evidence-based disciplines work.

Road safety isn't based on YouTube videos or personal stories. It's based on engineering, epidemiology, collision investigation and proper statistical analysis.

You're also confusing a higher national fatality rate with the individual risk of every road user. They aren't the same thing.

Thailand's road deaths are overwhelmingly dominated by motorcycles—around 80% of fatalities involve two-wheelers. That tells us something important about vehicle type, exposure and policy. It doesn't justify sweeping statements like "Thai roads are Russian roulette" or "anyone who rides here is reckless."

By your logic, because the USA has around 40,000 road deaths every year, nobody should drive there either.

Once again, you're confusing seeing examples of something with proving a general rule. That's not evidence; it's simply confirmation bias wrapped up as common sense.

If you're going to quote statistics, at least understand what they're measuring before drawing conclusions from them.

You do like repeating yourself, don't you?

You don't really disagree with us. You're just arguing over terminology and methods.

Watching videos is not the same as experiencing it in real time. Statistics describe general risk, but they do not show how individual people behave. Some recklessly expose themselves to more danger than necessary, while others believe they are safe and exempt from anything happening, yet unknowingly create dangerous situations themselves.

5 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I don't believe I mentioned the word coward but you certainly did, risk-averse yes, cowardly no. We all make our choices and I'm not criticizing anybody for not choosing to ride a motorbike, it's a personal choice. I'm simply stating that many things in life carry risk and we have to weigh whether or not we consider that risk worthwhile. In my situation it's very worthwhile.

You didn't use the word cowardly, I did.

I considered your suggestion people should either ride bikes or stay indoors to mean the same thing.

Anyway, enough from me. I do generally like your points of view on most things.

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

Your examples illustrate exactly why I referred to your reasoning as a collection of false syllogisms.

A valid syllogism is deductive: if the premises are true, the conclusion must follow.

For example:

• All humans are mortal.

• Socrates is a human.

• Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

That's logically valid.

Your argument has a very different structure:

• I've seen videos of people being killed riding motorcycles, base jumping, wingsuit flying and by grizzly bears.

• Riding a motorcycle in Thailand is dangerous.

• Therefore, choosing not to ride is simply common sense, and those who do are taking an unnecessary risk.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

 

You've substituted anecdotal evidence for statistical evidence and then generalised it into a universal conclusion. That's a classic logical error—an overgeneralisation based on the availability heuristic and reinforced by confirmation bias.

 

By the same logic, I could watch enough videos of fatal car crashes and conclude that nobody should ever drive a car. Or watch enough videos of shark attacks and conclude that nobody should ever swim in the sea.

 

The existence of risk doesn't tell us whether the activity is an unreasonable risk.

 

Road safety isn't about asking whether an activity is dangerous—almost every transport activity carries risk. It's about asking:

• How large is the risk?

• What factors increase or reduce it?

• Can the risk be managed or mitigated?

That's the basis of risk assessment.

 

You also conflate very different categories of risk.

Wingsuit flying, BASE jumping and living amongst grizzly bears are voluntary extreme-risk recreational activities with very little societal necessity.

 

Motorcycling is a globally recognised means of transport used by hundreds of millions of people every day. The fact that some countries have poor road safety doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that riding a motorcycle there is irrational. It simply means the risk factors need to be assessed and managed.

 

That's why I object to anecdotal reasoning in road safety discussions. People tend to remember spectacular crashes because they're memorable, then unconsciously inflate the perceived risk. Psychologists call this the availability heuristic. It produces poor risk assessments because vivid stories replace objective evidence.

Good road safety isn't based on dramatic YouTube videos or personal anecdotes. It's based on engineering, epidemiology, collision investigation and statistics.

,

I'm not interested in even reading most of that let alone indulge in further debate. I did note you started by quoting the same AI definition I found when I looked up your word of the week.

You reminded me of a scene from Good Will Hunting.

For those that advocate, don't ride scooters, transportation is dangerous in TH, some food for thought ... from AI ...

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by KhunLA

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

Nobody is disputing that riding a motorcycle carries more risk than not riding one. That's a truism, not an argument.

I'm glad you understand this.

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

It's based on engineering, epidemiology, collision investigation and proper statistical analysis.

Of which there is plenty to suggest being on a road in Thailand is dangerous.

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

You're also confusing a higher national fatality rate with the individual risk of every road user. They aren't the same thing.

Yes, they are the same, because no one knows who's coming the other direction, or behind you, or cutting in front of you.

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

Thailand's road deaths are overwhelmingly dominated by motorcycles—around 80% of fatalities involve two-wheelers.

A point the member was trying to make to you, which you refuted, but now agree with. You have contradicted yourself.

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

By your logic, because the USA has around 40,000 road deaths every year, nobody should drive there either.

The statistics are compiled by per population. You know this.

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

If you're going to quote statistics, at least understand what they're measuring before drawing conclusions from them.

I'm well aware of what the statistics I posted indicate. It seems you do not know how to analyze statistical data in order to be able to form a hypothesis.

However, I'll play along. Can you post some links showing how safe the roads are in Thailand? 😂

17 hours ago, blaze master said:

100kmph is what I said. Try to keep up.

Try reading your post with glasses it just says 100 🤡 keep up

6 minutes ago, Reddavy said:

Try reading your post with glasses it just says 100 🤡 keep up

And my original post ? After that one would conclude i was probably still talking about kmph.

9 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, we're not. I'm quoting from his own GoFundMe appeal

I see. Since I’m not planning to donate I didn’t bother to read that. Interesting that the news article and his recollection are quite different, but whatever.

Never have I seen a young guy with a motorcycle like this who is not doing twice the speed limit. Sorry but everyone reading this knows it is true. Time to pay the piper.