Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Why we ride: Sociological Perspective

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by sunite, Apr 3, 2010.

  1. being a sociologist myself i decided to have a look for the reason why we do ride motorcycles, some parts of it are true in the report, but you have to remeber that this is from the UK, so some parts u have to relate to the context. its an intreting read if u like reading social science(doing it for 4 yrs im over it) it would however be an intresting honours topic.... a real account/an anthropoligist having an account in the world of the other bikes (the other 99% of the bikies, there being millions of articles on the 1% bikers)

  2. Interesting article.
    Probably a bit high brow and intellectual for 99% of the forum readers here.
  3. Omg you finished your degree already???? Congrats man, when did you graduate?
  4. your a scientologist? :shock::eek:hno:
  5. You might be surprised. This isn't a Harley forum. ;)

    I lol'd when the author managed to cite Foucault on power -> truth -> knowledge. It's the basis of much of the criticism of the partnership between MUARC and VicRoads / TAC in this forum. If only more laymen understood how such theory applies to the Bumby Govmint's "speed kills" community brainwash program. It ain't rocket science (unless you ride one of these). :p
  6. Just from the abstract that article might as well be called "Motorcyclist delusions and the illusion of invincibility."

    I haven't read the whole thing, but it does sound like another patronising 'you don't know what's best for you, but we do' spiel.

    What these studies and reports always seem to miss is that most of us, from what I can tell, are aware of the greater risks, but also ways to manage them to the point where we believe the benefits outweigh them. In that sense it IS a rational decision, even if many of us make it subconsciously.
  7. you know, the geek, who wrote that giant slice of waffle, who needs to get a life, would learn a thousand times as much about "why they ride or whatever blah...if he'd just go get on a bike and go for a ride...but oooh nooo, that would be too dangerous haha...if you really want to learn about something, try it...people who critique things they don't actually experience shit me.
  8. yea i finished my sociology major last year, and doing my employment relations major this and next year, been studying part time, taking ages to finish, and no goz not a Scientology XD

    yea well ill pull out all the relevant parts outta the article, since most people dont seem to be getting the gasp of the article, it is originally commissioned to understand why people ride motorcycles and to understand how we can reduce the risk, essentially the author is arguing that the motorcyclist think that because we know road craft (that is where we set up for breaking, anticipate where the accidents are going to occur ect) (the 'we' being the non-learner motorcyclists) we are not the people that cause the accidents, and that because we are on the motorcycle we are always blamed to be the culprit of the accident, thats the crux of it, the article goes off into many tangents,

    i mean why doesnt the MCC of NSW (put in ur relevent state here) use research like this to formulate draft policy to release to the respective transport ministers of there respectable states, with studies like this being released by international professors, we have the resources to be heard, the people that write these do not do it for fun, they hope that the representative bodies actually do something about it, and make our voice heard. im so sick and tired of the MCC of NSW doing nothing relevant and this is exactly what they should be doing, drafting up policy and using it to force issues. If you read this article carefully, and you compare this to the TAC add they released about how motorcyclist are the main culprits of accidents, at question time in the victorian parliment, the transport minister would have alot to answer for, INDEPENDENT studies prove that motorcyclist are not the main culprits, its the lazy drivers, serve this with some statistics and put this out as a media release on the lap of the shadow minister of transport, and then you would be doing your job.
  9. Yeah, the problem with sociology (no offence to anyone present, I did a bit of it at uni myself) is that it's sandwiched between dealing with human nature and collective consciousness etc, and pretending be scientific in analysing/explaining/predicting. And it's taught through the Arts faculty! ;)

    Anyhoo, to the point - apart from a brief paragraph on pg. 19 of 21 dealing with bikes being ignored in road engineering, I could glean very little of any actual use from the report. My initial impressions remain, and the 16-odd pages of methodoligical semantics are of interest only to those with a pretty detailed grasp of the discipline, and even then the interest is irrelevant to the actual subject matter. The fact that the report is a decade old, and the interviews are now 20 years old doesn't help relevance much.

    All that said, if you would care to translate some of the bulk that descends into intellectualism for it's own sake, I'd also be interested to see how you would distill the 21 pages into useful material for something like the MCC to use as policy fodder.
  10. Did your professors, or anyone earlier in your schooling, also teach you spelling and grammar? I mean, I know this is just a forum, and none of us check what we write much, but you really should read what you have written and critique it. Maybe just a little sentence structure? It bugs me like hell when so called educated people, the experts we rely on, can't write a decent sentence or spell even with a spell checker available. How can we trust there higher thought processes if they can't communicate?

    I read the Abstract and Conclusion of the report. As with others above, I didn't see much value in it. The report does seem to be a journey in intellectualism, rather than the documentation of a meaningful study of Motorcycling.

    Oh yeah, Darkhorse it is "methodological", not "methodoligical". :roll: Okay, I'm being a spelling nanny now. :D
  11. Talking of pedantic -that should be their -not there[-(
  12. :rofl:
  13. Oops. But I'm just an internet hack, not someone writing a critical piece, or a report on human motivations and behaviour. My fingers always spell differently to my mind. :D

    Thanks Andy. =D>

    Actually if I was going to be pedantic, you should have said "hypocritical" rather than "pedantic". :rofl:

    Back On Topic, I meant to also say that human beings are risk taking animals. A game of football can be quite risky, let alone hang gliding, scuba diving, skiing, roller blading, ice skating, etc. etc. I don't see a need to focus on the risks of motorcycling as much as many people do.
  14. Hahaha!!! At least the "i" and "o" are next to each other! :rofl:

    Ya picky bugger. ;)
    (resisting the temptation to correct that to read "you meticulous sodomiser.")
  15. This work is being done from the "outside" of the community - it would be interesting to see a similar piece of work done by a rider. There's been a lot of other work done on "dangerous" sports - rock-climbing in particular. The conclusions from those with real knowledge of the community they are studying are almost always very different from those who don't.
  16. Not to sound too picky, but isn't it spelled Nazi not Nazy.
  17. Er, yeah. Spelling doesn't have three Ls too. It's sarcasm.
  18. then instead of than
  19. Also incorrect apostrophe. The poster was a joke, but if it had to be explained it looks like you didn't get it.