http://www.wral.com/apncnews/6767407/detail.html

Quote :

"CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. -- More troops have died in off-duty motorcycle accidents since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, than have been killed in combat in Afghanistan over that same time, according to safety records. Military commanders in North Carolina say the deaths are largely the result of boredom, bonus pay, and adrenalin to burn off after troops return from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly 350 troops have died on bikes since the 2001 terrorist attacks. That's compared to 259 killed while serving in Afghanistan. Nearly 1,000 more troops have been injured on bikes. Marine Lance Cpl. Mark Strickland, 24, was one of five Marines from Camp Lejeune who were involved in serious motorcycle crashes in October. Four of them had been home just a few weeks from combat in Iraq's deadly Anbar Province. Three of the Marines were killed and another lost a leg. "When the doctor told me that he was dead, I told him that wasn't acceptable, it just wasn't acceptable," said Andrea Strickland, 22, the widow of Mark Strickland. "I said, 'He just got back from a war zone, and you're going to tell me that he died doing something he loved?' " The problem could get worse as some 20,000 Marines and sailors begin returning to bases in North Carolina over the coming weeks. "Our goal is not to see the same thing happen," said Lt. Gen. James F. Amos, commander of the Camp Lejeune-based II Marine Expeditionary Force. Amos described the crashes in October as "a cold shot to the heart" and ordered a crackdown. The following month normal base operations were halted to focus on safety, particularly for motorcyclists. Camp Lejeune also added safety programs and re-emphasized existing ones. These include a mentor program Amos created that's being considered as a model for the entire Marine Corps. The Army hasn't been immune to off-duty motorcycle deaths, with more than 40 in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. The Army chief of staff issued a memo in December that urge experienced riders to cut the accident rate by mentoring beginners. The military has enough of a challenge maintaining a force that repeated deployments have left severely stretched, according to two reports released last month _ one commissioned by the Pentagon, the other by Congressional Democrats. In response to the motorcycle injuries, Maj. Gen. Robert C. Dickerson Jr., who oversees most of the Marine Corps' East Coast facilities, has visited area motorcycle dealers and asked them to pass out Corps-funded $100 vouchers to Marine customers for the safety classes. "I've owned three motorcycles, and they're a lot of fun, but you've got to be careful," Dickerson said. He says the Marines need risk-takers but it's crucial to draw a line between courage and recklessness. Troops say the bikes fill the adrenalin void they left behind in the war zone. "Riders who have been in accidents have told us that it's the legal crack cocaine," said J.T. Coleman, a civilian spokesman for the Army's Combat Readiness Center in Fort Rucker, Ala., which tracks accidents among soldiers. "They say it gives them the same adrenaline rush they get driving their tank through Baghdad or whatever.""

2/6/2006 7:21:29 PM

interesting
soap box would hate this

2/6/2006 7:24:53 PM

the guy on the picture was not wearing his gear (which is actually mandated by the military). way to be tough.

2/6/2006 9:13:38 PM

at first i thought this thread was about bicycles

2/6/2006 9:51:32 PM

i want to buy one of those icon military spec vests

2/6/2006 9:54:11 PM

fuckin marines fuckin up da rotation

2/6/2006 10:13:31 PM

OOCHRA

2/6/2006 10:19:18 PM

hell, i've wrecked 4 times, and i haven't even seen any combat.

2/6/2006 10:25:10 PM

yup, the guy who I bought the CBR600 RR was an army guy from ft. bragg. Had an accident last year (hinse the wrecked part)

2/6/2006 10:26:28 PM

fuckin squids cant ride either

2/6/2006 10:30:50 PM

There were I think 2 bad motorcycle accidents last fall. I was pretty certain it was just any off-duty vehicle accident that outpaced combat deaths, not simply motorcycle accidents.

DOD Mandates a motorcycle safety class and you can't ride on a federal installation without a DOT approved helmet, long sleeve shirt, long pants, gloves, boots and a reflective vest.


[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 3:33 AM. Reason : .]

2/7/2006 3:07:45 AM

Quote :

"than have been killed in combat in Afghanistan"

some media semantics there, not a huge force in afghanistan like iraq

2/7/2006 3:12:23 AM

Haha, it's 3 in the morning, missed that piece.

Still I would be willing to bet that if you took vehicle accidents and placed them next to combat deaths the vehicle accidents would probably outpace the combat deaths.

2/7/2006 3:33:16 AM

^ you would be wrong

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/STSI/State_Info.cfm?Year=2004&State=NC&Accessible=0

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 3:41 AM. Reason : l;]

2/7/2006 3:41:00 AM

Let me rephrase:

If you took the total number of vehicle fatalities for US servicemembers incurred since 9-11-01 and placed them alongside the total number of fatalities in combat from the same period, I would be willing to bet that the number of vehicle deaths would outpace the number of fatalities in combat. Or at the very least, be distressingly close to it.

(I mean, seriously, did you think that google searching the number of deaths in simply NC in one calendar year solved the question. Man, I need to retire to the private sector where I could easily take your 40-hour a week job).

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 4:04 AM. Reason : .]

2/7/2006 4:03:12 AM

Oh no
the war on motorcycles is gonna start

2/7/2006 9:26:01 AM

drunk soldiers on bikes, obviously it doesn't work out so well for them

2/7/2006 9:57:48 AM

i like how one of the reasons the leadership doesn't like this is because of low troop recruitment

2/7/2006 10:45:29 AM

pfft more wrecked bikes for us/parts.

2/7/2006 10:54:34 AM

My uncle told me about a motorcycle safety video they made them watch after he got back from the whole desert storm thing... Some guy was going flat out and ended up smearing himself along the concrete barrier of some interchange. They laughed.

2/7/2006 2:16:13 PM

Quote :

" If you took the total number of vehicle fatalities for US servicemembers incurred since 9-11-01 and placed them alongside the total number of fatalities in combat from the same period, I would be willing to bet that the number of vehicle deaths would outpace the number of fatalities in combat. Or at the very least, be distressingly close to it. (I mean, seriously, did you think that google searching the number of deaths in simply NC in one calendar year solved the question. Man, I need to retire to the private sector where I could easily take your 40-hour a week job)."

And you'd still be wrong. First of all, that link includes the rate of death per 100k people for the entire US (14.56). Assuming that figure is essentially the same over the last few years, we can see that it is clearly lower than the rate of death for afghanistan.

The total number of reported US casualties since 9/11 has been 255. Lets assume an average of 21k troops have been in afghanistan since invasion. So, about 60 people have died per year in afghanistan. If you convert that to a per 100k person figure, that's a death rate of about 285 per 100k people.

I hope your vast intelligence can understand that 285 is bigger than 14.5. Even if my troop strength numbers are off, they aren't that order of magnitude off.

Maybe you can get a job washing my car?


[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 7:29 PM. Reason : http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ national figures for several years]

2/7/2006 7:25:56 PM

AGain, did you read what I wrote?

Christ almighty.

Quote :

"If you took the total number of vehicle fatalities for US servicemembers incurred since 9-11-01 and placed them alongside the total number of fatalities in combat from the same period, I would be willing to bet that the number of vehicle deaths would outpace the number of fatalities in combat. Or at the very least, be distressingly close to it."

Give me the total number of US troops killed by vehicles.
Then give me the total number of US troops killed in combat.


Which is greater? That's all I am asking. (I shouldn't have to break every task down for you.)
Research methodology and direction following has clearly taken a dive at NCSU.

[Edited on February 9, 2006 at 8:10 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2006 8:08:52 PM

^still acting dumb, I see? The highest rate is 45 per 100k by those genius jarheads last year.

http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/statistics/ashore/motorvehicle/tables.htm

Is there anything else you want to be wrong about? Make sure you double bag that milk.

2/9/2006 11:59:54 PM

You need to read.

I did not ask for rates.

I asked for:

Quote :

"Give me the total number of US troops killed by vehicles. Then give me the total number of US troops killed in combat. Which is greater? That's all I am asking. (I shouldn't have to break every task down for you.) "

(i.e., specified task)

That would mean that in order to effectively obtain these numbers you would need (i.e., implied tasks):

A.) The total number of US servicemembers (All 4 branches)
B.) Total number of fatalities incurred from privately owned vehicles
C.) Total number of fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Please, be civil. Please, do things the right way. I really have higher hopes for an NC State graduate.

(Hint, hint, let's say the rate per year is 45/100k for USMC personnel, that would mean that--assuming there's 500,000 people in the USMC--that there would be on average 225 fatalities for USMC personnel. Now, there are four total branches of the US Armed Forces. Please obtain statistics for all four branches, then obtain the total force numbers. That is the method by which you would reliably find total numbers of fatalities, which, incidentally, is what I asked for to begin with).

(And some friendly statistics help: If you properly read the page at the bottom, you will discover that the RATE of fatalities for FY05 is 27.51 per 100,000 for the USMC, and the TOTAL number of fatalities for FY05 is 45 for the USMC. )


[Edited on February 10, 2006 at 7:14 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2006 7:04:38 AM

lol im making a soapbox out of garage

2/10/2006 7:22:38 AM

I know.

I love talking about reading and research methodology because you'll note that a lot of NCSU grads are sorely lacking in it.

I do this at work too when people don't answer questions properly. I amuse myself sometimes

2/10/2006 7:23:37 AM

^^^

For someone who purportedly does this for a living, you are either incompetent and/or dishonest. Why the fuck would I need totals when they have already calculated the rates (which obviously encodes that information)?

By trying to use totals, you are hoping to compare oranges to apples and hope that no one notices (gee whiz, maybe that's why they report the deaths in rates in the first place ). The only reason you don't want rates is because it completely makes your original point look stupid (that vehicle deaths come anything close to outpacing combat deaths).

I'm glad the taxpayers are paying you to make a mockery of basic statistics.

[Edited on February 10, 2006 at 8:13 PM. Reason : sdf]

2/10/2006 8:12:00 PM

please post the # of people who died in Afganistan and Iraq since 9/11 and post the # of sevice men/women deployed at each.

2/10/2006 9:23:07 PM

^^

First of all, I needed to make sure you knew the difference between RATES and TOTALS (which, obviously, by your assertation that there were 45 USMC deaths per 100,000 personnel in FY05, you do not*). Secondly, I made a postulation based on total numbers. That was all. It directly relates to the article in that it also deals with total numbers, not rates.

I mean, you work in a business. The business world runs on information. Don't you ever question the information coming by you? Be part of the solution.


My point is simple: you cannot answer simple, direct questions. I cannot believe they let you out of NC State and into the business world without this ability. I cannot believe that you would put your name next to a post where you obviously have no ability to exercise any degree of reading comprehension.

Now, I will ask you one last time before I lose all hope in an education derived from NC State University. My original point was:

Quote :

"If you took the total number of vehicle fatalities for US servicemembers incurred since 9-11-01 and placed them alongside the total number of fatalities in combat from the same period, I would be willing to bet that the number of vehicle deaths would outpace the number of fatalities in combat. Or at the very least, be distressingly close to it."

It was posted in relation to the original post, which noted this:

Quote :

"Nearly 350 troops have died on bikes since the 2001 terrorist attacks. That's compared to 259 killed while serving in Afghanistan."

It makes no mention of those 350 troops having already served in Afghanistan either (so why did you feel the need to make up a number of troops that had returned from Afghanistan? I mean, if you wanted to challenge me and use it as a distractor in a word problem, great, but I would have thought you'd be a little more creative about it)

Now, the original post and my post appear to be discussing apples. Why bring up oranges and attepmt to run this topic into the ground? Do you not have any respect for the original poster?


*== FY01-05 Marine PMV Fatality Rates
Fatalities Fatality Rate
FY01 33 19.08
FY02 65 37.41
FY03 53 29.81
FY04 46 25.87
FY05 45 25.35
FY01-05 242 27.51


Do we understand the difference between total number of fatalities and rates? I would certainly hope you exercise more careful reading and reporting in the future.

[Edited on February 11, 2006 at 12:13 AM. Reason : .]

2/11/2006 12:06:19 AM

You still don't get it. This is why I am in the business world:

The thread starter posts an article throwing out some scare statistic about how more troops have died from accidents than combat. By making this juxtaposition, they obviously want to play up vehicle deaths as some sort of great tragedy. A couple of chumps such as yourself, other posters, and the military dumb-asses in the article all chime in with their "dittos."

Instead of swallowing the fallacious original argument, I exercised a basic level of critical thinking to show that the comparison of PMV deaths to combat deaths is a bunch of bullshit. Since you seemed to have completely miss the point, I'll say it explicitly: the original article is sensationalist claptrap meant to give dumb people a false sense of how epidemic PMV deaths are.

That's why they didn't lead off the article with, "Since 9-11, US soldiers have died at a rate of 250/100k in combat but only ~20/100k in all personal auto accidents. OMFG auto accidents are a problem for military personnel!!!"

Instead of exercising this modest amount of critical analysis, your greatest concern was some lackey-level exercise in confirming the numbers and methodology of the original article. You've figured out that I don't give a shit about doing this. I accept their numbers. I accept that military website's own reporting of their death figures, too.

I do not accept their analysis. You know what analysis is, right? Apparently you don't, since not one word you have posted in this thread addresses the fundamental argument made in the original article.

I fully expect this level of thinking from a professional lackey. My employer expects a little better.


------------
Some miscellaneous points:

1. In haste, I did mistake the total number as a rate, but it didn't affect the meat of my argument. In fact, the actual rate that I missed strengthens my argument! Of course, you don't even grok that there is a bigger argument, here, so it went over your head. In case you still don't get it -- for the argument I was making, I only have to be in the ballpark.

I can see how someone who only thinks on the level of minutia could miss that. You thought you were being smart by pushing this "research methodology blha blha blah" shit, right?

2. In analysis, you can impute and estimate numbers and still make a bigger picture argument. Even if my estimated numbers [troop deployment] are off, the error does not affect the order of magnitude difference between the rates.

3. You're one to criticize me about careful reading : "It makes no mention of those 350 troops having already served in Afghanistan either." Huh? Where the hell did I say anything about those 350 serving in afghanistan? This really shows me that everything I've said totally flies over your head. All I did was put that 350 in context compared to the 259 in context. The original article and you did not put them in context.

5. Perfect data means nothing if sits under a shitty argument (while the reverse is not so stark). That's why your pedantry about research methodology is amusing.

6. I'm sure this is the most amount of text anyone has typed in garage.


You're welcome to have the last word. My work is done here.


[Edited on February 11, 2006 at 1:27 AM. Reason : asdf]

2/11/2006 1:25:07 AM

Quote :

"That's why they didn't lead off the article with, "Since 9-11, US soldiers have died at a rate of 250/100k in combat but only ~20/100k in all personal auto accidents. OMFG auto accidents are a problem for military personnel!!!" "

This is by far an example of how you do not get the point of the article. If you honestly don't think that vehicle accidents are a problem for military personnel, you need to check the "death board" on any military installation. An organization consisting of young males definitely needs some remedial training on safer driving.

If you don't understand numbers, understand how people operate.

But of course, you will not adress the basic issues. You love to claim you're too intelligent or important for that.

[Edited on February 11, 2006 at 8:07 AM. Reason : .]

2/11/2006 7:57:54 AM

A statistic I'd like to see is what percentage of the USMC owns motorcycles vs. how many have seen combat duty in Afghanistan.

2/11/2006 8:08:21 AM

That would actually be somewhat easy to find. Assuming they've all registered their motorcycles on post (which they have to), it would be easy to find that number.

I'm just too friggin' lazy to do that this morning.

It should also drive home the point that, as a commander, the worst thing you will ever do is to have troops that die under your command. That being said, you are probably just as likely to have one die in a pointless motorcycle accident than in combat.

[Edited on February 11, 2006 at 8:52 AM. Reason : .]

2/11/2006 8:23:46 AM

wasn't the % of combat troops stationed in Iraq and Afganistan also died from vehicle accidents (helicopters, humvee's, etc.) also high? Anyone know the % of soldiers that actually died from enemy fire?

2/11/2006 1:59:36 PM

I know that in Iraq, there's about 25% of troops dying from accidents (although that stat might be a year or a year and a half old, so take that is it is).

Accidents in combat used to take a huge toll (the rule of thumb was that there was about one death from an accident or illness per death in actual combat). Not to say that there's one large factor accounting for the entire decrease in accident rates, but I know that for the aviaition side of the house, there have been great improvements since the Vietnam era in aircraft survivability, safety, instrument training, crew coordination, and of course, pre-mission planning. If you look back at Vietnam, there were about 5,000 fatalities directly relating to Army Aviation crashes--it was an inherently dangerous field to be in.

Safety is one of those things to take seriously--whether actually deployed or not--imagine trying to explain to some mother that their child not only died, but they died in an aircraft because you were trying to do give the passengers a ride and you did some negative Gs and the wheel chocks flew up into the cockpit, jamming the collective so you couldn't pull up. Or think more mundane--that their child died because they were 18 years old and driving recklessly. It's simply very difficult to justify and rationalize accidental deaths. They are simply preventable on so many levels.

[Edited on February 11, 2006 at 9:03 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2006 8:59:23 PM