Of course, posting anonymously makes me a coward. I cry now.

Something like 2% of reported motorcycle *accidents* are fatal, not 2% of all riders are killed. That would in fact be insane.

See http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/motorcycle-accident-statistics.htm

(The real stat was 69.33 out of every 100,000 in 2004)

Though the font seems to be smaller than default, it’s also showing slightly larger here for quotes (the old quotes font size on Boing Boing was ridiculously small)… but Ctrl + Pluskey works on Firefox, so I’m not sure exactly what problem you mention…

“Site redesigns are inevitable, but not being able to adjust the size of a main font in any web site is inexcuseable.”

Font size adjusting is working just fine for me here. It might help the site’s designers if you told them what browser you’re using that it doesn’t work for.

Anon @1:47:

“can someone repost this article in a new font plz ty”

Have you considered using a user stylesheet?

“Overall, motorcycle mortality rates per 100,000 population declined from 1.6 in 1983 to 0.9 in 1993 and then increased to 1.2 in 2003.”
-http://scienceweek.com/2005/sc050218-6.htm

By my math (admittedly not the greatest) that is a
.012% mortality, no?

i know several hundred bikers, and only a few of them are dead…

There’s also the matter of risk homeostasis that suggests that people have an innate target level of acceptable risk which does not change. That is, often when an activity is made safer, the participants are emboldened to behave more aggressively. The net effect can be that the activity is no more safe than before – and sometimes less so. Safety initiatives only shuffle risk around rather than reduce it.

Consider how we’re completely unfazed about zipping down the highway at 80-90 m.p.h. because of the false sense of security afforded by automotive safety advances like 3-point restraints, airbags, ABS, crumple-zones, & such. These safety innovations may make our driving habits more risky, not less. And there’s definitely support for the argument of risk compensation when you look at the attitudes & driving habits of SUV-owners…

Contemporary economists (American, anyway) believe all behaviour is selfish … Evolutionary psychologists believe all behaviour is related to reproductive strategies … Yawn … There is far more under the sun than either discipline limits its attention to.

P.S. Still finding the new font really hard on the eyes.

I won’t even start to bitch about people who don’t wear helmets.

Personally, it doesn’t matter to me either way. If you want to make orphans of your children, more power to you!

Risk assessment is pretty interesting, though. It largely has to do with the immediate effects (or perceived effects) of the lifestyle change.

Plus, as the post notes, this study only suggests that men are more likely to *report* risk-taking behavior. Which may – or may not – indicate that they are actually more likely to take risks.

With respect to social risks (standing up to the boss), the punishment for failure is higher for people with less social power (women are seen as ‘bitches’ while men are ‘assertive’).

With respect to material risks, people who have dependents or fewer resources with which to recuperate have every reason to be more risk-averse.

In neither case is an evolutionary explanation for gender differences more convincing than the fact that genders are positioned differently w/r/t social power or resources at the time of the study.

Site redesigns are inevitable, but not being able to adjust the size of a main font in any web site is inexcuseable.

I’m glad you mentioned the distinction between self-reporting and observed behavior once, but it would be nice if you had phrased the article in terms like “men are more likely to say that they’ll take risks.”

As for fertility risks from common behaviors, I’m pretty sure that tight jeans and the dye in Mountain Dew are a greater risk to male fertility than THC.

There’s also the matter of risk homeostasis that suggests that people have an innate target level of acceptable risk which does not change. That is, often when an activity is made safer, the participants are emboldened to behave more aggressively. The net effect can be that the activity is no more safe than before – and sometimes less so. Safety initiatives only shuffle risk around rather than reduce it.

Consider how we’re completely unfazed about zipping down the highway at 80-90 m.p.h. because of the false sense of security afforded by automotive safety advances like 3-point restraints, airbags, ABS, crumple-zones, & such. These safety innovations may make our driving habits more risky, not less. And there’s definitely support for the argument of risk compensation when you look at the attitudes & driving habits of SUV-owners…

I don’t think humans being terrible at assessing risk and probability is news to many.