The debate about gear rages on

[ToraTora]

A disagreement in the analyzation of the Data, Dan

.

 

[ToraTora]

It's revealed in the data

.

 

[kevin 714]

So, for intellectual conversations sake, I propose the following question.

Why does everyone get so upset at people who don't wear gear?
I propose that wearing gear does NOTHING in the means of crash prevention. This would equate to the rider who crashes as only causing additional injury to himself, but still not having an affect on anyone else. It's his skin that pays the price, not mine. Gear serves only the purpose of injury prevention, but does not make someone less likely to crash.

I'm not wanting everyone to agree with me, but I can't be the only one out there that understands this. Or am I mistaken? Feel free to educate me if I have overlooked something. Either way, I wear gear sometimes, and ALWAYS ride within my limits as to prevent an accident.

I don't. I think anyone who isn't properly covered is kinda dumb but that's there business. not mine.

 

[Loki1000R]

okay, i'll bite...*their*

sorrytoo many of cincinattius-is-is posts read. nead to go punch some walls and shoot some roids to re-dummy-fy meself

 

[corndog67]

Man I still can't help but see your handle as MicroSoftGuy.... Sorry

Anyway, take a moment to imagine someone riding squid style. Picture it in your head, see the squid riding down the freeway. He does some stunting action, his friends are rolling video. Get a really good image of this cat. Now tell me--what kind of bike do you see him riding?

A Derbi 50.

 

[Tydive]

ToraTora,
That may have sounded logical in your head, but it reads like insults and hyperbole to me.

 

[ToraTora]

.

 

[corndog67]

Man I still can't help but see your handle as MicroSoftGuy.... Sorry

Anyway, take a moment to imagine someone riding squid style. Picture it in your head, see the squid riding down the freeway. He does some stunting action, his friends are rolling video. Get a really good image of this cat. Now tell me--what kind of bike do you see him riding?

A Derbi 50.

Well, you've managed to shoot down DataDan, one of the more respected guys on here, for presenting his Data. Which apparently you don't accept. So, he has a diseased mind because he has different opinions/data than you. And you've said, people that don't wear gear are stupid and ignorant. Some people wear gear, some don't. Get off your superiority trip. Its all in your head.

 

[weak_link]

I don't care what any of you do. I wear gear everytime I go more than a block. If you don't want to, goo fo' you.

 

[WWWobble]

Ah, this thread is reaching classic status.
Imagine....
Smart people wearing gear.
Stupid people not wearing gear.
Some smart people not wearing gear.
Some stupid people wearing gear.
Some people who are BOTH smart and stupid
who sometimes wear gear and sometimes don't,
and some smartly wearing gear ride more stupidly
because of the gear or maybe not.
and now
...a Derbi 50 as a Stuntah!!!
Difficult. But maybe with MontyPython?
YES!! I can imagine that.

WWWobble

 

[ToraTora]

Tell me about your mother...

.

 

[kevin 714]

I don't care what any of you do. I wear gear everytime I go more than a block. If you don't want to, goo fo' you.

Pretty much my POV.

But then again I hardly street ride except in burkina gasp where I didn't wear an ounce of gear

 

[Asphaultnaut]

Speaking of medical insurance and other insurance, what about those double cheeseburgers, cigarettes and booze? All that shit kills you, at a much higher rate in the general population than riding motorcycles.

Ever heard of a place called New York that is already regulating that sort of thing too?

Health Insurance will be the excuse that busybodies have fantasized about for decades as a social control mechanism

 

[kevin 714]

Ever heard of a place called New York that is already regulating that sort of thing too?

Health Insurance will be the excuse that busybodies have fantasized about for decades as a social control mechanism

we SHOULD be focusing on the effective poisoning of the American food supply by big ag/business, lowering medical costs, and replacing the insurance based system...

but instead no soda lol (well abns that law was struck down)

 

[Cincinnatus]

okay, i'll bite...*their*

sorrytoo many of cincinattius-is-is posts read. nead to go punch some walls and shoot some roids to re-dummy-fy meself

 

[MCSFTGUY]

I don't care what any of you do. I wear gear everytime I go more than a block. If you don't want to, goo fo' you.

Where in the hell have you been hiding?

Even when you wear all of the gear it won't help a knuckle-dragger like you

Whatsup Eric?

Enough of this arguing... I say we hang Breaking Daniel in effigy for starting this and then go have a beer....

Right after I ride home from work wearing my JEANS!

 

[Karbon]

LOL look at these dumb idiots riding motorcycles.

 

[corndog67]

Mama-san? Don't be talk in' 'bout Mama-san!

 

[DataDan]

...a person who wears gear may be anticipating a higher likelihood of crashing, as they are going to be riding more aggressively.

Totally false--and yet even cops hold this attitude. We gear up because we recognize there are horrible drivers behind the wheels of Hondas out there that threaten our lives with a high level of incidence.

Daniel's statement shouldn't be the least bit controversial. It describes a rational, commonsense response to an increase in perceived risk: When we see greater danger, we're more likely to adopt protective measures. And many motorcyclists freely admit it:

The issue isn't that there are SOME people that do this--it's that the statement indicates that ALL people do this--which is blatantly false. And you know it's the case because multiple folks have already provide DATA to the contrary. Making a cute little list illustrating that SOME riders, such as yourself are professed wear more gear when riding AGGRESSIVELY, doesn't mean that EVERYONE is the same as you. The only reasonable information that you can draw from that DATA is that SOME people are like you.

Daniel's statement--a person may be anticipating a higher likelihood of crashing--is of the form: For SOME X, P is true. It can be proved by showing that one X exists for which P is true. It can be disproved by showing that for ALL X, P is false.

You argued, "Totally false", yet you failed to disprove Daniel's assertion by showing it to be false for all riders. I replied by proving it to be true, offering several examples of riders for which it is true.

In its original context, Daniel's statement seems to me to be an assertion about SOME riders, while you interpreted it as about ALL. That is apparently the source of our disagreement.

/sheldon

What's pathological is denying a variation in risk based on personal riding choices. And perceiving the protective value of gear to be so great that its risk reduction overwhelms any variability in riding style. And the colossal ego to imagine oneself capable of evaluating the cost in inconvenience and discomfort of wearing protective gear for every other motorcyclist on the planet.

The mental disease that is going on here is when an argument, such as the one you are employing, attempts apply the one size fits all label on the folks that advocate wearing PROPER PROTECTION.

Now we're getting somewhere. I misjudged you as a "one size fits all" sort. Will you join me in supporting these principles?

• Motorcycle crash risk varies to a considerable degree, depending on rider attitude, strategy, and skill.
• Yet even with ideal traits some risk remains.
• Motorcycle gear provides a certain degree of protection against many crash injuries.
• Protective gear also has costs in dollars, comfort, and convenience.
• For an experienced rider, the best judge of crash risk is the rider himself.
• It is also the rider who can best judge the tradeoff between the costs of gear and the protection it provides. He alone is in a position to choose "proper protection".

Consider the following statement:

I always wear leather on my 200-mile canyon loop, but never when riding 2 miles to pick up a six-pack at the Kwik-E-Mart.​

Assuming constant risk per mile, those two rides differ in crash risk by A FACTOR OF ONE HUNDRED.

There you go again allowing your own personal beliefs to produce results that aren't in the actual DATA. Nearly all moto crash data collected indicates that you will have an incident well before you even get to the canyon. If that is indeed the case (and the data does describe that state) then how can you advocate not gearing up for a short run? Based on the data, and applying your logic, it would indicate that you would be more effective gearing up for the short runs, and wearing shorts when you go canyon diving. And if you find racing around the canyons in shorts to be even the least bit humorous, you'll start to understand how your accusations of not gearing up for other conditions sound just as goofy to the gear advocates.

To correct the bolded sentence: I do not ADVOCATE less than full gear for a short run, I CHOOSE IT FOR MYSELF.

You'll have to cite your source, but for the purpose of this discussion I will stipulate greater risk per mile around town than in the canyons. However, you will have no luck persuading me that I'm at greater risk on a 2-mile ride to the Kwik-E-Mart than on a 200-mile canyon ride. That's a factor of 100 in mileage exposure, and no reasonable estimate of per-mile risk will come close to equating total crash risk. But regardless, what matters is MY PERCEPTION of the risk and the inconvenience of wearing full gear in a short ride in town. And I'm comfortable with the tradeoffs I make.

please wear the proper gear for the situation, okay?

I always do, and I'm sure you do too. We probably disagree on "proper" in some cases, but that shouldn't matter if each of us respects the other's perceptions and rational faculties.

 

[Ogier le Danois]

I'm surprised no one took me to task on my fearless gearless riding. Why the last time I did it I was piloting a 1200 GS. I think Hanz und Klaus would not approve.