The debate about gear rages on

[Sharky]

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





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".

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.


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.

So you are the Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory aren't you?

 

[Marcoose]

So why are you not advocating for EVERYONE to wear a neck brace, or HANS device, or airbag jacket.

Something to think about before we go off pointing fingers and calling people ignorant and stupid.

I am. And earplugs, undergarment, sunglasses, sun blocker and whatnot. It's proven over and over again to increase rider comfort and reduce injuries, and it's available everywhere and very affordable these days. (Your examples not quite so yet.)

I'm sure you kept the scores right and noticed I never called anyone those names.

Roadrash is like a burn. If you rash enough percentage of skin, it can be fatal and yes people have died of roadrash although it's not very common.

Add lifetime disfigurement and lost of sensitivity in those areas.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Breaking Daniel]

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:

• I was cruising on the freeway at less than 75 mph and took the exit at only about 10 miles an hour over. I wasn't going fast because I didn't have any serious gear on besides my textile jacket, gloves, and helmet.
  
  
• I just ordered my first leather suit, and find myself occasionally thinking "now I can go on those roads I have been hesitant to try before" or "now I can really start practicing my wheelies."
  
  
• I don't like riding in jeans, and I won't go on what I term an actual "ride" (Redwood, 9, Mines, Berryessa) in anything other than leather.
  
  
• I'm kinda reluctant to return to Ortega, I really don't have the appropriate gear to push myself there.

These riders adjust protection to changing risk, or adjust behavior to available protection. AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

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.

Some ATGATT advocates are incapable of understanding how even an enormous difference in risk might influence the selection of protective gear. 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. Yet some can see no difference between them in the need for protective gear. I totally understand that some might make that choice for themselves; each of perceives and tolerates risk differently. But when they assert that their choice is an absolute that should apply to all, they fail to understand not only the reality of motorcycling risk, but also the differences in how others perceive and adapt to it.

That was exactly my point, only explained in greater detail. I would venture to say that riders are susceptible to a willingness to increase their risk as protection increases. Not all, but some. Think of it like this; Would you be willing to ride a roller coaster without the harness that secures you in? Probably not. With that added level of protection, you are now willing to take the risk of riding a roller coaster (and yes I know that roller coasters, in general, are safe). Am I comparing apples to oranges? In a way, yes. But it still relates to the conversation. Again, if the shoe fits, wear it.

I also have a confession to make. Recently while going up 101N during off traffic hours, a CHP car pulled a traffic stop right in front of me. All of the traffic was completely stopped and I was at the front of the line while the two officers cleared some roadway debris (several folding tables). The traffic block was eventually released, and had resulted in a several mile section of pristine highway with out a single car on it. The CHP exited the very next exit which was only 100 feet ahead. As I conducted a risk assessment, I concluded that a quick WOT sprint was safe enough at that time. By end, I went 160 (according to my digital speedometer, so probably more like 140 I hate digital speedometers for this reason). I know I'm going to catch a lot of flak for doing this, but it is just too relevant to the discussion. Even me, who is probably one of the safest riders you will meet, road like a "squid" when I felt it was safe enough. No one else on the highway meant no one else to hurt but myself. Please don't get into a debate over whether what I did was right or wrong, and keep all responses to this confession on the topic of gear and risk. I don't need a lecture on how what I did was moronic etc...Moral of the story is that as safety increased (no cars on the road, knowing the road very well and that it was free of potholes, 4 lanes + 2 emergency lanes etc...), my willingness to take risks increased. Granted, had I gone down at that speed in my tee shirt and jeans, I likely would not have survived, or been a very different looking person for the rest of my life. What DataDan and I are contesting is that maybe I'm not the only person on two-wheels who thinks this way.

Please reference the Army's CRM (Composite Risk Management) system for further information on this topic. It's all declassified, and can benefit you in several areas of your life. https://safety.army.mil/crm/ FYI, the website, like all military websites, requires you to accept and "unknown certificate" if using Firefox.

 

[Breaking Daniel]

Typically, I only "Double Glove" when your mother is involved.

 

[Breaking Daniel]

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?

GSXR-1000 in blue/white! . Sorry to all the Suzuki fans out there, but that's my experience with it. I will admit though, I have seen some VERY good riders on the exact same bike, so again, if the shoe fits wear it. It's human nature to judge and read books by the cover.

 

[Breaking Daniel]

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!

WTF! If the consensus indeed leads to my hanging, can we reverse the order so that I can at least have one last drink with everyone, then hang me?

 

[latindane]

I am quite surprised to see DataDan's posts here, logically consistent giving examples of attitudes, but no statistically significant data. Google spits one data-based study regarding gear at the top of my search:

http://www.defense.gov/home/pdf/0412_militaryrider/DYK_USMC2.pdf

But of course there is no reason why DataDan, or anybody else for that matter, should be forced to use the same approach to analyzing and deciding about different kinds of risks. Just saying I was surprised. But you even changed the avatar you had had for years, so what do I know!

 

[latindane]

and +1 for hanging

 

[Pking]

All good points....but DAYUM!!

 

[Breaking Daniel]

I am quite surprised to see DataDan's posts here, logically consistent giving examples of attitudes, but no statistically significant data. Google spits one data-based study regarding gear at the top of my search:

http://www.defense.gov/home/pdf/0412_militaryrider/DYK_USMC2.pdf

But of course there is no reason why DataDan, or anybody else for that matter, should be forced to use the same approach to analyzing and deciding about different kinds of risks. Just saying I was surprised. But you even changed the avatar you had had for years, so what do I know!

That's a really good study you linked to. unfortunately it was the exact same as every single other military article, manual, or slide-show regarding safety. It probably cost the taxpayers $1 million to research and produce, yet only stated the hilariously obvious. Gear protects you from injury. DUH!

The debate, at least in its original form, is that gear does NOTHING to prevent a crash. Whether I'm naked and trying to earn my 'breezy rider' patch, or ATGATT, I have no higher of a probability of going down. I think it's ridiculous for someone to call a rider a squid, noob, idiot, moron, or anything of the likes, just because he's in jeans and a tee-shirt. For all you know (presuming he/she is wearing a helmet) that 'squid' in a tee-shirt is a world-class Moto GP champion. Still a squid now?

• Fact: Gear does not prevent a crash.
• Fact: Gear keeps you safer in the event of a crash.
• Fact-ish: I'm a world class Moto GP champion. <---Spread the word.

 

[Marcoose]

Whether I'm naked and trying to earn my 'breezy rider' patch, or ATGATT, I have no higher of a probability of going down.

• Fact: Gear does not prevent a crash.

Wella, wella, wella, not quite so fast, buckaroo. There are the elements, and proper/good gear helps repealing some of the elements. Gear can help regulate rider's body temperature and sun exposure. Gear can help against small debris, bugs, etc. Get too hot, too cold, something flies in the rider's eyes, and the probability of going down is up. And who wants to share the road with a fellow road user with higher-than-needed probability of crashing?

 

[Breaking Daniel]

Wella, wella, wella, not quite so fast, buckaroo. There are the elements, and proper/good gear helps repealing some of the elements. Gear can help regulate rider's body temperature and sun exposure. Gear can help against small debris, bugs, etc. Get too hot, too cold, something flies in the rider's eyes, and the probability of going down is up. And who wants to share the road with a fellow road user with higher-than-needed probability of crashing?

Touche' good sir

Though I am a supporter of removing the helmet law, I would want in its place a law that requires proper eye protection for the exact reason you stated above. A blind rider is a hazard to everyone else. I personally however would not extend the same feelings towards jackets. I've caught more than my fair share of falling pine cones to the chest, rocks raining down from a semi-truck pelting my arms, and unexpected Georgia monsoons stinging my skin to the bone. None of those events cause me to become a hazard to anyone else, though I will admit that each time it happens I certainly enjoy my ride much less. Also, I have, and will NEVER again in my LIFE ride without a helmet. But I do advocate that it should be a choice.

 

[Marcoose]

Though I am a supporter of removing the helmet law, I would want in its place a law that requires proper eye protection for the exact reason you stated above. A blind rider is a hazard to everyone else. I personally however would not extend the same feelings towards jackets. I've caught more than my fair share of falling pine cones to the chest, rocks raining down from a semi-truck pelting my arms, and unexpected Georgia monsoons stinging my skin to the bone. None of those events cause me to become a hazard to anyone else, though I will admit that each time it happens I certainly enjoy my ride much less. Also, I have, and will NEVER again in my LIFE ride without a helmet. But I do advocate that it should be a choice.

The same logic for the blind rider can be stretched to the unconscious rider. Certainly there are debris that can knock someone unconscious or cause sufficient discomfort/pain to destabilize the rider. And who knows if a $300 helmet would've saved the day.

Sometimes I feel and hear strong knocks on the helmet. Thank God for the helmet.

If it's good for the eye, it bound to be good for the rest of the head.

 

[aminalmutha]

Here's how to end the rage: wear what you want, don't give two shits about what someone else wears.

 

[Breaking Daniel]

If it's good for the eye, it bound to be good for the rest of the head.

Are we still talking motorcycle riding here?

 

[Gixxergirl1000]

Wella, wella, wella, not quite so fast, buckaroo. There are the elements, and proper/good gear helps repealing some of the elements. Gear can help regulate rider's body temperature and sun exposure. Gear can help against small debris, bugs, etc. Get too hot, too cold, something flies in the rider's eyes, and the probability of going down is up. And who wants to share the road with a fellow road user with higher-than-needed probability of crashing?

Touche' good sir

Though I am a supporter of removing the helmet law, I would want in its place a law that requires proper eye protection for the exact reason you stated above. A blind rider is a hazard to everyone else. I personally however would not extend the same feelings towards jackets. I've caught more than my fair share of falling pine cones to the chest, rocks raining down from a semi-truck pelting my arms, and unexpected Georgia monsoons stinging my skin to the bone. None of those events cause me to become a hazard to anyone else, though I will admit that each time it happens I certainly enjoy my ride much less. Also, I have, and will NEVER again in my LIFE ride without a helmet. But I do advocate that it should be a choice.

Just as an FYI- before the helmet law, riding at dusk, I caught a big disgusting bug to my forehead that literally almost knocked me off my bike. Not in my eyes- to my forehead. I saw exploding white lights, and it knocked me so far back on the seat that only the very tips of my fingers were on the bars. I was lucky we were going in a straight line- had it been a turn, it absolutely 100% would have been a crash. Had I been going 65 instead of 45, I believe it would have knocked me off the bike.
So yeah- wearing gear really can prevent a crash.
FTR, I never rode without a helmet after that.
Also FTR, I had to wait 5 or 6 days before I could ride, because it took that long for the giant goose egg on my forehead to subside...

 

[Marcoose]

I was lucky we were going in a straight line- had it been a turn, it absolutely 100% would have been a crash. Had I been going 65 instead of 45, I believe it would have knocked me off the bike.

Make that very, very, very luck. Good for you and all around you!

I don't know anyone that likes to have a spill right in front of him/her. That's how many pile ups happen.

 

[DataDan]

I am quite surprised to see DataDan's posts here, logically consistent giving examples of attitudes, but no statistically significant data. Google spits one data-based study regarding gear at the top of my search:

http://www.defense.gov/home/pdf/0412_militaryrider/DYK_USMC2.pdf

But of course there is no reason why DataDan, or anybody else for that matter, should be forced to use the same approach to analyzing and deciding about different kinds of risks. Just saying I was surprised. But you even changed the avatar you had had for years, so what do I know!

I covered the de Rome study two years ago in this 1Rider post.

While I understand the ATGATT principle...

Always take advantage of every available protective measure, regardless of cost, comfort, and convenience.​

...I don't follow it myself. To me, comfort and convenience matter, and I take them into consideration when I choose gear for a ride. Moreover, my gear choice also reflects my perception of crash risk and protective gear effectiveness in the event of a crash--which may differ from your perception.

Those who believe they possess an omniscient view of riding risk and injury protection really need to get over themselves.


The avatar is from the cover of Carl Hiaasen's new book, Bad Monkey, which I'm currently reading and LMAO. The RC30 will be back eventually.

 

[GAJ]

Here's how to end the rage: wear what you want, don't give two shits about what someone else wears.

No kidding.

I had no idea this thread, which I hadn't clicked on till now, was 15 pages!

If ultimate safety were the goal we wouldn't ride.

And WHAT is "all the gear" and what is the "standard" for that gear.

Is ATGATT full leathers with airbags and a LEATT Brace along with the boots, gloves and full face or is it something less than that?

If it is the full on mega protection mentioned above then 99% of us aren't ATGATT.

 

[Breaking Daniel]

Just as an FYI- before the helmet law, riding at dusk, I caught a big disgusting bug to my forehead that literally almost knocked me off my bike. Not in my eyes- to my forehead. I saw exploding white lights, and it knocked me so far back on the seat that only the very tips of my fingers were on the bars. I was lucky we were going in a straight line- had it been a turn, it absolutely 100% would have been a crash. Had I been going 65 instead of 45, I believe it would have knocked me off the bike.
So yeah- wearing gear really can prevent a crash.
FTR, I never rode without a helmet after that.
Also FTR, I had to wait 5 or 6 days before I could ride, because it took that long for the giant goose egg on my forehead to subside...

Actually I've been surprised as well as to just how hard something the size of a fly can impact at 65mph. Pretty impressive actually.