redtail
only ones and zeroes
Wear what you want, but use good rationale for doing it. Those two goals are not mutually exclusive, being visible does not preclude road rash protection.
-
There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.
The debate about gear rages on
- Thread starter Breaking Daniel
- Start date
Wear what you want, but use good rationale for doing it. Those two goals are not mutually exclusive, being visible does not preclude road rash protection.
Consider this: let's assume you are one of the many Californians who only has minimum liability insurance (the ridiculously low 15K per one person's injury, I hope everyone here knows better); you accidentally hit a rider wearing a half-helmet with your car, causing serious brain damage; or you crash your bike and your passenger wearing jeans and t-shirt is badly hurt. Would you be willing to pay their lifelong medical expenses, lost compensation etc. beyond the ridiculous 15K the insurance will cover, knowing that most of their injuries would have been preventable? I would even be fine with making ATGATT mandatory (and also losing your license if caught texting, as someone suggested) but I wear my gear all the time anyway, not to save other people's money but to save my skin and brain. BTW, I think riding without gear is not BRAVE in any way, and just forget about freedom... freedom of choice, yes, if squids would only cause solo crashes but most likely other people will be involved.
russ69
Backside Slider
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.
DataDan
Mama says he's bona fide
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.
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.
Gixxergirl1000
AFM #731
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Location
- Stockton
- Moto(s)
- GSXR-1000; GSX-R 450 Triple race bike "Timmay"; GS 500 race bike "The Murderbike"
- Name
- Connie
Just because someone's in a full suit doesn't mean they have any ability to ride- it just means they're attempting to mitigate risk. And if someone can't stay in their lane to get through a corner, they need to re-evaluate their riding abilities, and get some training.
I had a BARFer pick up a small slab of asphalt for me to add to my arsenal for 1Rider... which I really need to start doing again. *sigh* not enough weekends in the summer...
When I crashed in 5a at T-Hill, I tumbled around in the infield at about 55mph... holy crap that hurts... like getting beat with a bat. But I was in full leathers, armored, with a back protector, and came out of it without a single mark on me- not even a bruise. 1-pc suit FTW...
Last edited:
Terminal G
New member
latindane
Learner. EuroPW, NaPS
Got late to this one, but have seen many (as in more than half) riders in shorts and t-shirt here in DK these last few weeks when the weather is good.
I don't get angry, but I catch myself shaking my head.
It's not about the insurance. Hadn't thought of why before, but my guess is that I react to a lack of foresight that is indicative of their attitude in general. Kind of like people passing on a hill or curve... of course there can be actual repercussions and in that example they can affect others, but even if you imagine that they could only affect themselves, it's this "why would you do that?" that pops up in my head.
I don't get angry, but I catch myself shaking my head.
It's not about the insurance. Hadn't thought of why before, but my guess is that I react to a lack of foresight that is indicative of their attitude in general. Kind of like people passing on a hill or curve... of course there can be actual repercussions and in that example they can affect others, but even if you imagine that they could only affect themselves, it's this "why would you do that?" that pops up in my head.
MCSFTGUY
Seriously Disturbed Calm
You might want to let the Peer Review Committee at the Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics know that they messed up in their review of the paper and allowed the printing of a flawed research report.
You may disagree with their methodology, but unless there is another study or paper out there that disproves the findings of this paper then I would accept them as valid.
And FEMA.... Federation of European Motorcyclists Association and ACEM the European Motorcycle Industry cover all of the countries in the European Union. They look at as much information and data as they can to save lives and prevent crashes all over Europe. Well, at least this is what the people I have talked to over there have told me.
MCSFTGUY
Seriously Disturbed Calm
You are right. I probably should have been more specific... My winter riding gear is high visibility. My summer riding gear is a yellow vest or a bright yellow long sleeve t-shirt neither of which will qualify for protection of road rash.
MCSFTGUY
Seriously Disturbed Calm
Connie... at the risk of getting hammered again about research out of Europe... one of the things that is being discovered is that motorcycle crashes and rider dynamics on the track are not a good comparison for the urban riding environment. One of the first research papers out of Europe looking at the rotational forces of helmet strikes to the roadway/track surface in crashes found that the roadway environment is not as smooth and good as the track environment.
Please don't take what I write as saying ATGATT is a bad thing. Anybody who wants to dress to the 9's in gear sure as heck can and it is fine by me. I just think that it is important to understand what Data Dan said.... ATGATT is injury prevention not crash prevention, and its injury protection only has limited impact protection.
An updated paper released in CA last year that looked at the fatal motorcycle crashes by type of motorcycle involved found that performance motorcycles were significantly overrepresented in the crashes. In general this is the group of riders that would be expect to wear ATGATT.
On the flip side, the crash data out of OK by type of motorcycle shows that HD riders are overrepresented.
asthmodeus
New member
oh, i'm not arguing that..
redtail
only ones and zeroes
You're taking that out of context. In the book "Ride hard Ride Smart Ultimate street strategies for advanced motorcyclists" by Pat Hahn, the statistics show that riders between the age of 16 and 24 are significantly overrepresented. Those were the buyers of those performance motorcycles and were not always ATGATT. Inexperience was more the root cause.
You're right about HD riders being overrepresented, but that has more to do with experience. First time buyers who are older and have the means typically are in this group. But on the whole, riders between 30 - 50 are significantly underrepresented in crash stats. As are large displacement motorcycles, the flip side of that is, when larger motorcyles are involved in a crash, they are associated with higher injury severity.
Other interesting stats from that book:
Riders with dirt bike experience are significantly underrepresented in accident data.
Helmeted riders are underrepresented in crash data.
(He quoted this from the Hurt study) 90 percent of all crashes happened within the first hour of riding and a whopping 50 percent happen within the first six minutes.
So much for being "safe" to just run an errand. Their conclusion was due to the rider's attention not being on riding but rather where they were going. The time it takes to put on gear, i.e. helmet, gloves, etc, often times made the difference in changing the riders mindset to focus on riding not the destination.
louemc
New member
I'm pretty sure the Romans probably went back and forth like this about the safety benefits/drawbacks to wearing armor on horseback when not in battle too :|
I'm not a huge Goethe fan, but he did say,
"Ignorant men argue about questions wise men answered thousands of years ago..."
This, not indicating which side is which
I'm not a huge Goethe fan, but he did say,
"Ignorant men argue about questions wise men answered thousands of years ago..."
This, not indicating which side is which
Last edited:
cleverusername
New member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Location
- Half Moon Bay
- Moto(s)
- 990 Adv. prev: tiger 1050, R1200GSA, vstrom, 690 SMC, FJR1300, FZ1, RC51, SV650
- Name
- kennef
MCSFTGUY
Seriously Disturbed Calm
Ride Hard and Ride Smart, First of 4 books that Mr. Hahn has published, came out in May of 04. I got this info from Amazon, but I have copies of all of Mr. Hahn's books.
I can't be sure but I believe that you may be mis-quoting Mr. Hahn, and you are definately mis-quoting my data. First off... I was specific about the data that looked at type of motorcycle involved was limited to California and Oklahoma, not national. I know that Mr. Hahn's data was from NHTSA and this was national data and it was age specific on riders. Since Mr. Hahn's book came out in 04 and he was using NHTSA data, it is a safe presumption that his data was from 2000-2001 because this is the time span for NHTSA data from around the book release date.
California was the first state to actually look at motorcycle type specific data. They released the first report in 2011 and did and update in 2012. Oklahoma was the next state where this occurred. NHTSA data has never been type of motorcycle specific. So, if Mr. Hahn did say "the statistics show that riders between the age of 16 and 24 are significantly overrepresented. Those were the buyers of those performance motorcycles and were not always ATGATT. Inexperience was more the root cause." He was making the presumption that this age group was buyng performance motorcycles. Because the simple fact of the matter is that at the time the book was released there was no specific data about what age group was riding what bike.
One caveat to this, Mr. Hahn may have got some data from the Motorcycle Industry Council which is the group that represents motorcycle manufacturers and tracks motorcycle sales. At the time Mr. Hahn's book was released the MIC may have had some data about what age was buying what bike. However, if he used this data I am pretty sure he would have referenced it in the book and I don't remember that.
As for the following;
"You're right about HD riders being overrepresented, but that has more to do with experience. First time buyers who are older and have the means typically are in this group. But on the whole, riders between 30 - 50 are significantly underrepresented in crash stats. As are large displacement motorcycles, the flip side of that is, when larger motorcyles are involved in a crash, they are associated with higher injury severity."
I am a little confused on a few things in this statement. Up until about 2011 the age group of 34-55 was the fasting growing age group of riders involved in fatal crashes... according to NHTSA data from about 2001 through 2011. They may have been underrepresented at some point over this time span, but toward the end no. NHTSA's postion for this was kind of what I think you are trying to say, the new rider was the baby boomer coming back into the riding market. NHTSA was trying to say that this rider was not use to the larger displacement motorcycles and this was why they were crashing.
There were a few people at NHTSA, me being one of them, who did not buy this because we had no data showing how many motorcycles were being purchased by the age group. And, both the Hurt Report and the MAIDs report the Hurt Report for Europe, do show that more experienced riders are less likely to be involved in crashes.
As for higher displacement motorcycles being involved in higher injury crashes.... I would like to see a source for this because this is the first time I have heard of any data like this. I am particularly interested to see what is defined as a higher displacement motorcycle.
The only thing I have seen so far that are kind of close to this were two different helmet studies out of Japan that in essence said crash at 50 Kmh (37 mph????) and you will die no matter what.... not supported conclusions, but stated nonetheless. And these reports were not displacement specific.
Last edited:
MCSFTGUY
Seriously Disturbed Calm
I'm pretty sure the Romans probably went back and forth like this about the safety benefits/drawbacks to wearing armor on horseback when not in battle too :|
I'm not a huge Goethe fan, but he did say,
"Ignorant men argue about questions wise men answered thousands of years ago..."
This, not indicating which side is which
David,
Great quote and very appropriate.
But.... there is a missing part..... sometimes arguing about stuff is just fun, and it beats actually working....
louemc
New member
I'm pretty sure the Romans probably went back and forth like this about the safety benefits/drawbacks to wearing armor on horseback when not in battle too :|
I'm not a huge Goethe fan, but he did say,
"Ignorant men argue about questions wise men answered thousands of years ago..."
Just a rumor that will never be tracked down....
But ... a series of grunts did sound like Wheelie for safety...Early on.
Gixxergirl1000
AFM #731
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Location
- Stockton
- Moto(s)
- GSXR-1000; GSX-R 450 Triple race bike "Timmay"; GS 500 race bike "The Murderbike"
- Name
- Connie
I only slid on the track surface, and that didn't hurt a bit.
Then I went OFF the track... into the VERY uneven hard-packed dirt, and got tumbled around like a rag doll in a dryer... and I'm telling you, it was like getting beat with a bat... I was literally breathless from pain. Then I went back to sliding a bit, caught my breath, and came to a stop. Brutal. The idea of my shoulders hitting the ground like that without the CE armor?? **shuddddddderrrrrrr**
David,
Great quote and very appropriate.
But.... there is a missing part..... sometimes arguing about stuff is just fun, and it beats actually working....
agreed! 