Wince...

[slparry]

What people generally don't realise is if you come to a sudden total dead stop at anything over 30 mph or so it doesn't matter whether you have £40 or a £400 helmet you still have a good chance of dying as your brain continues to move inside your skull and mushes against it.

Exactly, and this is what people fail to realize.
CE approved 1.5mm leathers with plastic coated polysterene inserts don't prevent broken bones and internal injuries.
If you lose it on the road, hitting a solid object like a lamppost, or another vehicle is going to become an issue long before gravel rash.
An example of that is racing.
On the track, deaths are rare because most of the time riders just slide away.
At the IOM TT, deaths are sadly relatively common, despite the riders wearing identical protective kit.
Hit a dry stone wall at speeds over 30mph, and you're as likely to die in full protective gears as you are in a T shirt.
Don't get me wrong.
I wear protective gear, but I don't put all my faith in it.

It's a problem, the safer cars have become with ESP, ASC, ABS, seatbelts, airbags etc etc just mean that people extend the speed to a new danger level. Jasper Carrot once quipped that he thought the best safety feature for cars would be a 12" spike on the steering boss, it wouldn't half make people drive more carefully

[tanneman]

Yes, you need to get rid of the stupid ones so that mankind can progress through the selection of better genes. If you don't listen then you should learn.

ATGATT and the protection is relative to what you are going to hit. As said before it is safer to crash on a race track than on a public road. I crashed a Snetterton at a 110 mph not a scratch but a stretched ligament. Olie Lindsell crashed at the TT, his helmet hit the curb. He was lucky to survive, spend a month in a coma. The most common injuries are, helmets coming off, boots and gloves coming off. You can wear the latest invention but if it doesn't fit properly or isn't secured correctly then it is of no use. More important it is to educate the rider on how to choose the right kit for him and make it easy like the sharp test scores for helmets to pick a good performing piece of clothing. And don't stop there, educate yourselves on motorcycle control, observation and rules of the road and educate the general motorist to a higher standard. Improve the road conditions and layouts but it is easier to make a rule as it costs less money. Doesn't matter how many years you have been riding, when you think you know it all it bites you in the arse. Compulsory helmets is as far as we need to go, not only does it protect your egg but other road users as well. Why, ever tried to get a fly out of your eye at 40 mph when in traffic.

[bikesnbones]

Around where I live, the local Police were stopping riders on a stretch of dual carriageway to give safety advice and hand out free Hi Viz vests.
The Police were doing the pulling over, and there were a bunch of civilians, all in hi viz, speaking to the riders.
My guess is they were part of the IAM, Rospa, or some other do good organisation,
All well intentioned, but the rub was the guy allocated to me started lecturing me on protective gear, because I was wearing ordinary denim jeans.
I noticed in his top pocket there was a square bulge, which I suspected was a packet of fags.
I asked and I was right, so I asked this guy, if you were sitting in a beer garden somewhere, nice sunny day enjoying a pint and a cigarette, and some TOTAL STRANGER, plonked themselves down next to you and started warning you of the dangers of smoking, you'd tell them to bog off wouldn't you.
So what's the difference between that, and what you're doing now.
Point is we all take risks that others might find unacceptable.
Does the driver of an old classic car become irresponsible because he/she does not drive a modern vehicle equipped with proven life saving features like air bags and safety cage ?
Are we irresponsible because we choose to use what is proven to be the most dangerous form of motorised transport, ATGATT or not ?

[meds8964]

what those kevlar jeans like are they any good how do they work with being so thin

[bikesnbones]

what those kevlar jeans like are they any good how do they work with being so thin

There's a video Harley Davidson were using to promote "Draggin" Jeans.
In it, the stunt rider rider climbs off the back off the bike at about 50mph and drags his arse on the road for about a minute.
The denim outer disintegrates but the Kevlar inner remains perfectly intact.
It's quite impressive.

Edit.
I found the clip.
Funny how time can distort memory.
Actually the subject is towed along by another rider for about 10 seconds.

Well, it was years ago I saw it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDPcFGV9vPg

[Steve1200S]

As always, each to there own, I'm not telling anyone what to do, but I do hate when a bit of safety equipment is put down with excuse that it wont help if this that and the other.

Had the same argument for years about cycle helmets. "if you hit a lamppost at 30 you're dead either way, so why bother!" because there are many ways to damage your head while crashing any bike, and for the majority it would help.

So if you do come off and hit a wall, maybe the shock and blood loss from your road rash combined with your other injuries may push you over the edge, and certainty make recovery much more unpleasant?

I don't think all equipment should be mandatory, but I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out the dangers to others though, experienced or not.

Rant over!

Ps. Cycle helmets should be compulsory on the road!
Annnnnd.........argue!

[bikesnbones]

I don't think all equipment should be mandatory, but I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out the dangers to others though, experienced or not:

And there's another problem.
People thinking that others need educating because they are too stupid to realize the dangers.
I think the average person has more intelligence than you give credit for.
I don't understand this need some people have to get so obsessed with the choices other people make.

[Steve1200S]

Never anything wrong with trying to help.

A while ago there was a post of an article a lady wrote after suffering horrendous injuries falling from the back of a bike in jeans and a jumper. I'm fairly sure when she wrote and published that article she wasn't trying to be stuck up or high and mighty, but just trying to spare someone else the experience shes had. Being helpful.

To be honest, after the few stories I've read this year on this subject, I've stopped wearing jeans for my commutes now. I've dug out some non-waterproof textiles trousers I had. not much better than jeans, but at least they have a bit of armour. Never know when i'll be thankful for it....

[bikesnbones]

Never anything wrong with trying to help.

A while ago there was a post of an article a lady wrote after suffering horrendous injuries falling from the back of a bike in jeans and a jumper. I'm fairly sure when she wrote and published that article she wasn't trying to be stuck up or high and mighty, but just trying to spare someone else the experience shes had. Being helpful....

Back in 1993, I crashed into a car that did a U turn across my path,
It was low speed.
Probably not even 30mph.
My Wife landed on her backside, compressing her spine which in turn fractured a vertabrae.
She still has the metal plate screwed into her spine to this day.
My nuts went into the tank so hard that they caused an indentation you could fit your fist into.
I was in agony for weeks afterwards and (sorry to be crude but this is reality), when the swelling went down I was left with one testicle the size of a pea,
Protective clothing would not have prevented either of those injuries, but here's the thing.
When I eventually go to my Wifes bedside, a nurse said to me, "so you've learned your lesson and won't ever ride a motorcycle again will you"
Like your lady in the jumper and jeans, she was just trying to educate me from the perspective of someone who deals with bike crashes probably on a daily basis.
Do you think she had a point.
Should I have ditched the bike there and then and chosen a safer from of transport from that point on.
Or, as she said, is it stupid to risk motorcycling when using a car eliminates a lot of the risk by virtue of superior safety,
Where does this argument end.

PS. Wifey made a full recovery, and much to the dissaproval of her friends and family, still loves being on the back of the bike,
As far as I'm concerned, she's hard core

[tanneman]

The thing that concerns me more than ATGATT is the attitude of drivers and riders on the road. Yesterday as I was making my way home from the local dealer a car overtook another one on a dead straight road in the face of oncoming traffic, me. Luckily the the other driver had the presence of mind to move over into the layby. How could the bugger not see a 5 foot tall 3 foot wide motorcycle with 3 lights on. Nothing would have saved me there. This type of driving makes me consider to give up road riding. In this past year numerous cars have pulled out from a side road without looking which I anticipated so no harm done, a van almost ran me over a junction where I was in front of it turning right, another biker ran into the back of me with the missus on the back in Wales, no damage apart from the pannier is a write off and they crashed badly, a car cut a corner around a blind bend only to find me doing an evasive maneuver to avoid the f*cker and now this yesterday. I really enjoy touring and to go for a bimble with the missus but for our safety I fear that my preparation, training and skills is just not enough. I'm still concerning giving it up and concentrating on track riding and offroading like the TBEC. The only problem is that both us of enjoy motorcycling, lots of money has been spend on the gear and camping stuff and once in France you have the choice of deserted roads.

[Blackal]

what those kevlar jeans like are they any good how do they work with being so thin

There's a video Harley Davidson were using to promote "Draggin" Jeans.
In it, the stunt rider rider climbs off the back off the bike at about 50mph and drags his arse on the road for about a minute.
The denim outer disintegrates but the Kevlar inner remains perfectly intact.
It's quite impressive.

Edit.
I found the clip.
Funny how time can distort memory.
Actually the subject is towed along by another rider for about 10 seconds.

Well, it was years ago I saw it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDPcFGV9vPg

Kevlar jeans - Some have pockets for armour in the kniees. If not - then you can fit "armoured Knee-stockings". I should really look into some hip-armour for them too, but I perceive that knees are the most prone to damage in a spill.

As people say - it is down to each person's own risk acceptance level, and in the case of smoking - a concious choice.

But - for the kid on the back of a bike with no protection at all - it is mostly lack of perception, I think.

Al

[bikesnbones]

But - for the kid on the back of a bike with no protection at all - it is mostly lack of perception, I think.

Al

Agreed.
We have a duty of care towards people not capable of making sensible choices, ie children.
That's a whole different subject, but the individual has the right to choose unhindered by those who wish to impose their own safety ideal onto others.
For example.
The IOM TT and road racing in general is hugely dangerous, even with the correct gear.
It seems ot me that every year racers die at this event, but dare to suggest that it should be banned on safety grounds, and fans will fight to the bitter end to protect the riders choice to take such huge risks with their lives.
So why can't the same philosophy be adopted towards people who choose not to wear safe clothing.
It amounts ot the same thing.
It's for the individual to determin their own acceptable level of risk, and not for others to judge.

[Blackal]

But - for the kid on the back of a bike with no protection at all - it is mostly lack of perception, I think.

Al

Agreed.
We have a duty of care towards people not capable of making sensible choices, ie children.
That's a whole different subject, but the individual has the right to choose unhindered by those who wish to impose their own safety ideal onto others.
For example.
The IOM TT and road racing in general is hugely dangerous, even with the correct gear.
It seems ot me that every year racers die at this event, but dare to suggest that it should be banned on safety grounds, and fans will fight to the bitter end to protect the riders choice to take such huge risks with their lives.
So why can't the same philosophy be adopted towards people who choose not to wear safe clothing.
It amounts ot the same thing.
It's for the individual to determin their own acceptable level of risk, and not for others to judge.

Yup, but to clarify - my term "kids" included teenagers who may be classed as adults, but don't have the experience to think "What if".

Al

[Nookiebear]

What's worrying is the insurance companies now starting to reduce injury claims if the rider wasn't wearing full protective clothing. This can be another area where they get out of paying as they will no doubt have their own ideas what protective clothing is, "maybe you would of sustained less injury if you were wearing a shoraii helmet and dainukka clothing and sidalpin boots" ..

[Hayden]

Give people the correct information, facts and advise, allow them the freedom as adults to make their own decision/choice afterwards then stop going on about it.
If someone makes the choice to wear speedo`s and flip-flops on their GSXR but has to be scrapped off the road and rebuilt, then perhaps the NHS bill should be paid by them, not you or me?