|
^^^ If they repeal the helmet law then we will have even more riders who are more about Harley culture then being good riders. I can just hear the retards lining up for their endorsement now that they can ride around without messing up their HD branded do rags.
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
Considering half of all injuries are to the lower body it always puzzles me seeing people with a leather jacket, gloves, helmet and then cargo shorts with tennis shoes. Also, after experiencing the forces involved in a car crash, it makes me  to think anything like that being exerted on my feet.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 16:06
|
|
|
It sort of interesting to think about what sort of rates you could get on insurance if you were to sign a contract stating that you would wear X amount of gear when riding. If you were in a wreck without X amount of gear on, you pay a penalty or maybe they dont pay out your medical coverage. Would you be interested in that? A "I always ride with a helmet, jacket, and gloves" discount. I imagine that could significantly lower premiums in some cases.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 17:59
|
|
|
mutt2jeff posted:It sort of interesting to think about what sort of rates you could get on insurance if you were to sign a contract stating that you would wear X amount of gear when riding. If you were in a wreck without X amount of gear on, you pay a penalty or maybe they dont pay out your medical coverage. Would you be interested in that? A "I always ride with a helmet, jacket, and gloves" discount. I imagine that could significantly lower premiums in some cases. I'd be really interested in that but I wonder where the definition of "gloves" and "jacket" begin and end. A cruiser rider might feel that a Wilson's leather jacket with the HD logo on it qualifies, or a pair of fingerless gloves with metal spikes on them are a good safety feature. It's possible they could have something that says "a jacket with CE approved armor" but then what happens when those CE standards change?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 18:10
|
|
|
Yeah, the only thing reliably and legally certified is a DOT helmet, and as has been said, insurance costs would likely go up if everyone wore them, not down. CE certified armor really doesn't mean much of anything. I'd rather be wearing something thick with a high denier rating and no armor at all, than a flimsy mesh jacket with a couple CE elbow pads.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
mutt2jeff posted:It sort of interesting to think about what sort of rates you could get on insurance if you were to sign a contract stating that you would wear X amount of gear when riding. If you were in a wreck without X amount of gear on, you pay a penalty or maybe they dont pay out your medical coverage. Would you be interested in that? A "I always ride with a helmet, jacket, and gloves" discount. I imagine that could significantly lower premiums in some cases. I've been advocating that for a long time.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 18:40
|
|
|
SlightlyMadman posted:Yeah, the only thing reliably and legally certified is a DOT helmet, and as has been said, insurance costs would likely go up if everyone wore them, not down. CE certified armor really doesn't mean much of anything. I'd rather be wearing something thick with a high denier rating and no armor at all, than a flimsy mesh jacket with a couple CE elbow pads. I disagree on the CE armor statement. I would have saved myself a trip to the ER if I had armored knee pads. I totally agree with you on the dernier rating. I crashed in a Wilson leather jacket made from leather thicker than you find in $199 discount armored jackets. The jacket was scuffed but saved my skin. In other words, you need both and by GOD protect your drat legs with something more than jeans. (At least some armor under your jeans)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
mutt2jeff posted:It sort of interesting to think about what sort of rates you could get on insurance if you were to sign a contract stating that you would wear X amount of gear when riding. If you were in a wreck without X amount of gear on, you pay a penalty or maybe they dont pay out your medical coverage. Would you be interested in that? A "I always ride with a helmet, jacket, and gloves" discount. I imagine that could significantly lower premiums in some cases. It makes sense. I get an auto discount for having airbags, car alarm, and vowing to always wear my seatbelt. Why can't I get the same on my motorcycle? Oh right, for the same reason that everyone else has mentioned, the moron wearing a leather vest and novelty helmet or the squid wearing his Kevlar lined tank top and cargo shorts.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
Crayvex posted:I disagree on the CE armor statement. I would have saved myself a trip to the ER if I had armored knee pads. I totally agree with you on the dernier rating. I crashed in a Wilson leather jacket made from leather thicker than you find in $199 discount armored jackets. The jacket was scuffed but saved my skin. In other words, you need both and by GOD protect your drat legs with something more than jeans. (At least some armor under your jeans) Absolutely, my point was not that CE armor is useless, but that you need to put them under something sturdy for them to do any good. Some flimsy little mesh jacket with a couple elbow pads is just going to shred on impact anyways.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
I think it could be pretty easy to solve the gear problem, just set up a certification program like D.O.T or SNELL for jackets, gloves, pants, and boots. So you would agree to wear a D.O.T helmet and X approved jacket, pants, and gloves.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 19:49
|
|
|
That would definitely be cool, although does anybody really pay much for motorcycle insurance anyways? I think I spend more annually on gear than on insurance anyways.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
2002 yamaha R6 and a 1977 Honda CB750K cost me $500 a year and that's without any comprehensive or collision. Take away Michigan catatrosphic fund charges and I'd be paying $202 a year.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
I just want to bitch that I'm REALLY sick of everyone I know bringing up the latest "i saw on the news a motorcyclist died from ____" every single time I see them. I get it, you think riding motorcycles is dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
hayden. posted:I just want to bitch that I'm REALLY sick of everyone I know bringing up the latest "i saw on the news a motorcyclist died from ____" every single time I see them. I get it, you think riding motorcycles is dumb. You're in DFW right? I think I heard that story of the dude on the tollroad about a million times at work last week.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 20:43
|
|
|
Yeah, wedged between two cars or something.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
Respond with "I saw some people on the news die in a car" or my favorite somewhat obtuse statement "Most people die in their bed, where are you sleeping tonight?"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 01:50
|
|
|
On current topic, my aunt hit a biker yesterday. She was turning left and not paying attention (reading a sign for a garage sale), and the dude came over a blind hill and couldn't stop. He hit the front quarter panel, bounced off the windshield, and landed in a ditch. Luckily, he was wearing a helmet. He suffered a broken leg, but that's about it. I'm so glad he was wearing a helmet at least. She was a total wreck... I can't imagine if it had been worse.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
Ola posted:The GL500 Silverwing. What a poor bike, it doesn't have much of a chance in today's retro fashion does it? I saw one of these in a mall parking lot on Saturday w/out the fairing and w/clipons and it looks quite good.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 06:37
|
|
|
SlightlyMadman posted:Absolutely, my point was not that CE armor is useless, but that you need to put them under something sturdy for them to do any good. Some flimsy little mesh jacket with a couple elbow pads is just going to shred on impact anyways. Lots of info on the relevant standards and background here: http://www.pva-ppe.org.uk/standards.htm#EuropeanStandardsformotorcyclists A lot of clothing used to be (and still is) marked CE only in reference to the armour contained within in (see Slightly Madman's post above...). Sometimes non-CE equipment may be perfectly adequate - the article above points out that Alpinestars' S-MX Plus boots (common enough that I bet more than one CA goon has owned a pair) aren't actually approved to any standard and violate European law. Many manufacturers were slow to adopt PPE standards - for example, it's still very hard to find EN13594 gloves. In fact, I've only heard of one - a Halvarssons glove. Note the reference to the Cambridge machine - this provides an excellent illustration of why no-one should ever wear a pair of denim jeans on a bike. Denim vaporises pretty much instantly on that rig.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 08:40
|
|
|
  How much more typical can it get? Car turned left, didn't stop for the bike. 30 mph speedlimit and no indication of speeding. 23 year old rider was out with a bunch of friends, they watched him die.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 15:06
|
|
|
drat. It hits harder when you can't blame low experience/schooling or squidly behavior. People, stop dieing. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 15:30
|
|
|
Ola posted:
So the moron who turned left and killed this guy got arrested and is being prosecuted, right?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
Backov posted:So the moron who turned left and killed this guy got arrested and is being prosecuted, right? No, she "totally didn't see him", so she got off with a warning because darn those murdercycles can be hard to spot sometimes amirite?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:No, she "totally didn't see him", so she got off with a warning because darn those murdercycles can be hard to spot sometimes amirite? Funny how I immediately thought it was a woman as well. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:No, she "totally didn't see him", so she got off with a warning because darn those murdercycles can be hard to spot sometimes amirite? Huh. I could swear killing someone was illegal. When did that change?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 19:20
|
|
|
The crash wasn't in America anyway, so the argument is kind of misplaced.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
I love the Buell dual headlights on my new SV. With them I can flash the headlights alternatively by flipping the high-beam switch on and off. I do this to every single left-turning vehicle I'm approaching.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 20:10
|
|
|
TheCosmicMuffet posted:Huh. I could swear killing someone was illegal. When did that change? I sure hope it didn't. I was making a SMIDSY joke.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 20:10
|
|
|
the walkin dude posted:I love the Buell dual headlights on my new SV. With them I can flash the headlights alternatively by flipping the high-beam switch on and off. I do this to every single left-turning vehicle I'm approaching. I'm always leery about that. Some places, flashing your lights mean "go".
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
Uthor posted:I'm always leery about that. Some places, flashing your lights mean "go". Yeah, that's the accepted practice here, nevermind how illegal it is for civilians to direct traffic  Either ride with your highs on all the time or don't use them to signal, it's way too dangerous.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 20:47
|
|
|
Uthor posted:I'm always leery about that. Some places, flashing your lights mean "go". Another one is a car pulling off to the side without their blinker on. Usually it means pass me but sometimes it's "I'm about to turn left and like taking turns wide". I didn't hit him but it was close. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Yeah, that's the accepted practice here, nevermind how illegal it is for civilians to direct traffic I don't get the 'pass' switch on alot of bikes that flashes the highbeam. Is this supposed to be a standard practice to flash if you want to by someone or what? The MSF never said poo poo about it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
TheCosmicMuffet posted:I don't get the 'pass' switch on alot of bikes that flashes the highbeam. I think these are to turn on when you're passing someone on a 2-lane road, and thus driving the wrong way for the lane. So you're more visible to oncoming traffic.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
TheCosmicMuffet posted:I don't get the 'pass' switch on alot of bikes that flashes the highbeam. It used to be the law here that you had to signal your intention of overtaking with a flick of the high beams. I don't know when it was removed, but I can't find it in the current traffic laws.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
TheCosmicMuffet posted:I don't get the 'pass' switch on alot of bikes that flashes the highbeam. I thought it was just a convenience for when you want to let the guy across from you go first at a 4-way stop or that stupid loving one-way bridge down the street.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
So that crash I was talking about, he said OK to the video, I was a bit far behind, so it's hard to see, but it looks like he either took a quick stab at the front brake while entering the corner, or hit some gravel (that I don't see on the ground)...any other ideas? Click for HD, so you can see more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSG6U8A70MY V Ya, I was pretty far back, because I wasn't trying to keep up and risk going down 
blugu64 fucked around with this message at 00:47 on May 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 00:17
|
|
|
I'd hate to be a party pooper but you can't see poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
He's pretty lucky, that was a good place to go down. No rocks, trees, or posts.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:He's pretty lucky, that was a good place to go down. No rocks, trees, or posts. Looks like his bike hit the chevron post though, other than that ya. He's gonna get some leg protection now right?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
http://albuquerque.craigslist.org/spo/2343591781.html what is going on here? Note: it never gets to be 133 degrees in Albuquerque. Certainly not today, when it snowed, or any time recently.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 02:36
|
|
