Is it me, or are many, many motorcycle riders not real bright?
I drove back and forth to Columbus, IN yesterday to visit a customer, so I had about 5 hours to watch traffic go by on I-69 and I-65. I expected to see the usual sortment of Harley riders wearing leathers but no helmets (my head is bashed in but at least I don't have road rash! huh?).
However, I was amazed at the amount of guys wearing no gear at all...usually on sportbikes. I mean t-shirt, shorts, sneakers...that's it! No gloves, no jacket, no boots, no denim, nothing. I even saw about 6 guys flying down the highway not even wearing sunglasses or any type of eye protection. Won't the air stream (filled with small dirt particles) act just like a sandblaster on your eyeballs?
Is it me? Why?
I have no issue with those jackasses endangering themselves. But don't you think some of these actions eventualy result in higher insurance prices for those of us who do wear gear? I think it should be mandatory for riders like those to provide an independent $1,000,000 insurance policy before being allowed on the roads like that.
They're everywhere. As it gets hot here in Texas, many ride just as you described. They're also the ones that have the fantastic stories about road rash and crashes followed by a warning that riding is too dangerous. I have a guy here at work that just started riding but has no gear because he's "shopping around for a good price..." blink.gif
All I can do is improve the next generation: My 4 and 6 year old girls know that to ride you MUST wear all the gear: helmet, boots, gloves, suit or jacket/pants. They point out the non-dressed riders and say, "Daddy! He's not safe!"
I don't get it either, but I notice all over the place. Last week, the temperatures were hot, and I reallly wanted to ride without my leathers, of course that did NOT happen. If you don't wear your leathers, you shouldn't ride PERIOD. The consequences are too grave, but unfortunately many guys think they're beyond accidents!
Lobster, Jul 8 2005, 09:55 AMI have no issue with those jackasses endangering themselves. But don't you think some of these actions eventualy result in higher insurance prices for those of us who do wear gear?
Outside of the no-eyewear guys, who must have trouble seeing properly, what made you reach the above conclusion?
Are we more likely to get in an accident if we less gear? Are gearless accidents in general more expensive?
At least the gear-less riders don't usually bitch about those of us that are geared-up.
I live in New York State where at least there's still a helmet law. While driving on the interstate my wife and I were passed by a guy and a girl on a Harley not wearing shoes! The wife on the pillon was holding their sandals in her hands.
I was at a local country store having a cup of coffee and a break on my last ride. I of course pulled off the helmet, ear plugs, gloves, and jacket while relaxing and drinking my coffee. An older man was watching my gear come off and approached. He asked if I've crashed before and I told him no. He asked why all the gear and I told him in case I do crash I want to be prepared. I was also sporting my spine protector, leather pants and riding boots. He said on a hot day like this why would you ride in all of that. I told him it was actually pretty comfortable as long as I was not stopped for long.
I don't get the shorts and sneakers crowd either. But I'm old and I don't get a lot of things goofy.gif
I admit that during the summer I sometimes ride to work in shorts and sneakers with a jean jacket, helmet and light gloves. Yeah I know, but it's only 3 miles and I never get much above 40mph. The last mile is down a private road with horses and cows and stuff. I have no traffic lights to go through or major intersections either. I ride my bicycle on the same route too without a helmet. Not the smartest thing to do, but when it's hot I hate having to peel off the heavy riding gear for such a short ride. Is that so wrong?
I don't care how hot it is, I always wear full gear.
And, yes, riders who do not wear gear help keep insurance rates high. After an accident (doesn't matter whose fault it is), the motorcyclist is probably going to be in going down. It's cheaper for the insurance company to buy new riding gear for the rider than it would be to pay the hospital bills for gravel removal, skin graphs, broken ankles, dented foreheads, shattered elbows-- well you get the point.
Here's an idea. In some driver education classes, you get to watch those "Red Asphalt" and "Blood on the Highway" movies. Well, they need to make one call "Road Rash" or "Skin Grater" or something. The whole movie can be footage of squids getting gravel brushed out of their skin in the ER for an entire hour. That would be good me think.
at least wear something even the mesh stuff is better than nothing at all if i can't bear wearing my joe rocket phoenix gear i won't ride . some of my younger friends poke fun but fook em i got allot of tattoo's i want done ! beer.gif 491.gif
Lobster, Jul 8 2005, 09:55 AM I have no issue with those jackasses endangering themselves. But don't you think some of these actions eventualy result in higher insurance prices for those of us who do wear gear?
Outside of the no-eyewear guys, who must have trouble seeing properly, what made you reach the above conclusion?
Are we more likely to get in an accident if we less gear? Are gearless accidents in general more expensive?
At least the gear-less riders don't usually bitch about those of us that are geared-up.
Yes you are more likely to get into an accident if you wear less gear. Yes gearless accidents are generally more expensive. Yes it already has raised insurance premiums. And yes, the gearless one do bitch about the geared up ones.
According to my old insurance agent, they base their rates on statistics, and people who have no regard for protective equipment are also generally the one who have no regard for safety/riding courses and are more likely to make stupid errors (to much rear brake) and try and perform dangerous stunts (in traffic, because you can't be cool if you do them in a deserted parking lot where nobody can see you) and the like, therefor raising the incident rates which makes insurance companies raise their costs to the insured. At least, that is why my insurance agent told me just before I cancelled him for giving me a quote of $7600 a year for a $6000 motorcycle.
While I think some of what he said may be true and a lot of it makes sense, I still think they are price gouging to some extent as well. But I am in complete agreement that people not responsible enough to wear the gear are the same ones doing the dumb crap that results in accidents. And without the gear, even a small accident can cost a fortune in medical costs. And these same guys like to make comments about how stupid it is to wear gear when it is 100 degrees out, at least in my experience.
But I guess all of this is just an opinion based on personal choice if you get right down to it.
And in answer to your original question, no it isn't just you. I see those types all the time and it bugs me to no end. But don't think they aren't "riders" as much as "bikers" looking for an image for the most part...
Life is full 0f choices. It isn't a matter of being bright or not. To wear or not to wear, it is like your chosen level of insurance: The insurance company is betting that you won't need it and you are betting that you do.
These folks are just betting that they won't be in a situation where they won't need the appropriate protection. Personally, I won't take that chance because I don't trust other folks on the road enough. Basically, if the chance of needing protection was solely dependent on just my skills, then I may want to get away with less. However, there are lots of other factors out there; drivers, mechanical, electrical, weather conditions, animals etc.
I wear protection because I want to protect against a failure of something, not the success of something.
[quote=Drizzt,Jul 8 2005, 11:56 AM] Outside of the no-eyewear guys, who must have trouble seeing properly, what made you reach the above conclusion?
Are we more likely to get in an accident if we less gear? Are gearless accidents in general more expensive?
At least the gear-less riders don't usually bitch about those of us that are geared-up.
[/quote] [/quote] Yes you are more likely to get into an accident if you wear less gear. Yes gearless accidents are generally more expensive. Yes it already has raised insurance premiums. And yes, the gearless one do bitch about the geared up ones.
According to my old insurance agent, they base their rates on statistics, and people who have no regard for protective equipment are also generally the one who have no regard for safety/riding courses and are more likely to make stupid errors (to much rear brake) and try and perform dangerous stunts (in traffic, because you can't be cool if you do them in a deserted parking lot where nobody can see you) and the like, therefor raising the incident rates which makes insurance companies raise their costs to the insured. At least, that is why my insurance agent told me just before I cancelled him for giving me a quote of $7600 a year for a $6000 motorcycle.
While I think some of what he said may be true and a lot of it makes sense, I still think they are price gouging to some extent as well. But I am in complete agreement that people not responsible enough to wear the gear are the same ones doing the dumb crap that results in accidents. And without the gear, even a small accident can cost a fortune in medical costs. And these same guys like to make comments about how stupid it is to wear gear when it is 100 degrees out, at least in my experience.
But I guess all of this is just an opinion based on personal choice if you get right down to it.
And in answer to your original question, no it isn't just you. I see those types all the time and it bugs me to no end. But don't think they aren't "riders" as much as "bikers" looking for an image for the most part...
[/quote]
In addition, as a taxpayer, how do you feel about picking up the medical bill tabs for these guys in the event of a serious injury. pissed.gif High price for freedom (coolness), just as long as someone else picks up the tab, I guess...
Drizzt, Jul 8 2005, 11:56 AMYes you are more likely to get into an accident if you wear less gear. Yes gearless accidents are generally more expensive. Yes it already has raised insurance premiums. And yes, the gearless one do bitch about the geared up ones.
Let's separate statistics from causality. No gear => presumably more likely to do stupid things = likely accident. It's the stupid part that causes accident, not the no-gear part. If you don't do stupid things, no increased risk of accident, regardless of gear. So saying that gearless equals higher risk of accident is most certainly a stretch by any standard. Doing stupid things, lack of experience, margins in riding, traffic, bike, luck etc. will determine accident risk.
I strongly disagree on critisism from gearless being even remotely close to what we geared-up ones dish out. Just take a look around most forums that has mostly geared-up members, almost every day there's a "OMG I SAW A SQUID" post, and it's quickly followed up by others, and there is usually concensus that these riders have far less mental capacity than ourselves, and that it probably should be illegal. Nothing like a flip-flop sighting to get the juiced flowing.. I've never seen anyone on the other side of the fence propose outlawing gear, based on the observation that we are bunch of retards unable to make an informed decision for ourselves..
quicknick, Jul 8 2005, 10:48 AMI admit that during the summer I sometimes ride to work in shorts and sneakers with a jean jacket, helmet and light gloves. Yeah I know, but it's only 3 miles and I never get much above 40mph. The last mile is down a private road with horses and cows and stuff. I have no traffic lights to go through or major intersections either. I ride my bicycle on the same route too without a helmet. Not the smartest thing to do, but when it's hot I hate having to peel off the heavy riding gear for such a short ride. Is that so wrong?
Studies show, you are more likely to have a accident in that 3-5 mile distance from your home than anywhere. Part of it is that comfort zone on local roads and the tendency to not concentrate as much because you know the surroundings so well. In other words your guard is down, in your mind there's nothing out there that can hurt me " private road with horses and cows and stuff. I have no traffic lights to go through or major intersections either." Not picking on you, that's just the relaxed attitude we tend to get around our homes and on roads we take every day and that's when something will Bite you ! Be careful and never get complacent when ridding ! It's take minute to change out of the gear and months to heal from a 10mph unprotected slide !
mdr vfr, Jul 8 2005, 01:01 PMI used to work on an ambulance and have picked up several bikers with no gear on.
The fun ends in the emergency room when they have to scrape the gravel out of the open wounds with a brush. Even the toughest guys scream.
After seeing that I always wear my gear fing02.gif
I've been the one getting scraped and there's no doubt, it hurts. It's a sickening pain. You're very cold and covered/dripping in sweat. I love my new gear! beer.gif
baileyrock, Jul 8 2005, 01:59 PMStudies show, you are more likely to have a accident in that 3-5 mile distance from your home than anywhere.
No wonder, if around half of ALL RIDES include these roads. I bet at least 99% of slipping in bathtub accident happens within 1 mile from home too.. wink.gif
See it all the time ... it especially is unnerving when you see this with passengers ... and even on child passengers.
I posted something like this on ST.N. (not to hurt STn in the least ... just different overall opinions over there for some reason) and I got flamed for the "Natural Selection" and "Government is too big ... shouldn't make me do things" response. I think they missed my point.
I agree with you all ... it is MUCH smarter to wear at least minimal gear. I am a ATGATT type of rider. But, to each his own I guess ... as long as it doesn't effect me (i.e. insurance, taxes, etc.).
trekuk, Jul 8 2005, 11:14 AMOutside of the no-eyewear guys, who must have trouble seeing properly, what made you reach the above conclusion?
Are we more likely to get in an accident if we less gear? Are gearless accidents in general more expensive?
At least the gear-less riders don't usually bitch about those of us that are geared-up.
Trekuk..sorry if I hit a nerve.
I'm not going to make the conclusion that no gear = more likely to take risks and therefore more accident prone...I'll leave that to the insurance companies.
However, I think even you would have to agree, that given the same non-fatal accident for two riders, one with good gear and one with nothing, the rider with the good gear should sustain significantly less injuries. If the no gear rider sustains more injuries, it's very likely the hospital bill will increase, thereby causing Insurance Company X to shell out more dough. When Insurance Companies shell out more dough, we all suffer with higher premiums...and that's a fact regardless of the type of insurance. That was the angle I was trying to go after.
I don't consider my bitching unnecessary if there's a chance through the above described actions a no gear rider could impact my wallet, and that pisses me off.
I didn't mean to offend you by considering no gear riders as "not bright", but I just don't see how wearing some basic protective gear is SUCH a big deal to some riders...it just doesn't compute for me. You spend $8-10,000 on a brand new sport bike, but you won't even shell out a few hundred more for at least a jacket and helmet? C'mon...
Again, if I offended you or anyone else, I am sorry, but it seems useless, silly, unnecessary and stupid to me. My opinion.
trekuk, Jul 8 2005, 02:46 PMLet's separate statistics from causality. No gear => presumably more likely to do stupid things = likely accident. It's the stupid part that causes accident, not the no-gear part. If you don't do stupid things, no increased risk of accident, regardless of gear. So saying that gearless equals higher risk of accident is most certainly a stretch by any standard. Doing stupid things, lack of experience, margins in riding, traffic, bike, luck etc. will determine accident risk.
I strongly disagree on critisism from gearless being even remotely close to what we geared-up ones dish out. Just take a look around most forums that has mostly geared-up members, almost every day there's a "OMG I SAW A SQUID" post, and it's quickly followed up by others, and there is usually concensus that these riders have far less mental capacity than ourselves, and that it probably should be illegal. Nothing like a flip-flop sighting to get the juiced flowing.. I've never seen anyone on the other side of the fence propose outlawing gear, based on the observation that we are bunch of retards unable to make an informed decision for ourselves..
Of course, 80% of all statistics are false. And if you want to get right down to it, your statement No gear = presumably more likely to do stupid things = likely accident is the same thing as saying No gear = likely accident, mathematically speaking. tongue.gif goofy.gif
However, even if you don't do stupid things, there is still a greater risk of accident without your gear. If you are wearing flip-flops on a bike and you need to suddenly put your foot down for some reason you have a much greater risk of not being able to get good footing. Down you go. A golfball to the side of the head is going to effect you less with a helmet. And yes, I have taken a golfball to the side of the helmet.
And what if you aren't wearing gear, are not doing anything stupid, but some cager is and hits you? Off the bike you go, maybe get banged up, end up with a ride to the hospital. The gear could have prevented the abulance ride.
As for the critism of one group to the other, I guess it is all relative. I work with a bunch of bikers who don't wear gear, they bust my balls all the time when I peel off my jacket on a 100 degree day. Just last week somebody told me I was an idiot for wearing full gear and boots when it is so hot out. As for the posts causing a concensus, you have to realize what company keeps on that particular board.
trekuk, Jul 8 2005, 03:06 PMNo wonder, if around half of ALL RIDES include these roads. I bet at least 99% of slipping in bathtub accident happens within 1 mile from home too.. wink.gif
I agree with this line of thought. Most drives/rides begin and end at home. It's where we are more than any other place. idea3.gif
On the subject of gearless squids - they just make me look smart! laugh.gif
Lobster, Jul 8 2005, 02:25 PMI don't consider my bitching unnecessary if there's a chance through the above described actions a no gear rider could impact my wallet, and that pisses me off.
Hi Larry, no offence taken and I certainly did never think you intended any. I get a little tired at times at the constant observations of gear-less riders as less intelligent or uninformed (and even expensive to the rest of us) at times, I just picked your post for my anti-rant. smile.gif
I fully agree that gearless are likely to sustain more expensive injuries than geared-up'ers, and we can make general assumptions based on insurance companies' rating. However, I do think that could be a very dangerous path to follow and it's full of holes. I've never seen proof that gearless accidents have any significant impact on the overall economics of motorcycling, compared to for example age, rider training, bikes etc. If gearless riding is outlawed based on this principle, what is to stop us from banning motorcycles or sportbikes in general? Surely, the general population may view us all as parasites on their wallets, and if you have a point, so do they. From a broader perspective, it's a little like a guy going 100 mph on the highway saying that the guy who just passed going 105 mph is a complete idiot and should be in jail -- if only he knew what a 105mph crash looks like..
I occasionally ride without any gear on my VFR in the city, shorts and flipflops that's me. I used to ride quite often without a helmet when I rode a cruiser. It felt great. I take offence to anyone who automatically assumes this is because I'm trying to be "cool", have limited IQ or that I couldn't afford a helmet. I like riding like that, and I'm completely aware of the risks.
Don't worry about the insurance cost, since I have a fairly short driving history in the US, I'm treated as a 18 year old crack-addict on a 'Busa. Never had an accident or claim ever, but my premium is still around $1500 more a year than "normal". How much extra do you pay? I'm paying for someone out there, so excuse me if I don't necessarily buy into insurance companies' statistics as a foolproof way of determining risk for individuals. btw, they see me as a much bigger threat in my car than on my bike for some reason -- if only they knew... hahah goofy.gif (but they don't pick up any medical bills, that might be why).
Ok, I think that's enough. The wallet argument has many sides.
Baileyrock, I've also heard that most accidents happen within 3-5 miles of my home - Thats why I think I might move about 10 miles away now so I won't be in that area. tongue.gif As far as no helmet on a bicycle, I won't even do that. I do too many stupid things on my mountain bike not to. I also know, not heard of someone who knows - but personally know two people who died in single bike accidents on road bikes (bicycles). Ones hand slipped off the bars while he was replacing his water bottle and down he went = brain injury resulting in death 117 days later. The other died instantly from a head injury when he smacked his head on the asphalt after attempting to swerve around a pothole and hit a tiny patch of sand at about 35 mph. My 8 and 10 year old girls will also point out motorcyclists not wearing gear. "Dad, they aren't very smart huh?" I have to agree that no gear = higher insurance pay outs.
trekuk, Jul 8 2005, 03:31 PMHi Larry, no offence taken and I certainly did never think you intended any. I get a little tired at times at the constant observations of gear-less riders as less intelligent or uninformed (and even expensive to the rest of us) at times, I just picked your post for my anti-rant. smile.gif
I fully agree that gearless are likely to sustain more expensive injuries than geared-up'ers, and we can make general assumptions based on insurance companies' rating. However, I do think that could be a very dangerous path to follow and it's full of holes. I've never seen proof that gearless accidents have any significant impact on the overall economics of motorcycling, compared to for example age, rider training, bikes etc. If gearless riding is outlawed based on this principle, what is to stop us from banning motorcycles or sportbikes in general? Surely, the general population may view us all as parasites on their wallets, and if you have a point, so do they. From a broader perspective, it's a little like a guy going 100 mph on the highway saying that the guy who just passed going 105 mph is a complete idiot and should be in jail -- if only he knew what a 105mph crash looks like..
I occasionally ride without any gear on my VFR in the city, shorts and flipflops that's me. I used to ride quite often without a helmet when I rode a cruiser. It felt great. I take offence to anyone who automatically assumes this is because I'm trying to be "cool", have limited IQ or that I couldn't afford a helmet. I like riding like that, and I'm completely aware of the risks.
Don't worry about the insurance cost, since I have a fairly short driving history in the US, I'm treated as a 18 year old crack-addict on a 'Busa. Never had an accident or claim ever, but my premium is still around $1500 more a year than "normal". How much extra do you pay? I'm paying for someone out there, so excuse me if I don't necessarily buy into insurance companies' statistics as a foolproof way of determining risk for individuals. btw, they see me as a much bigger threat in my car than on my bike for some reason -- if only they knew... hahah goofy.gif (but they don't pick up any medical bills, that might be why).
Ok, I think that's enough. The wallet argument has many sides.
Ride safe!
Maybe you should read this article it may help to fill in some holes. I don't really think that you can argue that squids don't cost the insurance companies( if they even have insurance) and taxpayers more money than riders that ride in full gear, as a whole. Which in turn are passed on to other customers and the taxpayers.
Raven_VFR, Jul 8 2005, 08:57 PMI don't really think that you can argue that squids don't cost the insurance companies( if they even have insurance) . . .
Maybe you're on to something . . . NOT requiring squids to carry insurance thus reducing the burden on the insurance companies which they would certainly pass on to us!
Seriously though, I don't see how "protective equipment" can't help in a fall. Admittedly, I don't wear mine ALL the time but I am very good about it. If I'm going a few blocks to the carry out I most likely won't wear my jacket and boots (I always wear my helmet) but anything more than that, even on 100 degree days, I'm decked out. It's not that I believe nothing can happen in those couple blocks, but I'm much more careful and stick to my "everyone's out to get me" mentality more so than ever.
We all weigh our choices. Hell, motorcycling is a choice, not a necessity. Food, water and taxes are necessities. I choose to get out of bed at 4:30 in the morning so I get to keep my job. I choose to keep my job so I can keep my bike. People will make their decisions and most likely won't be swayed. Can't we all just get along?
wczimmerman, Jul 8 2005, 09:01 AMIt not you. They're everywhere. As it gets hot here in Texas, many ride just as you described. They're also the ones that have the fantastic stories about road rash and crashes followed by a warning that riding is too dangerous. I have a guy here at work that just started riding but has no gear because he's "shopping around for a good price..." blink.gif
All I can do is improve the next generation: My 4 and 6 year old girls know that to ride you MUST wear all the gear: helmet, boots, gloves, suit or jacket/pants. They point out the non-dressed riders and say, "Daddy! He's not safe!"
Thats awesome. Good training. I bought my little brother a CR50 for his birthday and hes just about the same way. He tattles on our cousin of the same age that rides his 4 wheeler without a helmet when his parents arent looking. See even my 6 year old bro has a squiddy riding partner already....oh no!
theoxmole, Jul 8 2005, 07:16 PMMaybe you're on to something . . . NOT requiring squids to carry insurance thus reducing the burden on the insurance companies which they would certainly pass on to us!
Seriously though, I don't see how "protective equipment" can't help in a fall. Admittedly, I don't wear mine ALL the time but I am very good about it. If I'm going a few blocks to the carry out I most likely won't wear my jacket and boots (I always wear my helmet) but anything more than that, even on 100 degree days, I'm decked out. It's not that I believe nothing can happen in those couple blocks, but I'm much more careful and stick to my "everyone's out to get me" mentality more so than ever.
We all weigh our choices. Hell, motorcycling is a choice, not a necessity. Food, water and taxes are necessities. I choose to get out of bed at 4:30 in the morning so I get to keep my job. I choose to keep my job so I can keep my bike. People will make their decisions and most likely won't be swayed. Can't we all just get along?
smile.gif
End of thread · 30 posts recoveredWayback Machine snapshot 18 Oct 2006
