poll relating to the lowsided yesterday thread

[almost40]

This has obviously become a source of contention between those who "know" and those who dont.

All things being equal. does the act of wearing gear..........................

[rockNroll]

i dunno

[nickjpass]

This is a hard thread. Since some people can become over confident in their gear and they might think they're invincible...maybe their should be another choice.

[almost40]

The question stands on it own.
I didnt ask if you think you are safer and then you ride more reckless because your wearing gear.

[RhinoJC]

Originally Posted by almost40

The question stands on it own.
I didnt ask if you think you are safer and then you ride more reckless because your wearing gear.

The comment directly applies to the question you've asked. But once again, you're dealing in absolutes. That's ok though, we'll see how it turns out.

[nickjpass]

Originally Posted by almost40

The question stands on it own.
I didnt ask if you think you are safer and then you ride more reckless because your wearing gear.

True, I'm over thinking it.

[bluepoof]

I think I understand the gist of the question. I rode up in the hills once wearing jeans instead of my riding pants and I felt that I rode much more cautiously because I was very aware of my exposed kneecaps hanging out in the breeze.

That said, I think it was more like "I ride cautiously normally with gear" vs "I ride very paranoid and didn't enjoy it with jeans" as opposed to not riding cautiously with gear on.

[setasai]

Originally Posted by bluepoof

That said, I think it was more like "I ride cautiously normally with gear" vs "I ride very paranoid and didn't enjoy it with jeans" as opposed to not riding cautiously with gear on.

That's such a mouthful. On that same note, it's no fun if you have to force yourself to be paranoid for whatever reason be it "it looks cooler" or "its too hot out". If it's no fun then it's not worth it.

[Snake]

I did not read the other thread in question and from what I have heard so far about it I am glad.

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by nickjpass

This is a hard thread. Since some people can become over confident in their gear and they might think they're invincible...maybe their should be another choice.

Overconfidence is not just a gear thing, its a decision that is made based on factors, risks and possible rewards.

It should be;

gear = accept more risk if the outcome is a downed machine and rider. the more gear, the greater the acceptable risk

The only problem with this is, the more risk you take the the worse the outcome can be

The benefit can be lesson(s) learned for good or bad about riding skill or bike ability.

[nickjpass]

Originally Posted by csmith12

Overconfidence is not just a gear thing, its a decision that is made based on factors, risks and possible rewards.

It should be;

gear = accept more risk if the outcome is a downed machine and rider. the more gear, the greater the acceptable risk

The only problem with this is, the more risk you take the the worse the outcome can be

The benefit can be lesson(s) learned for good or bad about riding skill or bike ability.

That's what I'm trying to say...

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by nickjpass

That's what I'm trying to say...

I know.... I feel great in my gear, and I know the comes through in my riding. For me is a risk vs reword thing. I will rider harder in my track leathers vs mesh/textiles. So I kinda feel could have voted either way.

It's just not black and white as asked.

[greatwhiteninja]

in my case since most gear comes in smaller sizes..lol! meaning i cant find much that fits me properly .. the one piece of " gear " if you wanna call it that, a leather vest with back support i have. its quite snug and actually i feel more stiff when wearing it compared to not wearing it. obviously i wear gloves and a helmet and long pants/boots.. anything other then that i feel is a distraction when riding, and the chance of a wreck with it on is more likely IMO. just my .02

[algerath]

If you ride more or less aggressively that is a decision, conscious or not, but a decision made by you not the gear. Gear may be a factor in the decision you make but ultimately if you over ride your ability or the conditions and wreck it is because you decided to ride hard, not because you wore gear.

If you answer the question as written I think you still have to qualify it. Properly fitting, quality motorcycle gear will NOT cause you to crash. it's our own thick skulls or possibly another driver's that will cause the crash not the gear.

[sombo]

Originally Posted by RhinoJC

The comment directly applies to the question you've asked. But once again, you're dealing in absolutes. That's ok though, we'll see how it turns out.

You are not innocent of "dealing in absolutes" either. Your poll is no different in that it is from opposite sides of extremes.

This is now the 3rd thread you have shown a total lack of understanding on the subject. Many have tried to tell you that you're wrong, and are being stupid in promoting a flawed and dangerous idea. You continue to try and prove that you have supporters in the idea that gear increases risk of accident because it restricts movement, and hinders sight and hearing. As all others have tried to get through to you; if your gear is doing these things, then it is not properly fitting gear and needs to be replaced. This is a failing of the rider, not the gear, stop trying to twist it to that.

Vision:
I own two helmets, and in both I have nearly 180 degrees of peripheral vision in them. They fit nice and snug, yet they do not have any hot spots that make them uncomfortable. If the lenses are kept clean and scratch free they offer NO hindrance to my vision. This is how a helmet is supposed to fit and work. If you have one that is hindering your vision then it is not the right size for you.

Hearing:
In all honesty hearing is not nearly as important as you seem to think it is. At highway speeds there will be so much noise from wind, vehicle, and road contact as to make your hearing next to useless for detection. This doesn't apply to just motorcycles either. Cages are becoming more and more sound proof on the inside to make the ride more comfortable. Even when they aren't, you still have the radio, contact road noise, and even the wind (especially if you have a window open). Hearing is considered so low on the radar that you don't even need it to get a license. That's right, people who are 100% stone deaf can and do get licenses to drive.

Movement:
Safety gear is designed to be snug in a normal riding position based on the type of riding the gear is designed for. It also allows for enough freedom of movement to operate a motorcycle of that style of riding in a safe manner.

Gear designed for sport riding is by design, more rigid and restricting than gear for touring or cruising. The trade off is that it protects better by keeping your motions to a minimum during a crash and putting the most protection at projected contact points based on the position the gear tries to keep you in. It's similar to how racing seats have little to no movement range once properly fitted. This is how they are SUPPOSED to work.

Touring and cruising gear is much looser in it's design to allow a greater range of movement. They use a much different posture and that dictates a much different range of movement. This then requires gear to allow for that. The trade off there is that it doesn't protect quiet as well in the case of an accident because it doesn't try to keep your limbs in a more protected position the way sport riding gear does. They don't use nearly as much padding either because the gear is not designed to increase your chances of hitting those key spots.

Once again, if you have gear that is hindering your riding ability, then it is not the right gear for you and a failing on YOUR part (NOT the gear). You can use the excuse of not having properly fitting gear available to you all you want. But that does not give your argument thus far any validity, nor does it give you the proof and right to try and promote your flawed ideas to new impressionable riders. I also don't need to "prove my point" for it is already proven by your lack of proof to the contrary. You can search all you want and ask any professional you want, but you will not find any statistics or professionals to back up your claims. They will only tell you the same thing we have been; get better fitting gear.

[RhinoJC]

What I'm saying isn't dangerous since it's not advocating for one side or the other, I'm simply stating that the argument made by the "no gear" group is a valid one. The same way the ATGATT group's points are just as valid. Not once have I ever stated that gear was a bad idea, that it shouldn't be worn, or that it's unsafe.

The only statement I've made is that gear can be restrictive and that restriction can increase the chance of a wreck (the potential for dulled senses is part of that). You've agreed that gear can be restricting, are you arguing that a restricted range of motion does not contribute to the potential of going down whatsoever?

And if a rider goes down regardless of the reason, they are at fault in some fashion, I've never argued that. All I said is that gear can be a contributing factor if it's restrictive.

Maybe try reading my posts for what they actually say instead of what you think I'm trying to imply.

And the only absolute I've dealt in is that a hindrance due to gear can increase the chance of going down.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by RhinoJC

What I'm saying isn't dangerous since it's not advocating for one side or the other, I'm simply stating that the argument made by the "no gear" group is a valid one. The same way the ATGATT group's points are just as valid. Not once have I ever stated that gear was a bad idea, that it shouldn't be worn, or that it's unsafe.

The only statement I've made is that gear can be restrictive and that restriction can increase the chance of a wreck (the potential for dulled senses is part of that). You've agreed that gear can be restricting, are you arguing that a restricted range of motion does not contribute to the potential of going down whatsoever?

And if a rider goes down regardless of the reason, they are at fault in some fashion, I've never argued that. All I said is that gear can be a contributing factor if it's restrictive.

Maybe try reading my posts for what they actually say instead of what you think I'm trying to imply.

And the only absolute I've dealt in is that a hindrance due to gear can increase the chance of going down.

i disagree with your statements that properly fitted gear is restrictive and that "dulled senses" as you call them are decremental to your ability to process the scene around you. wind resistance IMO helps you filter out unwanted stimuli to a smaller set that you need to pay attention to. you don't need to pay attention to watering eyes. you don't need to pay attention to bugs flying in your face. you don't need to pay attention to burning skin or freezing wind. if you can't see out of your helmet, you don't have the right helmet. if you can't hear cars with earplugs in, you're already deaf. what's restrictive? your boots while walking? do much walking while you're riding your bike do you? if your jacket or helmet is restricting your head or torso or arm movement, you have improperly fitted gear. can't find properly fitted gear because of your unique body shape? get some custom fitted gear then. if you think ear plugs filter out you hearing a car beside you or a horn, or tire screach, or really anything but loud ass wind noise and exhaust putter, it sounds like you don't wear ear plugs while you ride very often. i will agree its harder to hear someone speak with them in while you sit at a light... how often do you need to hear someone speak while you're riding a bike? wouldn't chatting someone up fall under the "not paying attention to the road" category? and besides, like you DONT get wind noise without a helmet? that's ridiculous. where does the wind go? it's still there. so is your exhaust.

[Dr. Ew]

Very well said sombo.
Blue team winning?

[Snake]

Originally Posted by Dr. Ew

Very well said sombo.
Blue team winning?

+1 Go team Blue!

[sombo]

I have read your posts and I think it is you that is not understanding what exactly it is you stating in your own posts.

Not once have I ever stated that gear was a bad idea, that it shouldn't be worn, or that it's unsafe.

Actually, the argument that gear increases the likelihood of a wreck is a valid one.

Stating that anything increases the risk of a wreck means you are saying it's unsafe. Perhaps you should try reading your own posts?

And the only absolute I've dealt in is that a hindrance due to gear can increase the chance of going down.

And thus you admit being guilty of using absolutes.

As I and others have stated, if your gear is restrictive to the point it hinders your ability to ride a motorcycle, then it is NOT FITTED PROPERLY!! Stop trying to ignore that last part to make things convenient for you. I tried giving you insight on how gear is designed to work. If you refuse to understand and accept that, then it is still the failure of the rider to understand how proper safety gear is supposed to work and not the gear itself.

Prime example: Professional racing gear is THE most restrictive set of riding gear you will ever find. However, it does not in any way interfere with their ability to ride at extremes we will never see on the road. Why is that? Because as I stated earlier, it is designed to allow enough movement to safely operate the motorcycle in that environment. In fact that level of restriction in movement helps to keep them from more serious injury by helping to keep their limbs tucked in where they are better protected in the case of a wreck. It does NOT however increase their risk of going down because it does NOT interfere with their ability to ride. If the are provided with a set that does interfere with their ability to ride, they change it out for something that fits better (a concept you refuse to accept or do).

[alex.s]

Honey badger doesn't give a ****. Ew... look at that snake.

sorry... just trying to lighten the mood

[Dr. Ew]

Originally Posted by Snake

"Don't argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - Mike a.k.a. sombo

La da da di dum di doo...

Alex.s what kinda snake?

[RhinoJC]

Stating that anything increases the risk of a wreck means you are saying it's unsafe. Perhaps you should try reading your own posts?

You're implying meaning where it wasn't meant, but it's understandable that someone could make that connection, so I'll concede that point.

It's still safer than not wearing gear and when comparing the two options, it's blatantly obvious that one is far safer than the other, pardon me for assuming people had enough sense to understand that. Either way, it doesn't change the point I've been trying to make and people have consistently been dancing around.

As I and others have stated, if your gear is restrictive to the point it hinders your ability to ride a motorcycle, then it is NOT FITTED PROPERLY!! Stop trying to ignore that last part to make things convenient for you.

I'm not ignoring anything and I've directly addressed that. If it's restrictive to the point that it's interfering with your ability to ride, it probably isn't fitted properly, I agree. I'm not the one dancing around the point.

My argument is that not everyone has access to properly fitting gear or may not be able to afford a custom made suit, or that they may not even know what properly fitting gear is, but according to you that's an invalid argument. Yea, it's the riders fault, but that doesn't mean the gear wasn't a contributing factor and it doesn't invalidate the point.

Prime example: Professional racing gear is THE most restrictive set of riding gear you will ever find.

I don't watch professional racing so I may be wrong, but the gear that professionals wear is designed specifically for them and the bike and riding position is taken into account isn't it? Gear designed specifically for the rider and the bike they are riding and gear that someone is likely to grab at the shop when they grab their first bike are two completely different things.

If the are provided with a set that does interfere with their ability to ride, they change it out for something that fits better (a concept you refuse to accept or do).

I've never refused to accept that. Others, including yourself, refuse to accept that changing gear may not be an option for some people.

If the answer to restrictive gear is to replace it but there's no correlation between restrictive gear and an increased likelihood of going down, why bother replacing it?

[almost40]

Its like bad chinese food in here. It keeps coming back to upset your stomach and make you puke.

[sombo]

Originally Posted by Dr. Ew

La da da di dum di doo...

Alex.s what kinda snake?

Yah yah yah.... I know........ I just try to give people both the benefit of the doubt and the chance to prove they aren't in that category. lol

[alex.s]

that's about like saying your airbags don't work when you tape knives in front of them.
obviously.

gear that fits is not more expensive than gear that doesn't. it simply takes more than 5 seconds to pick out. if you're lazy and don't care to research or try on gear, guess what. it's not going to fit right. don't blame your own laziness on gear or a lack of funding. you have noone to blame but yourself.

you say

My argument is that not everyone has access to properly fitting gear or may not be able to afford a custom made suit

but you have access to enough funds to buy a motorcycle? sounds like horse **** to me. ride a bicycle or walk if you don't have enough money. not having enough money to operate the brand new motorcycle you just bought safely is the worst excuse i've ever heard for not wearing gear. if you don't have enough money maybe you should have bought something cheaper.

[sombo]

Originally Posted by RhinoJC

If the answer to restrictive gear is to replace it but there's no correlation between restrictive gear and an increased likelihood of going down, why bother replacing it?

Because there is a difference between gear that is restrictive and overly restrictive. I was just trying to get you to see that difference. That gear that is overly restrictive and hinders the rider in his ability to ride a motorcycle is in fact improperly fitted. Up until now you didn't seem to see a difference, or understand the fact that some gear is designed to restrict a level of movement for the sake of safety. If that gear is too restrictive and hinders your movement to the point that (as you suggested) it makes it harder to operate the bike, then you would be better off not getting that gear and to keep looking.

I think we have finally come to some agreement though and believe we can stop this debate. I have read in your last post all I need to see that you do seem to understand what we have been trying to say. At first your position was one of saying that gear in general put you at higher risk. That may not have been your intent, but that is how it came out. I can see now that that is not your true position on the subject. I hope that you can find properly fitted gear so you may find out what it feels like to have gear that feels comfortable instead of hindering.

I just ask that you try not to put it into new rider's heads that when wearing gear you increase your risks of wrecking. Rather inform them that improperly fitting gear can be enough of a distraction as to increase your risks of wrecking the same way distractions in a cage can. If we can both accept this idea then we can move on and end this debate.

not having enough money to operate the brand new motorcycle you just bought safely is the worst excuse i've ever heard for not wearing gear. if you don't have enough money maybe you should have bought something cheaper.

I don't know about you but I initially bought my first set of gear before I even took the MSF let alone before I got my bike.

[Azhyen]

I think what you're all trying to sum up to is COMFORTABILITY.

when an individual is performing a task, no matter the task, when said individual is in a comfortable state, they shall perform at optimum levels.

In the case of riding and gear, some people are most comfortable with or without gear. They are able to ride at optimal levels based on their comfort. Consider this notion for EACH side.

[Snake]

Originally Posted by Dr. Ew

La da da di dum di doo...

Alex.s what kinda snake?

I hope you are not trying to stir up trouble between the members.

[miss_syn]

Hooo boy.

The one day it was really hot and I just wanted to see what no gear felt like.

I did a few circles in my parking lot at like 3-5 miles an hour and I was scared. :X

No gear would probably make me more likely to wreck because I wouldn't focus well.