Open Face Crash

[thumper_imp]

Some adhesives degrade the strength of the material used to construct the helmet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So the truth comes out---it wasn't the fault of the Ford Pinto that they kept blowing-up when hit from behind.

It was the bumper stickers!!

[Pterodactyl_imp]

Some adhesives degrade the strength of the material used to construct the helmet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So the truth comes out---it wasn't the fault of the Ford Pinto that they kept blowing-up when hit from behind.

It was the bumper stickers!!

So the truth comes out---it wasn't the fault of the Ford Pinto that they kept blowing-up when hit from behind.

It was the bumper stickers!!
Mate you are so perceptive. What are the chances of success in a class action against Apple for supplying an iPhone that degrades drivers situational awareness?

Cheers.

[the Ferret]

Some adhesives degrade the strength of the material used to construct the helmet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So the truth comes out---it wasn't the fault of the Ford Pinto that they kept blowing-up when hit from behind.

It was the bumper stickers!!

Saw a bumper sticker on the back of a Pinto once that said "Rear End Collisions Burn Me up"

so Helmet manufacturers use "special" adhesive for their stickers..wow.

[Cormanus]

Even more bizarre in this country is that not only do all helmets have to comply with the relevant Australian Standard (and don't get me started on the evils of them) but it is an offence in most states to remove the compliance sticker from the helmet.

Clever readers would divine that removal causes the helmet to become a death trap.

Disclaimer: This post may contain traces of irony.

[shdwghst457_imp]

Some adhesives degrade the strength of the material used to construct the helmet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So the truth comes out---it wasn't the fault of the Ford Pinto that they kept blowing-up when hit from behind.

It was the bumper stickers!!

Saw a bumper sticker on the back of a Pinto once that said "Rear End Collisions Burn Me up"

so Helmet manufacturers use "special" adhesive for their stickers..wow.

Best. Thing. Ever.

Cheaper to pay the victim/surviving family than fix the car, amiright?

I ride with a open face helmet. I just can't stand wearing a full face helmet, They fog up, their hot and hard to breath inside for me anyway. I also think they take away from the freedom of the ride. Their will always be some risk of riding a motorcycle anyway.

I have a separate visor with a pin lock shield for cold weather when the normal visor fogs up. It drove me nuts too; better with the pin lock though.

How is a helmet safe when it causes you to not see where you're going!?

[AzBob_imp]

I won't get involved in arguments about mandatory safety equipment....but that said, having just read the anti-hi-viz article linked in a previous post, I'm a bit disgusted. I mean, I'm all for personal freedom/responsibility, but in a world where drivers often "never even see" the motorcyclists they kill, I find arguments against hi-viz from a safety standpoint pretty ludicrous.

The proof that it works is right there before your own eyes.

I was driving a car the other day when I saw a BMW rider waiting at an intersection further up the road. He was wearing a bright yellow hi-viz jacket. I'd wager I saw him literally hundreds of yards earlier than I would have otherwise, and continued to be aware of his presence. How can that possibly be a bad thing for the motorcyclist?

When I myself have worn a high-viz vest, it's been very obvious to me that drivers have given me more room. Is that a bad thing?

As to this guy's contention that motorcyclists are apt to become more reckless if they wear hi-viz--i.e., the "transfer of responsibility" argument--I seriously doubt it. You could argue against any safety device of any kind on that basis! I mean, have riders really become more reckless since they started wearing helmets?

I may ride like I'm invisible, but that doesn't mean I actually want to be invisible!

But I think what bugs me about the article more than anything is this: He's telling people not to adopt safety equipment that may well save their lives one day because--get this--as more of them do, the greater the odds it'll end up becoming the law for everyone. What a selfish, dishonest argument! His personal whims force him to argue that hi-vis is useless--something I'll bet he doesn't actually believe--so that he can then argue against people wearing it.

But it's a counterproductive argument, at least with me. After reading it, I wanted to go out and buy some more high-vis gear just to spite the guy.

That anti-hi-viz guy is a complete idiot.

Who posted saying they were against hi-viz vests?

I like the study that was posted, I was unaware of any prior to that. Anecdotal mentions of cagers supposedly giving pause when we ride with different eq or whatever is just that, anecdotal, and highly subject to confirmation bias.

While it may be "lame," I kinda liked the picture of the vest made to look like the police vest. Our cops don't wear hi-viz vests, though. People here don't even turn their heads to look before changing lanes, so I wonder how much being more conspicuous can help. Like I said, it can't hurt.

Does anyone know of a hi-viz vest that flows bunches of air? Most that I've seen are some kind of polyester/plastic that blocks all wind, which would basically kill me in the heat. The leather jacket is bad enough by itself.

Who posted saying they were against hi-viz vests?
This guy: http://www.visordown.com/features/discus...z2t3Tdh0rD

Who posted saying they were against hi-viz vests? This guy: http://www.visordown.com/features/discus...z2t3Tdh0rD
Ah, must have missed the link. I can certainly see what he's saying. If hi-viz stuff becomes ubiquitous, it loses its ability to make the wearer obvious since they are but one in a sea of hi-viz vest-wearing folks. Much the same way DRL's ruined the visibility of motorcyclists and now we have to ride with the highbeam on during the day for a chance at being seen.

Also, making it compulsory is complete crap. Though I always wear a (full face) helmet, and wear a seat belt when in an automboile, I don't like helmet laws, seatbelt laws, and I certainly would not like a law saying I HAVE to wear a hi-viz vest because OTHER people can't get their head out of their ass long enough to take a look up at the road they're driving on.

[Tortuga_imp]

Update: I'm not going to buy an open face helmet. It's pure vanity to have wanted one on my part, and with 2 new Arai and one new Shoei in my arsenal it would be a waste of money.

Thanks for your inputs. I still respect the decisions of those who wear them, more power to you, you brave buggers.

[pechorin75_imp]

I won't get involved in arguments about mandatory safety equipment....but that said, having just read the anti-hi-viz article linked in a previous post, I'm a bit disgusted. I mean, I'm all for personal freedom/responsibility, but in a world where drivers often "never even see" the motorcyclists they kill, I find arguments against hi-viz from a safety standpoint pretty ludicrous.

The proof that it works is right there before your own eyes.

I was driving a car the other day when I saw a BMW rider waiting at an intersection further up the road. He was wearing a bright yellow hi-viz jacket. I'd wager I saw him literally hundreds of yards earlier than I would have otherwise, and continued to be aware of his presence. How can that possibly be a bad thing for the motorcyclist?

When I myself have worn a high-viz vest, it's been very obvious to me that drivers have given me more room. Is that a bad thing?

As to this guy's contention that motorcyclists are apt to become more reckless if they wear hi-viz--i.e., the "transfer of responsibility" argument--I seriously doubt it. You could argue against any safety device of any kind on that basis! I mean, have riders really become more reckless since they started wearing helmets?

I may ride like I'm invisible, but that doesn't mean I actually want to be invisible!

But I think what bugs me about the article more than anything is this: He's telling people not to adopt safety equipment that may well save their lives one day because--get this--as more of them do, the greater the odds it'll end up becoming the law for everyone. What a selfish, dishonest argument! His personal whims force him to argue that hi-vis is useless--something I'll bet he doesn't actually believe--so that he can then argue against people wearing it.

But it's a counterproductive argument, at least with me. After reading it, I wanted to go out and buy some more high-vis gear just to spite the guy.

That anti-hi-viz guy is a complete idiot.

Who posted saying they were against hi-viz vests?

I like the study that was posted, I was unaware of any prior to that. Anecdotal mentions of cagers supposedly giving pause when we ride with different eq or whatever is just that, anecdotal, and highly subject to confirmation bias.

While it may be "lame," I kinda liked the picture of the vest made to look like the police vest. Our cops don't wear hi-viz vests, though. People here don't even turn their heads to look before changing lanes, so I wonder how much being more conspicuous can help. Like I said, it can't hurt.

Does anyone know of a hi-viz vest that flows bunches of air? Most that I've seen are some kind of polyester/plastic that blocks all wind, which would basically kill me in the heat. The leather jacket is bad enough by itself.

Who posted saying they were against hi-viz vests?
This guy: http://www.visordown.com/features/discus...z2t3Tdh0rD

Who posted saying they were against hi-viz vests? This guy: http://www.visordown.com/features/discus...z2t3Tdh0rD
Ah, must have missed the link. I can certainly see what he's saying. If hi-viz stuff becomes ubiquitous, it loses its ability to make the wearer obvious since they are but one in a sea of hi-viz vest-wearing folks. Much the same way DRL's ruined the visibility of motorcyclists and now we have to ride with the highbeam on during the day for a chance at being seen.

Also, making it compulsory is complete crap. Though I always wear a (full face) helmet, and wear a seat belt when in an automboile, I don't like helmet laws, seatbelt laws, and I certainly would not like a law saying I HAVE to wear a hi-viz vest because OTHER people can't get their head out of their ass long enough to take a look up at the road they're driving on.

I agree with you on making it compulsory, but no more motorcyclists than I see on the roads on any given day, I don't think we're any real risk of making it so ubiquitous that people ignore it. If that were the case, your argument about the effectiveness of motorcycle headlights (prior to the advent of DRLs on cars) wouldn't really hold up.