Two Stroke Motocross
Two Stroke Motocross Forum => Vintage Two Strokes => Topic started by: JETZcorp on July 21, 2010, 04:32:10 PM
-
Well shit, unless he plans on slamming into trees, riding directly behind someone who's spraying rocks from the back tire, or using his feet as brakes, I don't see where a KX60 would generate a need for boots. I've done 70 mile rides on a 250 in Nikes and only found one problem (my feet got cold.) Of course, boots are better, and it's worth the effort to go find some, but don't let that cancel or delay any riding!
Edit: I just edited the title and not the post. This is split off from the KX60 rebuild thread. I thought this was a good forum since many vintage fans I know enjoy riding with minimal gear.
-Coop (Mike)
-
Your wrong there jetz.
No one wants a broken foot just because they were to eger to ride.
-
Precisely how in the hell do you break your foot on a KX60? What's he going to do, jump it off the damn Chrysler building? Encase his foot in a concrete block, bury that under 12ft of clay, then dump the clutch? Even that probably wouldn't do the job on a bike like that. I've seen people ride in slippers at fifty miles per hour and everything was okay. The biggest danger he was in was the potential for a rattlesnake to come out of some bushes and maybe get through the material. Other than that, a little extra caution for limbs (which boots won't really help you against anyway, unless you wear a full-body cast) and it's good to go.
But hey, I don't know what kind of riding the kid is into. If he wants to try and jump a school bus or do some "mad whips" with a piston the size of a quarter, I do think some boots would be in order before going out to ride. But for almost anything else one might do on a KX60, I'd give a lot more attention to injuries that are actually going to happen, namely the scraped elbow and sprained pinky finger. I mean, Jesus Christ, I hit a god damn tree on a 43-year-old bike and the worst complaint I have is the way my fingernail turned purple for six hours.
-
Precisely how in the hell do you break your foot on a KX60? ...with a piston the size of a quarter
No offense JETZ, but you are basing all your opinions on your vintage bikes (I LOVE old bikes). Coming up the driveway on this 60, I got on it in first and then grabbed second and it hit so hard the front end came up so fast I almost looped. I am 200lbs! Nick weighs 100, trust me he will get into trouble quick and I want him properly geared up.
Riding his PW50 a couple years ago he jumped off a rock, got crossed up and ended up with his ankle jammed between a tree and the bike. Since he had proper boots on he was fine, just shook up.
-
JETZ - while I appreciate you candor and your enthusiasm about motocross machines... I would not consider you the poster boy for anything safety related.
Coop is correct, the new modern bikes especially the small bores are much faster than you would imagine. In fact in a drag race the small bike would most likely beat your 390 up to about 45 to 50 mph... I know it's hard to believe, but they are FAST.
I say that you should use every bit of safety gear that you feel safe using. Boots and helmets are ESSENTIAL!!
-
Thanks Coop :D.
And congratulations on getting that bike back going in such good order.
He is 1 lucky young fella.
I hope he realises what you have done for him.
-
Well, the 120 has pulled surprise wheelies and nearly thrown me into the woods before, so I'm familiar with small bikes doing weird things.
But I have to wonder, why was he jumping off a rock in the first place? That sounds like the kind of thing that would shout "Danger, don't do this your the bike might get crossed up and it'll hurt! And if it doesn't, it'll at least be scary as hell!" to me. Maybe it's fashionable to substitute good safety equipment over common sense and judgement now? Call me old fashioned, but I still think that 95% of motorcycle safety comes down to "Don't hit shit." And quite honestly, if a kid grows up learning to ride with a suit of armor that would make medieval knights look half-naked, it's going to lead to a lot more hitting of shit that ought not to be hit, which is going to have magnified consequences when he gets up to a dirt bike with enough power to accelerate like a Hemi Charger. So I think protection should be added gradually so that there is a more concerted effort to be a safe and conscientious rider in the beginning, which will establish a habit of riding safely in the future. Then, when there's a bike that can hurt you even if you don't ride like an idiot, you can have the safety gear and the good habits on your side. The fact that you think he will "get into trouble quick" is a very bad omen indeed.
I know that's going a little far for this discussion. And I should point out that I do think boots are a good thing to have at any stage of riding! But, I don't think a lack of boots should be a total show-stopper to keep the ride from happening, especially if you think to add a safety briefing beforehand to emphasize the small level of risk that has just been added.
By the way, I'll bet you anything that if you were to look at yourself riding a bike that small, you'd notice that 70% of your weight is above the rear sprocket because of the adult-sized arms and legs hooked up to a child-sized wheelbase. Your 200lbs wasn't doing anything to keep the front end down, and was actually working to bring it up. That's why the 120 can pop the front wheel into the air better than my 250, even though the latter has 4x the horsepower and a much more explosive powerband. When I was riding the 120 as a kid, I would try to get the front end up and it wouldn't do it.
By the way, that 390 has made an embarrassment out of a YZ426F in the past. You'd be right about a 250 keeping up with it up to 50 (on perfectly flat ground), but I doubt anything smaller is going to.
-
JETZcorp no offense, but until you've ridden one of these little rockets, its had to believe just how quick they are. They look so tiny, and are so cool, until you let her rip... I've seen more than one seasoned rider get hurt, "warming" up the little bike for their son / daughter.
-
That's because their entire weight is hanging over the back of the bike! I don't doubt the bike is quick, I suspect it's about as fast as the 120 in terms of acceleration, with perhaps a bit more top-end. But the fact remains, I would hammer the throttle, pop the clutch, even pull back on the bars, and I couldn't get the front end up more than four inches when I was 12. BUT, now that I'm 195lbs and over six feet tall, the bike is a wheelie-throwing fool, even though it's got a very linear power spread. The simple physics of the matter is that a tall person on a small bike is far more likely to get the front end up than someone who's only 100lbs and 4'6". I was much more afraid for my life on the 120 through trails than I was on the 390, because I knew which one was more likely to point the front end straight for Jupiter, and it wasn't the 390.
-
But I have to wonder, why was he jumping off a rock in the first place? That sounds like the kind of thing that would shout "Danger, don't do this your the bike might get crossed up and it'll hurt!
Because there is more to dirt riding than cruising around in fields or on fire roads... ;D
-
But jumping off a rock? If you're going to jump off something, jump off something that's consistent. If there's ONE thing I've learned about rocks after ten years of riding and listening to 45 years worth of stories, it's that you can never trust a rock. Every time you see a rock and think, "Oh, I can hit that and it'll be okay," that's when the front wheel kicks sideways by some unknown force of nature, the bike crosses up, high-sides, and splatters your head against the ground. It's always a rock. When my dad ripped out his shoulder a month ago, it was because of one damned rock that threw the front wheel and then the back wheel a good foot and a half to one side. I understand the appeal of messing around and jumping things, but a new rider needs above all else to recognize when there's potential for something to go wrong.
And you know, you can probably mess around with them all you want for half a decade and come out of it okay, but eventually there's going to be one that's got some funky shape, and things happen. I guess what I'm trying to say is, the fact that the bike crossed up and pinned his foot to a tree should be enough of a clue to make him think twice about what he jumps around on. Wanting something beyond cruising roads is fine, but I honestly believe that constructing a ramp out of a bunch of 2x4s and sailing over a big crate of Pit Vipers, Evel Knievel style, would be more safe than bouncing off some boulder to get into the air.
-
Coop :
You better make sure your nephew only rides on a perfectly flat soft surface from now on. No pebbles bigger then 1/2 inch and watch out for those evil rocks that jump out in front of the bike. :P ;)
-
I don't mean that. You'll notice from my videos I go over rocks all the time. But the emphasis is that if you're seeking them out so that you can hit them and go flying, then that's a recipe for disaster. When you jump off something, you want it to be a somewhat regular surface, but when you hit a rock (which by the sounds of it was more like a boulder), you can never tell really what shape it is, and exactly how it's going to affect the bike. Worse still, because it's irregular, there's a good chance that unless you it it in just such a way, the front and back wheels are going to hit slightly different parts of said boulder, and react in slightly different ways. And as well all know, when the front and back of a motorcycle act on slightly different agendas, the result to the rider can be massive.
Now of course, I don't know how big this "rock" was, or what shape it was, or anything other than that it was a mineral deposit located somewhere roughly close to the Earth's crust. For all I know, the damn thing had been worked over by archaeologists with their little toothbrushes until it was an FMX ramp. I don't know. But as a general rule, jumping irregularly-shaped things equals bad, and the kind of boulders that one might use to jump often tend to be irregularly-shaped.
1/2 inch is fine, and actually I'd say any sort of gravel that's smaller than bowling balls is probably okay unless you hit it at eighty. However, I should remind everyone of the story of a rider we knew who had all his riding gear on, hit a section of five-inch-minus "gravel" (which can be seen at 4:45 in my "Cruising in Stereo" video, though this was shot a decade after the incident I'm talking about, so it's improved somewhat) and crashed his CR500 so hard it put him in the hospital. I don't remember what injuries he had, but after riding for 30 years, it was this section of rocks that made him hang it up for good. He knew he had a modern, stable bike with monoshock so of course it wouldn't hop sideways! It did. The front went one way, the back went another, and regardless of all the armor he was wearing, he didn't have a chance of picking it back up. Meanwhile, I'd gone over that same section twice on that very day, with a T-shirt, shorts, and 3" of suspension and didn't even come close to losing it. I recognized the danger, adjusted my riding accordingly, and was thus able to keep going and enjoy the thrills of riding for years to come.
Protective gear is nice, and as I've said before, I'd like to have more for the time when some other armadillo-looking goofball plows into my bike, but you absolutely cannot use that or anything else as a substitute for smart riding habits. Not even a little bit. When you're riding, no matter how much crap you're wearing, you gotta pretend you're on that bike ass naked with a full-body sunburn. That way, when you do inevitably crash, you will do everything humanly possible to make it better for yourself, and that, more than anything else you can possibly do (except for the all-important helmet) will save your life.
-
(http://www.planetware.com/i/photo/dragons-teeth-rock-in-maui-hih1096.jpg)
You may be missing the point somehow.... it's not just about rocks. Even though they can be dangerous.
Yes you are correct that you need to use smart riding techniques and ride within your capabilities especially when starting out.
But think back a bit to when you were a little young dude... for some reason you thought (maybe still do..) that you are invincible. That no matter what you did you would not only survive, but that the most you'd get was a small scratch.
The older, wiser of us on here are just attempting to temper you lack of enthusiasm for safety gear or silencers with a more modest approach.
Which includes but is not limited to;
Protecting our children from injury to the best of our ability. Using every piece of safety gear available to do so. And ourselves practicing intelligent use of gear that will allow us to ride another day.
Sure we could swap stories about folks surviving with nothing but bubble gum and a tooth pick and others with virtual suits of armor dieing... but I personally know of more than a couple who have died without using safety equipment.
Motorcycles can be dangerous.. protect yourself for a fall, not the ride!
With this subject I'm sticking to my guns...
As for the silencer thing, while you may not know of anyone that hates you for riding without one, does not mean that there isn't some mountain man living off the grid that hates every second you blast your bike up and down the fire road in front of his hut!!
In 99% of the world it is sane and reasonable to keep your bike as quiet as possible to help ensure that others get a chance to enjoy the freedoms that you currently enjoy.
Using your logic, since you are so far away from people (as you claim) it must be alright to break other laws as well?? Where do you draw the line? Murder?
What's next encouraging people to take their un-silenced mx bikes to the streets of a big city?? It's just belligerent thinking in my opinion.
Having a bike that is quiet is the right thing to do, no matter what you might think otherwise.
I don't mean to come down on you, but you very well may be a role model for someone... and we don't need any more people to make our lives more difficult.
-
...but when you hit a rock (which by the sounds of it was more like a boulder)
I don't know why I am responding, because in my short time here I've learned you think you are always right and refuse to see anyone else's side. But I just can't help myself, LOL.
We were talking about a 7 year old on a PW50. Ever see one of those? A rock the size of a phone book would be big to one of those. I never said he sought it out or even jumped on purpose. You assume too much. We were riding, he couldn't avoid it, he jumped, lost control and hit a tree. Again I never said he did it on purpose. But accidents happen and gear helps in those situations. As his guardian when we are riding I like to make sure he is properly protected to ride with me another day. I take great joy in riding with my nephews.
Like I said before, I have seen your videos, and not everyone likes to ride like you guys do. I don't mean to sound like an arrogant jerk. There is nothing wrong with how you guys ride, I would never criticize you like you do seem to do to everyone else. Riding off-road is great because it allows us all to ride and enjoy riding at our own pace. But to say hitting a rock is poor decision making is nonsense. You are showing your ignorance and lack of experience. We do not all live where you do. I could show you some trails here where in an hour you would be praying to hit a patch of dirt longer than a couple feet LOL. A local riding area has a trail called the "Rock Garden" and it's just that. Rocks and mud are very common conditions here in SW PA. Here are some pics of what many of the trails here look like.
Beginning of the Rock Garden, it gets worse:
(http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f190/SVCoop/P6130070.jpg)
My friend Justin on his KDX200:
(http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f190/SVCoop/RockRun5-29-10028.jpg)
My friend Pat on his KTM250:
(http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f190/SVCoop/HangingRock2010018.jpg)
-
Okay, there's a lot here. Okay, let's start from the beginning.
John, you're good at taking what I say out of context, and perhaps I'm good at making that very easy. You asked me to remember back to when I was at the 50cc age and think of how I felt invincible. The fact is, I didn't. Well, maybe I did for the first two weekends or whatever, but after a couple flying-W's, a few times flopping over in the mud (one of which ruined my front fender, which caused much crying) and a few scrapes and bruises, I quickly learned how to respect motorcycles for the mean toys that they are. I not only think that riders should start their riding career with minimal safety gear (unless they're in an area with lots of rider traffic, in which case I would suggest learning to ride somewhere else) but I also think that recreational riders should spend at least a year on a bike with less than four inches of suspension travel, early in their development. Of course, that's not going to happen, but there's a reason for it, a safety reason! And by the way, when I say a minimum of safety gear, I mean helmet, boots, long pants, and gloves, with any of the above except the helmet being possibly expendable if absolutely necessary. You can ride without boots if said boots have disappeared into the ether. Just don't make a policy of it!
Like I've been trying to explain, the first few years of learning to ride are important, because that's the point when behaviors are very habit-forming. If you're dressed like a turtle and have a bike that can hit almost anything, you will be more likely (not predestined, but more likely) to ride in a more reckless manner. That's bad! That's why I think you should be able to take your minor bruises, cuts, and abrasions while they're still minor, and condition yourself to reflexively finding the best line in all situations. It's all about incentive. Then, when you have trained yourself to be a good rider in this way, get yourself a good bike that can hit almost anything safely, but now you've got the extra skill to find ways of avoiding things, saving the bike, etc. And you can go ahead and get your shin guards and elbow pads and chest-protector, because accidents will always happen, and now you've got a bike that can make them happen quite severely, in spite of your better crash-avoidance skill. This is the department where I'm severely lacking, and I freely admit that.
John tells us to protect ourselves for a fall, I would modify that to, "Protect yourself against a fall, and then protect yourself for a fall."
I should re-emphasize, I'm not arguing against all riders wearing safety gear! If I were unable to find my helmet, I wouldn't ride that day. I may putt around camp or down the road at 20mph like an 80 year-old granny, but I wouldn't go an an epic 75mi journey. That's an automatic safety procedure your brain does. It knows, "Okay, my head is exposed like a damn cantaloupe, don't do anything stupid." If you introduce some of this kind of thinking very early on (remember, I'm talking only sub-100cc stuff here, and never going as far as riding without a helmet) you will have that "don't do anything stupid" mentality ingrained into the very way you ride.
John, I respect your thoughts and opinions most of the time, but using the word "logic" in that sentence is sinful. Laws exist in order to protect people and property from abuse or damage, even extremely minor damage like annoyance. If there is no one within 30 miles to hear a bike that's running straight stinger (which, I should emphasize, I almost never do!) the sound is not violating anyone's person or property. And if someone's close enough to have the sound be an annoyance, of course I'll pull in the clutch or click it into neutral. Hell, I've been known to turn the motor completely off at times on that bike. I don't know if you think I'm out to just blast people with my stinger and make them think I'm all big and bad. I'd prefer it if that bike were quiet. However, that particular bike cannot be made quiet without killing it's power, so that's why we don't use it much.
Now, for Coop. It sounds to me like what we have here is a failure to communicate. When you said he jumped a rock, it sounded (understandably) like it was intentional. That's what the verb "to jump" usually implies, as opposed for the unintentional verb, "to hit." I'm sorry for the confusion. It sounds like the experience was beneficial for him, in that he'll probably give a lot more respect to the terrain after having an encounter as scary as that. Reminds me of the time the 120 tried to drag me down a mountain into a barbed wire fence when I was 11.
If the kid hit a rock in such a way that he flew through the air and hit a tree, I think its reasonable to say there was some poor judgement involved. Hitting rocks can be okay, if you do it right, but there are limits. It sounds like he explored and went beyond the limits, and I hope this was made clear to him. It's poor judgement to hit a rock that will send you flying in ways you're not familiar with. Now, if you've been jumping that rock for ten years and know it's eccentricities, or if you're boondocking over it through the rock gardens at a speed that you are comfortable with, that's 100% fine.
You have to understand, I had no idea what the context of this "rock" was, so I just had to assume the worst and think he was seeking out rocks in some field to go bouncing off of. I think you'll agree that sounded like bad judgement, given that failure to communicate. Right?
The moral of this whole bloated, massive post of mine is that protective gear has its place, but as I said before, the way you ride and the general level of caution a rider demonstrates is far, far more important (from a safety standpoint) than the gear. And that's a large part of why I think rider fatalities are higher than ever, and whenever you go to a riding park, everyone seems like they don't know what they're doing.
-
I found that even simple falls can lead to bruises or scratches without any protection where with protection, they are nothing as they should be. I wear Pants, Boots, Shin/Knee Guards, Elbow Pads, Helmate, Googles (Although, recently wasn't b/c they get scratched up real fast however finding out that no googles = bad idea), chest protector, kidney belt and Ogio Flight vest with tools.
I also have the Leatt Neck Brace, however they are more suited for MX so I never wear it. In the woods I have to duck under trees to where the neck brace is hard to use. If I ever do MX I would wear it though. There are soft neck braces, but not sure if they are worth getting.
Sound Check (Dirtbikes) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcdK5HcT0TY#ws)
I have been concerned with sound given that we are required to have 99dB and I have the approved spark arrestor. However, my bike is still loud. I heard about that dB Snorkel, I may give it a try and see how it goes.
-
JETZ - I totally admit to being confused by you on many levels.
I did not take what you said out of context at all.. safety equipment is supposed to help and it's important.
I believe that you are so intelligent that you are over thinking what I'm saying.
It was not an attack on you nor your choices, but a warning to those that might listen to you. You have your own ideas of how things should be, that's good and fine if it works for you. But honestly telling folks they should ride with minimal gear so they do get hurt?? That's a bit over the top.
I truly understand where you are coming from, but I stand behind my statements.
-
Well, I should clarify, I'm not saying that people should get on their CR500 and start railing berms and doing quadruples in a t-shirt and shorts. If anyone does that, I think they'll have a great future being the world champion padded-cell rider in the 500 class.
What I'm saying is that people maybe cut down on the armor when they're on very small bikes with relatively small potential to damage them, and then take the injuries that come with that (which are all minor, unless the kid is a total idiot) and then come to respect that a motorcycle, if not respected and ridden with caution, can cause injury. And really, 98% of it will be psychological. The thought of "What if" will always be floating around in the back of their mind. "What if I hit this? Then it'll hurt, don't it that. What if I hit this? Oh, I think I can handle that, it's okay." But I think if you start everything out thinking, "If I fall, it's okay, I've got protection!" then there are going to be problems 15 years down the road.
Here's a thought experiment for you. Imagine that your kid is starting out with a new kind of riding gear that's bristling with airbags and magical safety wizardry, such that they could fall in any fashion under 30mph, and not even get bruised by it. Then, the neighbor kid is told by his dad that the bike he's riding will spontaneously explode in a nuclear fireball if it ever falls down. Which kid is going to have more skill and be a better rider when they're 30 years old, and outfitted with identical bikes and gear?
This is an extreme example, and the reason for that is to highlight the principle.
Also, think about this. When the seat belt was made mandatory in new cars, it was supposed to be another level of safety to reduce the number of fatalities on the road. But, mysteriously and despite all the tests and science that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that seat belts would save your life in a crash, the fatalities were not reduced. Why was this? Because people had their seat belts, felt more confident and invincible, and drove more recklessly on a subconscious level. Drivers were now much more likely to survive a crash, but they were crashing more often. Of course, the pedestrian death toll went up, because they didn't have a seat belt to offset the reckless driving on behalf of their car-driving peers. But of course, today it's suicidal not to wear the seat belt, because the general "I can live through it" subconscious thing has spread through the general public, and deciding to abstain from the seat belt would put you in the same category of the pedestrians who are being mowed down.
For me, that's the biggest reason I will have to start armoring up once I can afford it. I'm pretty confident I can keep riding like I am for a long time to come and not smash myself into the ground. Growing up on something as jumpy and wobbly-on-rocks as the 120 has trained me to really avoid shit at all costs, even on something that could easily take it. But, I can't trust the other riders who hammer through intersections at 50 without even looking, and coming around blind corners with the ass-end hanging out like they're Kenny Roberts on a TZ750. I followed my little "condition thyself" training program, but of course, no one else did. With their safe bikes and their safe gear, they have come to accept unsafe riding practices. That, ladies and gentlemen, is all I'm trying to avoid. Learn to ride safely in the beginning, and then ADD your safe armor and safe bike to that. What could be better?
-
Whew!!. its like reading "Catcher in the rye".
Knock it back a peg jetz.
Accidents will always happen. Regardless of what gear you are wearing or not.
Look up what "Accident" means in the dictionary.
Your "safe practises" will not safegaurd against them.
-
Yeah, they will, as demonstrated by the precedent set by seat-belts and airbags in cars, which both increased the rate of traffic... accidents.
-
I mean no disrespect JETZ, but your way of thinking makes no sense at all to me. I'll stick to wearing gear, and gearing my nephews up regardless of age or size, and we will all ride the way we enjoy.
Man how did my poor 60 rebuild thread turn into this? Thanks JETZ! ;D
-
OK my turn :P Safety gear is great stuff, wish I could afford it all but I can't. I'm always on a tight budget so I ride with my work boots, but they are boots. Have I ever rode in sneakers? of course I have but I still don't recommend it to anyone. My order of necessity would be 1)helmet 2)boots 3)eye protection 4)gloves 5)other stuff
-
I think that's a pretty good order. I kinda have eye protection, in that I wear glasses, but after getting sprayed with gravel twice in the last... decade I think maybe I should look into some goggles to fit over the glasses. After that I'll probably go for either knee pads (I've heard way too many stories about how fragile knees are) or a chest-protector in case something really big and scary goes down. But helmet and glasses are the only things that I'd straight-up cancel a ride over - anything else missing and I'll just add a nice thick, creamy layer of caution and continue with the ride.
-
Jetz - I clicked one of your posts... you went way over the line.
While I don't agree with everything you say, it was not a censorship issue, but an attack on another member of this site.
That will never be tolerated.
-
(http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs038.snc1/3319_95661506741_741836741_2505402_4210711_n.jpg)
dress for the crash. It really doesn't take much to come off awkwardly and twist something and do some serious damage. Or cop an impact. One of the guys I have ridden with has had a knee reconstruction from smacking it into a tree. He now has some asterisk braces, which has saved his knees twice more.
Back in oz, when I rode on the street I would not get on without my kevlar arsed jeans, stout jacket, boots (bumper bars are at ankle height on the street) and a back protector. then you get blown past by a guy on an R1 in double pluggers, shorts and a wife beater.
the point is that I never did use that gear on the street - worst investment ever? I can only hope. But I know of a guy who was squidding in a t shirt and shorts, came off at about 25mph. being soaked in peroxide and having the wounds cleaned out with a wire brush really makes you think twice.
you really cannot be underdressed.
-
Well, I should be quick to point out that if I were going to ride on the street, I'd wear a higher standard of gear than I do now. Traffic is your worst enemy, whether you're in a car, on a bike, or in a plane! Likewise, I'd want a lot more gear if I were ever to do a motocross race. Honestly, that's one of the main reasons I haven't done a race at Woodland yet.
-
I treat riding gear like insurance - I get as much as possible because you never know.
-
Speaking of safety:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012338462_apwaatvfatals.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012338462_apwaatvfatals.html)
-
To be honest, I don't even think Chuck Norris could ride an ATV without killing himself. It's enough of a challenge to find one perfect line through a section, I'd hate to have to hunt for clear lines in parallel.
-
Id say Helmet,Boots,Gloves and Goggles are a MUST!!
-
More gear is better.At times in the past I haven't worn it(meaning just boots,jersey,helmet,gloves,goggles)and I feel the best that way but I always wear full gear (elbow,knee pads,chest protector etc.)these days.I don't care who you are or how good you are,you can't prevent a get off.Once you've witnessed some and had a few yourself,you'll change your mind Jetz.
-
A few days ago I rode my friend's bike near his house. A 16 year old kid came by on a CR125. He was wearing a helmate and pants. No shirt.
-
I get the impression that people STILL think that I'm against adult riders wearing safety gear.
-
So,adults should but kids don't need to? :o
-
Read what I posted before. The extent of gear you wear will affect the way you ride, because it helps add to that "I'm invincible" feeling kids have. If they don't wear too much gear (and remember I still consider helmet, gloves, and boots to be almost mandatory) then they will tend to ride more conservatively, especially if they are told some true stories of people who have crashed in the past. Then, as they graduate up into faster and more capable bikes, they will have established safer riding habits and skills, that will make them less likely to crash. At that point, more gear can (and should!) be added to protect them against the increased risk of having a higher-performance machine. That way, in adulthood, an off-road rider will have a skill foundation that emphasizes caution, safety, and respect for the dangers of riding, but ALSO have their suit of armor.
The reason I think this, is that I grew up riding with short-travel suspension, and that increased my risk of being injured when riding. So to compensate for this (which is an automatic subconscious process) I paid extra attention to clearing obstacles and focusing on what I was doing when I rode, because if I messed up in that regard, I knew the back-end hop like a cougar and throw me into the wilderness. Then, when I got my Husky with long-travel suspension, I had the obstacle-avoidance instinct and skill that allowed me to either avoid potentially dangerous obstacles, or be so prepared for the "fatal" impact that everything works out. I think that a similar approach can be applied to safety gear.
And once again, this applies to those doing off-road riding, not motocross, not freestyle, and not anything else that requires you to put yourself "on the edge" in order to perform successfully.
-
I don't think it does, anyone I ever rode with who wasn't wearing any gear I don't think would have ridden any differently with or without gear.
The kid who was 16 I saw the other day was riding that CR125 to the fullest and even doing table top jumps. I'm not sure what else he would attempt he's not already attempting without gear.
-
Well, maybe where I'm going wrong is summed up by a phrase I heard from a keynote speaker after a tour of a Boeing facility. "Common sense is a lot less common than you'd like to think." I know that, at least for ME, I heavily adjust the way I ride based on the percieved risk. When I bent my rear brake lever on the 120, it slowed my pace massively on down-hills, because although the brake worked fine and I could have probably ridden normally, it was something different that I was unused to, and so it might be dangerous if something were to go awry. That kind of thing.
-
I understand the arguement, but I just don't think it really holds up across the board. An individual will always ride to their own experience and preference. People adjust their own riding accordingly but it's always based on their own personality and their own experience.
My impression is that some people, even without the gear, would still ride dangerously. People who do not ride dangerously without the gear or be more cautious, would still ride to some level of caution because they already know they are not invincible or the gear wouldn't matter. Take the Cry Baby video I have, those guys are doing crazy stuff on Harleys and they don't even have helmates on.
Take yourself, if you go gear today, do you think you would ramp up your risk taking by ten fold?
The seat belt example I also do not think is a good one without more information for several points.
1. How many cars in the crashes actually had seat belts (i.e. there would still be cars on the road without seat belts).
2. How many people in the cars with seat belts were actually wearing them? I bet a lot of people were not wearing them, even today you find people not wearing their seat belts.
3. What is the distribution of accidents which could have been prevented by seat belts vs. accidents which could not? Did the ratio change and of those preventable did they have seat belts and were they wearing them? Of the ones not preventable where they ALL wearing seatbelts and thus driving more risky than before?
4. How many cars were on the road before and after? The number of cars and drivers has been increasing, what is the ratio of cars/drivers to accidents?
5. Did cars get faster? Did speed limits change?
The list goes on :) Point I have is that it's not black & white with that example, need to know a lot more details of the study before stating seat belts made people go crazy!
-
Good points. I think thought experiments do highlight the principle more clearly, though. For example, if you knew there was a nuclear weapon in your car that would detonate upon impact with anything, would you drive differently than you do currently? Of course! If you were driving on a narrow canyon road, would it affect the way you drive if a guard-rail were put there between you and the precipice? You can even observe this psychological effect in yourself, with lane widths. I've noticed that even when speed limits are constant, it is easier to go too fast when lanes and shoulders are narrower.
I am confident that if I had been forced to start my driving career with a large, narrow-tired, loose-handling car like my dad grew up with, I would have established better habits than I got from the "you can take your hands off the wheel and it won't even matter" minivan that my mom had me learn to drive in. But of course, as you say, these principles and thought experiments can come out wildly differently depending the person, their genetic tendencies, upbringing, etc. That is something I probably didn't adequately take into account. For some people, such as the no-shirt tabletop-jumping bandit you mentioned, it sounds like the behavioral effects of danger just aren't as drastic as with others. Every time I see someone with their bike pointed at the edge of a big cliff with the motor revving and the clutch pulled in, I can't help but wonder if they even realize what kind of fire they're playing with.
-
My thought is what is "the norm" for the person and what are they "comfortable" with during riding. If having no saftey gear is "the norm" then you don't realize you are less safe and are comfortable with your current level of safety.
Once gear becomes "the norm" things may change. We used to wear open face helmates and even safety gear has changed over the years (I.E. did anyone wait for the Leat Neck Brace before doing a jump thinking hey I could be paralized or the risk of paralization is higher without it?).
No amount of safety gear has ever rendered anyone invincible. However, not giving the adequate saftey gear, IMHO, just allows that person to establish their "norm" under less safe conditions.