Is Motorcycle Armour useless?

rwthomas1 said:
The things that scare me the most riding is wire or steel guardrails. I'll take my chances sliding on pavement and possibly hitting vehicles. But in my area we have heavy cable guardrails supported by with steel or wood stanchions. The all-metal ones aren't any better. Hitting one straight on would be bad. But sliding into either of these at an angle, as would be most likely the case in an accident, it would take you apart in chunks. Like a highway food processor....
Click to expand...
I had that very discussion with a TDOT executive (Tennessee Dept Of Transportation) about their deployment of cables in place of guard rails.
I explained to her that they were just like a meat slicer if a rider is down sliding into them.
She agreed with me but they still keep installing them. :nuts:
 
rwthomas1 said:
Doesn't matter how much armor you are wearing, if the stop is sudden enough, the weight of our bodies becomes the issue.
Click to expand...
Way earlier... any sudden stop from ~30kph/18mph is already likely lethal... all your organs will be displaced, major blood vessels rupture, etc...
Explains why so many skiing, bicycle & MTB accidents end deadly... without any other traffic involved...
 
Uncle Phil said:
I had that very discussion with a TDOT executive (Tennessee Dept Of Transportation) about their deployment of cables in place of guard rails.
I explained to her that they were just like a meat slicer if a rider is down sliding into them.
She agreed with me but they still keep installing them. :nuts:
Click to expand...
I know they like the cables because it grabs things and stops them from being flung back into traffic....theoretically. Maybe it's a cost benefit analysis to the detriment of motorcyclists, i.e., the number of cars going in and being prevented from re-entering the driving lanes is higher than the number of motorcyclists that go into them?
 
Weaselinsuit said:
I know they like the cables because it grabs things and stops them from being flung back into traffic....theoretically. Maybe it's a cost benefit analysis to the detriment of motorcyclists, i.e., the number of cars going in and being prevented from re-entering the driving lanes is higher than the number of motorcyclists that go into them?
Click to expand...
I figure that 'in theory' they are cheaper to repair after a crash than a standard guard rail.
When they get hit, usually it just pulls up posts and does not break the cable rather than having to replace sections of guardrail.
As seems to be the case, motorcyclists and their safety is usually not a factor in the DOT equation. ;)
 
The cable system is better at stopping cars and trucks from crossing into lanes going in the opposite direction. We have that on the 99 hwy here in Delta ,seen a couple of spots where a car has hit it. Have not heard or seen where a motorcycle has hit it,yet.
 
St-Gerard said:
The cable system is better at stopping cars and trucks from crossing into lanes going in the opposite direction. We have that on the 99 hwy here in Delta ,seen a couple of spots where a car has hit it. Have not heard or seen where a motorcycle has hit it,yet.
Click to expand...
There probably isn't something that is safe for motorcycles yet strong enough for most of the vehicles on the road so we are in the minority there... best thing we can do is not wreck LOL
 
Mellow said:
There probably isn't something that is safe for motorcycles yet strong enough for most of the vehicles on the road so we are in the minority there... best thing we can do is not wreck LOL
Click to expand...
Just need to get the heads up memo out to the other drivers on the road and that should get things sorted :thumb:
 
Gerhard said:
It is like wearing a seatbelt, it comes with no guarantee of saving your bacon.
Click to expand...
I'd posit a seatbelt has a track record that can more easily verify effectiveness. Yes there are no guarantees with extra lights or vests or helmets. They work to varying degrees of effectiveness relative to other safety products.

Given the mentions of empirical testing I'll mention a data point. Or two. I know a retired cop/deputy who has invested 3000+ vehicle collisions of various natures including collisions with trains. Among those investigations he's never observed any driver passenger ejected from a vehicle when wearing a seatbelt. It's probably happened somewhere. He's never seen a driver/passenger survive impact when ejected from a vehicle. It's probably happened somewhere.

So keep or ditch armor as desired. It may or may not help. But if it makes one feel safer can that be a bad thing? :) I'll keep mine in as I'm too lazy to remove it in the first place. Maybe it will be useful. Having a waist and no gut yeah the armor makes me look like I care about my body.

I'm curious as to how many here have purchased standalone armor as mentioned in the video. A few have purchased inflatable vests [insert standard will not guarantee rejoinder] that obviously provide actual increased protection above that of more mundane rider safety street togs.

My takeaway is that factory armor isn't as protective as I thought it was. As always it's not a replacement for defensive riding and as always you should not only avoid a false sense of security. And just because it's call armor doesn't mean it will protect like a manufacturer implies it might.

So once again were left with a product that may or may not perform as stated or implied and subject to our individual interpretation of data and application of preferences or biases and superstition not to leave anything out. Hm. I did leave out mention scientific testing. To paraphrase Tina – what's science got to do with it?
 
As The Cable guy said,"We can't fix Stupid" unfortunately they both drive cars and for a little while try riding motorcycles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom