Open face or full face?

[Paul in NZ]

Hmmmm

http://www.rideicon.com/products/?productGroupId=142717

Icon Airframe Statistic Icon has just fired a broadside across the bows of open-face helmet makers. The Portland-based company only makes full-face helmets, and the latest variant of its Airframe lid reveals why—with a sharp dose of black humor. It’s called the Statistic because the graphics highlight the areas most likely to take an impact in a crash, using widely accepted figures from German research. The chin area takes the hit around 35% of the time, and the front of the face takes around 10% of impacts. (A figure not printed on the visor, for obvious reasons.) At $390 it’s more expensive than most other Airframe styles, but then again, you know the joke about having a ten-dollar head …

[Big Dog]

I can tell you I have never been to an accident where the visor and or the chin bar did not receive damage. That might only be about 5 on the road but in the dozens marshalling.
Edit: not counting my own.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Oscar]

The last time I wore an open face helmet on the road, I left my front teeth in the bonnet of a Vauxhall Viva.
My jaw was broken and my top lip so badly split that my entire top gums and teeth were visible.

[Ulsterkiwi]

so what is the attraction of an open face or similar helmet?

[Big Dog]

The wind in your face. I have a couple. They are only used for very slow riding. E.G Pootling around a paddock at walking pace. Such as at the classic festival if you're camping there and it's a long walk to the long drop.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Motu]

I wore an open faced helmet for 20 years, and my face it still as pretty as ever despite crashes on and off road. I still wear an open face when riding trials....for many years we didn't wear them. Not saying there is nothing wrong with them, but you need skills when crashing in with an open face.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Buy my open face au!

[admenk]

Oh good, the old open vs full face helmet debate...

[AllanB]

Full face all the way

[Motu]

Oh good, the old open vs full face helmet debate...

Which took over the pudding basin vs ''full coverage'' debate....which took over from the helmet vs no helmet debate. Someday we might have something that makes a full face look dangerous.

[Big Dog]

Which took over the pudding basin vs ''full coverage'' debate....which took over from the helmet vs no helmet debate. Someday we might have something that makes a full face look dangerous.

Their called cars, with air bags and seatbelts and side intrusion bars and side curtain air bags and...


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[haydes55]

Their called cars, with air bags and seatbelts and side intrusion bars and side curtain air bags and...


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.


I knew nuffing abowt side curtin aiir bags befow my a-cident.

[Erelyes]

Icon do some fucking cool helmets. Wish there was an NZ distributor.

[amboman]

Been riding for 30 years and always wear a full face. Been a paramedic for nearly 20 years and after seeing what I have seen I wish more people would wear them as well!

[swbarnett]

Been riding for 30 years and always wear a full face. Been a paramedic for nearly 20 years and after seeing what I have seen I wish more people would wear them as well!
Why don't you wish riders didn't crash?

Or, to go the other way, riders didn't ride.

The choice of how much risk is taken and how much is mitigated and how is solely the responsibility of the individual. My only desire is that people make informed decisions.

[Banditbandit]

Not saying there is nothing wrong with them, but you need skills when crashing in with an open face.

Fuck .. skills when crashing? By the time I'm crashing it's usually too late - I just hit the road and what happens happens ..


I've had two offs after which the front of my full face looked like someone had been at it with an angle grinder ... I was riding before helmets were compulsory .. and the row over the introduction of the rules .. and I swore I'd never wear a full-face .. but I got one to commute in Wellington's shitty weather (warmer and drier) .. and after personal experience of twice saving my face in a full face .. I will never wear an open face on the road again ..

[Oscar]

The choice of how much risk is taken and how much is mitigated and how is solely the responsibility of the individual. My only desire is that people make informed decisions.

Absolute bullshit.
Firstly, not a lot of people are responsible, and secondly, when idjuts fuck up, who pays?
I'll bet you complained long and loud about ACC levies. The fact is, if you have a system like ACC that pays for your injuries, you need to make sure that people don't abuse it. Or would you prefer the alternative - expensive self insurance and a legal system clogged with personal injury claims?

Your ideas of personal responsibility only work if the consequences are sheeted home to the individual.
Basically if you wish to ride without the proper protective gear, opt out of ACC.
That way the rest of us don't get to pay for your bad choices.

[Tazz]

Shark Evoline 3 (or some such). Best of both worlds :niceone:

[HenryDorsetCase]

I am way too pretty to risk jail, or an open face helmet. There, I said it. Some of you more homely lot might have an improved visage with a bit of the old face first sliding down le road. Who am I to judge?

[scumdog]

Your ideas of personal responsibility only work if the consequences are sheeted home to the individual.
Basically if you wish to ride without the proper protective gear, opt out of ACC.
That way the rest of us don't get to pay for your bad choices.

And basically if you want to ride you have to pay more ACC levy than if you don't so the 'rest of us' don't pay for your bad choice - oh, wait, they're alrady doing that....

(Kinda on the same theme as your proposal above - just stretched a little)

[swbarnett]

Absolute bullshit.
Back at ya.

What gives you the right to determine MY level of risk? Go down that path and anything with any chance of bringing any joy to life will be banned.

[Oscar]

Back at ya.

What gives you the right to determine MY level of risk? Go down that path and anything with any chance of bringing any joy to life will be banned.

You mean the way the way Libertarian fuckwits talking about "bikers rights" and other such idiots are pricing bikes of the road with increased ACC and Insurance premiums?

You have very few "rights", and the ability to operate a motorcycle in this country is not one of them.

[Taxythingy]

297635

Mine from not two weeks ago. +1 for full face.

You don't have to, but if you don't, I will think that your mother was a hampster and your father smelled of elderberry.

[GrayWolf]

so what is the attraction of an open face or similar helmet?

Rode for many years using an open face (in clement weather) Always wore a full face in late Autumn/Winter.

Open face? Better peripheral vision, (although some full face are almost there. Better 'noise' detection (engine behind you) in traffic. In a city environment, an open face may be a better bet for getting through the road block.

Full face is just superior in a crash situation...
These days I wear a good quality flip front, so get the best of both worlds.

[mouldy]

Full face all the way

Faceplanted once on the road , was only pootling , front wheel hit big pothole and turned . slammed down hard enough on my face to knock me out / visor and chinguard took most of impact , If that had been an openface ?

[400sm]

HARD-AS Harley riders wear open face.
I like to see them suffer.

Please don't tell them about full-face . . . -it might save one of their lives

[swbarnett]

You mean the way the way Libertarian fuckwits talking about "bikers rights" and other such idiots are pricing bikes of the road with increased ACC and Insurance premiums?
Not at all. I'm talking about the fact that what's considered to dangerous for an individual by society at large has changed dramatically and if it keeps changing in the way it's been going then motorcycles, among other worthwhile pursuits like mountaineering, will be outright banned as too dangerous. This will lead inexorably to a society that simply isn't worth living in.


You have very few "rights", and the ability to operate a motorcycle in this country is not one of them.
Boy, you're one cynical bastard.

I have the right to make an informed decision about the risk that I will undertake and the ways in which I mitigate any risk that I don't want to undertake. Irrespective of what some bunch of half-wits in Wellington (or the UN) say.

[Mike.Gayner]

I have the right to make an informed decision about the risk that I will undertake and the ways in which I mitigate any risk that I don't want to undertake. Irrespective of what some bunch of half-wits in Wellington (or the UN) say.

That's a pretty boody important point. I have the right to take whatever risks I want as an individual. The government introducing ACC doesn't change that. The government can't control my personal risk profile by introducing an insurance scheme I never asked for, just so they could leverage me through social pressure. Fuck that shit.

And why isn't anyone telling others to stay off the rugby field or off horseback?? They cause a massive amount of injury, and there is NO EXTRA ACC CONTRIBUTION paid by these people.

[TLJimmy]

I have a medical certificate exempting me from wearing a helmet on a pushbike and a motorcycle. I use it all the time with the pushy; I've never bothered to try it on with the TL . Aside from the unwanted attention it'd bring, at 17 I went down the road on what would've been my face, grinding 1/4 inch of the chin-piece on my full-face helmet...'nuf said.

As to having the 'skills' to crash safely....Yeah Right. You'd be better off drinking Red-Bull and flying to safety:laugh:

[Urano]

Better 'noise' detection (engine behind you) in traffic.


actually it's not so easy...
the great part of noise you hear on a bike is not from the engine but aerodynamics, and other's engines noise is masked buy the air as well.
while making research to write my safety book i've found studies that make clear how from 40kmh the problem it's the air.
this leads us to another strange situation: from about 40-50 kmh you have better alert sound recognition with an helmet on, and from 50-60 kmh it'll be better to use earplugs.
i strongly suggest anybody should use earplugs when on the bike outside the relative-slow city environment. keep earplugs in your jacket and as soon as your journey stretches out of the city with speed higher than 60 kmh stop a sec and put them on.
it's better for your riding AND for your hearing (at 90 kmh the noise inside any helmet is higher than the limit for workplaces...)



Full face is just superior in a crash situation...
These days I wear a good quality flip front, so get the best of both worlds.
...which is simply the only situation you're wearing an helmet for...
but pay attention with the flip front: it's not at all the best of both world.
you should open it up ONLY when not on the bike. if you're riding with the chin guard opened you're doing something VERY VERY VERY DANGEROUS.
remember that an open flip front IS MCUH WORSE than a open face in the event of a crash...
DO-NOT-RIDE-WITH-A-FLIP-FRONT-OPEN!

[scumdog]

HARD-AS Harley riders wear open face.
I like to see them suffer.

Please don't tell them about full-face . . . -it might save one of their lives

I'm a Harley rider - not HARD-AS though.

So why do you like to see Harley riders wearing open-face helmets suffer?
And how many have you seen suffer?
Cos you certainly haven't see me suffer......;)




And how long have you been trolling???:whistle:

[400sm]

I'm a Harley rider - not HARD-AS though.

So why do you like to see Harley riders wearing open-face helmets suffer?
And how many have you seen suffer?
Cos you certainly haven't see me suffer......;)




And how long have you been trolling???:whistle:

I don't LIKE to see rubber-band bike, riders at all !
They suffer every time it rains, as they desperately try to conform to the religion of rebellious uniformity.
How much suffering do YOU cause other road users, as you TROLL the highways ?

[scumdog]

I don't LIKE to see rubber-band bike, riders at all !
They suffer every time it rains, as they desperately try to conform to the religion of rebellious uniformity.
How much suffering do YOU cause other road users, as you TROLL the highways ?

"A poor effort - must try harder"

[caseye]

Na scummy, couldn't possibly try harder, they're already as hard out a try harder as they can be!

[Gremlin]

...which is simply the only situation you're wearing an helmet for...
but pay attention with the flip front: it's not at all the best of both world.
you should open it up ONLY when not on the bike. if you're riding with the chin guard opened you're doing something VERY VERY VERY DANGEROUS.
remember that an open flip front IS MCUH WORSE than a open face in the event of a crash...
DO-NOT-RIDE-WITH-A-FLIP-FRONT-OPEN!
I managed to high side my BMW while wearing a flip, with the jaw lifted, and uh... contrary to your post, I survived. No, I'd rather have had the jaw down (Ok, if I got to choose I'd rather not have crashed the bike actually) but it still protected me.

[schrodingers cat]

Open face is cool.

Just like those Marlboro Man ads.

297639
297640


Just saying

[Urano]

I managed to high side my BMW while wearing a flip, with the jaw lifted, and uh... contrary to your post, I survived. No, I'd rather have had the jaw down (Ok, if I got to choose I'd rather not have crashed the bike actually) but it still protected me.


you would have survived better with a full face :D:D


(never said it wouldn't protect you. ;) i said that at that point an open face would have protect you better: no rotational risks from the flipped chin guard...)

[James Deuce]

Same old hypothetical arguments and as always full of artificial circumstances and denial of the small set of evidence offered to contradict the hypothesis of catastrophic skull failure if you even put an open face helmet on.

STFU and ride your bikes, you pussies.

[blue rider]

i am sure that whomever wore that helmet was happy s/he did

297641

[Big Dog]

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/06/04/2azajasu.jpg

[Big Dog]

Didn't help this guy much. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3ImuTpUYa-4&feature=kp


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

Put down your dinner for this one. http://calorielab.com/news/wp-images/post-images/9-468x697.jpg


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Oscar]

Not at all. I'm talking about the fact that what's considered to dangerous for an individual by society at large has changed dramatically and if it keeps changing in the way it's been going then motorcycles, among other worthwhile pursuits like mountaineering, will be outright banned as too dangerous. This will lead inexorably to a society that simply isn't worth living in.


Boy, you're one cynical bastard.

I have the right to make an informed decision about the risk that I will undertake and the ways in which I mitigate any risk that I don't want to undertake. Irrespective of what some bunch of half-wits in Wellington (or the UN) say.

You're arguing with yourself.
On the one hand you say it's your "right" to wear an open face helmet, yet you worry about bikes being regulated out existence.
Sure, make you may make "informed decisions" but lots of morons out there do not.
I'd rather be forced to wear protective gear than be forced off the road.

It's funny how often people bleating about their rights end up costing everyone else money.

[HenryDorsetCase]

"scummy" ? (sic)

You are a sycophant. . . . in a ''nose up pig's arse'' kind of way

.........and you're on ignore.

[Flip]

Here the boss and I, two up on an advanced riding skills track day.

I have a Shoei flip front but I only use it in the very cold and wet conditions.

297648

[swbarnett]

You're arguing with yourself.
On the one hand you say it's your "right" to wear an open face helmet, yet you worry about bikes being regulated out existence.
How is that a contradiction? It's the regulators that have it wrong.


Sure, make you may make "informed decisions" but lots of morons out there do not.
So, just because some can't no-one should be allowed to. That only leads to erosion of freedom by a million cuts.


I'd rather be forced to wear protective gear than be forced off the road.
I find myself having to agree with this. However, being forced to wear any given piece of gear is one of many steps to total control of one's minute-by-minute movements. Freedom of thought will go next once the technology becomes available.


It's funny how often people bleating about their rights end up costing everyone else money.
I'm definitely not one of them. FYI: I wear a full-face helmet and wouldn't ride without one (except around a camp site at very low speeds).




I've been thinking about rights over the past 24hours and have decided that you're right, we don't have any inalienable rights. And therefore we do. Let me elaborate: No-one has the right to decide for me what level of risk I will take for myself. Therefore, if no-one else has a right to, I have no choice but do it for myself. Which means that I have a defacto right to decide the risk level that I am comfortable with.

[Oscar]

How is that a contradiction? It's the regulators that have it wrong.


So, just because some can't no-one should be allowed to. That only leads to erosion of freedom by a million cuts.


I find myself having to agree with this. However, being forced to wear any given piece of gear is one of many steps to total control of one's minute-by-minute movements. Freedom of thought will go next once the technology becomes available.


I'm definitely not one of them. FYI: I wear a full-face helmet and wouldn't ride without one (except around a camp site at very low speeds).




I've been thinking about rights over the past 24hours and have decided that you're right, we don't have any inalienable rights. And therefore we do. Let me elaborate: No-one has the right to decide for me what level of risk I will take for myself. Therefore, if no-one else has a right to, I have no choice but do it for myself. Which means that I have a defacto right to decide the risk level that I am comfortable with.

There is no such thing as "freedom" per se: there are only degrees of tyranny.
In our case, it is the tyranny of the majority. The voters decide on the Govt. and the Govt. makes the rules and regulations to do with motorcycles.
The majority is also horrified when the idjuts hurt themsleves and others. That's when your "rights" get hammered.
So you can bang on all you like about your rights, and quote Ben Franklin up the wazoo, but that will get you precisely nowhere when the cops pull you over for no helmet or failing to register your bike coz you don’t agree with the ACC levy.

[Erelyes]

Let me elaborate: No-one has the right to decide for me what level of risk I will take for myself. Therefore, if no-one else has a right to, I have no choice but do it for myself. Which means that I have a defacto right to decide the risk level that I am comfortable with.

Hate to bring ACC into this, but I feel I should have the freedom from increased taxation, in the form of ACC levies, that is as the result of people not wearing protective gear.

Or in other words, no-one has the right to take money off me, because someone else decides to wear an open face helmet (be it rationally or foolishly).

In some senses it'd be great if open face + mushed face = you pay for the medical bills. In some senses it'd be great if t-shirt + pavement slide = you pay for the skin grafts.

But ACC doesn't work like that and it's not that easy... If it was we'd be an even more pitiless species than we are now.

[Mike.Gayner]

Erelyes, I never asked to be in ACC. So what right do you have to tell me what risks I can take, for YOUR financial sake, for a scheme I never asked to be part of?

[Erelyes]

Erelyes, I never asked to be in ACC. So what right do you have to tell me what risks I can take, for YOUR financial sake, for a scheme I never asked to be part of?

Me individually? Well, perhaps the question shouldn't be 'what right' but 'how much right'. The answer to which, in theory*, is 1 in 2,278,989.

*democracy being the worst form of government except all others that have been tried.

[swbarnett]

There is no such thing as "freedom" per se: there are only degrees of tyranny.
In our case, it is the tyranny of the majority. The voters decide on the Govt. and the Govt. makes the rules and regulations to do with motorcycles.
If only those making the rules had the brains to recognise that they have no business making laws about what I do to myself.


The majority is also horrified when the idjuts hurt themsleves and others. That's when your "rights" get hammered.
The problem comes when these two get mixed up. If I only hurt myself then it's nobody else's business. If I directly hurt others however, that's a different matter.


So you can bang on all you like about your rights, and quote Ben Franklin up the wazoo, but that will get you precisely nowhere when the cops pull you over for no helmet or failing to register your bike coz you don’t agree with the ACC levy.
Only because the general public are too apathetic to realise that their freedom is being eroded right in front of them.

[swbarnett]

Hate to bring ACC into this, but I feel I should have the freedom from increased taxation, in the form of ACC levies, that is as the result of people not wearing protective gear.

Or in other words, no-one has the right to take money off me, because someone else decides to wear an open face helmet (be it rationally or foolishly).

In some senses it'd be great if open face + mushed face = you pay for the medical bills. In some senses it'd be great if t-shirt + pavement slide = you pay for the skin grafts.

But ACC doesn't work like that and it's not that easy... If it was we'd be an even more pitiless species than we are now.
What you and others like you continuously seem to miss is that the fact that we ALL benefit when we live in a society of healthy individuals that enjoy the freedom to do what they will with their own body and mind (as long as noone else is directly harmed in the process). If all I have to do to produce said society is cough up a small monetary contribution then I will do so gladly. Yes, I think the ACC motorcycle levies are too high. Because the method of apportioning the cost is inequitable.

[swbarnett]

Me individually? Well, perhaps the question shouldn't be 'what right' but 'how much right'. The answer to which, in theory*, is 1 in 2,278,989.

*democracy being the worst form of government except all others that have been tried.
If I'm not directly harming anyone else then you have no right at all to tell me what I can and can't do to my body and mind.

[Oscar]

If only those making the rules had the brains to recognise that they have no business making laws about what I do to myself.


The problem comes when these two get mixed up. If I only hurt myself then it's nobody else's business. If I directly hurt others however, that's a different matter.


Only because the general public are too apathetic to realise that their freedom is being eroded right in front of them.

If only those making the rules allowed people to opt out of state assistance like ACC and hospital care.
No matter what you think, your bad choices can affect others - or are you saying that a brain damaged person who crashes with no helmet on should be left where they fall?

[Oscar]

Only because the general public are too apathetic to realise that their freedom is being eroded right in front of them.

What freedom?
Are you advocating that we abolish ACC?
Return to insurers and lawyers to settle matters?

Your freedom isn't being eroded, it never existed - we just upgraded the system of control.

Besides, you're getting freedom mixed up with responsibility, because whenever you use the roads in this country you are responsible to other road users, your family and the taxpayers for the consequences of bad decision that you make. If there was no ACC, you would buy insurance, no because you wanted too, but because the consequences of not doing so would be financially crippling.

[scumdog]

If I'm not directly harming anyone else then you have no right at all to tell me what I can and can't do to my body and mind.

UNLESS you expect others to pay for fixing up your fucked-up body and/or mind when 'something' you chose to do goes wrong...

[Erelyes]

If I'm not directly harming anyone else then you have no right at all to tell me what I can and can't do to my body and mind.

I am sure there are plenty of 'First responders' on here who'd be happy to argue about the amount of 'harm' done to them emotionally, attending accidents that involve people wearing less gear than they should.

[swbarnett]

If only those making the rules allowed people to opt out of state assistance like ACC and hospital care.
The scheme only works if it covers everybody.


your bad choices can affect others
Of this I have no doubt. What I'm saying is that the freedom to make those bad choices about what I do to myself is one of the cornerstones of a just society. Something I am more than willing to contribute to financially.


- or are you saying that a brain damaged person who crashes with no helmet on should be left where they fall?
Definitely not. You've obviously missed my point if you think I would advocate that. I am very much in favour of picking up a brain damaged person no matter what they were wearing at the time.

I have a friend in exactly this position. She is now permanently brain damaged (although not to the point of a vegetable) because of an impact to the head while not wearing a helmet. At this point in the reading I'm sure some will be thinking things like "what a prat for not wearing a helmet". However, they don't yet have the full story - she was driving a van and got t-boned. Her head hit the door post.

[swbarnett]

I am sure there are plenty of 'First responders' on here who'd be happy to argue about the amount of 'harm' done to them emotionally, attending accidents that involve people wearing less gear than they should.

Or you could put it another way:


I am sure there are plenty of 'First responders' on here who'd be happy to argue about the amount of 'harm' done to them emotionally, attending accidents that involve people riding motocycles.

Don't blame the injured party because someone else chose to put themselves in harms way to help them.

[swbarnett]

UNLESS you expect others to pay for fixing up your fucked-up body and/or mind when 'something' you chose to do goes wrong...
I don't expect anybody else to pay for any fixing up that is necessary. Yes, I'm damn glad when they do but the choice is theirs, not mine.

All you lot advocating removing my freedom to do what I will with my body and mind had better get used to spending your life wrapped up in cotton wool within a massive concrete bunker. And don't expect to ever see the sun again.

[scumdog]

I don't expect anybody else to pay for any fixing up that is necessary. Yes, I'm damn glad when they do but the choice is theirs, not mine.

All you lot advocating removing my freedom to do what I will with my body and mind had better get used to spending your life wrapped up in cotton wool within a massive concrete bunker. And don't expect to ever see the sun again.

So, when you arse off your scoot you wouldn't be too perturbed if 'anybody' passing by just kept doing that, no help was offered/

and you think that if they DID help but you were taxed to make this possible it would make you 'wrapped in cotton wool'?

You neeed to get some balance before you rant methinks.

(OK, I'm home, crook with the flu and bored!)

[swbarnett]

So, when you arse off your scoot you wouldn't be too perturbed if 'anybody' passing by just kept doing that, no help was offered/
My focus is arse about from most people it seems. I do not expect anybody to help. I am very grateful for to those that do and think no less of those that don't.


and you think that if they DID help but you were taxed to make this possible it would make you 'wrapped in cotton wool'?
No, the taxing in and of itself won't bring out the cotton wool. That comes when people complain that the cost is too high and enforce the cotton wool in order to reduce it.

[GrayWolf]

actually it's not so easy...
the great part of noise you hear on a bike is not from the engine but aerodynamics, and other's engines noise is masked buy the air as well.
while making research to write my safety book i've found studies that make clear how from 40kmh the problem it's the air.
this leads us to another strange situation: from about 40-50 kmh you have better alert sound recognition with an helmet on, and from 50-60 kmh it'll be better to use earplugs.
i strongly suggest anybody should use earplugs when on the bike outside the relative-slow city environment. keep earplugs in your jacket and as soon as your journey stretches out of the city with speed higher than 60 kmh stop a sec and put them on.
it's better for your riding AND for your hearing (at 90 kmh the noise inside any helmet is higher than the limit for workplaces...)


...which is simply the only situation you're wearing an helmet for...
but pay attention with the flip front: it's not at all the best of both world.
you should open it up ONLY when not on the bike. if you're riding with the chin guard opened you're doing something VERY VERY VERY DANGEROUS.
remember that an open flip front IS MCUH WORSE than a open face in the event of a crash...
DO-NOT-RIDE-WITH-A-FLIP-FRONT-OPEN!

Fair comment on speed/air.. but I would not expect to be riding much more than 30-40kph in City traffic. So Ibelieve my statement stands.
As for the flip front being open? Again ONLY in town at low speeds..... I 'balance' the risk Vs improved peripheral vision etc.

[Erelyes]

Or you could put it another way:

Indeed you could... *shudder*


What I'm saying is that the freedom to make those bad choices about what I do to myself is one of the cornerstones of a just society. Something I am more than willing to contribute to financially

Fair point, I suppose I didn't think of it from that angle. :niceone:

[amboman]

Could not have said it better myself - nuf said.



"Motorcycling is not inherently dangerous. It is, however, EXTREMELY unforgiving of inattention, ignorance, incompetence and stupidity!" - Anonymous

[NordieBoy]

i am sure that whomever wore that helmet was happy s/he did
297641
Actually, that helmet (KBC FFR) rates VERY lowly on the SHARP ratings.

[6ft5]

I am with GrayWolf on this, and use a SHARK Evoline 3 - PERSONAL CHOICE!

[BlackSheepLogic]

Their called cars, with air bags and seatbelts and side intrusion bars and side curtain air bags and...

Gold Wing's have an Air-Bag, just wonder how effective they are.

[Big Dog]

Are you trying to call a gold wing a car?

[Big Dog]

I saw a gold wing trike in the 90s that was registered as a car.

[James Deuce]

Gold Wing's have an Air-Bag, just wonder how effective they are.

Pretty helpful for those people who insist on only using the rear brake.

[Big Dog]

The only wing I have ever ridden had linked brakes. It was only a few kms so I never came to terms with it but it seemed linked to speed. Front brakes used both brakes. The faster I was going either the rear brake became less effective or more power was transferred to the front than the rear.
The back brake was back only at walking pace but almost slammed my face into the dash with how aggressively it activate the front at 50-60.

Eerie sensation having brakes you did not use operate.

[James Deuce]

The only wing I have ever ridden had linked brakes. It was only a few kms so I never came to terms with it but it seemed linked to speed. Front brakes used both brakes. The faster I was going either the rear brake became less effective or more power was transferred to the front than the rear.
The back brake was back only at walking pace but almost slammed my face into the dash with how aggressively it activate the front at 50-60.

Eerie sensation having brakes you did not use operate.
It doesn't use all the front brake pistons when you use just the foot pedal either. The airbag is pretty much a litigation prevention tool to cover Honda in the event that the wilfully unskilled fail to use all their options set the airbag off.

[Big Dave]

The only wing I have ever ridden had linked brakes. It was only a few kms so I never came to terms with it but it seemed linked to speed. Front brakes used both brakes. The faster I was going either the rear brake became less effective or more power was transferred to the front than the rear.
The back brake was back only at walking pace but almost slammed my face into the dash with how aggressively it activate the front at 50-60.

Eerie sensation having brakes you did not use operate.

It was broken. When operating correctly linked brakes are barely noticable. Just stop a bit better.

[pritch]

It was broken. When operating correctly linked brakes are barely noticable.

Absolutely. I have ridden Blackbirds, a Goldwing, and have owned a VFR, so have done a few Ks with linked brakes. A lot of the people who say they don't like the system haven't actually used it. To get both brakes operating fully you have to apply both brakes, neither brake lever will operate the other brake at max.

[Oakie]

Are you trying to call a gold wing a car?

Scandalous. It's obviously a bus.

[BlackSheepLogic]

Absolutely. I have ridden Blackbirds, a Goldwing, and have owned a VFR, so have done a few Ks with linked brakes. A lot of the people who say they don't like the system haven't actually used it. To get both brakes operating fully you have to apply both brakes, neither brake lever will operate the other brake at max.

A long time since I rode the blackbird which I think from memory was the first to use the system. I did not find it obtrusive but I also did not feel it added anything ether. If it was an option I'ld have skipped it.

[BlackSheepLogic]

The airbag is pretty much a litigation prevention tool to cover Honda in the event that the wilfully unskilled fail to use all their options set the airbag off.

When the need has arisen , I've been happy for me and the bike to part company.

[swbarnett]

Scandalous. It's obviously a bus.
Where's the similarity between a GoldWing and a Hyabusa?

[Big Dave]

Where's the similarity between a GoldWing and a Hyabusa?

Both machines efficently perform the applications they are designed for.

[swbarnett]

Both machines efficently perform the applications they are designed for.
Indeed. Depending on who you talk to they're both very good at going in a straight line.

[scumdog]

Indeed. Depending on who you talk to they're both very good at going in a straight line.


And since they sell so well that must be all that a lot of people desire...:yes:

[FJRider]

And since they sell so well that must be all that a lot of people desire...:yes:

I guess that's why many riders try to straighten out the corners ... :facepalm:

[Metastable]

I guess things haven't changed much. The American HURT report from quite a few years ago showed similar statistics..... the vast majority of impacts occur in the jaw area.

[idb]

If you wear an open-face helmet...you could never look this cool!


Predator Motorcycle Helmet
June 19, 2014
Intimidate everyone on the road as you speed by them wearing the Predator motorcycle helmet. Perfect for motorcycle riders who long for that classic “technologically advanced form of extraterrestrial life” look – traffic will quickly part way at the sight of you.
http://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/predator-motorcycle-helmet-2
299875