Blunt Trauma: Discussion of the Inevitable
Daniel Bannon
blunt trauma aspect of motorcycle get-offs, both to bikes and (more
importantly) riders.
Ben says he slid away from the bike after low-siding, as the latter
sailed off into the sunset (well, the ravine actually). From the
pictures, it appears though the bike suffered some damage, it ended in
a great landing spot with trees not far away. The bike wasn't
totaled, only superficially damaged.
I've low- and high-sided various bikes over the years, thankfully not
too often. Neither bike nor I have ever struck a solid object (other
than the ground surface) during a wreck. I've slid, the bikes slid,
but both always ended in an unimpeded stop when friction finally did
the job.
OK, so what? It seems to me... and here's the observation and open
question... the serious injuries, deaths, and totaled bikes often
result from bouncing off solid objects: blunt trauma.
Andrew witnessed two wrecks this year from close proximity. I
witnessed the latter from a little further behind. In the former, the
gent took flight, and then bounced off some sort of object (I don't
recall what) before landing. This broke the poor guy's pelvis. I
don't know what happened to the bike. In the latter incident, a gent
crashed for no particular reason but quickly came to rest on a dirt
embankment, along with the bike. He was very slightly injured (a
little road rash), his bike in remarkably good shape (a 929 with
broken signal, mirror, and scuffed body panel) for a 35-45 mph wreck.
I've seen a dozen track slides where the rider hops up the instant he
slows a bit from the slide, usually pissed off. And one or two when
he doesn't. The latter often (thought not always) involve blunt
trauma.
All this leads me to the supernatural, Fate, God, Big JuJu, or
whatever aspect one chooses to believe in to determine the nature of
our crashes. Or simple probabilities. Ben could be in the hospital
or morgue due to dumb luck, if he'd flown into a tree. His bike could
be wrecked. Same with the guy in the story earlier, same with me,
same with plenty of those unfortunates who crash and somehow walk
away.
It seems our wonderful leathers and almost as good textile jackets
perform quite well when we slide, providing great abrasion resistance.
When we hit an object, the point of force becomes very concentrated
and something gives, often our bodies. Ugh. Or a motorcycle frame.
I suppose motorcycle race leathers are built to follow the odds: odds
are, most wrecks will involve a quick throw, impact, and roll/slide.
Most turns have a runoff area for flying bikes and riders. Sometimes,
the bikes and riders get tangled, causing injuries the leathers just
can't protect against.
Aside from airbags, I'm wondering if there are simply few ways to
distribute blunt trauma force in a wreck. I suppose not. <Sigh>: we
take our chances, or hang up the leathers.
'-----------------------------------------------------
' Daniel Bannon
' NW WA State, U.S.A.
' 2000 Aprilia RSV Mille
' 1999 Honda CBR1100XX Blackbird
'-----------------------------------------------------
Probis
"Daniel Bannon" <daniel_...@hahtmail.dott.c0mm> wrote in message
news:op1ettgvkpjeq2lc2...@4ax.com...
>
> Aside from airbags, I'm wondering if there are simply few ways to
> distribute blunt trauma force in a wreck. I suppose not. <Sigh>: we
> take our chances, or hang up the leathers.
Aside from a helmet (and at low speed of impact) there isn't much that can
really help us I guess. If we get tossed off our bike doing 80mph and hit a
lamp post or on coming car -- we're basically slurpee is a leather bag.
Jeremy Taylor
Daniel Bannon wrote:
>
> Aside from airbags, I'm wondering if there are simply few ways to
> distribute blunt trauma force in a wreck. I suppose not. <Sigh>: we
> take our chances, or hang up the leathers.
>
http://webnz.com/nzmsc/Articles/survival.html
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~nzmscon/
Knuckles Muldoon
Got a straw? :P
Jeremy Taylor
in the PDF file you get at the second link, on page 9 there is some
interesting stuff on what to do to not get yourself splatted into a
powerpole once you're sliding.
Phil Scott
Please dont take this the wrong way. But there is a way to mitigate the blunt
trauma impact in some, but certainly not all cases. If you see you are going to
hit something solid, and you have the time, most of the time I had the time, you
can opt to let the bike engine hit first by putting the bike on its side... this
can be done faster than you can even grab the brake if you are used to it.
That way not only doesnt your body absorb the full blow, but you are hitting at
an angle to the object... as the bike hits and you keep it held to the ground,
your body will come up into the object at an angle and after much of the force
has been disipated by the engine cases hitting first... and your very fragile
neck will be kept out of the way in most cases.
If you have clip on bars this is undoubtedly a lot more difficult to do than if
you have longer bars. It is important in most cases to hang onto the bike and
keep the front wheel tipped up, or it *will catch and you will highside and that
will be nasty indeed.
(as you put the bike down let your low side leg drag out and away from the bike,
keep your high side foot on the peg if it looks like its going to be safe
there... if not you may have to bail once the bike is down.
Phil Scott
Andrew
"Phil Scott" <phils...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3bd7766...@news.tdl.com...
Here we go... I am not going to get into a lay'er down thread, I just want
to mention that *EVERY* wreck I have *EVER* seen on the street has been a
highside.
I have seen lowsides on the track, but I think most street wrecks are
highsides based on my own experience and some reasoning.
How do you control where you fly in the air so as not to hit an immovable
object? That is the real question ;-)
I can say from my Deerslaying incident that I vaguely recall the impact,
which was an immense force, and the next thing I knew I was down on my hands
and knees trying to breathe in the road. Jim who was following me said I
climbed out of a ditch after highsiding, I have no recollection of that...
--
Andrew
00 Daytona
http://ultrasupercool.com
--
Andrew
00 Daytona
http://ultrasupercool.com
Phil Scott
dangerous than riding in such a way that when you do out of control its a low
side event. thats dirt track wisdom. We deliberately rode with a bias to
keeping the bike low so that if there was a problem we would low side, not high
side.
If you start to loose it going low, you still have many options, various ways of
saving it, but if you do crash its a low side.
Highsiding is indeed a tough way to go... and you are correct, no way in hell
can you control where you go once you are in the air. thats why many of us
like to keep the bike low and slide it at the point of impact.
ymmv however.
thats the nice thing about having your own scooter, you get to choose how you
handle these sorts of things.
Phil Scott
Andrew
"Phil Scott" <phils...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3bd7881b...@news.tdl.com...
> If you are highsiding Andrew you are taking the hard way out. Its much
more
> dangerous than riding in such a way that when you do out of control its a
low
> side event. thats dirt track wisdom. We deliberately rode with a bias to
> keeping the bike low so that if there was a problem we would low side, not
high
> side.
>
> If you start to loose it going low, you still have many options, various
ways of
> saving it, but if you do crash its a low side.
>
> Highsiding is indeed a tough way to go... and you are correct, no way in
hell
> can you control where you go once you are in the air. thats why many of
us
> like to keep the bike low and slide it at the point of impact.
>
> ymmv however.
>
> thats the nice thing about having your own scooter, you get to choose how
you
> handle these sorts of things.
>
Hell all the wrecks I have seen, besides my own and some track wrecks,
involved NO other vehicles or obstacles. They involved inexperienced riders
blowing corners and highsiding...
I agree a lowside is much more preferable.
Andrew
"Knuckles Muldoon" <knuc...@muldoon.com> wrote in message
news:c0mett8a7p5hkb4pf...@4ax.com...
Cannibal
Kcult
Daniel Bannon <daniel_...@hahtmail.dott.c0mm> wrote in message
news:op1ettgvkpjeq2lc2...@4ax.com...
> blunt trauma aspect of motorcycle get-offs, both to bikes and (more
> importantly) riders.
>
> Aside from airbags, I'm wondering if there are simply few ways to
> distribute blunt trauma force in a wreck. I suppose not. <Sigh>: we
> take our chances, or hang up the leathers.
I imagine the horses caught hell, but I believe Medievil Knights had it
licked. Does anyone make "real" armor anymore?
Troy
00 F4 <=== almost dropped turning around to help Mr. Curtis :(
Daniel Bannon
wrote:
>Please dont take this the wrong way. But there is a way to mitigate the blunt
>trauma impact in some, but certainly not all cases. If you see you are going to
>hit something solid, and you have the time, most of the time I had the time, you
>can opt to let the bike engine hit first by putting the bike on its side... this
>can be done faster than you can even grab the brake if you are used to it.
>Phil Scott
>>
I admire that you stick to your guns on this subject, 'laying the bike
down when appropriate', i.e.
That said, we'll need to agree to disagree on that matter. Others
seem to get a bit irate about it. I prefer not to be argumentative
(on that subject, at least), since you have your mind made up. No
harm, no foul I say.
Later.
Daniel Bannon
<yo...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Phil Scott" <phils...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3bd7766...@news.tdl.com...
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:53:09 GMT, Daniel Bannon
>> <daniel_...@hahtmail.dott.c0mm> wrote:
>>
>> >Reading about Mr. Curtis' wreck at The Gap, I'm thinking about the
>> >blunt trauma aspect of motorcycle get-offs, both to bikes and (more
>> >importantly) riders.
>Here we go... I am not going to get into a lay'er down thread, I just want
>to mention that *EVERY* wreck I have *EVER* seen on the street has been a
>highside.
Now, throttle back a sec there, pahdnah.
I think you've had the misfortune to witness several highsides, while
in fact they aren't terribly common on the street. Let's keep the
track out of it.
Mr. Plow-the-Tree was a highside, as was Mr. 929 in the Bushes. You
plowing Bambi was, well, 775lbs of metal and beef plowing a 200 lb
stationary object. The latter defies characterization as either high
or lowside.
By sheer weight of accident numbers, though, in street wrecks most
guys blow a turn, hit oil, make errors, etc. and the bike slides from
under them (low side), they sliding off under or beside it.
High-sides are a bit more complex, natch, involving several steps to
the effect of: 1) traction goes off, front or rear 2) traction
reestablished some very short time later (usually < 1 second) 3)
violent forces result from step 2. 3) Bike upsets, pitching rider off
the front and over the bars. 4) Bike may land any way at all, though
obviously will slide at some point.
Such are my definitions. Others may disagree.
>I can say from my Deerslaying incident that I vaguely recall the impact,
>which was an immense force, and the next thing I knew I was down on my hands
>and knees trying to breathe in the road. Jim who was following me said I
>climbed out of a ditch after highsiding, I have no recollection of that...
>Andrew
>00 Daytona
>http://ultrasupercool.com
I'm guessing you plowed Bambi, did a Superman imitation, smacked on
the ground, slid into the ditch, and crawled out after awhile. The
bike and Bambi did their own deadly dance, the former likely
snowplowing the latter out of the way then careening off on random
pitch/roll vectors. IMO that's not technically a "high-side."
Daniel
wrote:
>Please dont take this the wrong way. But there is a way to mitigate the
blunt
>trauma impact in some, but certainly not all cases. If you see you are
going to
>hit something solid, and you have the time, most of the time I had the
time, you
>can opt to let the bike engine hit first by putting the bike on its side...
this
>can be done faster than you can even grab the brake if you are used to it.
>
>Phil Scott
Pretty funny. The bike hits the object, then you hit the bike. Unless you
have your own personal drag chute, your velocity is going to be about the
same. Please don't start this little parade again. It did not go well the
last 3 times you tried.
Daniel
'00 YZF600R
Austin, Texas
jenner
> trauma impact in some, but certainly not all cases. If you see you are going to
> hit something solid, and you have the time, most of the time I had the time, you
> can opt to let the bike engine hit first by putting the bike on its side... this
> can be done faster than you can even grab the brake if you are used to it.
I understand why you argue this, Phil. In a rather bizarre way,
it makes sense, if I hit my head against the desk long enough.
However, I still cannot accept that, in the process of a crash,
you will be able to make this an effective safety practice.
Laying 'er down *is* crashing.
While you do deserve respect as a *person*, your
theory deserves none what so ever.
--
-- jenner
Phil Scott
Its not a theory actually, its how dirt bikers have been doing it for decades,
myself included. for 25 years or so. On tracks all over California, nevada and
mexico. I think anyone who rides in the dirt understands that. those who
havent riden in the dirt apparently dont.
Anytime you can let the bike hit first instead of your head, your head and neck
are going to be better off.
Some folks can relate to that. others apparently think that hitting head first
is not a problem. I wish them well.
Phil Scott
>
>
>--
>
> -- jenner
>
>
>
>
jenner
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 00:34:15 GMT, "jenner" <j5n...@home.com> wrote:
> >While you do deserve respect as a *person*, your
> >theory deserves none what so ever.
>
> Its not a theory actually, its how dirt bikers have been doing it for decades,
> myself included. for 25 years or so. On tracks all over California, nevada and
> mexico. I think anyone who rides in the dirt understands that. those who
> havent riden in the dirt apparently dont.
I ride in the dirt, so that particular dismissal is null and void.
> Anytime you can let the bike hit first instead of your head, your head and neck
> are going to be better off.
>
> Some folks can relate to that. others apparently think that hitting head first
> is not a problem. I wish them well.
As long as some new *street* rider doesn't take your advice to
heart, you can champion it all you wish.
--
-- jenner
Daniel
You are correct Phil, it is not a theory. It is just really bad advice for
streetbikes. Like I said before, please don't start this thread again.
Phil Scott
>
>You are correct Phil, it is not a theory. It is just really bad advice for
>streetbikes. Like I said before, please don't start this thread again.
>
>Daniel
>'00 YZF600R
>Austin, Texas
Im SURE its bad advice for street bikes in many cases, for instance as you or
someone else pointed out before, the head on collision scenario... I could think
of others.
The subject thread is 'Blunt trauma..." and hopefully mitigation of the blunt
trauma impact as asked by the original poster. I was responding to that
specific issue. How to mitigate the impact once it is imminent.
I have posted what has worked for me both on the street and in the dirt for 25
years of riding.
Its strange advice to street riders who haven't ridden the dirt, but is
recognised as good advice by those with that experience and a few of those guys
have posted.
Recently someone posted, maybe it was you, that all the accidents they have
seen, or been in, were high sides ...so laying it down was not an option.
I was speechless for a long time.... how does one respond to such a situation.
It was like hearing someone say that all of their accidents were head on
collissions with bridge abutments and stating that there was no solution.
High siding itself is something to avoid... its a nasty situation. It leaves
you defenseless in the air. It is about 90% avoidable by keeping the bike low
and the throttle on enough to keep the rear end loose.
But regardless. Ive just posted my experience. And Im sure that some kid who
was not even born and when I was winning races all over the west coast will come
up with some advance... thats the nature of progress. The new machinery and
the new guys advance. I recommend you study them.
Those winning the races *do have it right. Emulate them so you can make sure
*you have it right, and really understand what they are doing.
If you are new to motorcylcing, or have limited experience, it might we wise to
consider that compared to those who have 20 or 30 years on the track that you
have at best a very thin clue, especially if you are high siding predominantly.
Sorry, thats just how it is.
You know what the young man who screwed up IBM's 100 million dollar RISC chip
plant said to me in 1989... that btw cost IBM their lead in the semi conductor
industry. He said and I quote " I am no newbie in this business, I have TWO
years experience, and graduated magna cum laude from Yale"
He said that *after the job was 50 million over budget, and would not hold
temperature tolerances and had to be shut down. You see. Ignorance knows no
limits. Not even when failure is staring the person in the face. He defends
his error.
Amazing.
Its a bad habit to get into.
I was retained, because of my track record and experience, to salvage the
project... do you think any of these kiddies agreed? No.
Actually a few of the more mature managers didn't agree either. That did not
change the facts. They had no clue, their plant would not function, and most
ended up fired.
They made obvious and fatal errors all through the design and construction, and
in that case against the repeated advice of the consulting firm they had
retained to do the actual engineering. These morons at IBM told the
consulting firm "look if you dont like to take our advice we can always get
another engineering company."
Thats the second characteristic of an idiot. Arrogance.
IBM has still not fully recovered. The fact is that in the engineering
business it takes decades even begin to get a clue. there is much more there
than meets the eye. And you will not ever get a clue if you are going to be
arrogant about your current level of ignorance.
Same with riding a bike at high levels and handling blunt force impact etc. It
takes awhile to understand these things. In the meantime ignorance can be and
very often is *fatal.
I recommend a person develop a way to minimize the damage once an impact becomes
unavoidable.
For those that cant see that letting the engine case hit first absorbs damage
and saves your head and neck from the intial impact I am again left speechless.
One gentleman said "well if the bike hits first, and then you hit the bike,
whats the difference"....
duh We must wish the man well. He is going to need it.
Phil Scott
I
>
>
Daniel
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:12:43 GMT, "Daniel" <deja...@angelfire.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >You are correct Phil, it is not a theory. It is just really bad advice
for
> >streetbikes. Like I said before, please don't start this thread again.
> >
> >Daniel
> >'00 YZF600R
> >Austin, Texas
>
> Im SURE its bad advice for street bikes in many cases, for instance as you
or
> someone else pointed out before, the head on collision scenario... I could
think
> of others.
>
> The subject thread is 'Blunt trauma..." and hopefully mitigation of the
blunt
> trauma impact as asked by the original poster. I was responding to that
> specific issue. How to mitigate the impact once it is imminent.
Still incorrect advice for streetbikes... this is the 3rd or 4th round for
you on this subject. It is bad advice and you get pummeled for it.
>
> I have posted what has worked for me both on the street and in the dirt
for 25
> years of riding.
This is a streetbike newsgroup.
>
> Its strange advice to street riders who haven't ridden the dirt, but is
> recognised as good advice by those with that experience and a few of those
guys
> have posted.
That is because it is a dirt tactic. It is not a steet tactic. To date, I
am unaware of a single post on this newsgroup in support of abdicating
control of the bike and purposely crashing it.
>
>
> Recently someone posted, maybe it was you, that all the accidents they
have
> seen, or been in, were high sides ...so laying it down was not an option.
That was not me.
>
> I was speechless for a long time.... how does one respond to such a
situation.
>
> It was like hearing someone say that all of their accidents were head on
> collissions with bridge abutments and stating that there was no solution.
If your bike highsides, you are just along for the flight. The only thing
you can do is try to land well. Prevention is the only cure that I am aware
of. Example: I was once in a u-turn and my back broke free due to
something on the surface. I have no doubt that if I dropped the throttle,
my bike would have spit me right off. I kept the throttle up and the rear
tire gradually caught.
>
>
> High siding itself is something to avoid... its a nasty situation. It
leaves
> you defenseless in the air. It is about 90% avoidable by keeping the bike
low
> and the throttle on enough to keep the rear end loose.
>
Correct. You should notice that I am fair in my criticism of you. I do not
beat you up when you are posting good advice. On the other hand, you are
famous on this group as "Lay 'er Down Phil". It is not a compliment.
>
> But regardless. Ive just posted my experience. And Im sure that some
kid who
> was not even born and when I was winning races all over the west coast
will come
> up with some advance... thats the nature of progress. The new machinery
and
> the new guys advance. I recommend you study them.
Your experience, if it is actually a true story, refers to dirt tracking.
You have provided no proof of your past life. I've searched far and wide
and I cannot find evidence of your past. It is irrelevant in this case.
Layin 'er down is bad advice for a streetbike. It was even bad advice when
you were riding.
>
> Those winning the races *do have it right. Emulate them so you can make
sure
> *you have it right, and really understand what they are doing.
I watch racing.... seems to me that brakes still stop you faster than
sliding along on the frame.
>
> If you are new to motorcylcing, or have limited experience, it might we
wise to
> consider that compared to those who have 20 or 30 years on the track that
you
> have at best a very thin clue, especially if you are high siding
predominantly.
Been riding streetbikes since about '78. That is street experience. Not
dirt track.
>
> Sorry, thats just how it is.
Your don't even currently ride. You don't own a bike. That is how it is.
>
> You know what the young man who screwed up IBM's 100 million dollar RISC
chip
> plant said to me in 1989... that btw cost IBM their lead in the semi
conductor
> industry. He said and I quote " I am no newbie in this business, I
have TWO
> years experience, and graduated magna cum laude from Yale"
>
> He said that *after the job was 50 million over budget, and would not hold
> temperature tolerances and had to be shut down. You see. Ignorance
knows no
> limits. Not even when failure is staring the person in the face. He
defends
> his error.
>
> Amazing.
Truly. What has the above got to do with anything?
>
> Its a bad habit to get into.
>
>
> I was retained, because of my track record and experience, to salvage the
> project... do you think any of these kiddies agreed? No.
No, but most of them own bikes and ride them.
>
> Actually a few of the more mature managers didn't agree either. That did
not
> change the facts. They had no clue, their plant would not function, and
most
> ended up fired.
>
> They made obvious and fatal errors all through the design and
construction, and
> in that case against the repeated advice of the consulting firm they had
> retained to do the actual engineering. These morons at IBM told the
> consulting firm "look if you dont like to take our advice we can always
get
> another engineering company."
>
> Thats the second characteristic of an idiot. Arrogance.
>
> IBM has still not fully recovered. The fact is that in the engineering
> business it takes decades even begin to get a clue. there is much more
there
> than meets the eye. And you will not ever get a clue if you are going to
be
> arrogant about your current level of ignorance.
Take your own advice dirt track rider.
>
>
> Same with riding a bike at high levels and handling blunt force impact
etc. It
> takes awhile to understand these things. In the meantime ignorance can be
and
> very often is *fatal.
Practicing bad advice is fatal too. Since you do not ride, it will never be
a danger to you.
>
> I recommend a person develop a way to minimize the damage once an impact
becomes
> unavoidable.
Bad advice Phil.... round 4.
>
> For those that cant see that letting the engine case hit first absorbs
damage
> and saves your head and neck from the intial impact I am again left
speechless.
>
> One gentleman said "well if the bike hits first, and then you hit the
bike,
> whats the difference"....
That was me. Law of physics. Look into it.
>
> duh We must wish the man well. He is going to need it.
>
>
> Phil Scott
Get a bike Phil.
jenner
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:12:43 GMT, "Daniel" <deja...@angelfire.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >You are correct Phil, it is not a theory. It is just really bad advice for
> >streetbikes. Like I said before, please don't start this thread again.
I called it a theory out of kindness. :)
> >
> >Daniel
> >'00 YZF600R
> >Austin, Texas
>
> Im SURE its bad advice for street bikes in many cases, for instance as you or
> someone else pointed out before, the head on collision scenario... I could think
> of others.
You can come up with all sorts of hypotheticals but that still doesn't make
your advice applicable to the street, Phil. Any new rider who takes this
partuclar advice from you buying a bridge, so to speak.
> The subject thread is 'Blunt trauma..." and hopefully mitigation of the blunt
> trauma impact as asked by the original poster. I was responding to that
> specific issue. How to mitigate the impact once it is imminent.
OK. Here's the point. Let's say you are going to hit something and Blunt
Force Trauma is a soon to be happening occurance. In the few tenths
of a second you have, you decide to execute a perfect Lay 'Er Down.
Your bike absorbs the impact and you hit your bike.
Here's the thing, Phil. Bikes aren't made of Armour Foam. They are
made of plastic and metal, most of it very, very hard -- some of it rather
pointy when broken or bent.
I'm really wondering if you will *ever* get that and stop giving out
this one particular lousy piece of advice.
> Its strange advice to street riders who haven't ridden the dirt, but is
> recognised as good advice by those with that experience and a few of those guys
> have posted.
Phil, I have seen very little, if not *zero* agreement, with Laying 'Er Down
tactic as a good idea on the *street*.
> Recently someone posted, maybe it was you, that all the accidents they have
> seen, or been in, were high sides ...so laying it down was not an option.
That was Andrew's impression of accidents. His experience, while not
invalid, is not necessarily representitive of all or most accident situations.
You are grasping for straws, Phil.
> But regardless. Ive just posted my experience. And Im sure that some kid who
> was not even born and when I was winning races all over the west coast will come
> up with some advance... thats the nature of progress. The new machinery and
> the new guys advance. I recommend you study them.
I have no problem with you posting your experience. It's your bad advice
that I question.
> Those winning the races *do have it right. Emulate them so you can make sure
> *you have it right, and really understand what they are doing.
Street and racetrack are two very different places, Phil.
> If you are new to motorcylcing, or have limited experience, it might we wise to
> consider that compared to those who have 20 or 30 years on the track that you
> have at best a very thin clue, especially if you are high siding predominantly.
And I will say it again. If you are new to motorcycling, do not take Phil's advice
on this particular subject. It is ill-conceived and born out of some stubbornness that has
*no real basis* in safety tactics on the street.
--
-- jenner
Phil Scott
>
>"Phil Scott" <phils...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3bd9bd71...@news.tdl.com...
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:12:43 GMT, "Daniel" <deja...@angelfire.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >You are correct Phil, it is not a theory. It is just really bad advice for
>> >streetbikes. Like I said before, please don't start this thread again.
>
>I called it a theory out of kindness. :)
>
>> >
>> >Daniel
>> >'00 YZF600R
>> >Austin, Texas
>>
>> Im SURE its bad advice for street bikes in many cases, for instance as you or
>> someone else pointed out before, the head on collision scenario... I could think
>> of others.
>
>You can come up with all sorts of hypotheticals but that still doesn't make
>your advice applicable to the street, Phil. Any new rider who takes this
>partuclar advice from you buying a bridge, so to speak.
It IS applicable to the street. I spent 25 years riding on the street as well,
at least 50,000 miles, and more than a few crashes. No injuries on the street
accidents though. I always managed to avoid a blunt force impact by putting the
bike down and sliding. I rode the street mostly at race track speeds, 100%
much of the time. Not very bright but then those were crazy years, I did learn
how to handle an accident though, and ride so that if there was an accident I
could survive....and I have. The vast majority in the head first or high
side contingent don't survive. Why? Because they havent learned how to go
down. Oh well.
Anyway I was responding to the title thread, about avoiding blunt trauma in an
accident. I merely mentioned what has *worked in actual practice over decades,
for me. :)
(sliding btw will slow you down a lot faster than flying through the air)
So for *me... its not theory. Its a proven workable tactic. For those who
have not gotten off much or newbie riders, I guess everything related to the
subject is theory.
>
>> The subject thread is 'Blunt trauma..." and hopefully mitigation of the blunt
>> trauma impact as asked by the original poster. I was responding to that
>> specific issue. How to mitigate the impact once it is imminent.
>
>OK. Here's the point. Let's say you are going to hit something and Blunt
>Force Trauma is a soon to be happening occurance. In the few tenths
>of a second you have, you decide to execute a perfect Lay 'Er Down.
>Your bike absorbs the impact and you hit your bike.
>
>Here's the thing, Phil. Bikes aren't made of Armour Foam. They are
>made of plastic and metal, most of it very, very hard -- some of it rather
>pointy when broken or bent.
Get a clue man... please. Its your ASS or feet that take most of the secondary
shock at the instant your body weight goes onto the now stopped bike... then a
half second later as your back and arms flex and your body collapses against the
bike you *might hit your helmut, but with much reduced force.
You cant possibly be dense enough not to see that.?
>I'm really wondering if you will *ever* get that and stop giving out
>this one particular lousy piece of advice.
Its the very best of good advice in many accident scenario's..... its up to the
rider to determine which tactic is most survivable at the time. thinking about
your options ahead of time allows you to make those decisions.
I am suggesting that people *think about the option of putting the bike down,
and when that might be appropriate, on which kinds of bikes and situations, and
when it might NOT be appropriate.
You have a problem with that? Amazing.
>
>> Its strange advice to street riders who haven't ridden the dirt, but is
>> recognised as good advice by those with that experience and a few of those guys
>> have posted.
>
>Phil, I have seen very little, if not *zero* agreement, with Laying 'Er Down
>tactic as a good idea on the *street*.
The NG has a lot of street only riders who are unaware of the tactic...and kids
who are still getting a clue.... the dirt riders who have posted think its a
good tactic. Why? Because they use it frequently. And many have saved their
ass on the street with it.
>
>> Recently someone posted, maybe it was you, that all the accidents they have
>> seen, or been in, were high sides ...so laying it down was not an option.
>
>That was Andrew's impression of accidents. His experience, while not
>invalid, is not necessarily representitive of all or most accident situations.
>You are grasping for straws, Phil.
No, I was just refering to that person and others who say most accidents are
high sides. Demonstrates the point you see. They are riding so they high side
in the first place. An error you can easily avoid.
>
>> But regardless. Ive just posted my experience. And Im sure that some kid who
>> was not even born and when I was winning races all over the west coast will come
>> up with some advance... thats the nature of progress. The new machinery and
>> the new guys advance. I recommend you study them.
>I have no problem with you posting your experience. It's your bad advice
>that I question.
Ive cleared it up a hundred times on the NG... Its what I have found that works
very well. An opinion based on experience. You think I should stay silent
about what I have found that works while others are saying most accidents are
high sides ... when you should not even be having high sides.
>
>> Those winning the races *do have it right. Emulate them so you can make sure
>> *you have it right, and really understand what they are doing.
>
>Street and racetrack are two very different places, Phil.
You wouldnt shit me now would you?
***The exact same physics and bike handling characteristics apply... with no
exceptions. Its just that the street is a lot more unforgiving and the traction
more variable so its riskier.
>
>> If you are new to motorcylcing, or have limited experience, it might we wise to
>> consider that compared to those who have 20 or 30 years on the track that you
>> have at best a very thin clue, especially if you are high siding predominantly.
>
>And I will say it again. If you are new to motorcycling, do not take Phil's advice
>on this particular subject. It is ill-conceived and born out of some stubbornness that has
>*no real basis* in safety tactics on the street.
See? YOU can have your say, and the newbies can read both views.... and try
things. take classes, go to riding schools and make up thier own minds.
Now they have at least two points of view on the issue. Many think thats
better than just one.
jenner
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 18:58:13 GMT, "jenner" <j5n...@home.com> wrote:
> >You can come up with all sorts of hypotheticals but that still doesn't make
> >your advice applicable to the street, Phil. Any new rider who takes this
> >partuclar advice from you buying a bridge, so to speak.
>
> It IS applicable to the street.
You can say that as many times as you wish. That doesn't
make it so. It's bad advice, expecially when you specifically
pander to new riders.
And no, I didn't even read the rest of your post. I don't
think there will be anything new here.
Just stepping in to make sure any inexperienced riders
don't take your very poor advice seriously on this issue.
My work here is done.
--
-- jenner
Phil Scott
>
>"Phil Scott" <phils...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3bdb0b73...@news.tdl.com...
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 18:58:13 GMT, "jenner" <j5n...@home.com> wrote:
>> >You can come up with all sorts of hypotheticals but that still doesn't make
>> >your advice applicable to the street, Phil. Any new rider who takes this
>> >partuclar advice from you buying a bridge, so to speak.
>>
>> It IS applicable to the street.
>
>You can say that as many times as you wish. That doesn't
>make it so. It's bad advice, expecially when you specifically
>pander to new riders.
pander? New riders? why those remarks?
You would do better to win your point with facts or something, not trying to
ridicule me with such bogus language.
>
>And no, I didn't even read the rest of your post. I don't
>think there will be anything new here.
Ah thats why you dont respond to the points! Thanks for filling me in.
Others have responded though, some old timers who know how to avoid blunt force
trauma by putting a bike down. You apparenlty didnt read those either.
Regardless... my rightness or wrongness. this is a NG. People post thier
views. Its called free speech. You are free to agree or disagree or post
oposing views. Trying to stilfle the views though is a bit dull though dont
you think?
>Just stepping in to make sure any inexperienced riders
>don't take your very poor advice seriously on this issue.
They will read the various arguments and decide if they wish to hit head first
or feet first. Some, many will choose head first, may they rest in peace.
Others will find ways to hit with the engine cases and feet first.... they will
be posting here when they are 60 :)
>My work here is done.
Oh no..dont do that... you must continue to try and save the newbies, get them
to try and keep the bike up to the bloody end, so they can hit head first or
high side into a pole.
you should send them to www.centerpunch.com look for the section on the
tungsten steel brain replacement and spine brace.
Daniel
>more of the same BS snipped.... here we go again.
Phil, you are famous on this newsgroup. Every time you build some
credibility here, you ruin it with your Lay 'er down advice. And BTW, free
speech here does not include passing out dangerous advice. You will get
pummeled. There is more to this than your silly pride.
Get a bike. Ride. Then dispense the advice.
jenner
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 20:47:48 GMT, "jenner" <j5n...@home.com> wrote:
> >You can say that as many times as you wish. That doesn't
> >make it so. It's bad advice, expecially when you specifically
> >pander to new riders.
>
> pander?
Yes.
> New riders?
Even recently.
>why those remarks?
Because they represent my observation of your words.
> You would do better to win your point with facts or something, not trying to
> ridicule me with such bogus language.
I better? You are the one who keeps posting the same bad
advice, while ignoring any and all challenges to it, continuing to support
that bad advice though reworded credentialism.
> >And no, I didn't even read the rest of your post. I don't
> >think there will be anything new here.
>
> Ah thats why you dont respond to the points!
Because you keep repeating yourself, lending no more credence
to your bad advice than when we last went around about it.
Undersand, Phil. I'm not here to change *your* mind. I'm
here to be a counter voice to yours when new riders read
your bad advice and consider following it based
on your credentialism.
> Others have responded though, some old timers who know how to avoid blunt force
> trauma by putting a bike down. You apparenlty didnt read those either.
You know, you can cite years all you want, Phil.
I've been riding for 26 years myself, so you aren't talking to
some newcomer to the sport.
> Regardless... my rightness or wrongness. this is a NG. People post thier
> views. Its called free speech. You are free to agree or disagree or post
> oposing views. Trying to stilfle the views though is a bit dull though dont
> you think?
I'm not trying to stifle you. Get over yourself. I didn't think it
would take you too long to get to this. Start crying that you
are being persecuted when you are losing ground. It's not
surprising.
First, try some really bizarrre logic.
Then, try credentialism.
Now, it's a consipracy to remove you of your rights....
How predictable.
--
-- jenner
Phil Scott
sigh
You'd think that in 26 years you'd have learned not to hit head first.
Oh well. Now see if you can get someone to agree that hitting head first is
best. it shouldnt be a problem
Last year we had about 15 guys on this NG maintaining that the 'new rubber'
could do stoppies in pea gravel, water, oil slicks, and wet leaves.
One never ceases to be amazed.
Phil Scott
Andy Burnett
<3bdb6302...@news.tdl.com>:
>Last year we had about 15 guys on this NG maintaining that the 'new
>rubber' could do stoppies in pea gravel, water, oil slicks, and wet
>leaves.
To set the record straight, nobody said any of the above *except* the part
about stoppies on a wet road. I said that and it's still the case.
Also, nobody I've read on this newsgroup or anywhere else advocates hitting
things head first. You seem to conclude that if a rider thinks laying the
bike down he must think hitting things head first is a good idea. I think
there are other possibilities, don't you?
ab
Phil Scott
>phils...@hotmail.com (Phil Scott) wrote in
><3bdb6302...@news.tdl.com>:
>
>>Last year we had about 15 guys on this NG maintaining that the 'new
>>rubber' could do stoppies in pea gravel, water, oil slicks, and wet
>>leaves.
>
>To set the record straight, nobody said any of the above *except* the part
>about stoppies on a wet road. I said that and it's still the case.
No, actually many said they could do stoppies on pea gravel etc. those threads
went on for quite some time. Regarding the stoppies on wet pavement, you still
maintain thats possible? With street tires that a person is likely to have
mounted? Or with special wet racing tires that wont last a week on dry
pavement, so few if any street riders run them.
really. It got quite ludicrous. On the street, with the oil slick in
intersections where you will have most of your emergency situations you still
maintain that you can do stoppies in that? Would you recommend someone else on
any old bike and riding skill count on being able to even stop fast in the wet,
at an intersection say doing 50 mph?
Oh well.
>
>Also, nobody I've read on this newsgroup or anywhere else advocates hitting
>things head first. You seem to conclude that if a rider thinks laying the
>bike down he must think hitting things head first is a good idea. I think
>there are other possibilities, don't you?
Oh yes many possibilities. One of them is putting the bike down, other times
it might actually be best to center punch the object, especially at lower
speeds. or when putting the bike down could get you run over.
I was just trying to provoke some thought about the range of options. And
point out that putting the bike down had saved my skin a few times. Other
times i have in fact elected to hit front wheel first. but rarely.
Phil Scott
>
>ab
jenner
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 01:06:39 GMT, "jenner" <j5n...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> sigh
>
> You'd think that in 26 years you'd have learned not to hit head first.
> Oh well. Now see if you can get someone to agree that hitting head first is
> best. it shouldnt be a problem
Thank you for your continuing demonstration of your
desperation to find some way to present your bad advice
on this subject.
Notice this, new riders. When Phil loses on this subject,
and he will, he resorts to this.
> Last year we had about 15 guys on this NG maintaining that the 'new rubber'
> could do stoppies in pea gravel, water, oil slicks, and wet leaves.
And, as Andy points out, resorts to mis-representing what other
people say.
> One never ceases to be amazed.
At your posts on this subject? Indeed.
--
-- jenner
jenner
> Oh yes many possibilities. One of them is putting the bike down, other times
> it might actually be best to center punch the object, especially at lower
> speeds. or when putting the bike down could get you run over.
I am going to ask you this again. I asked you once before. I didn't
notice if you answered it, so I'm putting it in it's own post.
If you are going to place your bike between your body and a
solid object, what happens when your body hits your bike,
which is also a very solid object?
--
-- jenner
Andy Burnett
>Regarding the stoppies on wet
>pavement, you still maintain thats possible? With street tires that a
>person is likely to have mounted? Or with special wet racing tires
>that wont last a week on dry pavement, so few if any street riders run
>them.
The first time I did this was on a set of Dunlop D204's. That was a street
compound sporting tire that is now out of production and which was not as
sticky as most of today's street compound sport tires.
>On the street, with the oil slick in
>intersections where you will have most of your emergency situations you
>still maintain that you can do stoppies in that? Would you recommend
>someone else on any old bike and riding skill count on being able to
>even stop fast in the wet, at an intersection say doing 50 mph?
No, you won't be able to do stoppies on oil slicks. In a sense I'm
drifting away from the topic of blunt trauma, but where intersections are
concerned, your best policy is avoidance before the fact. I do realize
that riders get caught out by the unexpected, but it's noteworthy that some
riders have close calls fairly often where others never do.
When I first began commuting regularly on a motorcycle, I had my share of
close calls. Now I can't remember when the last one was; it's been a long
time. I ride in all weather conditions. Something has changed in the time
I've been riding. Part of it might be skill level, but I think more of it
involves appropriate planning and observation when I approach crucial
places like intersections.
"Yes, but what if..."
I wrote:
>>You seem to conclude that if a rider thinks
>>laying the bike down he must think hitting things head first is a good
>>idea. I think there are other possibilities, don't you?
You replied:
>Oh yes many possibilities. One of them is putting the bike down, other
>times it might actually be best to center punch the object, especially
>at lower speeds. or when putting the bike down could get you run over.
Your reply still makes it seem like there are only two possibilities:
Laying it down or hitting it. What about steering around it? How about
not riding at 100% through an intersection?
Each situation has different characteristics of escape routes, traction,
amount of time available, rider awareness and other variables. There may
be a time once in a while where laying it dwn is the best possible outcome.
I've never seen that situation myself and I think it's extraordinarily
rare. However, the less a rider knows about braking, turning and reading
traffic, the more the odds stack up that he'll have an accident.
The question in my mind is: Should a rider practice a skill that he may
need one time in a million or should he practice other things that happen
more often and themselves mitigate the need for the other thing?
>I was just trying to provoke some thought about the range of options.
It seems to be a range of two options.
>And point out that putting the bike down had saved my skin a few times.
Glad it's worked out that way.
ab
Phil Scott
>phils...@hotmail.com (Phil Scott) wrote in
><3bdb9ee3...@news.tdl.com>:
>
>>Regarding the stoppies on wet
>>pavement, you still maintain thats possible? With street tires that a
>>person is likely to have mounted? Or with special wet racing tires
>>that wont last a week on dry pavement, so few if any street riders run
>>them.
>
>The first time I did this was on a set of Dunlop D204's. That was a street
>compound sporting tire that is now out of production and which was not as
>sticky as most of today's street compound sport tires.
How about a wager pal.... $5,000. I get to pick the paved area, a private
parking lot, quite typical of parking lots. We hose that sucker down. and you
do a stoppie at 65 mph on it with street rated tires, running factory
recommended tire pressures, with a 500cc street bike or larger. Hows that bud.?
Now thats not even on a greasy intersection.
We had a bunch of morons claiming they could do stoppies on wet leaves and pea
gravel too, finally one of them gets to ride on a newly oiled and graveled
road and admits that it was very difficult to even keep it on the road, much
less stop.
No one took me up on a wager there either.
Come on Andy... take the wager on the wet pavement stoppie. Talking like you
do, some kid will think he can stop fast in the wet, when all that will happen
is the front end will hydroplane or slide....
or.... maybe you are correct andy. If so we can have a wager and you can
collect 5 grand.
>
>>On the street, with the oil slick in
>>intersections where you will have most of your emergency situations you
>>still maintain that you can do stoppies in that? Would you recommend
>>someone else on any old bike and riding skill count on being able to
>>even stop fast in the wet, at an intersection say doing 50 mph?
>
>No, you won't be able to do stoppies on oil slicks. In a sense I'm
>drifting away from the topic of blunt trauma, but where intersections are
>concerned, your best policy is avoidance before the fact.
No one said avoidance was not the best approach. There are though cases pal
where avoidance fails and there is an impact. Ive said that about 900 times
already. In those cases, there are things you can to do lessen the trauma of
the impact.
>I do realize
>that riders get caught out by the unexpected, but it's noteworthy that some
>riders have close calls fairly often where others never do.
So?
>
>When I first began commuting regularly on a motorcycle, I had my share of
>close calls. Now I can't remember when the last one was; it's been a long
>time. I ride in all weather conditions. Something has changed in the time
>I've been riding. Part of it might be skill level, but I think more of it
>involves appropriate planning and observation when I approach crucial
>places like intersections.
duh.
The issue bud was what to do IF (thats IF), impact is unavoidable. I
suggest you will do better hitting with something besides your head.... those
who disagree, and hit head first are not usually around to argue the point.
>
>"Yes, but what if..."
>
>I wrote:
>>>You seem to conclude that if a rider thinks
>>>laying the bike down he must think hitting things head first is a good
>>>idea. I think there are other possibilities, don't you?
>
>You replied:
>>Oh yes many possibilities. One of them is putting the bike down, other
>>times it might actually be best to center punch the object, especially
>>at lower speeds. or when putting the bike down could get you run over.
>
>Your reply still makes it seem like there are only two possibilities:
>Laying it down or hitting it. What about steering around it? How about
>not riding at 100% through an intersection?
amazing.
truly amazing. My discussion is for when nothing worked to avoid the accident
and its happening.... a very real situation most face at one time or another.
Avoiding accidents is another issue ive addressed in other threads. and
no...where did I ever recommend that a person should ride 100% through and
intersection... putting up straw men like that does not become you to say the
least.
>
>Each situation has different characteristics of escape routes, traction,
>amount of time available, rider awareness and other variables.
I was talking about a situation though where all that has failed utterly and you
about to put your face through someones van.... then you have a choice to hit
with something besides your head first.
Now andy Ive gone over that point about 90 times.
amazing.
> There may
>be a time once in a while where laying it dwn is the best possible outcome.
>I've never seen that situation myself and I think it's extraordinarily
>rare. However, the less a rider knows about braking, turning and reading
>traffic, the more the odds stack up that he'll have an accident.
So? We are still talking about the time when most riders will have an accident
despite all precautions..and how to avoid blunt force trauma in *that event.
We are NOT talking about an avoidable accident.
>
>The question in my mind is: Should a rider practice a skill that he may
>need one time in a million or should he practice other things that happen
>more often and themselves mitigate the need for the other thing?
He should practice avoidance constantly and dilligently and hard braking and
every escape move imaginable, until he is cold good at it.... and he should
practice defensive riding to the limits.
....and he should know how to keep his head and neck from fracturing due to
hitting head first.... if all that other stuff fails.... and it fails a few
thousand times a year, and those guys who hit head first die in many if not most
cases, a bunch of the rest end up in wheel chairs.
Its avoidable by hitting engine cases and feet first in many cases.
duh... and YOU need all this explained to you now for a year already?
Phil Scott
Phil Scott
You cant possibly be that stupid Jenner. If your head hits a pole first.
Your head will take all of the force of the impact.
If your engine cases hit the pole first, your feet on the pegs, will take some
of the force, your ass on the seat will take some more... and finally maybe
your head will hit. and take a much lesser blow.
If you are unable to understand something as simple as feet hitting first, being
less traumatic to the head than hitting head first, i do not think there is much
hope that you will ever understand.
One is truly amazed.
>
>
>--
>
> -- jenner
>
>
>
>
jenner
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 07:09:01 GMT, "jenner" <j5n...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Phil Scott" <phils...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3bdb9ee3...@news.tdl.com...
> >> Oh yes many possibilities. One of them is putting the bike down, other times
> >> it might actually be best to center punch the object, especially at lower
> >> speeds. or when putting the bike down could get you run over.
> >
> >I am going to ask you this again. I asked you once before. I didn't
> >notice if you answered it, so I'm putting it in it's own post.
> >
> >If you are going to place your bike between your body and a
> >solid object, what happens when your body hits your bike,
> >which is also a very solid object?
>
>
> You cant possibly be that stupid Jenner.
Thank you, Phil. That is all I needed to see.
--
-- jenner
jenner
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 07:14:02 GMT, abur...@NOhomeSPAM.com (Andy Burnett) wrote:
>
> >phils...@hotmail.com (Phil Scott) wrote in
> ><3bdb9ee3...@news.tdl.com>:
> >
> >>Regarding the stoppies on wet
> >>pavement, you still maintain thats possible? With street tires that a
> >>person is likely to have mounted? Or with special wet racing tires
> >>that wont last a week on dry pavement, so few if any street riders run
> >>them.
> >
> >The first time I did this was on a set of Dunlop D204's. That was a street
> >compound sporting tire that is now out of production and which was not as
> >sticky as most of today's street compound sport tires.
>
> How about a wager pal.... $5,000.
Wouldn't *you* have to own a bike first?
--
-- jenner
Daniel
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 07:14:02 GMT, abur...@NOhomeSPAM.com (Andy Burnett)
wrote:
>
private
> parking lot, quite typical of parking lots. We hose that sucker down. and
you
> do a stoppie at 65 mph on it with street rated tires, running factory
> recommended tire pressures, with a 500cc street bike or larger. Hows that
bud.?
Once again. Noone here is going to pay to help you regain credibility.
>
> We had a bunch of morons claiming they could do stoppies on wet leaves and
pea
> gravel too, finally one of them gets to ride on a newly oiled and
graveled
> road and admits that it was very difficult to even keep it on the road,
much
> less stop.
No we did not. You are the one that posted all of this.
>
> No one took me up on a wager there either.
Your credibility is at stake. Why don't you front the money. You are
always asking people to front 5,000 or so to prove your point. Your point
is rediculous. Why would anyone pay you any mind?
>
> Come on Andy... take the wager on the wet pavement stoppie. Talking like
you
> do, some kid will think he can stop fast in the wet, when all that will
happen
> is the front end will hydroplane or slide....
>
> or.... maybe you are correct andy. If so we can have a wager and you can
> collect 5 grand.
>
You don't seem to be able to afford a bike. What would make us think you
could afford a wager over $20.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of this drivel. It is just
rehashing the same issues. It is bad advice. You are pulling this advice
from your "dirt racing" career? The more I see you post, the more I think
you don't have much, if any, riding experience beyond watching CHiP's reruns
on cable. How 'bout putting your money on the table for once. How about
proof of your "expertise"?
Daniel
news:%dPC7.6519$ib.26...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
> Wouldn't *you* have to own a bike first?
>
>
> --
>
> -- jenner
>
He cannot afford a bike Jenner... How is he going to be able to afford
losing a wager! LOL! Hey Phil! You have been bikeles for what, over a
year on this group now? Get a bike. Ride. Then dispense the advice.
Tom Crooze
--
Tom Crooze
"jenner" <j5n...@home.com> wrote in message
news:%dPC7.6519$ib.26...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>
Phil Scott
>Your credibility is at stake. Why don't you front the money. You are
>always asking people to front 5,000 or so to prove your point. Your point
>is rediculous. Why would anyone pay you any mind?
Hey good idea.... I will front your stake into escrow. $5,000. I will need
collateral though for the loan of at least $5,000. But I understand, still
you are not confident you can do a stoppie on my wet pavement test.
dang.
how revealing.
> You are pulling this advice
>from your "dirt racing" career?
Of course I am.... and my 25 years on the street :)
But you go ahead, dont learn how to fall as recommended by every coach in any
contact sport, find out for yourself what happens when you hit bluntly, or head
first.
For decades its been known and practiced on race tracks that sliding is a better
approach when impact is unavoidable... and that applies on the street in most
but not all cases.
Its a real simple principle. But you go ahead and do yer high sides and
center punches if you like. Its your head after all.
Phil Scott
Phil Scott
Why do try to engage in trashing people with false remarks. Thats a kiddie
ploy Daniel. You can do better than that.
the issue is how to handle a crash to minimize injury. .. it is an important
issue. It should be addressed with reason not attempts to trash opposing
views.
Phil Scott
Daniel
> Why do try to engage in trashing people with false remarks. Thats a
kiddie
> ploy Daniel. You can do better than that.
>
> the issue is how to handle a crash to minimize injury. .. it is an
important
> issue. It should be addressed with reason not attempts to trash opposing
> views.
>
> Phil Scott
The issue was how to minimize injury. It is once again returned to your
personal crusade to ridicule yourself. You don't have a bike. You don't
ride. You don't apparently have any plans to really get a bike. There is
no proof of your alleged career. You are responsible for your own
reputation. I cannot help you there.
bla
are trying to say
for myself, i don't know what i would do, ask me again when i've had a
chance to try it out in an accident
but there is one thing to consider..
imagine a large concrete wall.. imagine yourself skittering into the wall at
say.. 80 km/h or so
it would be messy for sure, you probably would be dead or may as well be
dead.
now imagine yourself skittering into the wall, leg pinned under bike..
yeah.. you'd still be dead.
but the point it.. the bike has some limited ability to take out some of
that energy that's going to crush you.. because the bike will obviously
bend, fold, crush etc etc.. going in tires first will absorb a lot of the
energy
if a car were to pop out in front of me.. there is only one thing to do..
not lay er down, not hang on for dear life..
but too fly like f***kin superman, jump off the bike and over the car..
buddy of mine recently did that, with a pickup turned into his path..
if he slid into it.. bike or no bike.. he'd at very least be paralysed
Tom Crooze
seconds, braking with the quality of rubber ppl have these days, you could
significantly reduce the amount of impact force with full braking.
Anyone read that NZMSC article that said to go IN FRONT OF the car that
pulls out in front of you? Anyone agree?
--
Tom Crooze
"bla" <bla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cq%C7.129428$ob.28...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
Daniel
news:l82D7.493715$8c3.86...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> I would seriously entertain that thought. But with 60-0 times in a few
> seconds, braking with the quality of rubber ppl have these days, you could
> significantly reduce the amount of impact force with full braking.
>
> Anyone read that NZMSC article that said to go IN FRONT OF the car that
> pulls out in front of you? Anyone agree?
>
> --
That is the idea. Maintain control of the bike to maximize your braking
time, reduce the speed of your bike and minimize the speed of the collision.
I haven't seen the NZMSC article yet. I usually try to anticipate that the
vehicle I am closing on is going to pull out. This gives me time to think
about the possible escape routes. Do you have a link to the article?
Andy Burnett
>How about a wager pal.... $5,000. I get to pick the paved area, a
>private parking lot, quite typical of parking lots. We hose that sucker
>down. and you do a stoppie at 65 mph on it with street rated tires,
>running factory recommended tire pressures, with a 500cc street bike or
>larger. Hows that bud.?
How about a different wager? $5,000, *I* get to pick the spot, wet
pavement, DOT tires with whatever air pressure I normally run. I stoppie
at a speed of my choosing (without falling down), you lose some money.
You won't take that bet, though, because you're not sure I can't do it.
That's OK. A better use for the money would be for you to start up a crash
survival school. It's obvious there's a very poor understanding of
crashing technology among the general riding population. If your
techniques work half as well as you say, you should be a rich man in a few
years.
ab
Tom Crooze
is the drive-on-the-right-side-of the road version.
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~nzmscon/nz_surv.pdf
is the left. It's a couple pages down I think, but the whole thing is worth
a read.
I think Phil Scott simply is outdated in his methods, and although his
scenarios are plausible, technology has become good enough to minimize speed
faster than it would take to slide on engine cases.
--
Tom Crooze
"Daniel" <deja...@angelfire.com> wrote in message
news:%e2D7.6966$ai7.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
jenner
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~nzmscon/us_surv.pdf
>
> is the drive-on-the-right-side-of the road version.
>
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~nzmscon/nz_surv.pdf
>
> is the left. It's a couple pages down I think, but the whole thing is worth
> a read.
>
> I think Phil Scott simply is outdated in his methods, and although his
> scenarios are plausible, technology has become good enough to minimize speed
> faster than it would take to slide on engine cases.
that is all I've been saying. The days of "Laying 'er Down" are
essentially over, thanks to technology and training.
--
-- jenner
Jeremy Taylor
How about choosing a spot with a nice solid wall in the run-out zone?
And then, instead of just Andy braking hard and coming to a stop, rubber
on the ground (stoppie or not), we have Phil riding along at the same
speed next to Andy, and at the same moment Andy brakes for your stoppie,
Phil has to Lay 'er Down. The winner is whoever doesn't get pasted
thinly across the wall, or in the event neither is pasted against the
wall, whoever stops the quickest.
Tom Crooze
>
> And then, instead of just Andy braking hard and coming to a stop, rubber
> on the ground (stoppie or not), we have Phil riding along at the same
> speed next to Andy, and at the same moment Andy brakes for your stoppie,
> Phil has to Lay 'er Down. The winner is whoever doesn't get pasted
> thinly across the wall, or in the event neither is pasted against the
> wall, whoever stops the quickest.
>
LOL... somebody will be playing chicken... I wonder who it would have
been..
--
Tom Crooze