While i whole heartedly support this kind of research, my concern is that the results will be used by Insurance companies to hike premiums unless your wearing gear XYZ manufacted to bullsh1t government safety standard ABC...

Notice the study was Funded by an Insurance Co? and no, i dont believe the Ins Co are concerned about our well being and safety, at least not in the terms we'd like to think they should be.

Wont be too long before you have to be wearing DayGlo all over to get a reasonable Insurance premium.
Yeah I know it sounds pessimistic, and yet another "choice" taken away unless your willing to financially compromise in order to retain the choice, but tell me this isnt going to impact in some way what you pay for Insurance?

I can understand and accept that Rider Training is "rewarded" with lesser premiums, (after they were hiked), but in todays world of institutional greed, you see premiums being hiked based on any old reason. Yes, protective gear is a good to have, but it IS a choice to have it, and wether or not it is more or less protective than other gear shouldnt be treated as a principle factor in determining Ins premiums, but it will be.....

Fair enough that the Ins Co is accepting your risk and they want to mitigate the risk as much as possible, but we're already paying them to accept the risk, and continually adding conditional terms to the policy just so the Ins Co can wash thier hands of the risk you pay for them to assume is just plain greedy...

rant done, sorry, I hate greed in all forms and Insurance companies are the penultimate of greed....but they are a necessary evil, unfortunately, and I can see the results of a worthwhile and informative study being used in all the wrong ways.

 

Personally I think the result from this study makes sense. Common Sense!
But, As always it's a choice each of us has to make every time we ride.

 

I'm actually a bit disappointed in the study. Was hoping to see if there was any objective analysis of which material was better (leather [cow/buffalo/kangaroo], cordura, kevlar, or blend). Have been looking for this for a few weeks now and everyone keeps going back to the Cycle mag study from 1988. Hell, I remember reading that when it first came out and I was a senior in High School.
There has got to be something more recent out there, especially in light of the newer materials!

 

And I thought loud pipes saved lives.

 

http://www.motoport.com/save-your-hide

 

Great. Another study for our "government protectors" to place in their arsenal for their future mandates that will further take the wind out of our faces on the open-road.

 

Curious? Why were you not wearing gloves? I see this sometimes and I just put it down to inexperienced rider. Don't think of you as being inexperienced---.

 

Listen to her summary at the end. She is not supporting a mandate at all. Just better quality standards as 25% of motorcycle gear failed in crashes. Also better consumer labeling as to the protective ability of the garment so people can make more informed choices.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlovD...layer_embedded

 

In a completely unrelated study, 200lb mammals were dropped on a giant, concrete belt sander at 70mph. Surprisingly, the empirical results clearly indicated that uncovered body parts, especially those with joints, were significantly abraded.

[Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.....]

 

In this case it's your insurance protectors who don't like losing the bet they made with you.