or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Bode's brother, motorcycle accident
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bode's brother, motorcycle accident - Page 3

post #61 of 88
You will have to speak up. My Sporty has straight pipes, no mufflers or baffles. Oh there is a 1/4-20 bolt threaded up from the bottom so if a cop tries to push his nightstick up the pipe to test for baffles the stick doesn't go but 2" in. Otherwise nothing else between the exhaust valves and open space. Make for easier breathing and higher performance. I used to have 4" baffles but as my hearing got worse and worse from riding I figured why bother, the noise isn't bothering me, and now I'm so deaf I don't even need the pipes putting the sound down and out behind my butt, I wouldn't hear it if I had upswept pipes outletting at my earlobes.

Actually I sold my Harley 23 years ago when I got back from that "little gathering" in Laconia. The $$ I got from the sale almost covered the attys fees, fines, court costs and by the end of this month I might even have my NH driving privileges back.
post #62 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaws
What’s up with those European riders? I’ve traveled in France a few times and it is crazy. The bikers skirt between lanes of traffic on a regular basis. Everywhere you go. An accident waiting to happen. You’ll be cruising down a rural, two-lane road with oncoming traffic and they go right down the middle. I think it might even be legal to do that over there…..anyone know?
It depends. In germany it's forbidden, and most germans riders stay behind cars. (actualy, german car drivers try to block you when you lane-split...) In most countries it's either legal or tolerated. In France it's not legal but widely accepted and tolerated by the police. Actualy, it's not that dangerous because it's expected by everyone. So most cars pull on the side to let bikes pass. That's how bikers are expected to ride by the average cager. And everyone is happy, as it makes for a less heavy traffic. there are implicit rules for it, as you lane-split to the right of the far left lane on a multi lane highway, you pass in the middle of a 2 ways street (not to the right), you can get in front of the cars at a stop light but you got to move qick etc. Of course, accident do happen, but car drivers are much more 'bike conscious'. Actualy, cagers are upset by bikers who don't lane split (germans for instance) ! Thay take too much space, and it's just weird...
Oh, and you should try Italy, where it's cars that go right down the middle...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stache
You will have to speak up. My Sporty has straight pipes, no mufflers or baffles. Oh there is a 1/4-20 bolt threaded up from the bottom so if a cop tries to push his nightstick up the pipe to test for baffles the stick doesn't go but 2" in. Otherwise nothing else between the exhaust valves and open space. Make for easier breathing and higher performance. I used to have 4" baffles but as my hearing got worse and worse from riding I figured why bother, the noise isn't bothering me, and now I'm so deaf I don't even need the pipes putting the sound down and out behind my butt, I wouldn't hear it if I had upswept pipes outletting at my earlobes.

Actually I sold my Harley 23 years ago when I got back from that "little gathering" in Laconia. The $$ I got from the sale almost covered the attys fees, fines, court costs and by the end of this month I might even have my NH driving privileges back.
post #63 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by philippeR
Further more, motorcycles helmets are strictly regulated, by the SNELL standard in the US, and designed to minimize the risk of spinal injuries.
Don't be making up shit. The Snell standards are not required in the U.S. or Canada. And they do not require design features that impact on spinal injuries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Becker, Executive Director, Snell Foundation
There is no real consideration of spinal injuries
in Snell standards. As nearly as anyone can determine, helmets are neck
injury neutral. They are there to protect the brain but may not be able to
provide any real protection for other body parts.
post #64 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by philippeR
It depends. In germany it's forbidden, and most germans riders stay behind cars. (actualy, german car drivers try to block you when you lane-split...) In most countries it's either legal or tolerated. In France it's not legal but widely accepted and tolerated by the police. Actualy, it's not that dangerous because it's expected by everyone. So most cars pull on the side to let bikes pass. That's how bikers are expected to ride by the average cager. And everyone is happy, as it makes for a less heavy traffic. there are implicit rules for it, as you lane-split to the right of the far left lane on a multi lane highway, you pass in the middle of a 2 ways street (not to the right), you can get in front of the cars at a stop light but you got to move qick etc. Of course, accident do happen, but car drivers are much more 'bike conscious'. Actualy, cagers are upset by bikers who don't lane split (germans for instance) ! Thay take too much space, and it's just weird...
Oh, and you should try Italy, where it's cars that go right down the middle...
On California freeways, you can lane split between lanes 1 and 2 (from the left to right). I guess the CHPs like it bor the same reason that Phllippe says it works in France. And the cars are aware of it. I'm not saying it's safe! But it works.

Canyons, that R1200RT is my dream bike. I test rode it, but didn't quite have the $18G that day.
post #65 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowSnake
Don't be making up shit. The Snell standards are not required in the U.S. or Canada. And they do not require design features that impact on spinal injuries.
Poor phrasing. English is not my first language.
You're right, motorcycles helmets are not designed to reduce spinal injuries, but to not hurt the spine. I should have said "designed to minimize their impact on spinal injuries". Which was the point previously raised : that helmets increase the risk of spinal injuries. They are not.
As for the SNELL standard, I thought it was mandatory (in the states where helmets are mandatory of course...). In Europe, to be street legal, a helmet has to be homologated under the ECE R22-05 standard. My bad.
Now, most 'serious' brand sell helmet homologated under those standards, don't they ?
Thanks for your corrections. I think I'll keep my helmet on.
post #66 of 88
The states have a DOT (Department of transportation) standard that is required by law.

Many people prefer the Snell standard. It is my understanding that Snell works better than DOT for high impact injuries (as in very high speeds), but it is possible to compromise some of the lower impact perfomance of the helmet in order to perform better at the Snell test. Many people simply buy a helmet that passes both DOT and Snell standards.
post #67 of 88
I have a hard time feeling sympathetic for folks harmed in Motorcycle accidents. You know the risk when you get on one, yet you do so regardless. Every day on my commute to work I notice how stupidly people drive. Yet jackasses continue to ride motorcycles believing they are good drivers, and thus less open to catastrophy. Use your heads, people. You're essentially turning your body into a potential projectile! Couple that with concrete surroundings and you're going to suffer some horrendous consequences for your mistakes and the mistakes of others. Crap, at least when we ski we have a relatively soft, low friction surface on which to land.
post #68 of 88
Forrester: Not always true in the BC.. SOmetimes that soft stuff is sparsely spread between granite points!

Weems. I spent a time biking my way through the rockies on an R100 RT. Now, that was a great bike. (still is, if you can find one in good condition)
post #69 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
The states have a DOT (Department of transportation) standard that is required by law.

Many people prefer the Snell standard. It is my understanding that Snell works better than DOT for high impact injuries (as in very high speeds),
My understanding (limited) is that the Snell standard requires a stronger helmet (needs to survive higher energy multiple impacts). This stronger helmet causes more g's to be transferred to the head in all accidents. The helmet will survive a higher speed accident better than a DOT helmet BUT other injurys from the higher speed accident will likely result in death anyways. In lower speed accidents the DOT helmet will transmit less energy to the head resulting in less injury.

Based on this I look for DOT only. Down side of DOT only is there is no independent testing (manufacturers self certify) so fly-by-night makes could be useless.
post #70 of 88
[quote=Forrester]I have a hard time feeling sympathetic for folks harmed in Motorcycle accidents. You know the risk when you get on one, yet you do so regardless. /QUOTE]

Same is said of skiers, snowboarders, sky divers, skin divers, private pilots, surfers, swimmers, kayakers, car drivers, softball players, runners, etc.

I feel sympathy for anyone who gets injured who is responsibly participating in any recreational activity. I have no sympathy for people who live boring lives because they are afraid to do an activity they might enjoy solely on the basis of its injury potential.

Anyone participating in any activity should make themselves aware of the risks and take them into account while living life to its fullest.
post #71 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRAGMATICSKIER
My understanding (limited) is that the Snell standard requires a stronger helmet (needs to survive higher energy multiple impacts). This stronger helmet causes more g's to be transferred to the head in all accidents. The helmet will survive a higher speed accident better than a DOT helmet BUT other injurys from the higher speed accident will likely result in death anyways. In lower speed accidents the DOT helmet will transmit less energy to the head resulting in less injury.

Based on this I look for DOT only. Down side of DOT only is there is no independent testing (manufacturers self certify) so fly-by-night makes could be useless.
Sounds like you made a very pragmatic choice; most accidents do happen at lower speeds. If you do a lot or riding at high speed I would reconsider though.

I put my money in a top of the line Shoei, not just for the safety aspect but for other reasons as well; a helmet makes a very big difference to your whole experience. Don't bet on those other injuries doing you in; I've survived a 100+mph dismount with surprisingly minimal injuries. I certainly would never buy a helmet that didn't pass the low-impact test when helmets that pass both tests when they are available.

The Snell helmet causes lower gs at high impacts, but some that pass Snell and not DOT pass more gs through at the lower impacts. Ie. you get a more severe concusion from the Greg-Busy slow-speed bump your head on a curb with the Snell only, in return for getting only a concussion from that buck-twenty low-side (He wasn't wearing a helmet BTW).
post #72 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forrester
Crap, at least when we ski we have a relatively soft, low friction surface on which to land.
Tell that to Sonny Bono!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRAGMATICSKIER
This stronger helmet causes more g's to be transferred to the head in all accidents.
What's all this about DOT having advantages over Snell? Not just you, PRAG, the others as well.

Listen, if you're going to post facts, or your "understanding" of facts, take the time to check them. One would think that with all the information available on the internet, people would be better informed. But threads like this make me wonder if the spreading of disinformation hasn't made web surfers worse off.

The fact is, a helmet that meets Snell standards does meet DOT standards. In fact, as was mentioned above, since there may be no independent testing of DOT helmets, the only way to be sure a helmet meets DOT, is to look for the Snell label. Snell does testing of every helmet model that bears their label (excepting possible fraudulent application of the label).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snell Memorial Foundation
Around 1990 a few magazine articles appeared questioning whether Snell certified helmets met the DOT standard. Some went as far as claiming that it was impossible to meet both standards with the same helmet but others were more cautious and said only that meeting both was very difficult.

In fact, Snell certified helmets do meet DOT. If you want to be sure that your helmet meets the DOT standard, get a Snell certified helmet. Manufacturers apply for and earn Snell certification because they care about quality. These are the very manufacturers for whom the honor system works. A Snell sticker is your best assurance that the helmet meets both Snell and DOT. Without our sticker, it's purely a gamble that the helmet meets any standard at all.
Specifically, the DOT standard requires no more than 400G's of deceleration of the headform in testing. Snell requires no more than 300 G's of deceleration. These limits apply at any speed! Your best bet in an accident of any speed is a Snell helmet.
For more info regarding the differences between Snell, DOT, BSI (British standard), and European standards (that one's for you philipe), check here:
http://www.smf.org/articles/mcomp2.html
post #73 of 88
Snow snake There was an extensive study done on Snell vs Dot standards in Motorcycle helmets. I don't have the link to the study but if you would like I might be about to find it. The conclusion was that for a low speed accident you would be better off with a Dot standard helmet. In a high speed high impact accident you would with the higher standard Snell helmet.
post #74 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowSnake
Tell that to Sonny Bono!
What's all this about DOT having advantages over Snell? Not just you, PRAG, the others as well.

Listen, if you're going to post facts, or your "understanding" of facts, take the time to check them.

Specifically, the DOT standard requires no more than 400G's of deceleration of the headform in testing. Snell requires no more than 300 G's of deceleration. These limits apply at any speed! Your best bet in an accident of any speed is a Snell helmet.
For more info regarding the differences between Snell, DOT, BSI (British standard), and European standards (that one's for you philipe), check here:
http://www.smf.org/articles/mcomp2.html
Snell is hardly an unbiased source of information. While Snell is a not-for-profit foundation studying ways of preventing brain injuries they do make money from every helmet sold with the Snell label so of course their web site is going to tout their standard and yes every Snell helmet sold in the US also meets DOT requirements but the needs of the Snell test result in a stiffer than necessary helmet.

The Snell impacts of 150/110 joules of energy (for first and second impacts) are much more severe then the DOT 90/67 joules. And while it would seem that the Snell limit of 300g’s is better than the DOT limit of 400g’s, the DOT limits the time the forces are over 150g and 250g. These time limits and the lower initial energy in fact limit g forces to a maximum of ~250g.

More importantly in third party testing (see) http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/hatz/
DOT only helmets transmitted less g’s than DOT/Snell helmets in drops on both flat and spherical surfaces.

The way I see it if you know your going to have a concentrated high energy impact you would want the Snell but in the most common accidents (according the Hurt and EU studies) most DOT only helmets would provide better protection. Of course this is just my opinion
post #75 of 88
Pragmaticskier, you beat me to the http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/hatz/ link.
I am glad I had the Snell (high impact multiple hit)standard helmet when I crashed; the albeit flat pavement had a series of sharp-edged potholes in it. Yeah, I know, I should not have been speeding on a run-down back concession, but I was a squid.
post #76 of 88
Snowsnake, Pragmaticskier, very interesting reads ! I must say I'm not that impressed by the Snell document (can you say 'biased'...), that does not adress convincily several questions (the irrelevance of HIC, the 'oblique' test...), but still. I'm also surprised that, in the motorcycle online test, the very same helmet is used for several tests. I'm quite confident that a shock does not affect the spot of impact only, but the whole shell integrity.
But I'm actualy not able to tell who's right anyway.
What I've found interesting and that I've already noticed in similar tests run by euro magazines, is that low-cost polycarbonate helmets may perform just as well as high-end fiber models. Fiber models are usualy lighter, have a better fit and finish, which is important and may justify the extra $, but they are not safer.
post #77 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRAGMATICSKIER
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forrester
I have a hard time feeling sympathetic for folks harmed in Motorcycle accidents. You know the risk when you get on one, yet you do so regardless.
Same is said of skiers, snowboarders, sky divers, skin divers, private pilots, surfers, swimmers, kayakers, car drivers, softball players, runners, etc.

I feel sympathy for anyone who gets injured who is responsibly participating in any recreational activity. I have no sympathy for people who live boring lives because they are afraid to do an activity they might enjoy solely on the basis of its injury potential.

Anyone participating in any activity should make themselves aware of the risks and take them into account while living life to its fullest.
I agree with Prag and would like to add something futher. I feel sorry for stupid people as a lack of intelligence would be one of the worse curses of mankind. If someone injures themselves because they are stupid, that would be pitiable in my mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by philippeR
If my helmet may save me a thousand times and hurt me once, it looks like a safety device to me.
A motorcycle helmet does nothing for you until you have a collision with a stationary object or another vehicle. I have gone down a few times on Motorcycles due to road conditions. The helmet I was wearing didn't help me at all. Protective Leathers would have. Most M.C. Helmets do absolutely nothing in the way of protection for their users.
COACH13
Now I could easily be wrong about it, but I saw the impact that Stingly suffered, not only in the actual live action but in the replays. As I remember he was hit by a hand not a helmet. TheOakland Raider that hit him, Art Tatum was famous for headshots with forearms and fists as I remember, not spearing. He was a defensive player, usually a line backer, who specialized in pass coverage in the medium zone. Forearm shots were commonly used by defensive linemen until it was found that hairline fractures to the lower arm resulted. High forearm shots can be often used in pass coverage and disguised as attempts to catch the type of high velocity passes which are thrown in the medium zones. Spearing with helmets may be a tackling technique, but usually it results from over-zealous blocking by offensive players. It is almost never occurs during pass coverage. Spearing does occur when pass receivers are in possession of the ball. If you can back up your dispute of my claim, I would appreciate it. However, the plastic and metal football helmet like the modern boxing glove were designed to prevent contusions and do little to prevent concussions or spinal injuries. The idea that a plastic helmet will save you from serious injury due to football or other high impacts in sport certainly does not confirm to the statistics.
post #78 of 88

??

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATskier
I feel sorry for stupid people as a lack of intelligence would be one of the worse curses of mankind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATskier
Most M.C. Helmets do absolutely nothing in the way of protection for their users.
:
post #79 of 88
I have only one thing to say Since I am still recovering from my motorcycle accident 4 weeks ago, I am so F-ing glad I was wearing a helmet, leathers and gloves. Say what you will I would rather have the surface of that helmet and face plate skidding down the road then my face. The leathers saved my skin and the gloves saved my hands from looking like someone took a cheese grater to my body.
post #80 of 88
Utah49, get well quick. Glad you had gloves and protective clothing. Road rash is a serious injury, recovery from skin grafts are not quick. No matter how hot I never ride without full suit, heavy gloves and helmet, including stop and go traffic.

As to Snell/DOT; rereading my post I may have come down too hard on Snell. My main thoughts are any certified helmet is good and like any safety equipment - tell me what type of accident you're going to have and I'll tell you what you should be wearing.
post #81 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATskier
There's a highly mis-informed statement. First of all, the moto in N.H. isn't defended by the people working for the state there. They don't free many, and keep you for a quite long time. Second, a M.C. helmet won't prevent any lethal injuries. It might guarantee that you have an open casket, though. Finally, why would another helmet discussion come up now? There's nothing in the press release that attributed his injuries to lack of a helmet, is there?
1. Here in CA, the first major side effect of the helmet law for motorcyclists was a huge decrease in the available donor organs--lots fewer brain dead 20-something bikers with good organs to harvest. It turns out, statistically, that lots of them didn't die once they got helmets.

2. I can type this only because I wear a helmet skiing. A few years ago, coming to a stop on a wide trail, I was hit from behind so hard that the guy broke my helmet with his chin, leaving me unconscious. That's the second time I got saved by a helmet on the hill. They are very good ideas.

3. That said, if you hit a tree or a concrete divider or a lift tower going over 30 mph, very bad things happen to you helmet or no.

SfDean.
post #82 of 88
First day that I wore a helmet, I slipped on an icy embankment. The skis that were on my shoulder went ... up ... then down .... dead center.

Thanks Boeri!
post #83 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfdean
1. Here in CA, the first major side effect of the helmet law for motorcyclists was a huge decrease in the available donor organs--lots fewer brain dead 20-something bikers with good organs to harvest. It turns out, statistically, that lots of them didn't die once they got helmets.
They may have been better off dead if your statement is true, but I would like to see some kind of proof to your claim. I was told by a policeman in Ma. that all a helmet guarantees is an open casket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfdean
2. I can type this only because I wear a helmet skiing. A few years ago, coming to a stop on a wide trail, I was hit from behind so hard that the guy broke my helmet with his chin, leaving me unconscious. That's the second time I got saved by a helmet on the hill. They are very good ideas.
All this proves nothing. You may not have the experience skiing to be able to discern dangerous locations to stop. The same may have happened to you, helmet or not. Your personal experiences all rely on variables which don't make arguments convincing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfdean

3. That said, if you hit a tree or a concrete divider or a lift tower going over 30 mph, very bad things happen to you helmet or no.

SfDean.
You didn't say anything.
post #84 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATskier
There's a highly mis-informed statement. First of all, the moto in N.H. isn't defended by the people working for the state there. They don't free many, and keep you for a quite long time. Second, a M.C. helmet won't prevent any lethal injuries. It might guarantee that you have an open casket, though. Finally, why would another helmet discussion come up now? There's nothing in the press release that attributed his injuries to lack of a helmet, is there?
.

Well the press has now confirmed he hurt his brain. I can't believe there are still people who don't believe tht helmets are a big net gain in a crash. We've known this since the first Hurt report. It ain't gona make you superman, but it sure helps.
post #85 of 88
He's a very talented snowboarder featured in Warren Miller's latest film. I hope he can get back to normal. It could happen on the road or on the mountain. Be careful and wear your helmet!
post #86 of 88
The More I read At skiers post the more I think he already had an accident with head trauma without a Helmet.
Pragmaticskier. If you are looking for a lightweight summer cycling jacket check out Brusch from Israel. The jackets are used by the Israel Motorcycle police. They have tesimonials from around the world from riders who were saved from road rash by the Kevlar. I have a jacket by them that is made of Kevlar and cool max. It has body armor in all the right places. I have worn it in 100 degree heat and was cool as a clam. My leather jacket is well vented but still hot on days above 80 degrees.
post #87 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATskier
A motorcycle helmet does nothing for you until you have a collision with a stationary object or another vehicle. I have gone down a few times on Motorcycles due to road conditions. The helmet I was wearing didn't help me at all. Protective Leathers would have. Most M.C. Helmets do absolutely nothing in the way of protection for their users.
Ahem, collision with stationary objects or vehicles are a quite common occurence in road crashes, aren't they ?
If your point is that a helmet does not provide protection against lightning struck, floods or STDs, I think we both agree. Otherwise, I'm now suspecting I'm missing some kind of sophisticated humor. Because I literaly don't understand what you're talking about... :
post #88 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by philippeR
Ahem, collision with stationary objects or vehicles are a quite common occurence in road crashes, aren't they ?
If your point is that a helmet does not provide protection against lightning struck, floods or STDs, I think we both agree. Otherwise, I'm now suspecting I'm missing some kind of sophisticated humor. Because I literaly don't understand what you're talking about... :
I think he is saying that he, being a well coordinated athlete was able to avoid hitting his head on the ground, or on a curb or any other object when he fell (unlike greg bussy and others). I think he also believes that had he hit an object (other car rock-cut etc.) the injuries would have been so severe that he would have died with or without a helmet.

The evidence has been well documented, helmets help in a lot of cases.

In my high-speed get-off, I was very glad that I had a full-face helmet as I was staring at that stream of gravel my handlebar was streaming towards my nose when my bike reached the gravel shoulder. When I flipped over onto my shoulder blades to ride out the slide, my helmetted head did make contact with a a few pothole edges. I do not recall hitting my head in my lower-speed (about 55-60mph) fall, but my helmet was marked up pretty good showing that it had saved me from an impact.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Bode's brother, motorcycle accident