Modern Vespa

You would be surprised, actually. The topic of helmet laws (in particular) tends to incite political BS. I wouldn't have guessed it, but there you go.

And that's why we can't have nice things.

AFAIK, the subject of Toreador Pants (and other armor-related topics) has never drifted toward politics.

AFAIK, the subject of Toreador Pants (and other armor-related topics) has never drifted toward politics.

If he didn't want "armor is pointless" to be the takeaway he coulda crafted it differently.

But we can talk about helmet safety and standards all day long without getting into laws and government and politics. Safety is safety, politics are politics.

I rewatched the video to get a better handle on what was actually said after all the chatter. The first time I watched the video I saw it as an extension of Ryan's other videos questioning gear via the standards by which they are made. It just seemed to be another "Are the standards really good enough?" video. On the second time through, I'm convinced the same thing.

Did he perhaps go a little far by saying he's taking his armor out? Maybe. We all know there are those out there who will immediately say, "If it's good enough for Ryan, it's good enough for me." That's dangerous.

But what I appreciated was this bit :

Paul says the standard for motorcyclist limb joint impact protectors set unadventurous requirements but were what the industry supported. Remember that. The explanation was that the standards requirements were minimum. Manufacturers were free to develop higher performing products. The actuality is that in the mass Market where price point is critical there was and is little or no ambition or incentive to do better than the standard.

Again, what I took from the video, and I hope a lot of others did, is question the standards and what they mean. I've said it before, I've been in industry measurements and standards in the automotive industry for the majority of my life. I know how standards work. I know how testing works. I know how manufacturing works and I know very well how quality assurance works. And maybe that's my bias while watching the video, too, because I know they could all be better.

I am in no way going to take my armor out, because - like everyone else - I realize some armor is better than no armor. I mean, if it's truly pointless, let's all ride around in shorts and flip flops. Most people know better.

I'm not apologizing or defending the video or the statements in the video, because it's Ryan's videos questioning standards that had me re-evaluate my own gear and buy better gear. He has educated people on standards, what they mean and how that applies to their personal safety. And it opened a great discussion in the comments thread below the video. And I will continue shaking my fist at industries people rely on who could do better if they weren't all racing to the bottom on cost and maximizing profit. I know, I know ... a lot of that is market driven. That's a whole different discussion.

So, my 2¢.

We can even make it a race thing by calling on stereotypes about Canadians. Totally fair game.

Thats Anti-National, not Racism. You Canukstanians always get that wrong.

We can even make it a race thing by calling on stereotypes about Canadians. Totally fair game.

Thats Anti-National, not Racism. You Canukstanians always get that wrong.

Be careful, Znomit, this is a guy who pulled out the Ku Klux Klan in a curry hook thread.

Another interesting element with this is studies about mandating bicycle helmets. The argument against this is data shows that other vehicles take more care overtaking someone who does visually appear more vulnerable, but also quite often people feel too secure armoured up and so take a lot more risks which can sometimes outweigh the armour in the first place.
(...)

My experience riding dirt is
The more gear I wear, the faster I go & the more chances I take. More layers softens the blow & reduces the rash, Scrubbing out the dirt or picking out gravel sucks
(...)

Such a backwards forum.

"Risk Homeostasis is a theory which suggests that people typically adjust their behavior in response to perceived levels of risk to maintain a preferred level of risk that is non-zero."

There is a very interesting book on the subject called "Target Risk" by dr Gerald Wilde. Dr. Gerald J.S. Wilde was Professor of Psychology at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, born in the Netherlands in 1932.

It used to be free available, but unfortunately I cannot find a free download of the book anymore.

When everyone else is the problem, some introspection might be in order.

(which I think there's zero chance of happening).

Such a backwards forum.

Thanks!

https://safetyrisk.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Target-Risk-3-Free-Download.pdf

Does this explain why rugby players who smash into each other all day injure their heads less than American football players who smash into each other all day with helmets on?

…is it possible that there's a reason this forum can't seem to keep young people while not the case of the many other moto forums I'm on?

I think I might also be the only person under 40 who's on here daily... A generation glued to their screens, absent from this forum... In the spirit of introspection, is it possible that there's a reason this forum can't seem to keep young people while not the case of the many other moto forums I'm on?

We all wear a helmet most of us wear one as the consequences of head injuries can be detrimental to ones quality of life. Most scooter riders I see in NYC don't seem to be wearing any protective clothing while riding their Vespa's in and around town. Maybe they wouldn't wear a helmet either had it not been the law.
Don't know why we don't have protective clothing makers lobbying to make it the law to wear protective clothing not just helmets.

Another interesting element with this is studies about mandating bicycle helmets. The argument against this is data shows that other vehicles take more care overtaking someone who does visually appear more vulnerable, but also quite often people feel too secure armoured up and so take a lot more risks which can sometimes outweigh the armour in the first place.

Highlighting that armour doesn't help as much as people think, is a positive thing in this regard - if it encourages people to ride differently (more defensively).

It amazed me riding through Italy how I had a big heavy jacket full of armour, boots, gloves and heavy abrasion resistant jeans (while struggling in 37c temps 99f!), and the majority of people I saw were in linen shirts and shorts. I even passed someone with flip flops and shorts - no shirt or gloves!

It's just not worth taking your scoot to the corner store if you have to fully gear up gear and then gear back down when you get home

It's just not worth taking your scoot to the corner store if you have to fully gear up gear and then gear back down when you get home. Abrasion is no fun when it happens but as long as you've got a helmet on, abrasion generally isn't life changing for low speed accidents.

if you mean gear up like full racing leathers or full motocross than sure. But it only takes 30secs to stick a jacket and gloves on.