What/how to fall?

[dru9]

yeah right, most riders do 7 to 8 a year.

I said many, not most. This includes me.

[Rob MacLennan]

nonetheless, emphasizing years rather than k's can also translate into zero learning. Where you ride is important to gaining certain skills for sure.

And distance ridden can mean absolutely nothing, with respect to skill, also. Neither is a very good indicator of skill. They're just easy to point to. They do nothing to show off-road experience, which can be very handy on the street, track time, basic education, or advanced rider training. A 5 year rider who puts on less than 2,000 Km per year but who also does a FAST course as a refresher at the beginning of the season, does track days, and takes a Humber Pro Rider course is someone I would put money on for skill, before a 10 year rider who has put on 20,000 Km a year, while commuting to work.

[MacDoc]

The crumple zone is extremely small and frankly the bike may slow down but your body will continue forward effectively at the speed of impact.

The deceleration curve will not launch you immediately or all - we're talking milliseconds here - you are connected to the bike by boots, arms and inner thighs so the secondary collision is you with the rapidly slowing mcycle - hell you are welded in if you are at maximum braking.
Indeed your thighs might bend the bars and indeed armour some impact protection - if you say hit the vehicle with your shoulder.

My point is staying with the bike now effectlvely has two crumple zones in play, the car surface, the bike front end ( don't discount that - it's perhaps the most effective one as tire,/rim then forks, then tupperware has to crumple and it all helps.

The rider I bought my seat from hit a 150 lb deer broadside at 60 mph with no chance of braking.
Now a deer is a not a car but that's a pretty vicious impact no matter how you slice it.

He killed the deer, stayed upright and rode the bike home where upon it was written off. Lots of damage to the tupperware but hell he kept it upright despite that deceleration of hitting something quite solid at that speed.

Looking at the photos it showed me how much damage a 600 lb tourer with full fairing could absorb.
Actually made me feel a bit better cruising around at night on the back roads.

In reality - I think it would happen all to fast to even think about some Tarzan swan dive over the car. I'f just hang on tight and if the bones broke well hell that's a painful and strong bit of crumple zone.

What kills is either head trauma or internal organs continuing to move when the body stops. Reducing that G spike to the body is just critical - there was that guy on the rocket sled that withstood something in the order of 160 Gs..
To a point humans are pretty durable. Human and bike together I think gives you a bit better odds of surviving.

[Rob MacLennan]

The deceleration curve will not launch you immediately or all - we're talking milliseconds here - you are connected to the bike by boots, arms and inner thighs so the secondary collision is you with the rapidly slowing mcycle - hell you are welded in if you are at maximum braking.
Indeed your thighs might bend the bars and indeed armour some impact protection - if you say hit the vehicle with your shoulder.

My point is staying with the bike now effectlvely has two crumple zones in play, the car surface, the bike front end ( don't discount that - it's perhaps the most effective one as tire,/rim then forks, then tupperware has to crumple and it all helps.

The rider I bought my seat from hit a 150 lb deer broadside at 60 mph with no chance of braking.
Now a deer is a not a car but that's a pretty vicious impact no matter how you slice it.

He killed the deer, stayed upright and rode the bike home where upon it was written off. Lots of damage to the tupperware but hell he kept it upright despite that deceleration of hitting something quite solid at that speed.

Looking at the photos it showed me how much damage a 600 lb tourer with full fairing could absorb.
Actually made me feel a bit better cruising around at night on the back roads.

In reality - I think it would happen all to fast to even think about some Tarzan swan dive over the car. I'f just hang on tight and if the bones broke well hell that's a painful and strong bit of crumple zone.

What kills is either head trauma or internal organs continuing to move when the body stops. Reducing that G spike to the body is just critical - there was that guy on the rocket sled that withstood something in the order of 160 Gs..
To a point humans are pretty durable. Human and bike together I think gives you a bit better odds of surviving.

As someone who has experienced the phenomenon I can tell you that your crotch and gas tank also become a crumple zone, which is far from ideal.

[ZX600]

From an insurance perspective hit the car if you know your bike is going to be laid down! Otherwise you could be financially responsible for the bike and could be charged too for careless driving.

This is not true, and its also bad advice.

It is sad but unfortunately its true. Cops can and will change you with careless if you crash on your own

What you are saying is that if you had a choice between crashing into a car and not hitting it, you would hit it because of "insurance" or "might get a ticket" reasons?

No, all I am saying is that you are mistaken by thinking that a cop will not give you a ticket for careless if you crash without having a car involved

What I chose to do or not it is not relevant

[OpenGambit]

No, all I am saying is that you are mistaken by thinking that a cop will not give you a ticket for careless if you crash without having a car involved

What I chose to do or not it is not relevant

talk about missing the point.
Go crash into whatever you want. The suggestion that someone should be thinking about insurance / ticket implications when they are in that kind of situation is complete garbage.

Not to mention that an absolute statement like a cop "can and will" give you a ticket if you crash on your own is completely false.

What do you know - proof: http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum...ooter-troubles

[VicRR]

The deceleration curve will not launch you immediately or all - we're talking milliseconds here - you are connected to the bike by boots, arms and inner thighs so the secondary collision is you with the rapidly slowing mcycle - hell you are welded in if you are at maximum braking.
Indeed your thighs might bend the bars and indeed armour some impact protection - if you say hit the vehicle with your shoulder....

MacDoc.. I get where you're coming from; with mass vs mass and idea of a crumple zone. On a bike you are two separate mass bodies. In a car you are 1. Reason shifting weight on a bike makes lots of riding difference. In a car your mass is relativly stable and glued by the seat belt & seat. When a rider crashes the rider mass and motorcycle mass act independently. Example whey when people fall in turns they go in a separate direction than the bike.


I for one have never come across any mention of motorcycle crumple zone design like in a car. Last i heard motorbikes are not crash tested or have any such crash safety standards..If i missed this tell me where to read> A few high end tourrers have impact design but it's different than a car that folds around occupants.
-Most cases I've heard of ..a rider does not catapult but rather launches directly ahead. On impact all force is taking you forward not up. Perhaps extreme braking e.g rear wheel is off the ground that would cause a launch on impact.


I realize under hard braking and the split seconds; what i suggest may be impossible. But if rising up is the last thing you do maybe you clear the car. Cars are not designed to protect what they hit.

[ItIsWhatItIs]

And distance ridden can mean absolutely nothing, with respect to skill, also. Neither is a very good indicator of skill. They're just easy to point to. They do nothing to show off-road experience, which can be very handy on the street, track time, basic education, or advanced rider training. A 5 year rider who puts on less than 2,000 Km per year but who also does a FAST course as a refresher at the beginning of the season, does track days, and takes a Humber Pro Rider course is someone I would put money on for skill, before a 10 year rider who has put on 20,000 Km a year, while commuting to work.

Then you are not riding your bike to work properely. I ride on the aggressive side and I don't stay behind cars who don't keep a constant speed, won't pass slower cars, or cars who create traffic. Experience is skill, providing you are doing it right to begin with. The more experience you gain, the more skillful you become. The more k's you do the more you learn about your riding and your bike.

[MacDoc]

No they are not design with crumple zones but reality is there is a crumple zone on mcycles in the form of the shocks and tupperware.



On the slow motion section you will see how much penetration into the car and the crumpling of the front the bike - all that helps reduce the spike.




and this

http://www.break.com/index/motorcycle_crash_test.html

Interesting solution - you can certainly see the penetration of the bike into the car but the air bag shift the riders forward momentum vertically. That's actually not a bad idea as it's the one form of crash that it could very well be a lifesaver in.

[psycho44]

talk about missing the point.
Go crash into whatever you want. The suggestion that someone should be thinking about insurance / ticket implications when they are in that kind of situation is complete garbage.

Not to mention that an absolute statement like a cop "can and will" give you a ticket if you crash on your own is completely false.

What do you know - proof: http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum...ooter-troubles

That's because the e-biker didn't get away fast enough.

[Rob MacLennan]

Then you are not riding your bike to work properely. I ride on the aggressive side and I don't stay behind cars who don't keep a constant speed, won't pass slower cars, or cars who create traffic. Experience is skill, providing you are doing it right to begin with. The more experience you gain, the more skillful you become. The more k's you do the more you learn about your riding and your bike.

Ah, so you're saying that you don't ride in Southern Ontario.

You can't really ride 'on the aggressive side' anywhere within a hundred Kms of the GTA, anymore. Haven't been able to for the better part of 10 years now. You can ride on the dangerous side, but that's not the same thing. It's also not the same thing as developing real riding skill. That takes thinking about what you do, not throwing yourself out into traffic and hoping that you survive, to get to your destination. It might do wonders for your reflexes, but not the actual mechanics of riding.

[ZX600]

talk about missing the point.
Go crash into whatever you want. The suggestion that someone should be thinking about insurance / ticket implications when they are in that kind of situation is complete garbage.

Not to mention that an absolute statement like a cop "can and will" give you a ticket if you crash on your own is completely false.

What do you know - proof: http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum...ooter-troubles

Just go back and read before you respond, you making a fool out of yourself

I know someone that low sided and bike hit the guardrail, he got charged with careless and got a bill for repainting the guardrail

[OpenGambit]

Try taking your own advice.

Grats, you know a guy that got a ticket. I know a guy that didn't get a ticket, so much for that "can and will".

every time someone asks about crashing some guy posts the ridiculous myth that its better to hit the car than avoid it because of insurance/ticket reasons. That is horsecrap, it has always been horsecrap and it always will be.

[ZX600]

This is not true, and its also bad advice.

So much for "this is not true" and "it may happen"

[ItIsWhatItIs]

Ah, so you're saying that you don't ride in Southern Ontario.

You can't really ride 'on the aggressive side' anywhere within a hundred Kms of the GTA, anymore. Haven't been able to for the better part of 10 years now. You can ride on the dangerous side, but that's not the same thing. It's also not the same thing as developing real riding skill. That takes thinking about what you do, not throwing yourself out into traffic and hoping that you survive, to get to your destination. It might do wonders for your reflexes, but not the actual mechanics of riding.

Yes I am in Southern Ontario. I can't drive my car like I ride my bike. The passing radius on my bike is shorter (Without breaking the 20 over threshold). Traffic is often created by a driver who wants to drive at or below the posted speed limit. Traffic further develops when you have oncoming vehicles doing this also. On my bike this traffic is a non issue as I pass these drivers when the opportunity presents itself (always does). What is dangerous is a matter of perspective. The most dangerous drivers are the ones who slow down long before they signal to turn left in turn creating traffic. There are many hazards to be on the look out for.

[VicRR]

...car but the air bag shift the riders forward momentum vertically. That's actually not a bad idea as it's the one form of crash that it could very well be a lifesaver in.

Ah i see what you mean; my point being where the rider impacts head 1st, it's better to rise up on pegs/jump before impact .... Thanks for the vids; it's great to see what happens in slow mo.. Airbag seems good on a moto.. Interesting it launched him vertically seem like a safe trajectory. But air bag only mitigate a very specific type of crash front impact. An ejection seat with an imminent danger sensor would b a better safety feature.

[dru9]

Yes I am in Southern Ontario. I can't drive my car like I ride my bike. The passing radius on my bike is shorter (Without breaking the 20 over threshold). Traffic is often created by a driver who wants to drive at or below the posted speed limit. Traffic further develops when you have oncoming vehicles doing this also. On my bike this traffic is a non issue as I pass these drivers when the opportunity presents itself (always does). What is dangerous is a matter of perspective. The most dangerous drivers are the ones who slow down long before they signal to turn left in turn creating traffic. There are many hazards to be on the look out for.

Thanks for the tutorial on traffic. All along I thought it was because this city is crammed with cars during rush hour.

[Rob MacLennan]

Yes I am in Southern Ontario. I can't drive my car like I ride my bike. The passing radius on my bike is shorter (Without breaking the 20 over threshold). Traffic is often created by a driver who wants to drive at or below the posted speed limit. Traffic further develops when you have oncoming vehicles doing this also. On my bike this traffic is a non issue as I pass these drivers when the opportunity presents itself (always does). What is dangerous is a matter of perspective. The most dangerous drivers are the ones who slow down long before they signal to turn left in turn creating traffic. There are many hazards to be on the look out for.

While I can agree that a good number of drivers don't understand the concept of what a turn signal is for, I can't agree regarding what is dangerous. Dangerous actions are dangerous, period, and the only difference is in what is perceived as an acceptable risk. That's not the same thing. It also doesn't reflect actual skill.

[Ikan]

.... The more experience you gain, the more skillful you become. The more k's you do the more you learn about your riding and your bike.

Not true for a lot of riders/drivers.
Watching the tv show Canada's Worst Driver bears witness to the fact that some people just 'do not have it' and do not learn.
It is sad to know they actually were provided with a valid driver's licence.

[ItIsWhatItIs]

Not true for a lot of riders/drivers.
Watching the tv show Canada's Worst Driver bears witness to the fact that some people just 'do not have it' and do not learn.
It is sad to know they actually were provided with a valid driver's licence.

Perhaps, I can only speak for myself. As for others, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.