Thoughts About Riding Side By Side

I have had at least two people suggest to me that riding side by side on motorcycles is the best way to ride together (as opposed to staggered formation.)

First I will note:

In BC you are prohibited from riding more than two abreast, but two abreast is OK.
http://drivesmartbc.ca/miscellaneous/topic/riding-motorcycles-and-bicycles-side-side
http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/road-safety/motorcycles.htm

Illegal in Alberta
http://transportation.alberta.ca/1335.htm

Illegal in Newfoundland
http://www.servicenl.gov.nl.ca/drivers/DriversandVehicles/driverlicensing/demeritpoints.html

I wonder if three wheelers are officially motorcycles when it comes to riding side by side?  I've never seen two riding abreast.

OK In Australia, but not more than 1.5 m apart, and only in the left lane on a two lane road. (JK, but true also)
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Driver-guide/Sharing-the-road-with-other-road-users/Motorbikes.aspx

OK IN USA except for states beginning with V
http://www.leaguelineup.com/miscinfo.asp?menuid=39&url=wwamo&sid=874327068

PROS (of riding side by side)
- keep together in traffic, without getting separated by four way stops, and traffic lights
- bigger visual impression on other drivers to make them see you
- Faster for either one to hand signal the other (Unless you have radio communication)


CONS
- No escape path on one side for sudden swerving avoidance
- Requires a much greater level of teamwork and training (Which most riders do not have, although they may think they do)
- sometimes illegal

Suggestion:
Without extensive training, do not ride side by side, except I sometimes get pretty close to it for going through traffic lights and four way stops (Assuming this tactic is understood ahead of time), and that the normal staggered position is immediately resumed.  Otherwise, just ride in staggered formation.

As a rule, I don't do any activity where I must depend on perfect teamwork with another person or we both die:

Exceptions noted:
2. If I'm going to die anyway, and said teamwork is my only hope of survival.
3. This activity is insanely fun.
4. I am going to benefit in some major way from this later.

Picture: I'm not really sure if those girls are exactly side by side, but they are violating a lot of other laws.  And anyway, I don't care that much if they are side by side or not.

Don't Tell Me What it Feels Like

I can tell that winter has returned, because now instead of giving the real temperature on TV, they start telling us what it "Feels Like".  And "feels like" is actually just an easy to understand replacement phrase for "Wind chill factor".

According to Wikipedia,

"Wind chill (popularly wind chill factor) is the perceived decrease in air temperature felt by the body on exposed skin due to the flow of cold air."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_chill

Scientists have worked out the wind chill factor temperature for each degree of real temperature, and at each increase of wind speed.  Wind chill temperature tells you how quickly you will get frostbite if your bare skin is exposed to that wind.  The wind chill calculation is helpful for people who are at risk of frostbite.

But, in my opinion, the wind chill readings are not well understood by ordinary mortals such as meteorologists and weather announcers on TV.  "Wind chill factor of -30c" does not mean "Feels like -30c".

When I was a kid up north walking to school in the middle of winter, my mother used to always tell me the temperature before I left the house.  She would say "It's 30 below zero!!"  as I walked out the door without either hat or gloves.  Thanks to her constant reminders, I have a pretty good idea what it "Feels Like" at all the different temperatures and wind speeds, while walking without a hat or gloves and my ears in the early stages of frostbite.  It is not what the weatherman says it "Feels Like".  A real -35c feels a lot colder than a wind chill factor of -35c.  Why?  If you have a wind chill reading of -35, the "real temperature (i.e. the one showing on the "real" thermometer) is only -19 when the wind is 50 kph.  That means if you can get out of the wind, you will be much warmer (or less cold).  But if the real temperature is -35, you have no place to go, it is -35 everywhere.  If it is only a wind chill of -35, there are lots of ways to get out of the wind.  Walk behind a bigger person, change sides of the street. walk backwards, etc.  Additionally, if the wind happens to be coming from behind, you only need to walk a little faster, and you avoid the wind chill.  And I have not yet even put on my hat and gloves, which happen to be wind proof anyway.

Lately I have noticed a new trend on TV, which is to substitute "Feels like" for the more meaningful term "Wind chill factor".  Don't tell me what it "feels like".  I know what it feels like, or given the real temperature and wind, I can figure it out.  Your job should be to tell me the real temperature, and the wind speed and direction.  Different people have different tolerances to cold.  Different people wear different clothes.  Cold does not feel the same to everybody.

On a motorcycle, the weather presenter's "Feels like" temperature is even less meaningful.  Partly because I have no exposed skin while riding my motorcycle on a cold day.  And partly because, even if there was some exposed skin, it is not exposed to the wind at the normal ground speed they measure.

So unless someone with a perfectly average human body is outside in the nude, standing still on top of a treeless hill, don't tell them what the temperature "feels like"  You don't know what it feels like.  Just give the real temperature, and the wind speed and direction, and let them work it out for themselves.

Picture: from http://www.examiner.com/article/wind-chill-brings-life-threatening-dangers-of-frostbite-and-hypothermia

High Visibility Colours for Motorcycle Jackets

Yesterday, Mary Ann got a new motorcycle jacket in a bright green/yellow high visibility colour.  Her new jacket made the hi-viz colour on   4-year old jacket look washed out by comparison.  Apparently, these colours fade with exposure to sunlight, so if you want the colour to stay bright, you should not leave the jacket draped across the bike in the sunlight while you sit at Tim Hortons eating donuts.  Actually that is only one reason why you should not sit at Tim Hortons eating donuts.

So how do high visibility colours work?  Most colours work by reflecting back light that hits them, but they only reflect back the part of the light spectrum that is needed to create the colour.  For example, if you want orange colour, you make a surface that absorbs the non-orange part of the spectrum.  This is quite inefficient, in that most of the light is just absorbed.  Actually, white is the brightest colour because it reflects back the entire spectrum.  All the other colours give off a much lower level of light energy.

High visibility colours are different from ordinary colours in that they reflect back more light than they receive.  This sounds like it might be defying the laws of physics, but not really.  That's because we only can see a narrow range of colours in our visible spectrum. So the high visibility colours absorb invisible light (like ultra violet), and convert it to a colour that is visible, and then emit that colour.  So hi-viz colours can seem unnaturally bright because they are reflecting visible light by using energy they received invisibly.  Another example of this type of colour is a "black light" shining on a white surface, which you may have seen at a disco party.

High visibility colours are especially effective in low natural light situations like fog, and twilight, where they manage to make the most of the sun's invisible colours.  But they don't work at night very well, as most light is artificial (e.g. car headlights, street lights), and may not contain the necessary invisible rays that we always get from the sun.

Here is an explanation from "Dayglow" a company that specializes in high visibility colours.
http://www.dayglo.com/who-we-are/fluorescent-color-theory/

Are high visibility colours useful on a motorcycle jacket?  Most riders opt for black, and the advantage of black is that road spray, and chain lube don't make it look dirty. Even if black fades, it doesn't look too bad, and black leather can easily be restored to its original blackness. Bright colours (like high visibility) have a tendency to fade, and get dirty easily when used on a motorcycle.  But they do have a beneficial effect, in that car drivers see you more easily.  This is why many safety cones in construction sites have high visibility colours now.  They just don't get knocked down as much.  There is a lesson in this for motorcyclists, who many motorists think of as not much more than a safety cone anyway.

I have one more personal observation on using high visibility colours in a motorcycle jacket.  I have had two situations where I think that my high visibility jacket may have created a dangerous situation for others who did not have high visibility colours.  Last year when Mary Ann and I were riding through Thunder Bay, she was in the lead when a car driver pulled out in front of her. This never happened on the rest of the trip, where I was mostly leading.  Maybe my high visibility colour drew the attention of the driver away from Mary Ann, even though she was closer to the car.  In one other situation, I was leading, a group of four motorcycles.  At one point, I had slowed down for a hazard in the road, then accelerated away.  The second bike was still moving slow, but the third accelerated to follow me, even though the second bike was closer, and crashed into it.  That may be another case of the eye being drawn away from a closer bike by the higher visibility of a bike further away.   I have no proof, I was just thinking that maybe the high visibility colours were not always a benefit if we are not aware of the problem.  But for one bike alone, or two bikes (with the high visibility colour in front or both have high visibility), I think the high visibility colours are a benefit.

Picture: This morning in fog in our back yard.  Mary Ann's new "Olympia AST" jacket is much brighter than my faded jacket. Now if I can just get her to wear it when she is riding her scooter locally.  It seems to me like she wants to save the bright coloured jacket for Newfoundland next year.  Actually, that may not be a bad idea, as I expect many foggy days on that trip.

There Are No Mushroom Head Helmets in Motorcycling

I found a picture on Ebay from "Essential Gear" selling a beanie helmet.  In the picture, the essential "problem" with beanie helmets is explained this way. If I may restate the case, as fairly as possible, the seller says a thick helmet is too big and bulky, while a thin beanie is sleek and attractive.  Therefore you should buy a sleek and attractive beanie to satisfy the legal requirements for riding with a helmet.

Let me open my rant with a discussion of "what is attractive".  In all honesty, beauty is often in the eye of the beholder.  And apparently, the eye of the beholder can be gullible enough to believe just about anything. If you look at these helmets, with an open mind, you will notice that there is nothing particularly attractive about the teenie weenie skull cap.  Come on now, be honest with yourself, nobody else will be.  In the right light, it looks stupid.  Possibly even stupider than the "Bulky and unattractive" helmet.

It seems to me that many motorcyclists have been taken in by the story line about a big helmet makes you look like a mushroom.  Let's get that cleared up once and for all.  The "bulky" size of helmet we are talking about is approximately the same as military helmets used on all sides of all the wars in the last 100 years.  It is also approximately the same proportions as construction worker hard hats.  I have never heard any talk about the embarrassment of looking like a mushroom while landing on the shores of Normandy on D-day.  People should not be taken up by this so-called "mushroom head" nonsense.

Now that I have had a chance to clear the air a little, I will say that there may be a bit of a problem with the bulky helmet.  That is because all heads have slightly different shapes.  Often the inner shape of the helmet's EPS liner, will not be the same shape as the head.  This can leave air gaps, and create pressure points. So when you buy a helmet, especially a half-helmet, you should try to get one that happens to be the same shape as your own head if at all possible.  This helmet will generally sit a bit lower than a non-conforming helmet.  It's like how a round peg fits a round hole much better than a square hole.  Unless your head is square, of course.  Anyway, I have taken the liberty of photoshopping the helmet picture to show what it would look like if it fit properly. I added a third picture at the right. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to tell if the helmet fits right in the store, but I'm convinced that with time, people will find a way to make helmet liners conform better to people's skull shapes.  A  helmet that sits a bit lower has a lower centre of gravity, and covers the skull a bit better at the ear level.  And it is a bit less likely to come off in a crash, too.

Compare how close each helmet comes to the top black line in the picture.  The left helmet is right at the top.  The beanie is way below the line, meaning that very likely there is no "crumple" zone to protect the top of the head in case of an impact with a motionless object.  And the helmet at the right (fitting correctly) seems to have less crumple zone, but actually it is only because the gaps have been eliminated, not because any styrofoam liner is removed.

Try Going Just One Day With No Texting and Driving

            Sounds good my man. seeya soon ill tw |

Alexander Heit, 22 years old, was in the driver's seat, head down, while the car carrying him was drifting into oncoming traffic. The oncoming driver slowed and avoided a collision, but when Alexander looked up, he over-corrected, and rolled his car. Officers found his cell phone with a partially complete text message at 5:16 p.m.

His parents released an image of the message, hoping no one else has to die while texting and driving.

What lesson do we learn from this?

• Do not text and drive
• Pay attention to other cars (and trucks) erratic behaviour while driving, as there are many other people texting and driving.
• Do not over correct when you finally do get a chance to look up.
• Buy a car that has a low centre of gravity, with wheels set wide apart so that it resists rolling.
• If you must text and drive, do it only for important messages. As far as I can see, this message was not important.  But if you are  following a terrorist in a schoolbus with hostage children and a primed nuclear warhead, go for it.  And by "go for it" I mean contact 911, not to text your buddy that you'll be delayed for a bit, but you'll see him later.
• If you must text and drive, (see above)  keep it short.  (i.e. "CU" is shorter than "sounds good my man. seeya soon ill tw")  And actually, that would have been even longer if Alexander had not been killed before the end of the texting.

Here is a link to an article, it has a video with a commercial intro, so if you don't like that sort of thing, try the second link
http://www.9news.com/news/article/329758/222/Parents-hope-sons-last-text-saves-lives

http://kdvr.com/2013/04/10/family-releases-photo-of-last-text-son-sent-before-greeley-crash/

Of Harley Riders and Helmets

I have been looking at replacing one of my helmets, as I have seen very inexpensive helmets that look safer than a few of my own helmets. During my research, I came across a thread with an age-old question, but because of the lively interest and revealing comments, I decided to summarize it here. It is on the HD Forums, and the thread has 73 pages of responses (I didn't count individual comments.) The topic is stated, interestingly as "Real Harley owners don't wear full face helmets?"

http://www.hdforums.com/forum/sportster-models/544090-real-harley-owners-dont-wear-full-face-helmets.html

So where do I start?  I think I will go with "What exactly is a "real" Harley owner?  Obviously, anyone who owns a "real" Harley Davidson should be considered as a real Harley owner, even if they got it for no money down, 0% interest, and no payments until 2025.  Even if they stole it, I guess you could say they "own" it now. But renting and borrowing a Harley don't count.  If you paid your own money fair and square, you are a real Harley owner, even if you also own motorcycles of other brands.  But I don't think that's the meaning of "real Harley owner", from the context of this message.  The intended meaning is based on a belief that there is a perfect, average, possibly even stereotypical "real" Harley owner.  And the original poster, named Apaolo, who asked the question, does not consider himself a "real" Harley owner, even though apparently he really owns a Harley Davidson motorcycle.  And I guess he thinks it is important to act like this imagined real Harley rider.

An interesting aside, before we get to the "real" answer to this question.  When Apaolo (the original poster) bought his Harley, the salesman at the Harley shop commented that Apaolo was "the youngest person he had ever sold a Harley to".  So Apaolo is .... 28 years old?  Are you kidding me?  Or maybe the salesman had only been in this line of work a couple of weeks.  Anyway back to the story.

I do find it refreshing that almost none of the replies to this thread argued against the safety of a full face helmet.  It used to be that this was a contentious issue, where many riders complained that wearing a helmet made you less safe.  Apparently that bogus argument is done with now.  So the jury is in, and full face helmets ARE safer than beanies which are in turn safer than a bare head.  This is now accepted by the vast majority of motorcyclists, even among those that do not wear a helmet.

The most common answer?  A real Harley owner (whatever that is) apparently does not give a fly*** f*c* what anyone else thinks of what he is wearing.  I'm not so sure this is true, but I do understand where they are coming from.  Motorcyclists in general are kind of nonconformist, and pretty much have to be that way to ride a motorbike.  They all understand the very real dangers involved, and mostly respect an individual's right to stack the odds of survival in their favour.

On the other hand, it seems to also be true that when groups of riders ride together, they tend to have similar attitudes toward helmets.  Helmeted riders do not like riding with helmetless riders, and vice versa.  I think I understand this, because the logic is quite simple.  If somebody in my group crashes during a ride, I am kind of squeamish about looking at them if they have brains spilling out.  So, to prevent this squeamishness from happening to me,  I would rather ride with people who have well protected heads.

From what I saw of the answers:

Many Harley riders do wear full face helmets, especially where the law requires some kind of helmet anyway, or where it's really cold, or where there are lots of bugs or rocks flying through the air, or when they go on long tours, or when they are on the freeway.

And some do not wear helmets, (if not required by law), or wear smaller helmets  for example if they are just going down to the corner store, or it is really hot outside, or if it is 1940 and they are in the middle of Nevada and there is no traffic around.  Some people just like the feel of wind in their hair, or have bad claustrophobia in a helmet.  One rider said he never wore a helmet but always rode with a gun for protection, which I found interesting.  I wonder where he rides that a gun is more important than a helmet.  Anyway....

I didn't go through every single comment, but I didn't see any that argued against the safety of the full face helmet, and I didn't see any that criticised Apaolo for wearing a full face helmet.  One helmetless rider admitted that Apaolo had more sense than he had for wearing a helmet.  Another offered to wave to Apaolo, regardless of choice of headwear.


Picture: Hell's Angel motorcycle rider wearing a full face helmet. Can't see the bike though, maybe it's not a Harley?  http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hells-angels4.htm

Self Defence With Guns Lesson 2: Be Prepared

This is lesson 2 in the Public Service education series "How to defend yourself with a gun".  To recap lesson 1, in brief "Do not threaten to shoot people with your gun unless they are actually trying to kill you in the extremely near future."

Now for lesson 2, how to defend yourself with a gun:  "Be Prepared".  In this lesson, I am going to assume the worst is about to happen.  One or more men armed with assault rifles and handguns are planning to burst into your home or car, or maybe just attack you on the street in order to kill you and take your money and your women.  These men are clever, good shooters, and have the element of surprise.

Given the scenario above, how do you prepare yourself?  I'm not talking about learning to aim correctly, that's lesson 3.  In this lesson we are going to learn how to have your guns at the ready at all time.  The strategy is based on the fact that you will have only 4 seconds advanced warning between detecting the attackers and getting your gun out, with a full clip, pointing in the correct direction.

Preparedness starts while you are asleep.  You should have a loaded handgun under your pillow at all time, but don't place your finger on the trigger.  That will come when you are awakened from your sleep by several armed men breaking in through your window with the intent to kill you, and more.

Next, time to wake up.  Depending on your morning ritual, you will probably be in the bathroom at some point.  Make sure the door is locked, and keep the gun loaded and ready at all times, except don't take it into the shower with you unless it is waterproof.  If you are on the toilet, I suggest placing the gun on a nearby shelf.

I am going to assume you can at least wear a quick draw holster with a loaded handgun when eating, driving, or at work.  Some problems will arise if you are involved in sports such as water polo, speed skating, and dog racing.  Actually, let's just include every sport known to man except jogging.  For jogging, you can actually wear the holster. But for other sports like water polo, you will need to disarm for a while.  I suggest a buddy system.  Find another gun aficionado like yourself, who also likes to play water polo.  You offer to guard him while he enjoys the sport, in return for him guarding you while you enjoy the sport unencumbered by a loaded gun.  The buddy system will work fine for basketball, hockey, baseball, football (European and American).  And all other sports except hang gliding, bungee jumping, and water skiing.  It may just be best to avoid those three sports altogether, as there is no known way to defend yourself with a gun while engaged in those pastimes.  If you have some ideas, please leave a comment below.

So now having decided on a strategy to protect yourself from your assailants, it's time to think about protecting your loved ones while you are not near them.  There are three basic ways to do this.  Hiring armed guards is one way.  Another way is to train your loved ones to use a gun just like you do (sleep with the loaded gun under the pillow), and their own buddy system (not using your buddy, but they find their own buddies for water polo or ballet lessons etc.)  The third method is for you to never leave their side, and to keep them in a tight group for defense purposes at all times.  The third method in many ways is easiest, but only for families that have bought into the notion that they may be attacked by armed killers at any time.  Otherwise, they will be difficult to keep together in one place where you can best defend them.  The first method is good, but you will need to be quite rich, and keep in mind you will have to hire another armed guard for each of your family members, the costs add up quickly.

Before I summarize, I am going to discuss the threat evaluation.  If you think the chances are very good of being attacked by armed men, say at least once a year, my methods are appropriate.  However when the threat level drops to one attack in 50 years or more (average), then it may be worth while considering some alternate form of defence that does not involve guns.  The reason I say that is that if you are attacked only once in 50 years, on the average, you may end up losing several loved ones during that time, just from accidental discharges, or gun malfunctions.  I'm just saying that, given the spotty history of gun safety, it would not be practical to keep on such a high state of readiness for more than a year.  But if you're pretty sure you will be in for a shootout within a year, let's continue to lesson 3.  Next time: Lesson 3, how to shoot accurately.

Research for you: On the web blog "Blasphemes", it is reported as a proven, peer reviewed, fact that American use guns once on an average of every 13 seconds to defend themselves.  And that 65 lives are saved for every life lost in gun play.  Considering that about 10,000 lives are lost a year with guns, then it means that in the last ten years, guns have saved 3,200,000, or equivalent to a city the size of Chicago.  And that's in just ten years.  Imagine the carnage if Americans didn't have guns to defend themselves.

http://blasphemes.blogspot.ca/2009_09_01_archive.html  (you need to scroll down to "Some Stats on Guns" September 25, 2009.

Picture: Although this picture came from the website above, it is found all over the Internet, for example it is also on t*ts'n'guns.com.  It is an excellent illustration of just how a typical person would be defending themselves from an armed assault, and it has some propaganda value too, in stirring up hatred against those bad guys who are always trying to kill people like this cute young woman (who I just assume is a "good guy").  I did have to air brush it a little as unfortunately the original pic was too risque for this blog.

How Do You Like Lane Splitting?

Lane splitting is done by motorcycles when they ride on the dotted line between the lanes to overtake two vehicles that are driving side by side in two separate lanes. Southern Ontario is not a lane splitting place, probably the closest place where you can lane-split is California.  So I don't have a lot of experience with lane splitting, but I do remember being in California about 25 years ago, on a bike, and being in heavy freeway traffic I saw some motorcyclists pass me by lane splitting.  I was going to try the same thing, but as I gradually moved onto the white line, I narrowly missed being hit by another lane splitter who came from behind, at what I thought was a very high speed.  For the rest of my two days in California, I stuck to one lane.

Even in California, lane splitting is not completely accepted.  According to Wikipedia, less than 60% of car drivers in California think that lane splitting is legal.  Apparently, it is not fully protected in the highway code, and it is also not completely illegal.  It is tolerated by the police, but if a motorcyclist has an accident they don't have much legal protection.

Here are some of the problems I see with lane splitting.  Cars and trucks tend to move somewhat erratically from one side of their lane to another, and if the two vehicles on ether side of you randomly move closer to each other while you are trying to get between them, you may get trapped.  So lane splitting is more safely done when the traffic is stopped.  But many motorcyclists do lane splitting at high speeds, even above the speed limit in some cases, and even if the traffic is actually moving along quite well.

I could not begin to list all of the stupid things that some motorcyclists can do while lane splitting, but I know that not all the dumb moves are done by people driving cars.  But apparently there has never been a study done to prove that lane splitting is dangerous, and some studies seem to indicate that motorcyclists tend to get hit from the rear less while lane splitting. (common sense, really)

If I was to actually do some lane splitting, I would want to do it where it was legal, where all the car drivers knew about it, and where the lanes were a bit wider (like California). I would also want a different bike, with narrow handlebars (like 24" instead of my current 36" handlebars), and no saddlebags sticking out.  Hooking a car or truck with your handlebars is a sure way to lose control.

But getting back to Ontario, it seems Ontario has a culture of lining up.  Go to Tim Horton's and see what I mean.  Also, if there is a closed lane ten miles ahead, everybody lines up immediately and frowns at the occasional car that continues to drive in the "closed" lane.  I think of that as just about the complete opposite of lane splitting.  You have an entire legally marked lane there for ten miles until it is closed down by safety cones, but most people don't think you have the right to use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting

Lane splitting brings up all kinds of legal grey areas.  For example this next video features a motorist making an illegal lane change - because it is an HOV lane with a solid line where you are not allowed to change lanes until the line turns dotted.  But then is a motorcycle allowed to lane split on a solid line that cars are not allowed to cross?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOgTuYqUFOc


Now from Cyril Huze motorcycle blog, three motorcyclists try to convince us that lane splitting should be allowed everywhere. I don't agree with everything they say, but one point in particular I think is wrong, and illustrates that maybe some of them slept through math class. A Toyota Prius does not get 0 mpg sitting in a traffic jam.   To get 0 mpg, you must be using some gas.  But a Prius has the engine turned off, and so mathematically you have zero divided by zero which is   "Undefined"

http://cyrilhuzeblog.com/2013/01/24/lane-splitting-useful-safe-or-dangerous/

Picture: From this blog Motorcyclephilosophy.  Another thing I would not do while lane splitting is take pictures. But then I have a  handheld camera.

http://www.motorcyclephilosophy.org/2012/09/lane-splitting-on-strait-and-narrow.html

Helmets and Statistics

Some people say statistics have no meaning.  It is true that statistics can be twisted to prove anything.  It is also true that people who understand how numbers are collected, can learn valuable lessons from statistics.  So you may ignore statistics that are being used only for propaganda.  But some statistics have survival value.

So now let me discuss statistics, without really giving any statistics.  The statistics we are all looking for regarding helmets:  When wearing a helmet how much are your chances of surviving improved?  Also, how effective is a helmet in preventing different kinds of injury? e.g. brain damage, face damage to skin or bones, etc. And furthermore, what is the effectiveness of a helmet in different situations? e.g. sliding down the road, hitting an immovable object at speed, or resisting penetration when you strike a sharp object with your head, or if it strikes you.  For some questions, no data has been gathered yet.  For others, the same answers keep coming back.  Mainly, a helmet can save you from death about one third of the time.  That statistic is worth remembering. Use it to decide if you want to wear a helmet.  This statistic is also intuitive, in that common sense should tell you that wearing a helmet is going to provide more protection than not wearing one.  You can ignore it if you like, but don't make up any bogus argument like "Statistics don't mean anything".

One more thing to consider about statistics is this.  The way statistics are gathered, we need to use actual accidents, and not all non-fatal accidents are reported.  We generally figure out what percent of people ride with helmets, and then compare motorcycle fatalities due to head injury with and without helmets.  So if 50% of people ride with helmets in a given state, and 75% of fatal motorcycle head injuries are not wearing helmets, then I think it works out to a 50% better survival rate for wearing a helmet.  (These are made up numbers, just to illustrate the math.)  If everybody wears a helmet all the time, then you can't calculate what the survival rate is, because everybody who dies would also be wearing a helmet.

But there is another thing to consider.  Are people wearing helmets better or worse drivers on the average?  You might think they would be more careful, but I'm not sure we have any data to back that up.  Also, they may be worse drivers because they feel invulnerable, and also the quietness of the helmet may fool them into thinking they are going slower than they actually are.  All these things may affect the survival rate, at least the way I think we measure it.

Now what kind of helmet?  To know that answer, we need to consider that most of the time, when you are riding a motorcycle, your head is moving at a good speed.  When your head is moving at speed, so is your delicate brain.  Now if the skull contacts a solid, non-moving object, at a speed of say 30 kph, you brain has to also come to a sudden stop inside your skull.  When it does, things will break inside your brain, and you may die as a result, or suffer permanent brain damage.  How much damage to your brain depends on G forces, or how quickly your brain has to decelerate from 30 kph to 0 kph.  That force depends on two things, how fast you are moving when contact is first made, and how many centimeters your brain travels before stopping.  Inside your skull, the brain can move a little bit before coming to a stop.  The helmet adds a little bit more stopping distance by providing a crushable inner Styrofoam lining.  But that crushable lining must not be too soft, or too hard.  It must be just the right density to crush at the same rate all the way from 30 kph to 0 kph.  That crushable liner may be about 2 cm thick, so even when working perfectly, it only gives you an extra 2 cm to stop from 30 kph.  In other words, it cuts the G forces inside your head by about a half.

If you wanted a helmet to cut the G forces by about 90%, you could wear a helmet with a (softer) crushable liner 10 cm. thick.  But the fact is nobody wants to wear a helmet that big.  So everybody opts for smaller helmets, and we accept a 33% survival rate instead of a 90% survival rate.  Furthermore, some people opt for no helmet at all, and go with 0% survival rate.  OOOPS- am I misusing statistics?  What I mean by 0% survival is compared to chances of surviving an accident that would have killed you if you were bare headed. So if you ARE bare headed, and happen to have the type of accident that will kill you if you are bare headed, then mathematically your chance of survival should be 0.  We calculate the survival rate as improving (or getting worse) by wearing a particular helmet.  And just to be scientific, yes it is possible to design a helmet that would kill you sooner than not wearing a helmet ( a negative survival rate).  It is also possible to design a helmet nobody would want to wear, that would be ten times safer than our current helmets.

There are other types of head injury that have little to do with G forces.  Here is an example.  A rock from a passing gravel truck hits your head with a difference of speed of 30 kph.  Because the rock is small compared to your head (hopefully), the rock will not be able to change the speed of your head very much, and actually, it will be the rock that changes its speed, not so much your brain.  If the rock is about the same weight at your head, then the G forces are still only about 50% (or divided equally between the rock and the head)  So small rocks cannot impart enough G forces to damage your brain.  Of course, this logic is the same with any object you hit.  The more that object gives way, the more the energy is shared, the better your chance of survival.

In the end, what you are doing by wearing a helmet, is carrying with you at all times a slightly softer surface that will share about 50% of the impact force no matter what your head hits.  That's assuming the helmet has been tested for structural integrity and crushability of the liner.  And that you're wearing it on your head, not hanging from the rear turn signal because you are in Florida, where there is no helmet law.


Picture: from http://www.biomechanics-strasbourg.com/protective-systems/helmet-fem

Cable Guardrails are Deadly to Motorcyclists

There is one issue about motorcycle safety that I feel strongly about, but I will try to remain objective.  The subject is cable guard rails beside roads.

Cable guard rails are a cheap and effective way to keep cars from going too far off the road, and save in towing bills.  They are made of vertical posts joined by wire cables.  We have miles of this type of guardrail in Ontario.  Another kind is called the armco barrier, using solid metal instead of cables.

http://www.projectlink.com.au/directory/armco-barriers-pty-ltd/armco-guardrail---railgard.html

For cars, both are about as safe, although the cable type is cheaper. For motorcyclists, armco is safer than cable.

It also seems many so-called traffic experts deny that there is any difference between armco and cable, but I say they are wrong.  And they probably don't ride motorcycles, but I would bet that many motorcyclists do not understand the dangers either.  So I will explain how motorcyclists are more likely to die in low speed encounters with cable guardrails as a public service announcement

A crash between a motorcycle and a guard rail is usually at a small angle.  So in most cases we are dealing with a slide along the guardrail rather than a direct 90 degree perpendicular impact.  The armco guardrail is generally smooth, unless you hit the first post.  There are also problems if you slide along the top of the guardrail, as you may impact the reinforcing posts hidden behind the rail, or if you slide under, where you are more likely to strike a post if you are travelling along in the same direction as the guardrail.

A motorcyclist sliding along a cable guardrail is in a lot more trouble. In many cases I have seen the cables spaced wide enough to allow a helmet to just fit between them.  There is almost no chance of missing the posts, as the cables act as a guide, railroading you directly into the next post. It is especially dangerous if you are sliding along with your head between the cables, or your neck on the cable, as you head will take the full impact when you reach the post.  Even with a government approved helmet, this direct impact with the post at any speed over 20 mph will result in death.

I don't want to be too morbid about this, but why legislate motorcyclists to use helmets then put up guard rails that seemed designed to defeat the helmets in practice.





 

Winter Driving in Canada

Canadians may have an inferiority complex, according to Wikileaks, but not when it comes to snow. We are pretty confident that we have more of that stuff than anybody else, and we think we know how to handle ourselves in it.

That myth was debunked yesterday, when 300 motorists were trapped overnight on the 402 near Sarnia. Apparently we are just like anyone else, if we get three times as much snow, falling twice as fast as normal, being drifted by 60 kph winds, lasting three days, in freezing temperatures, we get stuck too. At one point on Tuesday morning, the military rescue helicopters were grounded, the snowplows were stuck, the Police 4 wheel drive vehicles couldn't get through. Only the snowmobiles could get around, but could not travel far enough carrying a big enough load to rescue many people.

So what did the Canadians do then? They went to Tim Horton's apparently. And to farmers' houses, and various buildings, or shared the heat in the cabs of big trucks. So nobody died, according to the latest reports, but I'm not sure how they know as there is no system to register who is on the road, and cars can literally disappear under the snow.

This system is not a blizzard, it is what we like to call "lake effect snow", a much smaller snow system. What made this one so bad was that it was severe and long lasting, and it did not move for days. If you happened to be in it's path, it must have seemed like the big guy had pointed His holy snowblower in your direction for a couple of days.

So I called my mother, who lives in Dutton, a little to the south east of Wyoming, Ontario (the hardest hit area). She reported that there was about a half meter of snow on the ground, and she understood the 401 was also closed. I checked the Internet, but it wasn't, except for two accidents.

Here are a couple of good websites to help plan trips. I use them to avoid rain when I'm riding my motorcycle, and to check road conditions in the winter.


http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/radar/index_e.html?id=WSO

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/index.php?product=hwycond&pagecontent=on_s

Here is a road map compatible with my browser. Just tick off road conditions and closures to see where they are. You will see there are also three traffic cameras in London, if you tick traffic cameras.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/trip/map.shtml?ll=42.964211,-81.251792&z=11

I decided not to go down to visit Dutton, because the first and most important part of coping with snow is figuring out when to stay home. Then this morning I decided to replace my car battery instead of trying to push an old one for an extra year's life. And I got some winter windshield wipers.

In very bad winter conditions, slush builds up in the frame of conventional wiper blades, which then freezes while you are driving, and reduces visibility, so you can hardly see the white-out in front of you. (White-out is a word we use for when it is snowing so hard that all you see is white around you)

For the first time I bought a pair of beam-type windshield wipers. I have gotten tired of the old routine of having to stop the car in a snowstorm, pulling over to the side of the road (when you can't even see the edge of the road), jumping out of the car in the wind, cold and snow, and trying to crack the ice out of the windshield wiper frames, while dodging the slush spray from passing traffic. I am too old for that now. Probably always was. These new wiper blades have no intricate lattice frame to clog with ice, so we'll see how that works for me. They are very expensive, though, about $50 a pair. They claim to be "all-season" but I asked for my old regular wiper blades back. I'll probably save the beam blades for winter use only. I got the blades at Jiffy Lube, but here is a Canadian Tire buyer's guide to wiper blades.

http://www.canadiantire.ca/AST/ResearchCentre/WiperBladesBuying.jsp

Picture: The radar image of the "lake effect snow", still pumping away this morning.
Second Picture: Tim Hortons at Reece's Corners yesterday, where some stranded motorists hung out. From this CTV website

Wrong way on the On Ramp

Yesterday, while riding my motorcycle to Long Point, I witnessed the legendary "wrong way on the freeway ramp" scenario first hand.

The day started bright, dry and warm. It was already 11c by the time I started getting the bike out of the garage late in the morning. I was driving almost on autopilot to Paris, because I am so familiar with the route - maybe 20-30 times this year. In Paris I loaded up with a tank of gas, and soon was on Highway 24 crossing the 403, with a small car in front of me. Suddenly, and very unexpectedly the car slowed to almost a stop, and then tried to turn right, into the exit ramp coming off the 403. This was clearly marked with three "do not enter" traffic signs and an arrow one-way sign. Also, the wrong-way cars path was blocked by an SUV coming the other way on the ramp, at the stop sign. So the car hesitatingly nosed its way around the SUV, partly taking to the shoulder, while the lady SUV driver peered down, with a slightly amused look on her face. I did not think of honking my horn, which is pretty feeble anyway. The SUV driver apparently did not see anything horribly wrong with what was happening.

Seeing the car get on the wrong way ramp, then begin acceleration toward the freeway, I pulled over to the shoulder and wondered if I could do anything. For example, could I chase the car the wrong way down the ramp. Not legally, of course, but in reality, might it cause the car driver to speed up even more and possibly be the cause of a fatal accident? I just waited, and signalled my concern to the lady in the SUV, who was still sitting there. She gave me a smile in return, but I thought maybe she did not understand what was happening. Just then, I heard a long air horn blast from a truck that was near the car, but it was on the correct entrance ramp. The wrong way car then hesitated again and slowed, then stopped. A pickup driver, also on the correct ramp, stopped, jumped out and ran across the grass to talk to the puzzled wrong way driver. It looked like the situation was under control, so I resumed my ride to Long Point. (via Port Dover first).

Whenever I drive anywhere I automatically take an interest in other traffic situations. You might think of it as poking my nose in other people's business. But my interest in what other drivers are doing has saved me a few times over the years. When driving the car, I used to make comments on the other driver's mistakes, although I have cut down on this activity quite a bit, at Mary Ann's request. Mary Ann does not like it when I criticise other drivers aloud while we are in the car together. I suspect that might even be part of the reason she likes motorcycles. (We have no intercom system, nor does she want one.)

If I had been the SUV driver, I'm pretty sure I would have yelled, honked my horn, waved, or done something to get the attention of the wrong way driver. But being behind, I don't know how I could have got their attention without following and possibly trying to pass them.

It reminds me of a situation years ago, the only time I recall passing a car and flagging them down. I was on my motorcycle when I witnessed an accident take place. It was a getaway car being followed by an unmarked police car, which hit an oncoming pickup truck, and the lone police officer went over to pull the drug dealer out of the burning car and put the handcuffs on him. I decided to turn around and head home, as I had almost been hit during this incident, and I was a bit shaken up. Just then I saw a municipal police car with two officers in it, pull into the road in front of me, also heading away from the accident. I overtook them, waved them off the road, and told them there was an accident just down the street. I guess they didn't know because it was an RCMP officer and he probably didn't have a radio connection with the rest of the town police force. Anyway, I quickly decided that I needed to do something, and according to the police, pulling them over (even in a no-passing zone) was the right thing to do, as they immediately u-turned and sped off to the accident.

Picture: Apparently Nissan is trying to develop a wrong way warning Navigation system. I wonder if the wrong way driver I saw was blindly following a GPS navigation system? I don't have a GPS myself, but friends complain that there are glitches in them.

http://jalopnik.com/5142967/nissan-developing-wrong-way-pedestrian-collision-alert-technology

Now if we only had BMW's cruise control with "Stop 'n Go" feature, and their lane detection system, we can safely remove the requirement to have a driver's licence. I'm not sure what good it does anyway.

Is a Gold Wing Like a Sport Bike?

The Honda Gold Wing has had a unique place in the motorcycling world ever since its introduction. It has only been briefly challenged once as the most sophisticated long distance touring bike, but I would say that today it is solidly at the top of the heap.

When it was introduced in 1976, it had an opposed four cylinder motor of 1000 cc. Honda only sold it "naked" as we say today. That means it did not come equipped in the showroom with fairing and luggage. But aftermarket suppliers saw to it that almost every GoldWing was soon set up for comfort and hauling extra crap, for a bit of extra money.

Over the years, the Gold Wing has grown, and features have been added. The weight has gone up and so has the price, and the power, and the number of extra options.

I admire the Gold Wing as a touring machine, but I have never owned one because it is not my style. Mainly I am cheap. But also I do not like balancing so much weight at a stop, or pushing it around the garage. I'm sure Mary Ann would like the comfort of sitting in the passenger perch, in the lap of luxury, but now she has her own bike and likes that even more.

I am not trying to put down the Gold Wing at all. Because of its weight and length, it is slightly restricted in its nimbleness, its maneuverability in corners and on curving roads. But when I road tested a Gold Wing once, it seemed to be just as fast in the corners as any other bike, at least at the speeds I was able to go. A few years later, I was riding my BMW K1100LT in front of a newer 1800cc Gold Wing, and the Wing was easily keeping up to BMW through some fast corners. At the end of the road I checked over the Honda and noticed the footpegs were ground off right up to the top rubber. That Gold Wing rider was obviously used to riding it fast. A Gold Wing makes the rider feel like it can keep up with lighter and more nimble bikes. The BMW weighed about 200 pounds less. But common sense says no way can a longer, heavier bike keep up when pushing the envelope. I think if you were suddenly faced with a really sharp turn, the Gold Wing might not make it while a lighter bike may get through. But I don't have any proof of it.

Another problem I have with the Gold Wing is the sheer number of fiddly things on it to play with. The stereo, intercom, cruise control, GPS, and I'm sure there's more. I know you can add all this stuff to any other bike, but the point is, it is distracting. One of the safety features of a motorcycle is that you are forced to pay more attention than in a car. But a Gold Wing, with its sheer size, number of built in goodies, tends to isolate you from the road, and distract you at the same time.

Now if Gold Wings were feared as dangerous bikes that crashed a lot, maybe that would help their riders concentrate on the road. But no, they apparently are safe bikes that rarely crash. I suggest that is mainly due to many of the Gold Wingers being kind of slow riders. But on a twisty road, a Gold Wing does not force you to slow down the way most big, heavy, bikes do. My Vulcan 900, a much smaller bike, is far more scary going around a corner than a Gold Wing, and grounds its floorboards threateningly at much lower speeds.

What if you have a really good rider on a Gold Wing, riding with a group of other fast riders? Might that result at some point in the Gold Wing rider hitting a corner a little too fast because they were listening to the stereo, and not being able to wrestle the big bike around the corner? I remember only three horrific accidents with motorcycle journalists in the last ten years. One was at Cycle Canada in 2003, and one was at Baggersmag.com last year. I'm sure that three accidents don't prove anything, but two were on Gold Wings that missed a curve. The other was safety expert Larry Grodsky who hit a deer.

Maybe its just another chance to remind riders that there is no such thing as a perfectly safe motorcycle. And that your attention and care are always demanded. And another: Goldwings probably should not be driven as if they were sport bikes. On the other hand SUV's should not be driven like sports cars.

Here is a video of a Gold Wing being driven faster than most people could ride a sport bike. But I'm guessing familiar road, familiar bike. Without both you would have a very ugly situation. Heck even with both, a bit of bad luck, a few leaves on the road, or a truck coming the other way...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nrMQ3QwyPo

Helmets and Helmet Laws

A motorcycle journalist was fired for writing a story critical of Snell helmet standards. Unfortunately this tells you as much about journalistic standards as it does about helmet standards.

Helmets have become more than just a physical protection against head injury. They are at the centre of the controversy about laws requiring riders to wear helmets. And, in the minds of some people, they have become a sort of magic talisman to ward off accidents.

According to accident statistics, helmets prevent death from head injury in about a third of the cases. They work best in a collision where the speed and impact is small enough to be absorbed by the helmet, but large enough to cause death if the helmet was not worn. Also, helmets are pretty good at spreading the impact from a sharp corner (like a curb) to prevent it from cracking the skull. In case you didn't know, you can die from brain impact on the inside of the skull without the skull being broken. Helmets are also very good at preventing abrasion injuries (road rash) on the head, and with full face helmets, that includes the face as well. I don't know what the statistics are for brain damage on survivors, I suspect that is a lot harder to determine statistically.

The helmet industry is big business now, with helmets selling for up to a thousand dollars, and people replacing them more frequently. I notice some people have quite large collections of helmets. I do myself, but that's partly because I hate throwing things away, and there's not much market for 10 year old used helmets.

At various times there have been controversies about helmets causing deaths, that might have been avoided with no helmet.

I suspect that the helmet business would prefer to not be examined too closely, and as a result I think many journalists are intimidated away from the subject. The outspoken criticism comes mainly from people who don't want the helmets at all, not from people who question how well the helmets work.

In a perfect world, we would not need helmet laws, people would be smart enough to wear helmets almost all the time. And we would not be afraid of getting fined for not wearing our helmets while driving our motorcycle from the gas pumps to a parking spot at the service centre. Or riding at 10 kph through a campground to find our tent site. And in a perfect world, we could have frank and open discussions about how good helmets are, and whether they could be better. And no journalist would be fired for asking some questions about how they are tested.

Picture: From the South African website entry There is also a store bought helmet in the picture, strapped to the headlight.

Safe Merging for Motorcycles

There are some dangerous situations that are not well understood by most motorcyclists. I think this is one of them. Yesterday, I was a passenger on Mary Ann's Burgman, and we were merging on to the freeway. An aggressive driver was following her down the ramp, and at the point where she actually merged onto the freeway, he pulled out to pass us and managed to get into the exact spot where we merged. So, two vehicles in the same spot at the same time. We didn't touch, but that is way too close for comfort.

Now why? She was travelling at a reasonable speed, she signalled properly, and did a shoulder check before moving over. A real scientific investigation would need to re-examine all those statements, of course just to make sure for example that the turn signal light had not burned out, or to find out exactly what the speed really was.

In my opinion, this could not normally happen because a car would not be able to accelerate fast enough to get into that spot in the time it takes to complete the merging process. However, a combination of everything going wrong at the same time might just do it. That would require all of the following.

1. To allow the scooter slow just slightly while doing the merge.
2. The car behind has a lot of power, and has left a gap, which is already closing with full acceleration.
3. Doing the shoulder check a fraction of a second too soon, when the car has not come close enough yet.
4. Not turning the neck quite far enough, or having the view partially blocked by the passenger (me)

Of course, if the other car drivers were any good, they obviously should plan for, and allow the driver in front to merge ahead of them. But because of the high density of traffic, this stupid situation happens frequently enough (in southern Ontario anyway) for the lead driver to plan for it and take precautions to prevent the following driver from trying to shut them out. What can be done?

It is no good to try and leave them behind with pure speed on the ramp, as they might then accelerate to follow you and this might make things worse. But here are things that can be done.

1. Try to merge into the freeway lane as soon as possibe, which is at the beginning of the dashed lines. Unfortunately, a few following drivers merge before the dashed line starts, crossing the solid lines.
OR if the merge lane is really, really long, you could wait for the tailgater or whatever to get by before merging. This is only possible, if they start the merge too early, AND if the ramp is long enough, and we have some ramps around here that are over a kilometer long.

2. Accelerate as you merge. I think this is always better than steady speed or even (heaven forbid!) slowing while merging. The only reason I slow when merging is to fall in close behind another vehicle. But even then I try to accelerate as I cross the dotted line, to try and match speeds. However this matching speeds trick needs practice. By the way, practice is always good, just do the practicing when it's not raining, or night, and the roads are not busy, and no construction or other distractions. Otherwise it's not called practice, it called dangerous driving.

3. Shoulder check twice when some driver is following you onto the freeway. The last shoulder check should be as you cross the dotted line. I have occasionally been saved by a second shoulder check. It's really shocking, when it happens, because the car is so close, and because of that surprise I may jerk the handlebars a bit, but I have always managed to get back into my lane before contact.

4. Sticking a left hand out to help indicate where you want to go is another way to get attention, when you have a potential danger behind, who may not feel they need to respect turn signals.

Anything else? I suggest a bumper sticker on the back "Honk if you like to see guns fired from a motorcycle", instead of "I brake for turtles" (guess which is Mary Ann's bumper sticker)

We Need Better Risk Assessment and Management

People are incredibly bad at risk management. BP's estimate for the gulf oil spill was 75 million dollars liability for the worst possible accident, but the reality is going to be more like at least 20,000 million dollars. 

The fundamental idea of risk management is that first, you must know the cost and second, the likelihood of an unplanned event. And then be able to do some simple math.

Ten years ago I was trying to set up a small computer software company. I found out that I better keep this quiet or my home insurance would skyrocket. Apparently, my home insurance company considers writing a computer program at home to be high risk, and I would have to pay double or triple for my home insurance. Then I tried to rent a table to display the program at a business convention. The insurance cost alone for the three day show would be $5,000. It was considered a great risk that I might sell a program that would create a huge amount of damage, and the show organizers might be sued. My program was a database for tracking the location of wires in a building. The way it was explained to me, was that all software could be easily modified, and what started as a wiring database could end up as a space shuttle guidance system. And today, of course it could have been modified again to guide BP drilling platforms.

Was that $5000 insurance warranted? Of course not. It was not only outrageous, but also stifling free enterprise and entrepreneurship.

Meanwhile, BP, drilling one of the deepest oil wells ever, estimates that the worst case scenario is a 75 million dollar cleanup tab. Who exactly is making these estimates that are simultaneously destroying the ecosystem, and stifling entrepreneurship? Because they are not accountable to anyone, and they are making monstrous errors at the same time, and everybody suffers in the long run.

Other examples if poor risk assessment, leading to poor risk management:

My relatives worrying that I might be at risk driving my Toyota Matrix. Even if it was on the recall list (it was not), the chance of an accident, using the most extreme figures is only about 2% more than any other car. While my motorcycle is 500% more dangerous than a car, using statistics gathered from traffic accidents. Logically, I would be much safer in the Toyota.

I was visiting the shopping mall yesterday, where there are two small wind turbines on the roof. People were up in arms when they installed these turbines, afraid apparently that a blade might fly off an injure someone. I guess that likelihood would be about 1 in 100,000,000. But nobody seems concerned at all about the fast moving cars everywhere in the parking lot, posing a much greater danger to pedestrians and their children than those small blades ever would. I would certainly not step off the curb to get away from the wind turbines, and put myself in front of the traffic. So why the protest over the wind turbines but not the cars?

Picture: Saturday Night Live skit illustrating the risk assessment of driving a Toyota. By the way, it seems that the press has now forgotten about Toyota in the wake of BP's oil spill. And so the fear of driving a Toyota subsides, and so do the number of reported unintended accelerations.

Worrying about Motorcycle Safety for Others

This may be a stupid thing to say, but I now seem to worry more about other people being safe, than I do for my own safety. I suppose it may be natural, as my wife and all three of my sons ride motorcycles. But keeping myself safe is one thing. Keeping other people safe is quite different, and up until today I did not have any idea how to do it.

Also, I have been riding a motorcycle for forty years now without an accident, and the suspense alone is killing me. And until three years ago, I had not even had a car accident ever since my first accident, where I rammed a police car, and that was 46 years ago. Since then, up to now at least, my driving habits seemed have proven themselves.

But one thing I do know is that I am not able to impart this wisdom (or luck, depending on how you see it) to other people. Other people I know have gotten into accidents, some with serious consequences.

A few weeks ago, Michael got a bee in his helmet and, with that distraction, crashed the bike into a curb which resulted in a fall and a bent engine crash guard. As we were trying to straighten it out yesterday, I started thinking it must have taken a lot of force to bend the crash guard, because we could not straighten it. It could have been a nasty accident if his foot got in the way and broke the fall instead of that mangled crash guard. Then today at the motorcycle shop, I spotted a display of motorcycle charms called Biker Bells. If you hang one on your motorcycle it wards off evil spirits. Michael noticed some had skulls on them, and I speculated maybe there were some charms to attract evil spirits and other to ward them off.

Michael and I have a different way of looking at the world, and of course our approach to motorcycle safety is also different. What works for me is science and reason. His way is more mystical. He may argue that for all our science and reason, we know practically nothing of the workings of the human brain. For all we know, there may be some mysterious force in the universe that the brain channels for its energy if we think in certain ways.

For example, why is it that patients in medical drug experiments experience the "placebo" effect. That is where a patient believes they are being treated with a drug, and so they get well even though the experimental "drug" they were given was a fake tablet?

So this gave me a brilliant idea. Charms to ward off evil spirits would not work for me, or might even go the other way and attract evil spirits. But maybe other people respond positively. It is not impossible that a "charm" installed on the motorcycle might actually have some mysterious effect on the mind that might result in no more spills, just like the placebo effect. Maybe its worth a shot.

http://www4.dealtime.com/xCC-gremlin_bell-hot_leathers
http://www.nbleather.com/skullbikerbell.html

Disclaimer I am not selling these products, and the opinions I expressed in this blog are not necessarily the opinions of the Lost Motorcyclist Blog editor, who is me.

There are Limits to Human Intelligence

"We have met the enemy and he is us" has got to be one of my favourite quotes of all time, by cartoonist Walt Kelly who drew the cartoon Pogo.

The meaning is that we are our own worst enemy, or that we do things that ultimately hurt ourselves. It's not like we set out to be our own worst enemy, we probably get there by degrees and through inattention or pure stupidity.

So here is an article "Human Failings Led to Oil Disaster" about how the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was likely caused by human error. And not just one error, but a series of errors that could be referred to as systemic human failure.

In the article is an analysis of typical failures, and mention is made of other large scale human failings, the Financial Meltdown of 2008, and the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. It's interesting that while one individual human error is hard to predict, it seems like large scale systemic human failure might be quite predictable.

"This isn’t just about oil. It’s a challenge for people living in an imponderably complex technical society."

New York Times

We had our own massive failure in Ontario back in 1997. Actually, like all massive human failures it started before 1997, but the whistle was blown and the plug was pulled in August 1997. Ontario Hydro, after a run of embarrassing accidents, and finding drug paraphernalia in the control rooms of their nuclear reactors, had called for an independent assessment of the situation, and was persuaded to shut down most of the nuclear power system indefinitely. The verdict, reduced to it's simplest form, was that normal Canadians could not be expected to run something as complicated and dangerous as a nuclear generating system safely.

http://www.ccnr.org/nucaware_hydroletter.html

http://www.encyclopediecanadienne.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0011388

The shutdown was huge, and cost Ontario taxpayers billions of dollars, and was more or less the end of nuclear power in Canada.

The cartoon series called "The Simpson's" was based on and around the operation of a nuclear power plant. Homer, pictured above, is the main character, and one of the all time stupidest characters to ever lead a normal life in a cartoon, was the employee in charge of the nuclear reactor's control panel. And for all his stupidity, Homer's behaviour was not really outside the bounds of what you might expect to see in normal people you see in the street, not to mention neighbours, friends, even relatives.

I think there are many more examples of these large scale mental breakdowns, but how about this small one. Back in 1961, people drove around without seatbelts or airbags, drunk out of their minds, with the kids rolling around loose in the back of the car. Today, drivers are sober (more often than not), the babies are in their restraining harnesses, and cars are huge "safe" SUV's with air bags and anti-lock brakes. But now the drivers are reading the newspaper or text messaging at 100 km/hr. Although on a personal scale, it proves that the saying from Pogo "We have met the enemy and he is us." is still as true as ever. As we develop ever more complex systems, the most serious problem to face mankind is plain old lack of brainpower.

May, Motorcycle Awareness Month

Apparently May is motorcycle awareness month, although it would be a mistake to think that motorists are more aware of motorcycles this month than other months.

Here is a quote I took from this accident report.

"The northbound motorcycle riders wore helmets, and the driver of the southbound semitrailer truck wore a seat belt, the patrol said. The crash remains under investigation."

There is so much you can figure out just from that very simple sentence. Of course, you can't tell all the grief and suffering that will result from this one moment in time, you can pretty well figure out that no matter what kind of helmets were mentioned, that the two on the motorcycle will be dead, and probably the truck driver would survive, with or without the seatbelt.

Here is another article about motorcycle awareness month.

In this article, there was a brief mention of the responsibility of the motorcycle to be visible to other motorists. Well, I do have my very bright fluorescent jacket. But as was mentioned in the article, cops wearing high visibility vests get killed by accident, and they have the lights on the car flashing that can be seen from four miles away.

There is a down side to my fluorescent jacket, it sometimes attracts too much attention. Once, I caused a commotion when I was mistaken for a traffic cop when I was trying to put money in a parking meter. Second, I am too scared to ride into Toronto during the upcoming G20 Summit for fear of being Molotov cocktailed by the protesters who might think I am the riot police.

To be visible, some other motorcyclists buy extra headlights, and ride with three headlights on all the time. But then if the glare from the two outboard extra headlights masks the flashing turn signals, is that any safer? Some bikers use "flamethrower" headlights that are so bright they turn night into day. But is it really such a good idea to blind oncoming drivers at night?

As I said in one of my earlier blogs. Or actually I guess it was Mr. Miyagi who said it, "Balance is everything". It also works when you are trying to be visible to others.

Picture: from this page on motorcycle lighting

You Can Learn About Motorcycling From Mr. Miyagi

On my website I have a statement "Everything I needed to know about life I learned from a Honda gas tank label". Of course, I was kidding.

But now I am going to make two more statements, and an explanation "Everything I needed to know about riding a motorcycle I learned from the movie Karate Kid IV aka The Next Karate Kid". And everything I needed to know about motorcycle maintenance I learned from the movie McGruber.

Let's start with Karate Kid IV. Riding a motorcycle, like karate, is dangerous especially when you take it to the streets. Threats are everywhere, and to stay safe you need a combination of technique and a sixth sense. Not to mention an ability to remain calm, and to respect the traffic around you, to stay focused, and to be always in control of the situation. Another similarity to the Karate Kid, is that you will generally have four or five opponents against one, and you are by far the smallest out there.

In Karate Kid IV, a small elderly Japanese guy named Mr. Miyagi takes it upon himself to train a girl named Julie in the ways of Karate. There is a lot of Zen involved, and enigmatic instructional techniques. You don't, for example, learn to kick a bag. You learn to "be the bag". Similarly, you cannot learn how to drive defensively, you must learn to "be the traffic". In the movie, this technique of learning and teaching works miraculously for anything, including bowling. A group Tibetan monks who have never bowled before (I assume from the context, but it was never explicitly stated) get in a bowling match for money and win the game easily because of their superior mind control of the ball. They can even get a gutter ball to score a strike.

Many lessons are accompanied by puzzling sayings such as "Ambition without knowledge is like a boat on dry land." That one almost makes sense. But the next one does not "Sun is warm, grass is green." Not at my house it isn't.

These are quotes from Mr. Miyagi again, about traffic conditions and other things, though the dialogue is actually from the first Karate Kid Movie and was not repeated in movie IV, so I put it here

Miyagi: Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later
[makes squish gesture]
Miyagi: get squish just like grape. Here, karate, same thing. Either you karate do "yes" or karate do "no." You karate do "guess so,"
[makes squish gesture]
Miyagi: just like grape. Understand?
Daniel: Yeah, I understand.
Miyagi: Now, ready?
Daniel: Yeah, I'm ready.
------------------------
Daniel: Wouldn't a fly swatter be easier?
Miyagi: Man who catch fly with chopstick accomplish anything.
Daniel: Ever catch one?
Miyagi: Not yet.
------------------------------
Daniel: Hey, what kind of belt do you have?
Miyagi: Canvas. JC Penney, $3.98. You like?
Daniel: No, I meant...
Miyagi: In Okinawa, belt mean no need rope to hold up pants.
Miyagi: Daniel-san...
Miyagi: Karate here. [taps his head]
Miyagi: Karate here. [taps his heart]
Miyagi: Karate never here. Understand? [points to his belt]

(My interpretation, that motorcycle safety is not in a helmet or in a motorcycle, it is in your head and heart. Although of course, having a helmet is useful for holding your brains in.)
---------------------------------------------
Daniel: Where am I, this ring over here?
Miyagi: Hai. Number three.
Daniel: What's that guy kneeling like that for?
Miyagi: Don't know.
Daniel: Don't you know anything you can tell me?
Miyagi: Hai. No get hit.
(The parallels to motorcycling are pretty obvious here)
----------------------------------------
Miyagi: [Daniel has just gotten his driver's license and Miyagi has given him a car for his birthday] Just remember, license never replace eye, ear, and brain.
-------------------------------------------------
Miyagi: [repeated line to Daniel] Look eye!, always look eye!
-----------------------------------------------
And one more actually from Karate Kid IV (I guess all the best lines were used up in the first three movies)

Julie: Is there a trick to this--something I haven't figured out?
Miyagi: Pray.
Julie: Pray?
-------------------------------------------


Now for motorcycle maintenance, inspired by MacGruber, a film from the Saturday Night Live skit, based on a parody of a character from the TV series MacGyver. In the original series, MacGyver was always getting out of trouble by making complicated devices out of house hold materials. MacGruber made this funny (or funnier) by exaggerating it out of all proportion, and also having the device fail most of the time in a massive explosion. OK so this is the lesson I got from the movie. Making stuff out of crap is a lot cheaper than buying accessories at the motorcycle shop. Just make sure they don't fail on the road or it's going to be embarrassing.