The PIONEERS project: Protective Innovations of New Equipment for Enhanced Rider Safety

[Hot_Air]

Is 2021 over? What did I miss?

I haven’t seen results published by PIONEERS yet. But it’s one to watch.

[Horse]

Is 2021 over? What did I miss?

You missed the bit where it said "in 2021 we will ... "

Including listing the crash tests they had planned , some (all?) of which have since been done.

[Hot_Air]

I guess the crash tests have been done (or some delayed by Covid), but not submitted for publication yet?

[Horse]

Is 2021 over? What did I miss?

You missed the bit where it said "in 2021 we will ... "

Including listing the crash tests they had planned , some (all?) of which have since been done.

Just checked. That report you linked recently, it's dated 12/2020, so that blog might actually be a summary of the report. Albeit they're both four months out of date.

[Horse]

In this thread for want of a better home.

Single layer 'denim', AAA, jeans



So why on Earth can't all manufacturers achieve at least AA for all garments?

Ok, £250 for a pair.

[Horse]

And looking for a similar price comparison.

https://www.infinitymotorcycles.com/pro ... 38QAvD_BwE

A* leather jeans, reduced to £250.

Doesn't say which rating, but does say:

"Supplied with Alpinestars’ class-leading CE certified Nucleon KR-H Hip Protectors, which incorporate advanced PU foam for impact and abrasion resistance"

[Hot_Air]

Single layer 'denim', AAA, jeans



So why on Earth can't all manufacturers achieve at least AA for all garments?

Oxford Products sell single-layer AAA-rated jeans for £149, and this month’s RiDE magazine gave them a highly positive review.

What’s more, these Oxford jeans include the latest SAS-TEC Phantom knee and hip armour (CE level 2, yet incredibly thin and unnoticeable).

https://www.oxfordproducts.com/motorcyc ... d_casuals/

So, I agree with @Horse: why on Earth can’t all manufacturers achieve decent protection (AA or AAA) for all garments?

[The Spin Doctor]

So, I agree with @Horse: why on Earth can’t all manufacturers achieve decent protection (AA or AAA) for all garments?

They can. They just make bigger profits from selling cr@p at inflated prices.

If you look at how the costs of armoured jeans have risen over the past ten years they gone from "standard denims plus a bit to cover the kevlar insert" to "as much as leathers".

That's not R&D costs, it's not the expense of testing to the CE standard either. It's simply a recognition that if people think they are getting leather-equivalent protection, they'll pay leather-equivalent prices.

I've got a pair of Grinfactors (UK-made) I bought for under £80. The company owner was convinced in their strength sufficient to put a chainsaw to his own leg!

[Hot_Air]

Give us the highlights!

How about this 3-minute YouTube video by PIONEERS (OK, it's not highlights but an overview)?

[Rockburner]

And, as recommended in The Jump article, simply standing up and putting a knee on the seat would move the riders leg away from the impact.

That makes 2 grossly unlikely assumptions:

1) that the rider actually sees the car coming

2) that the rider actually has time to lift their leg up to the saddle height.

[Horse]

And, as recommended in The Jump article, simply standing up and putting a knee on the seat would move the riders leg away from the impact.

That makes 2 grossly unlikely assumptions:

1) that the rider actually sees the car coming

2) that the rider actually has time to lift their leg up to the saddle height.

Don't be daft, please.

First, it's going to be very rare that a rider has absolutely no warning. The situation that is talking about is a crash at a junction, where the rider is placing the bike in front of a stationary car. If someone is going to ride into that situation then deliberately look away then, yes, it might well be a surprise end to the day.

Second, it's 'diminishing returns', there will be few situationswhere you might use it.
- Is there a car there?
- Has the rider taken actions to reduce the likelihood of a crash?
- Has the rider taken actions to reduce the severity?
- Has the rider planned evasive action?
That doesn't leave many instances, does it?


Are you sat at a desk or table at the moment?

Push your chair away from it. Now stand up, bend one knee and put your toes on the chair. If you do it deliberately it will take just moments. Sadly, with ever increasing numbers of SUVs, you might not get your leg completely away, but it has to be better than having a crease ironed in your leather jeans.

And that chair exercise is one you can use to rehearse it. But some see this thinking as too fatalistic, taking away the fun of riding.

[Rockburner]

And, as recommended in The Jump article, simply standing up and putting a knee on the seat would move the riders leg away from the impact.

That makes 2 grossly unlikely assumptions:

1) that the rider actually sees the car coming

2) that the rider actually has time to lift their leg up to the saddle height.

Don't be daft, please.

You know me - I don't do 'daft', I do real-life.

First, it's going to be very rare that a rider has absolutely no warning.

I think it's very easy to see many many situations where an inexperienced rider has no or 'not enough' warning of impending doom.

The situation that is talking about is a crash at a junction, where the rider is placing the bike in front of a stationary car.

Which must happen something like umpty-trillion times a day (I don't have figures), are you seriously going to suggest that in every single instance the rider is ultra-aware of their circumstances?

If someone is going to ride into that situation then deliberately look away

Given the topography of most town roads - yes, I can see that happening very frequently, I know that I don't tend to keep looking at a risk once I've judged it - I start focusing on the next risk (assuming I've dismissed the previous risk as low-enough to chance).

then, yes, it might well be a surprise end to the day.

I think that's a given.

Second, it's 'diminishing returns', there will be few situationswhere you might use it.
- Is there a car there?
- Has the rider taken actions to reduce the likelihood of a crash?
- Has the rider taken actions to reduce the severity?
- Has the rider planned evasive action?
That doesn't leave many instances, does it?

Only the ones where the driver then does something stupid.....

Are you sat at a desk or table at the moment?

Yes - but no, I'm not going to act it out because I'll fall over and probably hurt myself. (bad knee)

Push your chair away from it. Now stand up, bend one knee and put your toes on the chair. If you do it deliberately it will take just moments.

moments? If all the assessments have been done (as intimated by you above), and the rider is still crossing in front of a stationary car that suddenly jerks out because they've NOT actually twigged the presence of the bike (which, as intimated by me above is still a reasonable possibility in the vast majority of situations), they're going to have perhaps a second and a half (being generous) to a) see the risk coming (when, as imtimated above by me they're likely looking the other way), and, b) react in the correct fashion, and c) ACTUALLY MOVE THEIR MUSCLES (reaction times being what they are).

Sadly, with ever increasing numbers of SUVs, you might not get your leg completely away, but it has to be better than having a crease ironed in your leather jeans.

I'm not going to disagree with that.

And that chair exercise is one you can use to rehearse it. But some see this thinking as too fatalistic, taking away the fun of riding.

Oh don't get your knickers in a twist.

As I've (hopefully) demonstrated above, the 'jump' or 'leg-lift' may well be a good way to avoid serious injury (whilst possibly causing other, non-standard, injuries) it depends hugely on the rider doing a lot of things that are not just unlikely independently, but even more unlikely when listed concurrently.

[Horse]

The 'unlikely' may depend on a lot of things, such as whether they're even aware of the things they could do. Some riders may know, but not bother.

But the key point - not just for SMIDSYs - is expecting something to happen. It underpins the 'No surprise' campaign.

Even then, reducing 'surprise' won't necessarily avoid 'startle', the rabbit in the headlamps freeze, which can waste precious time.

But if you can be on the brakes sooner, in a more controlled manner, etc., you have more chance of getting out in one piece.

Plus, if you're in that NS mindset, you may be less likely to get into thise situations in the first place.

[The Spin Doctor]

1) that the rider actually sees the car coming

Evidence from crash studies is that the rider more often that not has time to avoid the collision. The implication is that they could have seen it coming. The cut-off (when SURPRISE! kicks in) is around three seconds out. Plenty of time / distance to stop in a typical urban SMIDSY.

I think it's very easy to see many many situations where an inexperienced rider has no or 'not enough' warning of impending doom.

Mostly because (as we've been talking about on another thread), no-one ever trains them to LOOK for the situation as it develops with any kind of expectation of it going wrong. That applies as much as basic level (see 'Essential Skills' for pages and pages on how to do the 'right' thing at junctions) as it does at advanced level.

[Cousin Jack]

Mostly because (as we've been talking about on another thread), no-one ever trains them to LOOK for the situation as it develops with any kind of expectation of it going wrong. That applies as much as basic level (see 'Essential Skills' for pages and pages on how to do the 'right' thing at junctions) as it does at advanced level.

IMO the Hazard Perception Test does no-one any favours. It rewards you for recognizing the bleeding obvious, and penalises you for spotting potential hazards building up whilst you still have time to do something about them.

[MrLongbeard]

But some see this thinking as too fatalistic, taking away the fun of riding.

Or not plausible for mopeds, scooters, maxi scooters, cruisers etc.

[Horse]

But some see this thinking as too fatalistic, taking away the fun of riding.

Or not plausible for mopeds, scooters, maxi scooters, cruisers etc.

How does thinking alter depending on the bike type, when travelling at the same speed on the same road?

[MrLongbeard]

But some see this thinking as too fatalistic, taking away the fun of riding.

Or not plausible for mopeds, scooters, maxi scooters, cruisers etc.

How does thinking alter depending on the bike type, when travelling at the same speed on the same road?

Try assuming a jump position, or your chair exercise with your legs stretched out in front of you, and then compensate to allow for you legs to be as near as damn it if not actually, under your bars.

[Horse]

Or not plausible for mopeds, scooters, maxi scooters, cruisers etc.

How does thinking alter depending on the bike type, when travelling at the same speed on the same road?

Try assuming a jump position, or your chair exercise with your legs stretched out in front of you, and then compensate to allow for you legs to be as near as damn it if not actually, under your bars.

Fair enough. I thought you meant the bit you quoted, about fatalistic thinking, the whole planning for the possibility that it might go wrong. So slowing, active positioning, covering the brakes, etc.

Or ...

00:54