A commentary on motorcycle safety

[canucklehead-biker]

umm.... I think what he wanted to say (in a long-winded, E-9 kinda way) was...

That might have been easier, and the young'uns might have stayed tuned in...

Griff

 

[chrisflock]

Can you imagine how much money would be saved if this mentality was applied to the Marines, and the military in general...

Helmets, bullet-proof vests, that stuff won't really help. They just make soldiers feel safe and overconfident. Soldiers should depend on their ability to not get shot at, instead of having faith that when somebody tosses a left-over soviet grenade out of a 3rd story window into a vegetable cart behind the soldier, that their helmet and vest might keep a hunk of shrapnel from poking a hole all the way through some squishy organ like their 'brain' or 'heart' or whatever organs they might need to use later on...

 

[FJRAust]

At least the Master Gunnery Sergeant gave it a go.

Bag him as you will but he did in his own way try to make a difference..

But guys to make a difference the government needs to step up to the plate.

How about some uniformed laws.

How about mandatory learner training.

How about a minimum requirement for PPE.

How about a MC performance indexing and therefore an associated license structure.

Our licensing structure in Australia is by no means perfect but they (the Government) have progressively toughened up the Motor Cycle Licensing laws.

You must pass a basic Theoretical exam and a 2 day practical course and exam before you are entitled to a learners permit. (and it's expensive).

This is just one of the law changes in recent years.

There are some down sides to these changes

Not everyone can afford to go through the licensing routine and therefore they can't get a license.

Some just find it all too hard and stick with a car.

Some aren't co-ordinated enough to ride a bike, they just fail the practical exam.

The list is long...

The upside.

In the past 10 years we have seen the number of license motor cyclist quadruple. Yet the death rate is down by > 60%. I saw these statistics some time ago.

There was some info from the US which indicated the US death rate for motor cyclists has increased by 240% in the past 10 years.

I know you guys are going to dog pile me because your protecting what is closest to your heart.

I'm not criticizing the US way of doing things just saying that there's room for change. Australia is a much smaller population and therefore it's cheaper, easier and quicker to make change.

But there won't be change unless the government feels it's what the people want..

If you can't keep our youth interested our sport it has no future, if we can't keep out youth alive we have no future.

If this requires unpopular law change then so be it.

I'm sure I read these statistics on a site detailing discussons from an international motorcycle safety forum held in Canberra last year.

It may have been on the https://www.ulyssesclub.org/Default.asp site. I'm not sure. But I expect someone on this wonderful forum can clarify these details.

Hope this doesn't offend.

 

[user 213]

The MasterGunny's e-mail is just the kind of thing I used to see about safety issues while in the Corps in '80s. Too long, too wimpy and written by someone that really means well, but doesn't have a really good grasp of the info. Sort of like those comic safety magazines that are dumbed down to the lowest level.

I would bet that the E-9 in question has <10 thousand miles of riding in those 8 years. Too bad really.

Want to teach young military riders to survive? Remember, these guys are indestructable still. Require rider training. Real training, MSF training through all three stages including the ART before being allowed a sticker for their bike on base. And spend the money to make the training available w/o stupid long waits.

Require ATGATT and not crap gear or reflective vests, real armored gear. Yes, they can and will take this stuff off once they leave base, but they can be held to it on base and some of them will learn enough to keep wearing it the rest of the time.

I've BTDT with a bike when I was in the service. Yes, I know they can and will get around the rules. What I also know is that if the above was done, their friends that took the courses would be riding better and safer than the ones that didn't. And pretty soon, there would be a lot of peer pressure to take the courses. "Dude, I'm not riding with you again until you finish the ART. You'll be amazed at how much you learn and how much better you'll ride afterwards."

When you're 19, that's the kind of pressure that makes a difference. Especially with the crowd that is at risk. The solo LD type isn't near as likely to be a problem compared to the 'stunta' guys.

Yes, we have to train them to survive on a bike. Teaching them this is as important as teaching them to survive in combat. The typical response back in the day would be to punish the guys that crash and threaten the rest with punishment if they did. Not real proactive or successful.

 

[sonicspeed]

my new son-in-law had to do a mandatory MSF this past weekend in Nashville. he is in the Marine reserves.

edited

he doesn't own a motorcycle yet, so i was surprised that he had to take the MSF

 

[James Burleigh]

After reading and re-reading the original post, I still don't see why the author is such an ***-hat. I think most of what he's saying makes sense. I particularly like the author's metaphor of "turning off the safety," which struck me as clever for a military audience.

I recall a highly respected member of this forum saying to hell with investing in blaster horns and modulating headlights and loud colors and such because they make you rely too much on them. I think this author is saying the same. He says that he's not saying not to wear gear, just don't rely on it as an excuse to act foolishly.

When I read Gun's response, it struck me that to make your own case you may have over-stated the author's position somewhat, which is why I went back and re-read it, wondering, "Is that really what the author said or meant?"

Safety messages, IMHO, cannot be too often made, and though not a perfect communication, throwing this whole message out is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Jb

 

[JRO]

I agree with JB. This guy meant well, he just writes poorly, and perhaps knows too little about his subject.

Motorcycle fatalities of service personell, has been pretty bad. When my #2 boy got back from his first full tour of Iraq, a lot of the boys in his Batt. went out and bought sportbikes. Hey, they were gone for 16 months, pay was increased in the war zone (not much), and quite a lot of them saved their cash. ALL of them wanting bikes had to have the biggest, baddest, fastest rocket-sleds made. Many (or most), had never owned a bike, but - of course - their ability to handle risk was limited only by testosterone. They're young, back in the World, and they've just survived their Tour. Naturally, they're invulnerable. Tearing *** on the fastest sportbike they could afford? Why, that's nothing.

The casualty rate was higher than it was in combat.

After losing 8 young men (some mangled and some killed), the Batt. Colonel, Col. Buck, took charge. He was a Harley rider, himself, and he'd had enough of this nonsense. He assembled his Batt., and told these kids that they were NOT to buy any more motorcycles, without coming to see HIM, first. Approval of purchase was decided by him, and only to those who were willing to attend motorcycle training, given by him, every weekend.

The battle ended, there. Motorcycle purchases dropped like a rock, and correspondingly, the accident rate. Those who were allowed to get a bike were checked out for fitness to have one.

The best way to keep young troops from killing themselves on bikes, is for senior personnel to take charge. If they aren't competent to handle young men, maybe they shouldn't be in charge, in the first place.

This Gunnery Sgt. is trying to do something with his kids. It probably wouldn't hurt for him to look around, and find somebody a little more experienced to help him.

 

[Tenchi]

Some quality words on East Australia laws making for better rider training and reducing deaths accordingly.

I greatly appreciate the laws in place as a new rider in West Australia. I would prefer a slightly different approach to what we have in West Australia (currently ride for a year on a restricted licence) as they still allow an unskilled rider to get on a GSX-R1000 and become a statistic under the right conditions, and for insurance and government bodies to support additional rider training here.

There is currently no premium reduction nor government cashback scheme to support additional training here. Worse, I'm not even covered by insurance to actually go out there and do the additional rider training - it's a personal liability (section 5.4.3i). Enforcing additional training or at least backing it with government support and funding, or reducing probationary time for passing a course like this as they supposedly do in NZ, would be excellent incentives for people to become better riders.

It bothers me that the non-MSF rider licencing system for motorbikes is a joke by comparison to what we have in place here. They really need to get their act into gear at the government level. That and every time a young rider crashes, it raises my premiums.

GunMD, I didn't say it before, but top notch work on the response. There are some good points in his email amongst the waffle, but as yourself and canucklehead-biker put it there's nothing wrong with being well protected AND having the correct mentality to ride well and safely.

 

[eeksnake]

Safety messages, IMHO, cannot be too often made, and though not a perfect communication, throwing this whole message out is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I concur that messages of safety cannot be too often made. Unfortunately, I don't see his message. :dntknw:

"Safety switch"? Puh-leze! Ain't no such a thing. This guy made the rank of MGySgt. which tells me that at some point in his career, he conducted training. He understands the true value of training. Why wasn't that made clear in his email?

No, IMHO this guy's email is just like the 10-20 emails a week I'd see while flying a desk in DC... Chaff, nothing more, nothing less. If this guys was serious about getting his message across, he'd direct it to the Naval Safety Center (which I GUARANTEE he's very aware of.) Ironically, at the time of this posting, one of the headlines on the home page is "MSF meets with Commander, Naval Safety Center."

After losing 8 young men (some mangled and some killed), the Batt. Colonel, Col. Buck, took charge. He was a Harley rider, himself, and he'd had enough of this nonsense. He assembled his Batt., and told these kids that they were NOT to buy any more motorcycles, without coming to see HIM, first. Approval of purchase was decided by him, and only to those who were willing to attend motorcycle training, given by him, every weekend.
The battle ended, there. Motorcycle purchases dropped like a rock, and correspondingly, the accident rate. Those who were allowed to get a bike were checked out for fitness to have one.

The best way to keep young troops from killing themselves on bikes, is for senior personnel to take charge. If they aren't competent to handle young men, maybe they shouldn't be in charge, in the first place.

HERE HERE!!! :clapping:

That's how it's friggin' done! Little thing I learned called leadership! BRAVO ZULU!

 

[user 10225]

My concern is that some ****** is out there essentially telling these young riders that the gear isn't all that important because they're toast anyway. I think you, Mike, understand as well as (or better than) most of us that the gear can and does make the difference. It's frustrating to see it all go down. Tons of talk about safety and then one email like this can just solidify the misconception that some of these young guys already have. The message this E-9 is sending is that gear is of no added value. Disgusts me.

I don't know, Guns... the way I read that is very similar to the talks I've had with young Marines about depending on their training rather than their body armor to get them through the fight. It's great to have, and it is most certainly designed to save your life under certain conditions. But if you find yourself thinking that gear is what saves the day 99% of the time then you've lost focus. Gear is designed to give you the best shot at surviving when everything around you turns to ****...gear is what gives you a chance to live when your abilities and training are overwhelmed, forgotten, or just plain outclassed.

Granted, the author stepped on his **** more than once in that email, but I don't think he's taking the position that gear isn't important. Could he have gotten his message across more effectively? Yes. But to say that he's encouraging young riders to gaff off any PPE because it's useless is a bit of a stretch in my mind.

Then again, I've known a lot of E-9's in my time... LMAO!!

Semper Fi, bro... and keep fighting the good fight. It's hard to tell Marines that they're not indestructible, though.

eeksnake - the reference to the "Safety Switch" is a throwback to our tendency to train people that they need to rely on their brains as their primary safety mechanism, rather than the selector switch on the weapon.

 

[user 2024]

But he has a great catch phrase: Safety Switch. The Army has "Got Risk" posters and the new and improved Composite Risk Management. No real meat to any of this but it is a great CYA tool for commanders. Just like a couple of years ago the Army Safety Center changed their name to Combat Readiness Center. It is all in the presentation and does it look good.

The only really good thing they have done is start a Motorcycle Mentorship Program they got from the Air Force. They hate my answer that these idiots are deepening the gene pool. I wouldn't want to share a foxhole with them or have them fly/repair my helicopter. Also where is the equal punisment for the cagers that do stupid ****.

All part of the reason I retired a couple of years before planned. :angry: