Gordon Ramsay full of fail

[MendoDave]

how am i supposed to drink my milkshake with all that gear on???

Exactly dude! See that's what I'm talkin about.



Never mind that those Mickey D's milkshakes will make you vomit.

[kopfjäger]

Eating McDonald's food....the true biker way.

[ducatiz]

Eating McDonald's food....the true biker way.

FAIL

he took his gloves off

[kopfjäger]

FAIL

he took his gloves off

Doh 

[ducatiz]

Doh 

 

[KRJ]

   Hell, the Dogs got it figured out...

[Howie]

If you are wearing less than one piece leathers with the latest very bestest armor and full back detector, full gauntlet gloves and race boots and your Snell helmet is less than five years old you are not dressed as safe as you can be.  There is a lot of territory between riders who wear T shirt, shorts and flip flops and riders  who wear the best gear money can buy.  I'm sure all of us are somewhere between.  Beyond what your local authorities require is personal choice. 

[IZ]

I'm a pansy 

Never ridden in shorts and flip-flops aka Florida gear

Agreed.





You are a pansy!   

[Raux]

I actually got complimented going through the base gate the other day for wearing real gear

I had on helmet, leather jacket with armor, back armor (not that they could see it), hard armor gloves, armored boots and  jeans. I told them I felt naked cause i left off my icon knee armor. they said i was tons better armored than some of the guys coming through.

[Nomad]

You can't quantify safety just by what gear someone is wearing.  Personally, I'd rather avoid an accident all together than be properly dressed and go down.  How big a part does situational awareness play?  If a completely oblivious person is riding in full gear and a switched on guy is riding in a helmet, jacket, shoes and no gloves, who is really safer? 
     On that same token, if the switched on guy is riding in hot weather in full leathers and is sweating so bad and so god awful uncomfortable that he can't pay attention to what he is doing, is he still safer than if he was in t-shirt and shorts and riding comfortably?

[Raux]

logically it would seem to make sense what you are saying... but.. you don't dress for the ride. you dress for the wreck.
that being said. no matter how in tune you are with your bike/ride, there are always things that can happen, ie other drivers, road hazards unseen, deer, etc.

and i don't think anyone qualifies safety=gear, i think it's gear=safer.

[Nomad]

Well nothing is 100%, I absolutely believe that more gear is safer.  I'm just playing devils advocate and saying that there are some situations where it is perfectly reasonable to not be in full gear.
     At the end of the day, everybody rides for their own reasons and accepts the risk of riding.  However they choose to mitigate that risk is up to them.  Until it becomes and issue of riding recklessly and putting other people in danger, I don't see why anybody should care.
     Should we blame people for raising our insurance rates because they don't wear all the gear they possibly can?  I think that is a result of an imperfect system, not the fault of individuals.  I think helmet laws and seat belt laws are ridiculous, people should be free to behave how they please if it doesn't affect others.  Personally I will never get on a bike without a helmet, jacket, gloves, and boots.  I will never get in a car without putting on a seat belt, but I don't think anybody should be required to do any of those things.  Minors are a different matter, but that's a different discussion.

[Raux]

government oversight of personal safety has been a big issue for years.
seatbelts, airbags, abs, traction control, etc.
in the end, it's a government's responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens sometimes in spite of themselves.
should a seatbelt be mandatory? no, but would it be mandatory if everyone was smart enough to wear one? no.
same goes for helmets, IMO.

it's not about age or choice, it's about intellect. it's smarter to wear safety gear.
unfortunately, due to people not using intellect, the government needs to mandate things to cover those people. Darwinism isn't an option for a government.

ok, take it out of the transportatio realm
do we really need labels on coffee saying it's "Hot: Handle with care"?

[Nomad]

I think intellect plays some role in deciding what you're going to wear safety wise, but is not the be all and end all.  My father in law is one of the smartest people I've ever met, his personal choice is to wear as little safety gear as he legally can.  He enjoys the experience of riding without a helmet, jacket, gloves, rigid boots, etc.
     If he was in an accident he is more than capable of paying any damages to himself or anybody else, or in the event of a fatal accident his family would be taken care of.
     So call it personal responsibility if you want, is his situation different than the 20 something kid who took out a loan on a bike and gets into an accident for which he can't pay the medical bills?  I think it is night and day, but it is too specific a situation for the government to make laws around.
     Anyway, I have a hard time maintaining my train of thought, but I don't think weather someone wears gear or not is based primarily on intellect, it's a personal choice and people of all different kinds will end up on either side of the gear/no gear deal.

[duccarlos]

FAIL

he took his gloves off

He also lifted his visor quite a few times. What would have happened if a bee would have come flying into his helmet?