I wear my gear for protection, not for fashion. So I am always bemused by riders who put such a high emphasis on fashion.
I know one Harley Rider who wouldn't ride to work except on Fridays because blue jeans weren't allowed Monday through Thursday, and things just didn't "look right" when he rode wearing anything but blue jeans.
I would never have this problem; I can commute any day ... my blue jeans never show anyway, as I'm always wearing my trusty pair of Alpinestars Mesh Tech 2.0 overpants. They cover dockers as well as they cover blue jeans.
So when a friend sent me this link, I had to laugh. Apparently faux motorcycle jackets are making a comeback in the world of fashion.
Most of which, the article deftly notes, seem suited "for men that couldn't find themselves on a motorcycle if one ran them over."
Wear your gear. Make it stylish if you want. Just make sure you are protected!
I have to give them points for an attention-grabbing headline. But that's really all it was.
The Hell For Leather article summarizes the findings of the Michigan State Police vehicle evaluation for police motorcycles. Their summary pulled a few statistics into a table, and concluded that Harley's suck, apparently based on their 0-100 mph performance compared to other bikes.
So, by what subjective criteria did Hell For Leather determine that "suckiness" equated to "lackluster acceleration at speeds above 80 mph".
If this were truly an objective analysis on HFL's part, the selection criteria of the bike would be established in the article. Without knowing what the criteria were for the test, we can't choose a winner.
For example, the Harley's beat all competitors in the zero-to-30 mph acceleration test.
How do we know, and how does HFL know, that acceleration 0-30 is more important than acceleration 80-100 mph, in which the Harley's drew dead last. Which is more important? Which do police bikes do most often? Do police motorcycles really get involved in high speed chases?
What do we really know about the selection criteria for police motorcycles?
Don't mistake this for a defense of Harley Davidson. That's not my point. What really at stake here is the definition of "objectivity", and the concept of fairness and accuracy in reporting.
Included in the HFL article is an unrelated, but probably similar, evaluation report from the LAPD.
The Los Angleles Police Department article makes for an interesting read. In fact, if you have time for reading only one more article, skip HFL, and jump right to the report...
There sure is a lot of hatred in the Moto Press for Honda's VFR1200 -- dubbed "Shamu". Reading "Hell For Leather's" reviews makes me worry about the future of Honda...if this bike is any example of what we can expect from them.
Now, there are rumors of "Shamu 2 -- the sequel" -- a V4 adventure bike. Honda apparently is taking aim at the BMW's GS.
A cow-orker of mine, who isn't a rider himself, commented on my riding apparel today. He said I was the "best dressed biker" ... a commentary on the fact that I always wear my gear.
I overlooked the fact that I consider myself a "rider" and not a "biker", and I took it as a compliment.
I wear my gear, and come into the office dressed in my get-up every day. Folks have gotten used to it. Out of the two dozen motorcyclists in my office building (who have ever commuted to work) I'm the only one who wears protective over-pants and protective boots. Most wear helmets, a few wear jackets and / or gloves.
I get questions sometimes. What's it made of? Aren't you hot in the summer?
Some mistake it for rain gear. Some say, "Good for you!" Some roll their eyes.
I enjoy the full protection, and the anonymity, of the full faced helmet. I change personas when I'm on the bike.
I've been made fun of. "What are you -- some sort of superhero? Is that your super-suit?"
