GI's and motorcycle crashes...

[Tripped1]

No way the US can do this.

Remember Congress trying to ban Playboys in NEX/PX/AFEES?

Yeah, those boneheads. If they want to let the guys blow off steam, give a week and a ticket to Thialand. Problem solved.

[dolomoto]

the "Marne Alert" sent out earlier this week..

blah, blah, blah...

"All riders will wear full fingered gloves, long trousers, long sleeved
shirt or jacket, and leather boots or over the ankle shoes while
operating or riding on or off the installation. NOTE: For military
personnel, the failure to wear required safety equipment while operating
a motorcycle and/or moped either on or off of FS/HAAF, in addition to
possible UCMJ and/or Administrative action, could also result in an
unfavorable line of duty investigation finding, if it is determined that
the Soldier's misconduct of not wearing the equipment contributed to the
Soldier's injuries."

And, just today...a new moto policy for 3rd ID:

blah, blah, blah...
"Motorcyclists are especially vulnerable while operating at night, and over 90% of all motorcycle fatalities occur at night. Solders are required to wear reflective vests while riding on post and are highly recommended to wear reflective vests off-post. PT belts do not meet the reflective vest requirement for on-post operation. Specialized reflective riding jackets made of an abrasive resistant material, may be worn in lieu of a reflective vest. Soldiers covered by this policy who operate a motorcycle on the installation without wearing a reflective vest or a specialized reflective riding jacket may be subjected to UCMJ actions in accordance with paragraph 9 of this policy."

Once again, the myth of a reflective vest as some sort of mishap avoidance talisman has reared it's head.

At least they allow sensible riding jackets to suffice although I will probably still get hassled wearing my 200,000 mile used-to-be-Red 'stich (and FF helmet, elkskin gloves and Combat Touring boots).

Somehow, the bureaucrats ignore the fact that light (like from a headlight) travels FOREVER whereas a reflective anything is dependent on another light source to reflect a small (.00x%) of the light back. Then there's the issue of a full dresser/tourer which all but obscures reflective anything.

I think we should find and address the root causes (poor risk management?) rather than apply some knee-jerk response that probably would not have prevented either of the last two fatalities around here (car turning left in front of the rider, the other was a multi-vehicle crash at 0-dark-30).

Ideas? Opinions on the policy?

[MisterPX]

Good decision skills cannot be mandated, nor can they be endowed through a power point. Finding the cause is the key step in trying to prevent repeated incidents. I also believe public dissemination of people who "don't see" motorcycles and run into them should be done ot more of an extent. Granted, in a .mil standpoint, a base paper could print headlines of "Larry Smith, 42, of Savannah kills motorcyclist", instead of little blurb on page 8. Also follow up, "Man who killed motorcyclist entenced to 5 years in prison" or "1.2 million dollar civil suit filed against local man who killed motorcyclist". People for teh most part, are oblivious to anything outside their little world. A HEY, you going to jail, or losing everything you own!, is a way to plant that seed of attention in the back of their minds.
Granted, limited exposure on post since IIRC, most accidents happen off base, but I'm sure base media talks to local media.

[majlee_vmi]

Originally Posted by dolomoto

the "Marne Alert" sent out earlier this week..

blah, blah, blah...

"All riders will wear full fingered gloves, long trousers, long sleeved
shirt or jacket, and leather boots or over the ankle shoes while
operating or riding on or off the installation. NOTE: For military
personnel, the failure to wear required safety equipment while operating
a motorcycle and/or moped either on or off of FS/HAAF, in addition to
possible UCMJ and/or Administrative action, could also result in an
unfavorable line of duty investigation finding, if it is determined that
the Soldier's misconduct of not wearing the equipment contributed to the
Soldier's injuries."

And, just today...a new moto policy for 3rd ID:

blah, blah, blah...
"Motorcyclists are especially vulnerable while operating at night, and over 90% of all motorcycle fatalities occur at night. Solders are required to wear reflective vests while riding on post and are highly recommended to wear reflective vests off-post. PT belts do not meet the reflective vest requirement for on-post operation. Specialized reflective riding jackets made of an abrasive resistant material, may be worn in lieu of a reflective vest. Soldiers covered by this policy who operate a motorcycle on the installation without wearing a reflective vest or a specialized reflective riding jacket may be subjected to UCMJ actions in accordance with paragraph 9 of this policy."

Once again, the myth of a reflective vest as some sort of mishap avoidance talisman has reared it's head.

At least they allow sensible riding jackets to suffice although I will probably still get hassled wearing my 200,000 mile used-to-be-Red 'stich (and FF helmet, elkskin gloves and Combat Touring boots).

Somehow, the bureaucrats ignore the fact that light (like from a headlight) travels FOREVER whereas a reflective anything is dependent on another light source to reflect a small (.00x%) of the light back. Then there's the issue of a full dresser/tourer which all but obscures reflective anything.

I think we should find and address the root causes (poor risk management?) rather than apply some knee-jerk response that probably would not have prevented either of the last two fatalities around here (car turning left in front of the rider, the other was a multi-vehicle crash at 0-dark-30).

Ideas? Opinions on the policy?

I think (that's a dangerous term...) we mandate PPE and training is for the same reason we espouse Army values. We have a pretty good cross section of folks in the military, all from different backgrounds, many of whom come from backgrounds with different value sets. Same thing with motorcycle riding (or any activity) - too many people learned the way they were taught and it's not quite right. Or to quote the Observer Controllers at JRTC, "That's A way..." which we all know is a euphemism for, "LTC, that is the dumbest thing I ever saw!" The Army is at least trying to get to one "good" standard. I have bigger issues with the Safety Center folks don't really seem to understand motorcycles at all. If they don't understand them, they make the knee jerk reactions / decisions.

On a similar note, we are getting ready to re-deploy. IAW the appropriate Army regs, I get to re-blue my battalion's riders. Check of paperwork, PPE, bike inspection (T-CLOC method) and then a riding test under the watchful eye of my BN senior motorcycle mentor. Do you have any suggestions for additions or ways to make it mo' bettah? I've got 45 known riders in my battalion. I'm sort of concerned about those "ghost riders" who have bikes back home and don't want to bring their bike to post because of what they perceive as the nanny state they think we mandate. I want to catch these guys and get them checked and their heads in the game before they go on block leave for a month.

Thoughts?

[bmac999]

Originally Posted by majlee_vmi

I think (that's a dangerous term...) we mandate PPE and training is for the same reason we espouse Army values. We have a pretty good cross section of folks in the military, all from different backgrounds, many of whom come from backgrounds with different value sets. Same thing with motorcycle riding (or any activity) - too many people learned the way they were taught and it's not quite right. Or to quote the Observer Controllers at JRTC, "That's A way..." which we all know is a euphemism for, "LTC, that is the dumbest thing I ever saw!" The Army is at least trying to get to one "good" standard. I have bigger issues with the Safety Center folks don't really seem to understand motorcycles at all. If they don't understand them, they make the knee jerk reactions / decisions.

On a similar note, we are getting ready to re-deploy. IAW the appropriate Army regs, I get to re-blue my battalion's riders. Check of paperwork, PPE, bike inspection (T-CLOC method) and then a riding test under the watchful eye of my BN senior motorcycle mentor. Do you have any suggestions for additions or ways to make it mo' bettah? I've got 45 known riders in my battalion. I'm sort of concerned about those "ghost riders" who have bikes back home and don't want to bring their bike to post because of what they perceive as the nanny state they think we mandate. I want to catch these guys and get them checked and their heads in the game before they go on block leave for a month.

Thoughts?

+1 for Safety Centers/Inspectors not understanding motorcycles. But I think it also can occur with Commanders who don't know how to handle it either. If you own a motorcycle/ATV/dirtbike you are labeled as a "medium risk" Soldier even with no other red flags. I think this is why you have your "ghost riders" who hide them because they think it's not worth the hassle.

One thing I saw that actually worked in bringing them out of the shadows was a BN ride a few hours in the morning and dismissed for the rest of the day. Suddenly rider numbers tripled (never underestimate Joe's willingness to get out of work). Probably wouldn't be as effective right after redeployment, just gotta depend on their firstlines.

[dolomoto]

Originally Posted by majlee_vmi

I think (that's a dangerous term...).... Do you have any suggestions for additions or ways to make it mo' bettah? I've got 45 known riders in my battalion. I'm sort of concerned about those "ghost riders" who have bikes back home and don't want to bring their bike to post because of what they perceive as the nanny state they think we mandate. I want to catch these guys and get them checked and their heads in the game before they go on block leave for a month.
Thoughts?

I left out the part of the Marne moto policy that dictates a lengthy inspection of motorcycles before a long weekend, leave, etc...yeah, right.

As far as including the "ghost riders"...as my Grandma used to say: "you draw more flies with honey than vinegar"

ALL moto policies should be INCLUSIVE rather than EXCLUSIVE. Any part of the policy that discourages riders from riding on base (ex. reflective vest) is exclusive and generates more ghost riders...many of them are exactly the riders we need to know about.

Company/Battalion/Unit/Squadron rides are all good ideas...moreso if that sharp E5/E6 is running it. Old enough to know better..almost too young to care.

BTW, more words on the second fatality referenced earlier...turns out the mishap rider was minding his own business on his way back to the barracks. In the oncoming lane were 3 vehicles, the assclown in the 3rd car back decided to pass the other two vehicles. The assclown hit the moto rider head on. Bike and rider ended up under the lead vehicle...on fire. It was nasty.

No words on charges on the assclown.

And, it's dubious about whether this change in moto policy would have prevented that death.

[Tripped1]

Originally Posted by dolomoto

BTW, more words on the second fatality referenced earlier...turns out the mishap rider was minding his own business on his way back to the barracks. In the oncoming lane were 3 vehicles, the assclown in the 3rd car back decided to pass the other two vehicles. The assclown hit the moto rider head on. Bike and rider ended up under the lead vehicle...on fire. It was nasty.

No words on charges on the assclown.

And, it's dubious about whether this change in moto policy would have prevented that death.

He certainly would have lived if he had that stupid vest.

So far as the "ghostriders" go. Now that I'm a civilian, I'm just that guy, my job does take me onto various military stations and buildings. Since they treat civilians the same as active duty I just park at the gate and walk.

Because I'm not spending $300 to get another MSF card, and I will never wear that vest again.

[jules083]

Originally Posted by majlee_vmi

I'm sort of concerned about those "ghost riders" who have bikes back home and don't want to bring their bike to post because of what they perceive as the nanny state they think we mandate.

I was that guy for a while. At first because I didn't feel like going through the Bullshit, then after that I had to wait for an opening in the MSF class when I finally did mention my bikes.

Originally Posted by bmac999

+1 for Safety Centers/Inspectors not understanding motorcycles. But I think it also can occur with Commanders who don't know how to handle it either. If you own a motorcycle/ATV/dirtbike you are labeled as a "medium risk" Soldier even with no other red flags. I think this is why you have your "ghost riders" who hide them because they think it's not worth the hassle.

One thing I saw that actually worked in bringing them out of the shadows was a BN ride a few hours in the morning and dismissed for the rest of the day. Suddenly rider numbers tripled (never underestimate Joe's willingness to get out of work). Probably wouldn't be as effective right after redeployment, just gotta depend on their firstlines.

That was tried in my battalion when I was still Active Duty. I was a squad leader at the time, I was told my my Platoon Sergant that we had to much stuff to do that day. Counting me there were 3 in my Squad that rode, and the other two were fairly new riders. I think we cleaned the barracks IIRC, I can't remember for sure. I know we didn't do much of anything.

[Tuna Helper]

My brother and I had a chat about something similar. He said it's not about being under trained, or drunk, or "young and dumb". He said that when you are in battle there is an adrenaline rush. You get high on that rush, you get addicted to it. The guys coming back home, they miss that rush and buy fast cars or bikes to try to recreate that.

Rather than a no bikes policy, maybe a ban on bikes larger than 500cc.

[nukemm]

I think the real issue is PPE. As an active duty member (MM1 (E6) USN) in San Diego I see at least 90% of motorcyclists do not wear any PPE aside from helmet, gloves, boots and vest. I've seen several motorcycle mishaps in the area involving military, and most of them could have avoided injury with proper gear, and even avoided the incidents altogether if they put some thought into improving their riding. That said, motorcycling carries with it some inherent risk, and even those of us who ride every day in proper gear get caught up by cagers who don't pay attention (happened to me in November, side-swiped by a Jeep that came from behind/to the right of me forcing me into another vehicle that I bounced off of with my left arm, damaging my rotator cuff). There are other issues that make things difficult, too. On one part of Naval Base San Diego it is perfectly acceptable to wear gear over your uniform (or a combination - uniform pants with jacket over uniform shirt) but at a different part of the base it isn't, all because another CO is in charge. Standardization of policy throughout installations and services would help, along with enforced penalties for violating said policy. IMO someone requiring expensive surgery due to insufficient gear (but meeting the current minimum of helmet/gloves/long sleeves/long pants/boots) should be found not in line of duty or at a minimum be subject to NJP for dereliction of duty (not taking proper precautions to minimize risk). Having an ATGATT policy may discourage some from riding, but most who wear gear currently are riders who generally moderate risk takers. Perhaps the act of putting on the gear makes one consider the consequences of riding irresponsibly?

[klaviator]

Originally Posted by nukemm

I think the real issue is PPE. As an active duty member (MM1 (E6) USN) in San Diego I see at least 90% of motorcyclists do not wear any PPE aside from helmet, gloves, boots and vest. I've seen several motorcycle mishaps in the area involving military, and most of them could have avoided injury with proper gear, and even avoided the incidents altogether if they put some thought into improving their riding. That said, motorcycling carries with it some inherent risk, and even those of us who ride every day in proper gear get caught up by cagers who don't pay attention (happened to me in November, side-swiped by a Jeep that came from behind/to the right of me forcing me into another vehicle that I bounced off of with my left arm, damaging my rotator cuff). There are other issues that make things difficult, too. On one part of Naval Base San Diego it is perfectly acceptable to wear gear over your uniform (or a combination - uniform pants with jacket over uniform shirt) but at a different part of the base it isn't, all because another CO is in charge. Standardization of policy throughout installations and services would help, along with enforced penalties for violating said policy. IMO someone requiring expensive surgery due to insufficient gear (but meeting the current minimum of helmet/gloves/long sleeves/long pants/boots) should be found not in line of duty or at a minimum be subject to NJP for dereliction of duty (not taking proper precautions to minimize risk). Having an ATGATT policy may discourage some from riding, but most who wear gear currently are riders who generally moderate risk takers. Perhaps the act of putting on the gear makes one consider the consequences of riding irresponsibly?

This is supposed to be a free country. I have a real problem with taking away the freedom of the members of our military and then asking them to put their lives on the line to protect ours. Civilians are not required to be ATGATT, why should military personel have less freedom?

The way that motorcycle safety regulations have been implemented by all the different services and bases do little good but do have they effect of making service members lose respect for safety regulations.

Some time back I rode on to Redstone Arsenal wearing a bright yellow jacket and high vis yellow helmet as well as all other required gear except for the reflective vest. I got on with no problem, left the base and then came back through another gate. The rent-a-cop at the gate told me I needed a vest. I had one under my seat so I put it on. If I had been wearing all camo except for a reflective jogging belt I would be let on with no problems.

Rant over. I served for 21 years. Now they can only tell me what to wear when I choose to ride on to a military installation.

[lemieuxmc]

If some shithead with rank starts giving you crap about wearing protective gear over your uniform, you could just ask for his name, which command he is in, and go straight to the base provost... or just rev up the engine and say "I can't here you!" a'la Top Gun.

[Jim Moore]

Originally Posted by nukemm

IIMO someone requiring expensive surgery due to insufficient gear (but meeting the current minimum of helmet/gloves/long sleeves/long pants/boots) should be found not in line of duty or at a minimum be subject to NJP for dereliction of duty (not taking proper precautions to minimize risk).

So he's wearing everything required by cuyrrent regs, but he's not in the line of duty. How does that work, exactly? Never mind, don't even try to explain. That's just fucking stupid.

[jgst]

Land of the free eh???

[jules083]

Originally Posted by Tuna Helper

Rather than a no bikes policy, maybe a ban on bikes larger than 500cc.

So when I enlisted you would have expected me to sell my Sportster? Bet I either wouldn't have enlisted, or never would have mentioned that I have a bike. Should my old platoon sergeant, who rode an Ultra, sold that bike for a Honda Rebel or something? Him and his wife would have loved that on trips.

Originally Posted by nukemm

Having an ATGATT policy may discourage some from riding, but most who wear gear currently are riders who generally moderate risk takers.

Dumb, freedom taking, Army rules had a lot to do with me getting out of the Army. One of those rules was the Motorcycle requirements. I usually go ATGATT, but that shit was ridiculous.

Originally Posted by klaviator

This is supposed to be a free country. I have a real problem with taking away the freedom of the members of our military and then asking them to put their lives on the line to protect ours. Civilians are not required to be ATGATT, why should military personel have less freedom?

The way that motorcycle safety regulations have been implemented by all the different services and bases do little good but do have they effect of making service members lose respect for safety regulations.

Some time back I rode on to Redstone Arsenal wearing a bright yellow jacket and high vis yellow helmet as well as all other required gear except for the reflective vest. I got on with no problem, left the base and then came back through another gate. The rent-a-cop at the gate told me I needed a vest. I had one under my seat so I put it on. If I had been wearing all camo except for a reflective jogging belt I would be let on with no problems.

Rant over. I served for 21 years. Now they can only tell me what to wear when I choose to ride on to a military installation.

+1. I have been denied access to my own base at Ft. Riley because the idiot rent-a-cops didn't even know their own stupid rules they were supposed to follow.

The best way, IMO, is to have new riders taught by experienced riders. I personally helped 2 people get bikes when I was active. One person got a 250 Ninja, she had a few parking lot drops but overall did good. The second person got a Sportster and had been accident free except for one time when a car merged into him.

There were others that went and bought bikes without supervision, those are the problems. One guy bought a GSX-R600 for his first bike. Dropped it unloading from the truck on the first day, had 3 or 4 wrecks over the first summer, and sold the bike. Another guy bought a used GSX-R1000. We made plans to ride together, he said he was a pretty good rider. Turns out he couldn't turn, or ride highway, or go over 45 or so. He could do burnouts though, and was practicing wheelies. Those are the ones that get themselves killed.