Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a22c0ec88ef42da2

Jump to content

Talk:Motorcycle armor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by RichardsonIvan in topic Additions to current text

Lobbying against Level 3

[edit]

It is claimed in the article that "[t]wo Italian manufacturers – allegedly concerned their armour would not pass the highest standard – successfully lobbied for Level 3 to be removed," but there is no way for the reader to assess the truth of such assertion, since the article contains no reference to this piece of information whatsoever.

Given the fact that the article also reports — this time with an abundance of references — that the current standards for motorcycle protection are ineffective, it produces the overall impression that these two unnamed manufacturers might be in fact partially responsible for the current state of affairs. The fact that the manufacturers are identified only by their country (Italy) shifts such potential blame onto the entire Italian motorcycle gear industry.

This is unfair: either the two manufacturers are clearly identified or the claim is dropped altogether.

(To be extra clear: I'm in no way connected to any motorcycle gear manufacturer. I'm only a motorcyclist concerned with safety — and fairness as well).

Luca Gilardi (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

de Rome et al

[edit]

In two sections, the current article says that "De Rome et al (2011) found that motorcycle armour was not associated with less risk of fractures". But I read the paper and it says, "Given the relatively low occurrence of fractures (15%), compared to soft tissue injuries (71%), in unprotected motorcyclists the sample size was likely too small to be able to detect any such difference." Being unable to detect an association is a lot different than finding that there is no association, and the current description of this paper's findings is misleading.  Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:B001:1E23:5114:632D:1597:72FE (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Additions to current text

[edit]

I was going to add to the starting description about Motorcycle armory. I was going to go over armors such as helmets and gloves and their brief descriptions (about 100 words). RichardsonIvan (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply