Motorcycle fatalities increased

[upflying]

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/NHTSA+Data+Confirms+Traffic+Fatalities+Increased+In+2012

2012 shows 7.1% increase over 2011.

 

[Bud]

"Other key 2012 statistics include:

 

Motorcycle rider fatalities increased for the third consecutive year (7.1 percent increase over 2011). Ten times as many riders died not wearing a helmet in states without a universal helmet law than in states with such laws.

 

Make of it what you will.

[upflying]

"Other key 2012 statistics include:

 

Motorcycle rider fatalities increased for the third consecutive year (7.1 percent increase over 2011). Ten times as many riders died not wearing a helmet in states without a universal helmet law than in states with such laws.

 

Make of it what you will.

Sounds like govt floating a trial balloon for the national helmet law thread posted elsewhere.

[John Bentall]

Over here in the UK our key statistic is "Killed or Seriously Injured".

I assume that in states without a helmet law, more people take advantage of being able to ride without a helmet.

In that case the "Killed or Seriously Injured" statistic would have more "killed" and fewer "seriously injured".

 

On the subject of "freedoms", does anybody fell that Emergency Responders have any human rights not to see motorcyclists brains unnecessarily scattered over the highway?

[Marty Hill]

John, as you would say...brilliant.

[Ponch]

Over here in the UK our key statistic is "Killed or Seriously Injured".

I assume that in states without a helmet law, more people take advantage of being able to ride without a helmet.

In that case the "Killed or Seriously Injured" statistic would have more "killed" and fewer "seriously injured".

 

On the subject of "freedoms", does anybody fell that Emergency Responders have any human rights not to see motorcyclists brains unnecessarily scattered over the highway?

 

There is no human right not to see things. It's part of the human experience, unfortunately. May be you should live in a bubble.

 

I love Steven Hughes. Even he doesn't quite get it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Roadwolf]

Well, that is what you get I guess when you push for the freedom to not wear safety gear proven to help mitigate injuries/deaths. Give me liberty of give me death… looks like you will have both.

[Ponch]

Well, that is what you get I guess when you push for the freedom to not wear safety gear proven to help mitigate injuries/deaths. Give me liberty of give me death… looks like you will have both.

 

The key is education, not law. Let people make informed decisions. That's the best way.

 

May be showing this photo will cure those that don't want to wear a helmet, be forewarned though, it's not pretty and I guess the person lived too, but it's bad and not what you think (not brains).

 

http://www.angelfire.com/fl4/ticklefart/

 

Scroll down, again, you are warned.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

On the subject of "freedoms", does anybody fell that Emergency Responders have any human rights not to see motorcyclists brains unnecessarily scattered over the highway?

 

As Ponch says, their rights are not violated by gazing upon horrific accidents, nor is their freedom compromised; they are paid employees, and have the right/freedom to seek alternative employment at the time of their choosing.

 

FWIW, I don't think that a head injury is likely to be more traumatizing to first responders than (for example) a severe case of road rash elsewhere on the body, or a compound femoral fracture, or any of a whole range of other severe injuries one might encounter in the aftermath of a motorcycle crash.

 

Moreover, in terms of the total number of potentially traumatizing sights that a first responder witnesses in the line of duty - from industrial accidents, shootings, beatings, stabbings, helmeted motorcycle crashes, and (the major contributor) car crashes - I'd guess that "visually disturbing head injuries due to helmetless motorcycle riders" are one of the smallest contributors.

[upflying]

Well, that is what you get I guess when you push for the freedom to not wear safety gear proven to help mitigate injuries/deaths. Give me liberty of give me death… looks like you will have both.

 

The key is education, not law. Let people make informed decisions. That's the best way.

 

May be showing this photo will cure those that don't want to wear a helmet, be forewarned though, it's not pretty and I guess the person lived too, but it's bad and not what you think (not brains).

 

http://www.angelfire.com/fl4/ticklefart/

 

Scroll down, again, you are warned.

Too bad the attempted suicide by firearm didn't go well.

[Ponch]

Well, that is what you get I guess when you push for the freedom to not wear safety gear proven to help mitigate injuries/deaths. Give me liberty of give me death… looks like you will have both.

 

The key is education, not law. Let people make informed decisions. That's the best way.

 

May be showing this photo will cure those that don't want to wear a helmet, be forewarned though, it's not pretty and I guess the person lived too, but it's bad and not what you think (not brains).

 

http://www.angelfire.com/fl4/ticklefart/

 

Scroll down, again, you are warned.

Too bad the attempted suicide by firearm didn't go well.

 

You think that's what it is? I remember seeing that on Rotten.com and it said it was a bike accident. They did have pics of gun suicides, one with a 44 mag under the chin. Not pretty, worse than this.

[upflying]

Well, that is what you get I guess when you push for the freedom to not wear safety gear proven to help mitigate injuries/deaths. Give me liberty of give me death… looks like you will have both.

 

The key is education, not law. Let people make informed decisions. That's the best way.

 

May be showing this photo will cure those that don't want to wear a helmet, be forewarned though, it's not pretty and I guess the person lived too, but it's bad and not what you think (not brains).

 

http://www.angelfire.com/fl4/ticklefart/

 

Scroll down, again, you are warned.

Too bad the attempted suicide by firearm didn't go well.

 

You think that's what it is? I remember seeing that on Rotten.com and it said it was a bike accident. They did have pics of gun suicides, one with a 44 mag under the chin. Not pretty, worse than this.

Yes, he ate a gun and "failed". Or someone shot him in the face, contact shot. Not collision related.

[Ponch]

Well, that is what you get I guess when you push for the freedom to not wear safety gear proven to help mitigate injuries/deaths. Give me liberty of give me death… looks like you will have both.

 

The key is education, not law. Let people make informed decisions. That's the best way.

 

May be showing this photo will cure those that don't want to wear a helmet, be forewarned though, it's not pretty and I guess the person lived too, but it's bad and not what you think (not brains).

 

http://www.angelfire.com/fl4/ticklefart/

 

Scroll down, again, you are warned.

Too bad the attempted suicide by firearm didn't go well.

 

You think that's what it is? I remember seeing that on Rotten.com and it said it was a bike accident. They did have pics of gun suicides, one with a 44 mag under the chin. Not pretty, worse than this.

Yes, he ate a gun and "failed". Or someone shot him in the face, contact shot. Not collision related.

 

I hope he didn't get indigestion.

[DiggerJim]

On the subject of "freedoms", does anybody fell that Emergency Responders have any human rights not to see motorcyclists brains unnecessarily scattered over the highway?

No. It's in the job description. Part of what we signed up for. I've also seen brains from motorists spread all over the hood of a car - it's not just motorcyclists. And a couple of traumatic decapitations from a car vs. utility pole accident where the car got stuck on the stump and the pole turned it into a convertible swinging from the wires. Worst was a kid who tried to kill himself by eating a shotgun but the shot went between his skull & face. He did it while his mother & sister were home. As awful a thing as you could imagine. Last I knew he was still alive 10 yrs later in a convalescent home (blind & some brain damage).

 

We learn to distance ourselves from the emotion & trauma of the situation. Once you can't do that anymore it's time to quit because you're no good for either the patient or yourself.

 

But I refuse to see horror movies & slasher flicks. I can't watch.

 

[fourteenfour]

"Other key 2012 statistics include:

 

Motorcycle rider fatalities increased for the third consecutive year (7.1 percent increase over 2011). Ten times as many riders died not wearing a helmet in states without a universal helmet law than in states with such laws.

 

Make of it what you will.

Sounds like govt floating a trial balloon for the national helmet law thread posted elsewhere.

 

Perhaps we should revoke seat belt laws and child safety seats. The government places a much larger burden on automobile drivers than motorcyclist, just be glad we don't have to have airbags.

[Mike]

"Other key 2012 statistics include:

 

Motorcycle rider fatalities increased for the third consecutive year (7.1 percent increase over 2011). Ten times as many riders died not wearing a helmet in states without a universal helmet law than in states with such laws.

 

Make of it what you will.

 

While I've always worn a helmet and always will, the tortured syntax of that sentence has me thinking that they had to do some logical gerrymandering to come up with a phrase that seems so alarming. If I'm reading it correctly, it is comparing overall unhelmeted fatalities in states without helmet requirements to overall unhelmeted fatalities in states where the rider is supposed to, by law, be helmeted. This kind of tells me nothing, from a safety perspective. A far more useful measure would be fatalities per mile ridden, or at least per registered operator (a distant second, in terms of understanding the life-saving impact of helmets).

 

Honestly, I don't have any problem with helmet laws, but I despise manipulation of the facts to justify legislation. Maybe I'm not fully caffeinated as I struggle to read and comprehend this, but it seems to me that there's some manipulation of the true facts to create an alarming statement to rationalize an agenda.

[sardineone]

I despise manipulation of the facts to justify legislation

+1

I don't remember the exact quote, but something to the effect "you can prove anything with statistics". I too always wear a helmet. What's worrisome is the next political crusade could always be getting rid of the motorcycle menace or limiting horsepower for instance!

[Roadwolf]

that would be Benjamin Disraeli's quote, often attributed to Mark Twain:

 

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 

 

[Bud]

"Other key 2012 statistics include:

 

Motorcycle rider fatalities increased for the third consecutive year (7.1 percent increase over 2011). Ten times as many riders died not wearing a helmet in states without a universal helmet law than in states with such laws.

 

Make of it what you will.

 

While I've always worn a helmet and always will, the tortured syntax of that sentence has me thinking that they had to do some logical gerrymandering to come up with a phrase that seems so alarming. If I'm reading it correctly, it is comparing overall unhelmeted fatalities in states without helmet requirements to overall unhelmeted fatalities in states where the rider is supposed to, by law, be helmeted. This kind of tells me nothing, from a safety perspective. A far more useful measure would be fatalities per mile ridden, or at least per registered operator (a distant second, in terms of understanding the life-saving impact of helmets).

 

Honestly, I don't have any problem with helmet laws, but I despise manipulation of the facts to justify legislation. Maybe I'm not fully caffeinated as I struggle to read and comprehend this, but it seems to me that there's some manipulation of the true facts to create an alarming statement to rationalize an agenda.

 

I agree.

 

I hope we can agree that the increase in the number of fatalities, by itself, is not manipulated.

[g_frey]

That is actually what happens when someone puts a shotgun under their chin ans pulls the trigger. Unfortunately he did not point it towards his brain so he lived. Motorcycle impact and scraping injuries do not look like that.

[Twisties]

"Other key 2012 statistics include:

 

Motorcycle rider fatalities increased for the third consecutive year (7.1 percent increase over 2011). Ten times as many riders died not wearing a helmet in states without a universal helmet law than in states with such laws.

 

Make of it what you will.

 

While I've always worn a helmet and always will, the tortured syntax of that sentence has me thinking that they had to do some logical gerrymandering to come up with a phrase that seems so alarming. If I'm reading it correctly, it is comparing overall unhelmeted fatalities in states without helmet requirements to overall unhelmeted fatalities in states where the rider is supposed to, by law, be helmeted. This kind of tells me nothing, from a safety perspective. A far more useful measure would be fatalities per mile ridden, or at least per registered operator (a distant second, in terms of understanding the life-saving impact of helmets).

 

Honestly, I don't have any problem with helmet laws, but I despise manipulation of the facts to justify legislation. Maybe I'm not fully caffeinated as I struggle to read and comprehend this, but it seems to me that there's some manipulation of the true facts to create an alarming statement to rationalize an agenda.

 

If you read the full summary (link at bottom of the OP link) it states that overall populations for these states were just about equal. I don't think they have motorcycle VMT anymore, since AMA convinced them that the numbers were unrealistic. I don't see the slightest hint of manipulation. I think the 10x number is so dramatic as to be well beyond the realm of question/manipulation, personally.

 

In any event, another interesting point in the full summary is that the biggest increases were in the first quarter of the year, January through March, and that this affected motorcyclists and non-occupants (pedestrians and such) the most. They speculate that this was related to that quarter of 2012 being the warmest on record.

[upflying]

"Other key 2012 statistics include:

 

Motorcycle rider fatalities increased for the third consecutive year (7.1 percent increase over 2011). Ten times as many riders died not wearing a helmet in states without a universal helmet law than in states with such laws.

 

Make of it what you will.

 

While I've always worn a helmet and always will, the tortured syntax of that sentence has me thinking that they had to do some logical gerrymandering to come up with a phrase that seems so alarming. If I'm reading it correctly, it is comparing overall unhelmeted fatalities in states without helmet requirements to overall unhelmeted fatalities in states where the rider is supposed to, by law, be helmeted. This kind of tells me nothing, from a safety perspective. A far more useful measure would be fatalities per mile ridden, or at least per registered operator (a distant second, in terms of understanding the life-saving impact of helmets).

 

Honestly, I don't have any problem with helmet laws, but I despise manipulation of the facts to justify legislation. Maybe I'm not fully caffeinated as I struggle to read and comprehend this, but it seems to me that there's some manipulation of the true facts to create an alarming statement to rationalize an agenda.

 

If you read the full summary (link at bottom of the OP link) it states that overall populations for these states were just about equal. I don't think they have motorcycle VMT anymore, since AMA convinced them that the numbers were unrealistic. I don't see the slightest hint of manipulation. I think the 10x number is so dramatic as to be well beyond the realm of question/manipulation, personally.

 

In any event, another interesting point in the full summary is that the biggest increases were in the first quarter of the year, January through March, and that this affected motorcyclists and non-occupants (pedestrians and such) the most. They speculate that this was related to that quarter of 2012 being the warmest on record.

Aw geez, another manipulation and spin, now it's "motorcycle fatalities linked to global warming".

[Twisties]

Aw geez, another manipulation and spin, now it's "motorcycle fatalities linked to global warming".

 

The temperature record for the US is really not subject to much debate... the matter goes straight to Mike's point about VMT, however. They are basically speculating more VMTs than usual in that period, I think. I don't think there is any reason to take the thread off subject into the GW debate, even if the US land data were representative of the global situation, which it is not. How about we just stick to the fact that it was a warm winter as it relates to moto fatalities and injuries in the US. BTW, the injury rate was up a staggering 15%, IIRC.

[DiggerJim]

"Motorcycle rider fatalities increased for the third consecutive year (7.1 percent increase over 2011). Ten times as many riders died not wearing a helmet in states without a universal helmet law than in states with such laws.

While I've always worn a helmet and always will, the tortured syntax of that sentence has me thinking that they had to do some logical gerrymandering to come up with a phrase that seems so alarming. If I'm reading it correctly, it is comparing overall unhelmeted fatalities in states without helmet requirements to overall unhelmeted fatalities in states where the rider is supposed to, by law, be helmeted.

 

Right - without knowing the rate per rider or the rate per mile ridden it doesn't tell us much. The caveat that the statistics come from states with relatively the same population doesn't help either - we care about the population of motorcycle riders not the state population as a whole.

 

The rate/rider or rate/mile could be exactly the same if the # of motorcyclists in the states with a helmet law happened to be 10% of the # of motorcyclists in states without one. At that point it'd be a "so what" statistic.

 

The fact that they did not report on a per rider or per mile basis (per mile ridden being the more statistically significant of the two) suggests that there is in fact some manipulation of the conclusions to match an agenda.

[Ponch]

"Motorcycle rider fatalities increased for the third consecutive year (7.1 percent increase over 2011). Ten times as many riders died not wearing a helmet in states without a universal helmet law than in states with such laws.

While I've always worn a helmet and always will, the tortured syntax of that sentence has me thinking that they had to do some logical gerrymandering to come up with a phrase that seems so alarming. If I'm reading it correctly, it is comparing overall unhelmeted fatalities in states without helmet requirements to overall unhelmeted fatalities in states where the rider is supposed to, by law, be helmeted.

 

Right - without knowing the rate per rider or the rate per mile ridden it doesn't tell us much. The caveat that the statistics come from states with relatively the same population doesn't help either - we care about the population of motorcycle riders not the state population as a whole.

 

The rate/rider or rate/mile could be exactly the same if the # of motorcyclists in the states with a helmet law happened to be 10% of the # of motorcyclists in states without one. At that point it'd be a "so what" statistic.

 

The fact that they did not report on a per rider or per mile basis (per mile ridden being the more statistically significant of the two) suggests that there is in fact some manipulation of the conclusions to match an agenda.

 

I call it conformational bias.

[Twisties]

Accurate motorcycle VMT data are not available. After complaints from the motorcycle community, particularly AMA, NHTSA withdrew motorcycle fatality rates by VMT, approximately 2008. NHTSA has taken action to try to get better data, but in so far as I can see it has not resumed reporting the rate by VMT.

 

As I recall there were a fairly large number of problems cited. Several states did not report VMT for motos at all, but did report fatalities, for instance. I believe now that states are all required to report moto VMT. However, there are still problems. Many counting devices do not distinguish vehicle type. Most counting devices are in urban areas, and much moto riding occurs in rural areas. I am not expert, but I did look and found that there is still no VMT data published for motos, and most say no reliable data exists in the US.

 

Consequently, impugning any meaning to NHTSA's reporting without VMT data is without merit.

 

I think we may be misinterpreting the statement, however.

 

Ten times as many riders died not wearing a helmet in states without a universal helmet law than in states with such laws.

 

I first read it to say that ten times the riders died in the non-universal states as in the universal states. It doesn't say that, however. It only compares the numbers of unhelmeted deaths in those jurisdictions. In other words, unhelmeted in non-universal states to unhelmeted in universal states.

 

So, we know already that about 50% of riders are helmeted in the non-states, and about 90% of riders are helmeted in the universal states. We also know that helmets are about 37-41% effective in reducing collision fatality overall. So then, assuming all else is equal, we have 5 times as many unhelmeted riders in the non-states, and we can expect that those riders die at about twice the rate of helmeted riders. 5x2=10. Obviously this is approximate... back of envelope stuff, but it does suggest that based on well established prior data the statement by NHTSA is very reasonable and consistent with what we have known for some time.

 

[SWB]

"Other key 2012 statistics include:

 

Motorcycle rider fatalities increased for the third consecutive year (7.1 percent increase over 2011). Ten times as many riders died not wearing a helmet in states without a universal helmet law than in states with such laws.

 

Make of it what you will.

Sounds like govt floating a trial balloon for the national helmet law thread posted elsewhere.

 

I guess it's a choice between being safe or free.

 

Big Brother government can't guarantee either safety or freedom. However, history has taught us that freedom once lost carries a terrible price to reacquire.

 

Ergo, I vote for freedom over safety, though I'd never ride without a helmet, complete ATGATT, for that manner, and never want to see my son without a helmet either. When I was younger, I would probably have agreed with California's helmet laws, I mean, it just made sense. Today, I'm older and I hope wiser, and will never sacrifice my freedom or others for the false choices of comfort or safety.

 

- Scott

[John Ranalletta]

No brainer

[SWB]

No brainer

 

So, then, mandate adequate insurance coverage on all motorcycles, to cover the range of possibility of injuries. And oh, I'm sure that insurance companies can be found to write policies for "ATGATT" riders, "Helmetless", and everything in between. If the actual costs are that high due to helmetless cyclists, the premiums will validate the risk.

 

Everything in life doesn't require government intervention or a government solution. Where there is no alternative to government oversight, the "minimalist" approach works best. A successful democracy requires the majority of citizens to voluntarily comply with the laws. Heavy handed laws or law enforcement is incompatible with a free society.

 

Freedom once sacrificed for comfort or safety, can only be repurchased at a terrible premium.

 

- Scott

[John Ranalletta]

Of course, it goes against the grain of every motorcycle-riding rebel; so, let's all start turning left on red lights; ride in the left lane and speed all the time to express our independence.

[Matts_12GS]

Of course, it goes against the grain of every motorcycle-riding rebel; so, let's all start turning left on red lights; ride in the left lane and speed all the time to express our independence.

 

Am there doin' that...

 

It takes a special kind of chutzpah to run a couple hundred watts of extra lighting, a high viz suit and ride like a complete scofflaw!

 

That's why I like riding with so many of the folks here, and they know who they are!

[racer7]

Yup, do.

 

I need a kidney and have always used a helmet since long before there were helmet laws or even specific motorcycle licenses. As much as I think folks who don't may be (terminally) stupid as is regularly proven by the deaths of unhelmeted Harley riders in nearby Myrtle Beach, its OK with me if they do. I'm about to be listed on the only kidney transplant list in SC (in addition to both regions of NC), so maybe one of them will do me or someone else some good eventually. Just like choosing to smoke, the practitioners always think the lethal event will happen to someone else and that superior judgement, even if clouded by a few beers, protects them.

[SWB]

Yup, do.

 

I need a kidney and have always used a helmet since long before there were helmet laws or even specific motorcycle licenses. As much as I think folks who don't may be (terminally) stupid as is regularly proven by the deaths of unhelmeted Harley riders in nearby Myrtle Beach, its OK with me if they do. I'm about to be listed on the only kidney transplant list in SC (in addition to both regions of NC), so maybe one of them will do me or someone else some good eventually. Just like choosing to smoke, the practitioners always think the lethal event will happen to someone else and that superior judgement, even if clouded by a few beers, protects them.

 

Prayers for you, buddy. I hope God and circumstances bless you with a kidney upgrade, near in your future. Hang in there.

 

- Scott

[sardineone]

 

Prayers for you, buddy. I hope God and circumstances bless you with a kidney upgrade, near in your future. Hang in there.

 

- Scott

+1 Even though I'll try my best not to be the donor.

[MacGruber]

Now, I may have missed this in the report, but does it give the total number of motorcycle accidents anywhere and if so has the actual percentage of fatalities changed?

 

I'd also be interested in the demographics of riders involved in the accidents.

[Twisties]

Now, I may have missed this in the report, but does it give the total number of motorcycle accidents anywhere and if so has the actual percentage of fatalities changed?

 

I'd also be interested in the demographics of riders involved in the accidents.

 

The full summary has those details.

[racer7]

In looking through the numbers, the rather large increase in the percent of fatalities now coming from motorcycles jumps right out and can be predicted to increase attention on bikes/riders. The 2003 number was 9% (of a higher total) and its now 15%, almost 1 out of 6 of all fatalities despite the relatively low number of miles traveled on bikes (because most riders use them as toys riding only short annual distances).

 

I suspect a couple primary contributors to the increase in percent. The first is the continual significant decrease trend in car/truck fatalities- if bike number never changed the per cent would keep going up. The second is a combo of bike related things- especially the number of states without helmet laws and the amount of bigger and faster bikes in the hands of relatively inexperienced riders- maybe even the huge increase in cell phone users / texters hitting bikes replacing the former high number of drunks who did. In short, there has been nothing much effective happening on the bike side to seriously reduce fatalities, unlike all the engineering changes to cars that started with seat belts and still continue.

 

No matter what one thinks, that 15% number will draw unwanted attention to motorcyclists. Best way to minimize that is to stay unhurt and alive and not become a stat.

 

With that in mind, accident avoidance beats all. Surviving an accident unhurt (whether by helmet, gear or dumb luck)is next. Getting hurt or dead just gives ammo to the anti-motorcycle crowd.

 

And thanks to you guys who sent me good wishes for that kidney transplant. I'm doing fine on dialysis so am good for a passably normal lifestyle for at least a few more years. Any of you finding yourselves heading that way and looking for discussion with a well educated and experienced person who has been there are welcome to PM me.

[MacGruber]

if bike number never changed the per cent would keep going up.

 

This is part of what I was trying to determine when asking about the total number of MC accidents. Are there more accidents and therefore more fatalities or are the accidents becoming more severe? Is it a function of an increase in riders? And in what age group are the incidents more prevalent. As the report title says, it's an 'Overview'. Anyone know where to find the raw data?

[racer7]

I don't remember all those numbers but have seen most of them.

The increase of riders is too small to explain that big a percent change- the biggest contributor is as I said the decrease in car deaths, most of which comes from better vehicle design, safety features and laws, of which there are many plus impaired driving enforcement. There is no motorcycle equivalent for almost all of the items on the car side.

 

Think about the differences- when I was young folks got skewered on steering columns, pitched out of windows, sliced by bad glass, had doors and frames collapse from minor side impacts, drove stuff with crappy tires and brakes (albeit at slightly lower speeds), no child seats, and stuff with handling flaws and convertibles without roll protection were all common. Most all of that has been cleaned up for cages.

 

What do we have for bikes? Better protection gear but subject to the limits of a bikes exposure, better helmets, better brakes. Not anything like the kind of quantitative effects or number of improvements that have been made to cages. Of course, it is a lot harder to engineer safety for bikes while making them faster every year too.

 

So bikes are relatively riskier compared to cages than they were when I learned to ride. My only way to offset that is applying my experience to stay out of trouble and using good gear to give me a chance if that fails. Folks who buy a heavy or fast bike (almost everything made these days) as their first and then avoid protective gear are stacking an already tough deck against themselves.