|
I really question how useful some of this information (generally speaking) will be to the original poster.
Certainly, I question the pseudo-science of the "pannier broke my leg" hypothesis.
I'm not denying that riders have crashed and had their leg broken by a pannier, but I question any statements, by others, to the effect that they would not have broken their leg had they not had hard panniers...
Want to make it scientific? Then one needs prove that in cases where soft panniers were used and there was a favourable femur outcome, that it was down to the presence of soft panniers, and a lack of hard cases. And that is near impossible to prove...
These are easy statements to make and easy to swallow, but impossible to prove, unless you get some poor sod to crash with and crash without in the exact same way to see if his tibia twangs in both cases....
If someone was unfortunate enough to break their leg due to hard cases, then they've earnt the right to question them on these grounds. For the rest of us it's conjecture....
Brown the new black, conjecture the new data.
To the original poster:
Hard cases:
+
hard, more secure, can keep the bike off your legs in a crash
-
expensive, heavier, may break you leg in a crash
Soft Panniers
+
cheaper, lighter, may not break your leg in a crash
-
soft and so easier to rip open, may not keep the bike off you in a crash.
Conclusion:
Do like me buy a Ural sidecar. If you bin that so that it lands on your leg, I guarantee that luggage will be the least of your concerns!!
__________________
Adventure: it's an experience, not a style!
(so ride what you like, but ride it somewhere new!)
Last edited by Warthog; 26 Apr 2010 at 20:21.
Reason: Clarifying a point I made: bold text added to the italics
|
Threaded Mode
