Protective clothing

[Al]

bikesnbones wrote in july on the post highlighted in merecats response on page 2:-

The moment we start advocating removing the right of the individual to determine their own acceptable level of risk, we enter very dangerous territory.
I concern my self with my own safety when it comes to dressing for riding, but when it comes to others, I mind my own business.

With this post you have obviously forgotten that you wrote the last line of the above and are now wanting to make it your business.

Al.

[bikesnbones]

With this post you have obviously forgotten that you wrote the last line of the above and are now wanting to make it your business.

Al.

No I haven't.
I've asked if people think that protective gear should be made law, like helmets.
In other words, should we have the right to choose taken away.
Deeeeeeeeeeeep sigh

[bikesnbones]

With this post you have obviously forgotten that you wrote the last line of the above and are now wanting to make it your business.

Al.

I just asked if protective clothing should be made mandatory as with helmets.
In other words, should the right to choose be taken away.
Simple question, and nothing to do with me wanting to meddle with the decisions of others.
Why don't you have a stab at answering the actual question

[Blackal]

So - in summary................

The thread has gone from

"I'm just curious"

to

"Why don't you have a stab at answering the actual question"


nice........

Al

[Twinspark]

Bikes and bones arguing for the sake of argument non-shocker.

[bikesnbones]

Isn't it interesting how the people who derail the thread to have a snipe, then accuse me of being argumentative.
Stay on topic and if you don't like the subject just ignore.
Simple, and if you feel the need to make personal insults, do it by PM.
4 pages of this thread now suggest it's an interesting discussion that people want to have a say in.
If you don't like it tough.
Blackal I sent you a very polite PM.
Why don't you answer.
Is it because you wouldn't have an audience.

[conkerman]

Its a thread on a bime forum not a political debate that needs invigilating?

Let go a bit. Don't hold on so tight, threads wander and sometimes don't go anywhere, it is the banter part of the forum.

[gingergeezer]

Gentlemen please. Threads meander to and fro and the odd grenade gets thrown in causing BP to rise a tad. My ancient Dad worked at Vincent HRD as a test rider, never ever wore a helmet. Company folded, got another job and much later, still riding, was utterly incandescent with rage after the Govt bought in compulsory wearing of helmets in the 70's (bit like seat belts). His personal right to make a decision had been removed. But the result was everyone got used to it eventually and fatalities decreased significantly. Sikhs hijacked the rules for a while for reasons of faith -substitute that with the burka today. But to insist on mandatory wearing of protective clothing will be very difficult if not impossible to enforce. You and I know that wearing clothing with elbow/shoulder/back/knee protection is important but quite how Plod will be able to regularly check is a mystery to me. Perhaps all clothing will be legally required to have to have a kitemark and be tested by lunatic ninjas to prove efficacy. I suggest the Purple Helmets as initial testers.

[bikesnbones]

But to insist on mandatory wearing of protective clothing will be very difficult if not impossible to enforce. You and I know that wearing clothing with elbow/shoulder/back/knee protection is important but quite how Plod will be able to regularly check is a mystery to me.

They wouldn't, but as with any law, if it'n not complied with, you end up not being covered on your insurance,
Round my way a few years back, some guy from a back patch club came off and sustained serious head injuries, rendering him totally dependent on his family for everything.
Because he was wearing a non UK approved helmet, his insurance was voided and he got nothing.
Back to the question, and I asked it because I constantly hear people spouting off about riders in shorts ant T shirts, but when you ask if there should be a law making people wear decent protective clothing, they more often than not say no.
It just seems seems to me to be a contradictory stance to condemn people for going out in shorts and flip flops, and then in the same breath, stand up for their right to do just that.

[cornishflat]

It just seems seems to me to be a contradictory stance to condemn people for going out in shorts and flip flops, and then in the same breath, stand up for their right to do just that.


That's the whole point of freedom of choice. I may think it a daft idea to ride in whatever garb someone wants to but that's their choice and I,d hate to see that freedom of choice taken away I don,t see it as contradictory though.

[The Teutonic Tangerine]

Having passed me bike test in 1975 and then riddden up until 1989 when I took a sabatical. I took up riding again 2000, since when I had ridden just over 100,000 miles without a scratch. I too thought that I had "advanced skills" having done a lot of group riding with IAM gold standard riders - (the habits and techniques rub off and you do become a better rider) did not stop a a stupid mare in a hyundai driving into the side of me in June this year. By lucky hapenstance I was wearing proper kit not tee shirt and shorts but still suffered a crushed vertibrae and cut leg. By the way, no, I was not wearing a separate back protector - that woudl not have helped in this situation as the crush was caused by me hitting the ground with my head and being bent double (i.e the normal way you bend not bent backwards) too far. So even when we hire bikes in Tenerfife I use a proper helmet jacket and gloves and cotton work trousers which have pockets for knee armour.

But if you want to skid down the road on bare skin thats up to you - but as someone once said "if you break both yoyr legs don't come ruinning to me".

Yes fine but I didn't ask about the merits of riding protective gear.
The question was, should protective clothing be made mandatory, like helmets.

So why go there again?

for effect?

and by "for effect" I mean stirring the shit

That thread was about the dangers of not wearing protective clothing.

In this thread I am asking if protective clothing should be made mandatory.

Different question

Amazed I had to point that out

And if you had read the last line of my post you would have comprehended that I think it's matter of personal choice. "Amazed I had to point that out".

[dave the german]

It just seems seems to me to be a contradictory stance to condemn people for going out in shorts and flip flops, and then in the same breath, stand up for their right to do just that.


That's the whole point of freedom of choice. I may think it a daft idea to ride in whatever garb someone wants to but that's their choice and I,d hate to see that freedom of choice taken away I don,t see it as contradictory though.

I agree it's only contradictory if the same people that agree with freedom of choice condemn them for making that choice

[fatnfast]

I do a fair bit of advanced training and Im also an Instructor/assessor for the DSA Enhanced Rider Scheme. The DSA are more than happy for me to refuse an assessment if a student turns up inappropiately 'dressed' and I would, depending on the attire, do this.
If someone turned up in shorts and t-shirts they have failed before they start. If they had a pair of ex-army boots, thick jeans and a leather jacket, thats fine.
Its also not just themselves they inconveniance when/if they slide down the road and remove half their skin.
I will dig out a nice picture of someones foot that had hit a barrier (wearing trainers) if we are not to squimish.
However, should it be compulsory, no I dont think so. It should be common sence. The importance of it is covered fully during CBT and Direct Access training. If after being given the information you choose to ignore it, well thats your choice and lookout, but you have been told.....


Having said all this, its my Yam LC's MOT tomorrow, so the correct attire of trainers, jeans, cheapo Market faux leather jacket and Simpson 'StarWars' helmet should really be worn

[bikesnbones]

I will dig out a nice picture of someones foot that had hit a barrier (wearing trainers) if we are not to squimish:

Funny you should say that.
I have a picture, way too grotesque to post here, of the remains of a rider mashed up with his Dainese race leathers,
Let's be realistic.
If you come off your bike on the road, gravel rash is going to be the least of your problems.
Nasty though these injuries are, they are rarely if ever life threatening.
What does the really serious damage, is impact with a solid object such as a lamp post, stone wall, or another vehicle.
Things that the best leather and CE approved armour is not going to withstand.
We've all see the utter carnage caused to a car in a low speed crash.
Steel is twisted and mangled rendering the vehicle unrecognisable.
So with that in mind, ask yourself what difference 1.5 mm of leather and a few plastic coated polysterene inserts are going to make.
That's not to say that protective clothing isn't a good idea, but far better to put your faith in sound defensive riding skills.
I doubt Laws regarding attire will not make any difference to the injury / death stats

[SP250]

On the very first BMW run Nurburgring training course I ever attended, many years ago, within the first hour one guy had come off and was killed by a following rider.
All of us were wearing top quality leathers, helmets, gloves etc - when your number is up that's it, whether you are wearing the right gear or not.