View Full Version : If you HAD to wear ' proper' gear
Supervox
27-11-07, 12:23 PM
Ok, well having read the T-Shirt & Shorts thread I thought I'd conduct a little survey.
I personally think that before too long some form of protective gear will be compulsory when riding - & i don't have a problem with that at all.
I dont ride without the "proper" kit, so technically I shouldn't have a problem. But once the state gets involved they will have th define what is "proper" and we will have British Standard Glove, Boots, etc. This will drive up prices,. making it more difficult for newbies, the eventual goal perhaps, but one I can't support.
fat_brstd
27-11-07, 12:42 PM
it depends entirely on to what extreme it went to. I would not be happy being made to wear full leathers for my 1.4 mile ride to work everymorning but would happily accept it if gloves were made a requirement as i would for boots. I ride alot with only demin jeans on and a textile jacket so wouldnt be happy if they made you have leather trousers.
busasean
27-11-07, 12:44 PM
Ok, well having read the T-Shirt & Shorts thread I thought I'd conduct a little survey.
I personally think that before too long some form of protective gear will be compulsory when riding - & i don't have a problem with that at all.
the next step being leg protectors, speed limiters, etc,etc................
ok, so does being in leathers make you a safer rider as opposed to riding in shorts/t shirt? it may give you more protection AFTER an accident but doesnt stop the problem in the first place.
picture the scene, you've just been hit by an uninsured, unlicensed driver and you are in jeans and t shirt. who do you think will get prosecuted by the police? you! - for not wearing the "right" gear.
Supervox
27-11-07, 12:49 PM
The way I see it, the only way that any 'control' would work would be as it is now with helmets - ie all kit will have to conform to some standard or other whether it's leather / kevlar / textile or whatever.
I don't see this as an issue about being a safer rider - just less likely to get damaged.
Fizzy Fish
27-11-07, 12:51 PM
I totally understand where people are coming from with this idea, but TBH am sick of the increasing number of nanny state policies that are being brought out about stuff like this.
IMO better to educate and leave it as a choice, especially since people and the way they ride/the risks they take are different. For example you can't reaonably expect a scooter rider who only ever does 30mph round town on their moped to wear full leathers like someone going for a high speed country blast on a bike - the risks and situation are totally different.
Given that I always ride with kit anyway it wouldn't really affect me, so I'm not gonna go out campaigning against the idea, but i still think it's a step too far.
When in South Africa recently i rode quads over some pretty full on tracks, and also through some swamps with hippos, crocs, etc. I didn't have to have a bike licence, I didn't have to wear body armour, I didn't have a health and safety breifing, and there was noone there with a rifle. Just a 12 yr old girl in fact. And guess what - i didn't die, get injured or even come close. And i had a great time! :lol:
gettin2dizzy
27-11-07, 01:12 PM
We don't need more ****ing meddling.
How about they remove those bright yellow rider killers they've started putting on the end of crash barriers first please.
gettin2dizzy
27-11-07, 01:14 PM
When in South Africa recently i rode quads over some pretty full on tracks, and also through some swamps with hippos, crocs, etc. I didn't have to have a bike licence, I didn't have to wear body armour, I didn't have a health and safety breifing, and there was noone there with a rifle. Just a 12 yr old girl in fact. And guess what - i didn't die, get injured or even come close. And i had a great time! :lol:
All lies! I read the papers you know! Accidents are inevitable! ;)
pencil shavings
27-11-07, 01:21 PM
Im not sure who the people are who have clicked they would ride regardless of the laws. you would find yourself without a licence very quickly im sure.
I dont agree with legislation about personal choices that have no direct effect on anyone else, in any area.
Who are policy makers, who in this instance, probably have less biking exeriance than this forum to tell us what is safe.
And as someone previously mentioned, protective gear only helps after the acident, it dose in no way prevent it!
What i think the governement should do is remove tax from protective gear that adhears to a regulated standard, much the same way as helmets.
:nomore: restrive policy on personal choices!
northwind
27-11-07, 01:56 PM
I'd object, but I never ride without full gear anyway so it wouldn't directly affect me. But how do you administer it? What qualifies as gear? Very few suits are CE approved frinstance, so 99/100 of all our leathers and textiles which work perfectly well wouldn't be legal. Helmets were easy because there was already a standard. If gloves become a requirement, what sort of gloves? Marigolds :-s
Fizzy Fish
27-11-07, 02:08 PM
What i think the governement should do is remove tax from protective gear that adhears to a regulated standard, much the same way as helmets.
that would be a really helpful starting point!
But how do you administer it? What qualifies as gear? Very few suits are CE approved frinstance, so 99/100 of all our leathers and textiles which work perfectly well wouldn't be legal. Helmets were easy because there was already a standard. If gloves become a requirement, what sort of gloves? Marigolds :-s
exactly, it's pretty unenforceable tbh. i mean are they really gonna take your jacket to bits to check it has CE approved armour, etc??
I always ride with protective gear (oh er, already got my babies thanks;))
but.... I resent being told what to do.
Luckypants
27-11-07, 02:17 PM
My issue with legislating for 'proper' gear is the inconvenience of getting fully kitted up for a buzz into town for an errand etc. Short / slow trips where a jacket, jeans, gloves and lid are pretty much all you need will be a right PITA and would lead me to use the car instead of the bike.
yorkie_chris
27-11-07, 02:41 PM
I am always protected to some degree when I ride, wear draggin jeans quite a lot, leather jacket, decent gloves. Mainly because that gear is nice and warm.
I also advise everyone to wear decent gear, and think its daft not to.
However, its no business of the government, just like helmet laws, and seatbelt laws in the car.
i think you have missed an option (no not the keithd opyion)
somwhere inbetween these 2
Yes - but I'd live with it
Yes - And I'd ignore it
yes- i would be ****ed off????
I wear protective gear when I'm out on the bike but think 'enough of the nanny state meddling'.
If one day I chose to throw on a pair of gloves, boots and lid to pop naked to my local shop I want the choice to do so.
I'd expect ONLY to be arrested for indecent exposure. :lol:
If one day I chose to throw on a pair of gloves, boots and lid to pop naked to my local shop I want the choice to do so.
:lol:
please PM me when this happenens
Pedro68
27-11-07, 03:11 PM
If one day I chose to throw on a pair of gloves, boots and lid to pop naked to my local shop I want the choice to do so.
please PM me before this happenens so that I can have my camera and tissues at the ready ;-)
Corrected and elaborated for your delectation
tomjones2
27-11-07, 03:56 PM
Personally I almost never ride without proper kit but I would object to be made to wear it. TBH I not sure that even helmets should be legal, I would never ride without one but for those who choose to do so I cant see a problem.
As other have pointed out it would be a nightmare to enforce, the police currently have ehough trouble with baffled cans wihtout baffles. Can you imagine having to strip by the side of the road to prove your kit is legal.
Personally I can never see any laws like this happening.
well you cant stop acidents, they happen, it's just the way it goes
however, if you can reduce the amount of deaths, serious injuries, and general things that cost hospitals money then at least its better than nothing (thats assuming that the government wanted to introduce this)
people splitting their heads open if helmets weren't law would increase the stress on already overburdened hospitals
pencil shavings
27-11-07, 05:00 PM
people splitting their heads open if helmets weren't law would increase the stress on already overburdened hospitals
I think that the point people, including myself, are trying to make is that its not the governments place to tell us what to do. Not wearing a helmet only affects me directly so it should be my choice.
If the end result is that i need to go to hospital because of a head injury, then thats the result. I contribute to the running of the country by paying Tax and NIC so why shouldnt I be free to make my own choices and use the facilities in place?
EDIT: im not condoning not wearing gear, im just saying it should be my choice and it not be leglislated for.
tomjones2
27-11-07, 06:04 PM
people splitting their heads open if helmets weren't law would increase the stress on already overburdened hospitals
Though by that logic any dangerous pass time should be up for the chop because of the potential costs involved. I dont think activites/sports fall into the same bracket as cigaretts and alcohol, because cigaretts in particauly have a very high chance of harming you most sports dont.
i am one for doing what i want and when i want, but i was just going for that side of things. i.e. if it were to be introduced, i could see why
and devils advocate on the dangerous past times... perhaps theres no reason not to wear a helmet, whereas theres something to gain out of activities and sports (and surely pencil shavings you being half dead does affect everyone else, witnesses, those involved, as i said treatment..)
but then again you could say there no real reason for doing those activities...
Personally on a helmet issue i couldn't care less, those that are determined not to wear it wont, and those who wear them aren't affected. We all break the rules at times
but thats what this forum is good for, we all can look at things differently :thumbsup:
northwind
27-11-07, 06:50 PM
Not wearing a helmet only affects me directly so it should be my choice.
You fall off and dent your head in circumstances where you otherwise wouldn't have. Ambulance turns up, they have to give you attention you wouldn't have needed if you'd been wearing a helmet, so the other person involved in the accident gets less. Could be the difference between life and death.
OR... Likewise, you dent your head, and you take up an intensive care bed that someone else could have had. Or, you take up a space in the recovery support services that someone else needs. Or, you just die and your kids grow up without a dad (not you specifically you understand). Or, you spend the rest of your life on incapacity or worse, a drain to the taxpayer.
When I broke my hip, I was in casualty for 12 hours, and one of the people that delayed me was a scooter rider who'd crashed in a tracksuit and £30 plastic bucket, no gloves... X-rays, burn treatments (the plastic of his trackie bottoms had melted apparently), gravel removal, etc etc. If he'd been wearing even basic textiles with armour, maybe he would have just got back up and I'd have been seen an hour earlier. Maybe. But the point is, no man is an island.
Trouble with this argument- and IMO it's pretty hard to argue against- is that if you take it to its logical conclusion you can say the same thing about all motorcyclists, since we'd be less likely to come a cropper in a car. But that doesn't neccesarily devalue it.
+1 northwind, that was my point only elaborated which does make it sound even more important now i think about all the aspects
but again i'm not neccessarily saying it should be law, but i could see there being many pros with minimal cons
pencil shavings
27-11-07, 07:21 PM
You fall off and dent your head in circumstances where you otherwise wouldn't have. Ambulance turns up, they have to give you attention you wouldn't have needed if you'd been wearing a helmet, so the other person involved in the accident gets less. Could be the difference between life and death.
OR... Likewise, you dent your head, and you take up an intensive care bed that someone else could have had. Or, you take up a space in the recovery support services that someone else needs. Or, you just die and your kids grow up without a dad (not you specifically you understand). Or, you spend the rest of your life on incapacity or worse, a drain to the taxpayer.
When I broke my hip, I was in casualty for 12 hours, and one of the people that delayed me was a scooter rider who'd crashed in a tracksuit and £30 plastic bucket, no gloves... X-rays, burn treatments (the plastic of his trackie bottoms had melted apparently), gravel removal, etc etc. If he'd been wearing even basic textiles with armour, maybe he would have just got back up and I'd have been seen an hour earlier. Maybe. But the point is, no man is an island.
Trouble with this argument- and IMO it's pretty hard to argue against- is that if you take it to its logical conclusion you can say the same thing about all motorcyclists, since we'd be less likely to come a cropper in a car. But that doesn't neccesarily devalue it.
very valid points and I agree with you. I do wear my helemt and would do so even if it wasnt law.
my point wasnt directly linked to motorbikes, but as more of a general statement. things that dont directly affect others shouldnt be leglislated for.
all the points you raised are surly indirect results of the cause. not a direct result, which is my head geting mashed! I wasnt claiming it would have no effect, just no direct effects. If I contribute I should be able to use what I contribute to, in this case NHS.
you could argue that you wearing your helmet would have a higher claim to use the services that you also pay for. but i cant really argue against that because freedom of choice, enivitable enables freedom of choice.
I know im on a hiding to nothing persuing this vain of thought, as it is more a theortical ideal than a practical policy. but oh well...........
bring on the abuse! lol
There really is an option missing from that poll, against any more regulations but wont ride without it :rolleyes:
I really wouldn't want to see more regulation on the kit, as others have said how do you regulate was is/isn't proper. Look at the youngsters who are just starting out on two wheels, probably like most of us older ones here, we started with a lid and maybe a hand down wax jacket if we were lucky, just wouldn't be able to afford the latest kit, thats one more young cager to look out for :smt103
Some of these youngsters will have an idea what it like to be on two wheels when they decide its time for four wheels :( untill the nanny state takes over and forces riders to wear armour etc :nomore:
Alpinestarhero
27-11-07, 07:24 PM
Well I guess a textile jacket with CE approved armour and gloves with armour on the knuckles should be the minimum, at least you can protect your upper body. I used to wear my trainers and jeans, a leather (alpinestars) jacket, leather gloves (bike ones, JTS) and my hemlet (obviously) on my scooter. Although, as soon as I got my boots, I stopped wearing the trianers and stuck to boots. Never got past jeans though until I got the SV.
Matt
nahh we are a good bunch of fellows (well so it appears)
but i'd rather be happy my paying my taxes and not have to use the NHS (if avoidable i.e. helmet etc) and let some poor bugger that hasn't had a chance get the money i put in
I always wear 'proper' gear. Good leathers, good boots, good helmet, good gloves...but I don't need a law passing to make me wear them (apart from the helmet), I do it through choice. I would wear a helmet from choice too, if it wasn't compulsory.
I'm not sure that passing a law requiring everyone to wear 'proper' gear is neccessary...............with one caveat. I would like to see a law passed requiring that all minors should be properly kitted out if travelling on a bike. Adults can make their own choices, kids trust their parents to make them for them, and I've seen far too many kids who's parents just don't seem to think it'll 'ever happen to them'.
-Ralph-
27-11-07, 08:42 PM
I'd object, but I'd live with it, reluctantly, because you have to or Mr Plod writes tickets.
Just like I have to live with wearing a seatbelt in the car to go 1 mile to the shops.
But I'd use the bike less as a result, if going shopping for instance. I don't like walking round shops in full bike gear. I'm quite happy in jeans, walking boots and a bike jacket though.
Regards the hospital argument, how about saying that if you fall short of a set minimum you have to pay for your treatment? Fair enough and you'd have to factor that in your decision making process when you decide what to wear on the bike. At least you'd still have the choice, and thats the important bit.
thats one thing i cant understand, why not wear a seatbelt?
its no hastle to put em on, you dont eve noticed theyre there... and they save the lives of you and the others in the car...
..... If I contribute I should be able to use what I contribute to, in this case NHS.....
I think in general the population should be doing all they can to reduce waiting lists/times at hospitals. By this i mean, use proper gear (whatever you're doing) to minimise your burden on the facilities.
If someday, by bad fortune, you still need A&E then you're going to get attended to all the sooner as there isn't a queue of morons* ahead of you.
* You know the ones..... u see them on youtube trying to grind their skateboards on stair rails but instead they mash their nuts etc....:smt088
I was lucky when i came off the bike and got taken to hospital. Good timing, lol. Not many skaters at 11pm! :smt045 ps. I wore full leathers etc.
However much you or I might think we have the right to this care it does affect 3rd parties indirectly too. Eg. My dad (83) was doubled up with pain for 4 days last week and didn't want to bother any doctors/NHS24 etc with his little trouble bespite being in visble serious pain. Turns out he has a trapped nerve in a vertibrae but after treatment is now showing signs to be on the mend.
-Ralph-
27-11-07, 09:24 PM
thats one thing i cant understand, why not wear a seatbelt?
its no hastle to put em on, you dont eve noticed theyre there... and they save the lives of you and the others in the car...
You are absolutely correct and your logic is indisputable. But your trying to apply logic to human nature. If we all applied logic every post on here would say "everyone should wear full gear with CE armour and a back protector".
Human's generally are not sheep, kind of an obvious statement you might think as we are not fluffy and we don't go baa. We are emotional creatures who generally don't like being told what to do.
I'm much more likely to wear my seatbelt on a one miler to the shops in my wife's car than mine, 'cos it doesn't make silly noises at me until I put it on, so I forget I'm only going to the shops and put it on out of habit, then I get to the shops take it off and think what did I put that on for? But in my car, I hear the silly noise, get pi$$ed off with it, hit the button on the fastner to shut it up, and leave my seatbelt well and truly hanging from the B pillar.
Obviously if I'm going further or onto a 60mph A road, I put it on because I don't fancy a trip through the windscreen, but thats not going to happen at 30.
The main reason folk have given here for opposing legislation is that they prefer to be left to make a choice about thier own safety. The more you tighten the thumbscrews, the more people get defiant.
So there's the only logical understanding I can give you, it's plain simple defiance.
Ask an older male relative (women are more pragmatic) how they felt when the seatbelt law first came into force and how long it was before they stopped moaning about it and started wearing it. I know many 50 year olds and upwards who still don't and won't wear a seatbelt.
yorkie_chris
27-11-07, 09:31 PM
why not wear a seatbelt?
I'm not against wearing them
I'm just against being told to wear one, just as I'm against being told to wear a helmet.
[posting under the influence alert]
If I want to do something stupid, which only endangers myself, then its my right to be stupid and kill myself. It's sod all to do with any spineless civil servant who probably has to file a risk assesment to open the ****house door.
i cant see how laws irritate people so much, not many actually get told personally to do it, the government just say to the nation we want you to do this
i couldnt give a monkeys whether somone tells me to do something or not, if i want to do it i will, if i sont want to i wont. i just feel that for society as a whole it is beneficial
I'm not here to criticise though :) , i just generally dont get bothered by things like this
Flamin_Squirrel
27-11-07, 09:54 PM
i cant see how laws irritate people so much, not many actually get told personally to do it, the government just say to the nation we want you to do this
i couldnt give a monkeys whether somone tells me to do something or not, if i want to do it i will, if i sont want to i wont. i just feel that for society as a whole it is beneficial
I'm not here to criticise though :) , i just generally dont get bothered by things like this
Being told what to do isn't so much of the problem for me, more who'd be telling me to do it.
The idea of having to fall into line because some ignorant moralising sanctimonious s*it of a civil servant sees fit to interfere in my life when they have no business doing so irritates me intensely.
Oh, and anyone who's concerned about the effect on public finances/NHS etc, forget it. The government is perfectly capable of wasting vast sums of money and innumerable number of managerial c*ck-ups needlessly killing thousands without the publics help. The odd biker creaming themselves because they didn't wear decent kit simply doesn't enter into the equation.
well it all adds up, seatbelts and helmets and the like should surely save finance dramatically, yes a tiny tiny amount in comparison, but every bit helps
what happens if that civil servant is a nice fellow too...
i seem to be in a very good mood with society atm, not chavs or anything though, they are still on my destroy list
when did the helmet law come in? im guessing some members were about b4 that law was passed?
-Ralph-
27-11-07, 11:24 PM
when did the helmet law come in? im guessing some members were about b4 that law was passed?
1973. (Why does James Blunt keeps bleating on about memories of nightclubbing in 1973 on the radio even though he wasn't born until 1974?)
As for members, Dicky Ticker may be along soon.
1973. (Why does James Blunt keeps bleating on about memories of nightclubbing in 1973 on the radio even though he wasn't born until 1974?)
As for members, Dicky Ticker may be along soon.
and ArtyLady. :thumbsup: She likes to talk about the protest ride she went on when that law came in. :cool:
gettin2dizzy
28-11-07, 11:53 AM
1973. (Why does James Blunt keeps bleating on about memories of nightclubbing in 1973 on the radio even though he wasn't born until 1974?)
As for members, Dicky Ticker may be along soon.
Whay does James Blunt keep bleating on on the radio?
pencil shavings
28-11-07, 05:27 PM
Whay does James Blunt keep bleating on on the radio?
have I missed somthing? what does james blunt have to do with helmets? other than hes a d**k! lol love the word play
i dont really think he is, just couldnt resist!:smt077
beckyedgar
28-11-07, 10:13 PM
the cost of the gear will not be an issue for the newbies, the change in the test will put paid to anyone being able to afford/skilled enough to pass the test. Having been knocked off my bike last month by a muppet who opened his door in lane 2 of the M25 cos his seat belt was stuck I am all for padding on the knees, hands and head for all.
Biker Biggles
28-11-07, 10:26 PM
Outragous idea.Id emigrate to somewhere less authoritarian.
While they are at it why not ban biking altogether?It is far too dangerous,and those who still insist on doing it need to be protected from themselves.
banning isn;t the issue of the topic though...
it was a wondering whether setting personal safety regulations will ever be increased to include proper gear
pencil shavings
29-11-07, 12:55 AM
I went to KFC tonight on my bike, it was raining abit, and KFC is about 3minutes away by bike. I wore my waterproof textiles with hard padding. I would have hated to have to wear my leathers by law. passed a cop car on the way, so I would have been done if I was breaking any hypothetical law.
i didnt die thought, or crash. so i guess that meens its safe? lol :smt077]
*at this point ive had a few*
gettin2dizzy
29-11-07, 08:01 AM
I went to KFC tonight on my bike, it was raining abit, and KFC is about 3minutes away by bike. I wore my waterproof textiles with hard padding. I would have hated to have to wear my leathers by law. passed a cop car on the way, so I would have been done if I was breaking any hypothetical law.
i didnt die thought, or crash. so i guess that meens its safe? lol :smt077]
*at this point ive had a few*
You got a finger-licking-hangover?
I get hangovers after a Mcdonalds :confused:
pencil shavings
29-11-07, 12:17 PM
You got a finger-licking-hangover?
I get hangovers after a Mcdonalds :confused:
nope, i have a beer induced one :smt103
Don't object at all.
IMO, your a moron and don't have much self respect (or for family/partners) if you go out without adiquate clothing.
I was brought up by a dad who was knocked off/had a fair few accidents in his time. Amount of times protection has saved him from much worse injuries (like seizing his bike coming into Paddock Hill at Brands at well over a tonne :lol: ).
gettin2dizzy
29-11-07, 01:02 PM
Don't object at all.
IMO, your a moron and don't have much self respect (or for family/partners) if you go out without adiquate clothing.
I was brought up by a dad who was knocked off/had a fair few accidents in his time. Amount of times protection has saved him from much worse injuries (like seizing his bike coming into Paddock Hill at Brands at well over a tonne :lol: ).
Likewise I've fallen off my pushbike to many times. Wrist protectors, knee and elbow pads & a helmet should be law.
I'd get my haircut tomorrow but i'm afraid they might catch me with the scissors - Ahh! Help us mr Brown! (shall I make the cheque payable to Harriet Harman?)
-Ralph-
29-11-07, 08:21 PM
have I missed somthing? what does james blunt have to do with helmets? other than hes a d**k! lol love the word play
Sorry, derail, just an insight into my hyperactive and tangent happy mind!
banning isn;t the issue of the topic though...
it was a wondering whether setting personal safety regulations will ever be increased to include proper gear
As Northy already said, take it too far and it's not enforcable. All you could add to the current law would be jacket trousers and glove "designed for the purpose", which would be pointless as the stuff you buy in Lidl for 30 quid would be adequate. Even cheaper stuff would be manufactered and branded as a "protective motorcycle jacket"
IMO, your a moron and don't have much self respect (or for family/partners)
Don't think you have much respect for anybody really, do you? I've got enough self respect to know that I wouldn't portray myself in that manner on a public forum.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.