Legal Minimum Gear Standard

[454697819]

Right i know, in fact im nearly sure that this will have been done before, but as a recentish newby i want to see!

Lovely weekend end last wekk wasnt it, lots of sun, hot tarmac, and bikers out, however,
Only i geuss 70% of them must have been wearing more than t shirt, shorts and trainers, plus the legal requirment of the helemet.

Now i as a biker would like to see a new law introduce, stating a new minimum requirment of , gloves, jeaqns and a jacket with at least some armour. now im not talking about turning us all into turtles or incredible hulks with the amount of gear i would like to see, just a sensible legal minimum. some thing that wouls stop t shirt riders leaving large lumps of them selves on roads, should there be an accident.

The plus side to this would be that jacket manufactures would all start to rpoduce these minimum standard jackets and so forcing prices down,

So really all i can see from my biast and probably slightly single minded veiw is possitives!

As for the excuse, "i get to hot or sweaty" im sure causualty would rather you stunk a lil of BO, and still had your skin attached that smell lovely and fresh but be missing your skin! :shock:

Thoughts and comments please! cheers
Alex

[howardr]

I have become so incensed with the authorities' apparent lack of concern over this issue, that I actually wrote the following e-mail to MCN

"There’s no safety in ‘numbers’

The recent hot weather has, for me, highlighted one of the gravest safety issues around – clothing. Riding regularly in London, I have seen everything from bikers (on relatively large machines) wearing no gloves, in shirt sleeves, and even wearing moccasins (without socks!), to the usual scooter attire of T-shirts, shorts, vests, mini-skirts etc.

Given the mandatory helmet law, the banning of dark visors (for our own ‘safety’), the banning of loud exhausts, along with all this talk of ‘safety’ cameras, it occurred to me that, if safety really was the main concern, why on earth are people who are dressed in a wholly inappropriate manner (on a scooter or motorcycle) completely ignored by the powers that be? The answer is ‘numbers’.

When did anyone ever do the maths on the effect on the severity of injuries in motorbike accidents caused by the use of inappropriate clothing? What about the additional cost to us, the tax payer, of treating these ‘selfish’ individuals? I agree – it’s probably very hard to measure. Therefore, no-one seems to give a damn. If meaningful statistics cannot be bandied about to justify, what is, after all, common sense, then the politicians and law makers simply aren’t interested. Don’t get me wrong – I am not advocating more laws to restrict our choices as individuals, but where is the training? Where is the friendly ‘pull’ and “a word in your ear” from the ‘Boys in Blue’? Where’s the awareness campaign?

What about loud cans? Personally, I find the extreme ones about as appealing as “Johnny Nova’s” booming stereo! However, it cannot be denied that they make you more conspicuous and, as such, can only help reduce the possibility of cars (and pedestrians) not seeing you. When did anyone carry out a controlled test to try and prove this point? Again, it would be very difficult. Trying to make direct comparisons between different riders in different conditions– it’s damn-near impossible. The same is true of the dark visor debate.

It’s about time someone developed a way of gathering meaningful numbers on genuine safety issues so people actually start to take them seriously."

[454697819]

HERE BLOODY HERE!!!

What you have said was actually the thoughts as to y i did this poll in the first place, please to see its not just me who feels like this.

Did mcn reply??

Alex

[Ping]

If people WANT to ride in t-shirts and shorts its THEIR skin. I totally disagree with having a 'nanny state' that wraps us all up in cotton wool and tells us how to live.

I ride in full armoured leathers and won't ride otherwise but I respect other people's right to take the risks they want, I don't think it's smart but thats up to them. It's not up to me to tell them how to live if they're not actively hurting others.

You might as well ban bikes altogether on the grounds that they're too dangerous... :? Those of us who ride KNOW it and we ride anyway. Its a risk we're willing to take.

[Sid Squid]

I feel that a law such as you suggest is a fundamentally wrong idea, it is also very, very dangerous, never under any circumstances suggest to the state that you as a motorcyclist need to be controlled in any manner, if there were to be the research into such a regulation it is exceedingly unlikely that motorcycling would properly represented on the body that drew up any law that resulted, further, if it should fail to have the desired effect on motorcycle injuries, then we can expect to see the legislation ratcheted down until your eminently sensible suggestion that no-one should ride with bare arms or legs, becomes you're never riding your bike unless dressed like a transformer, think hard about such a suggestion, the state doesn't understand motorcycling and it's unlikely it ever will, legislation concerning motorcycles is notable for it's lack of clear thought or consideration for the rights of riders, don't add to that.

[Dirty Baz]

I went into PC World at the weekend, parked beside a Virago. As I was taking off my leather gloves and unzipping my leather jacket (in 24 degree heat!) the owner of the Virago came up to his bike. The guy was in his late 30's, he was wearing a shortsleaved shirt, jeans and trainers, fair enough I thought, it's your skin. Then I realised that he had a pillion, his son, who must have been 10-12 years old, who was also dressed in jeans, a t-shirt and trainers. He gave a nod but I just blanked him and went into the shop. I can't understand people who'd let their child on a motorcycle without protective gear! :shock:

I'm not really bothered if there is such a law or not, afterall I already wear leather gloves and jacket, plus armoured trousers and boots so any such change in the law is irrelevant to me anyway!

[timwilky]

If people WANT to ride in t-shirts and shorts its THEIR skin. I totally disagree with having a 'nanny state' that wraps us all up in cotton wool and tells us how to live.

I ride in full armoured leathers and won't ride otherwise but I respect other people's right to take the risks they want, I don't think it's smart but thats up to them. It's not up to me to tell them how to live if they're not actively hurting others.

You might as well ban bikes altogether on the grounds that they're too dangerous... :? Those of us who ride KNOW it and we ride anyway. Its a risk we're willing to take.

My sentiments entirly. I ride in full leathers and would never consider not doing so. For that reason I did not go out yesterday (Bloody gorgious wasn't it) as I did not wish to sweat like a peadaphile in mothercare. And I had leant my lighter armoured jacket to my lad for his CBT.

Nanny states no, bikers protecting themselves yes. I have seen too much gravel rash on others to risk it for myself.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I feel that a law such as you suggest is a fundamentally wrong idea, it is also very, very dangerous, never under any circumstances suggest to the state that you as a motorcyclist need to be controlled in any manner, if there were to be the research into such a regulation it is exceedingly unlikely that motorcycling would properly represented on the body that drew up any law that resulted, further, if it should fail to have the desired effect on motorcycle injuries, then we can expect to see the legislation ratcheted down until your eminently sensible suggestion that no-one should ride with bare arms or legs, becomes you're never riding your bike unless dressed like a transformer, think hard about such a suggestion, the state doesn't understand motorcycling and it's unlikely it ever will, legislation concerning motorcycles is notable for it's lack of clear thought or consideration for the rights of riders, don't add to that.

:winner:

[jonboy]

To hell with free will. Has anyone any idea of the cost of hospitalisation after a serious RTA? It's a lot. The tax payer pays - that's me and you, folks.

We now wear crash-helmets (which at the time of their introduction was possibly the most controversial issue to ever hit motorcycling) and very very few of us would now be without one. So it's not only logical but also a question of social responsibility to at least wear clothing that will protect you in the unfortunate event of an accident.

Decent boots, gloves, trousers and jacket - give them a basic CE standard that offers a minimum standard of protection and that's all you need.

Nanny state? That's nothing but an emotive over-reaction. If people don't like living in a structured society, there's the whole world to choose from - alternatively, stand for parliament if you feel that strongly and do some thing about it. You never know, you just might get my vote ;).


Mood today: Confrontational ;)


.

[Iansv]

Would never advocate it becoming law but it should certainly be frowned upon.

As far as i'm concerned if they are stupid enough to wear that then they get what they deserve, but its the rest of us who end up paying for their hospital care!!

I always wear at the minimum Jeans and textile jacket but most of the time full leathers

[howardr]

Did mcn reply??
Alex

No they haven't, but I don't expect they bother. It may get into this week's issue though ... you never know.

I too believe that legislation is probably too severe, but where's the training and awareness?

Perhaps (and this is where it starts to get really controversial) if people had to arrange their own medical insurance, they may take better care of themselves due to the inevitable spiralling premiums they would incur from their irresponsible behaviour. :?

[Ping]

To hell with free will. Has anyone any idea of the cost of hospitalisation after a serious RTA? It's a lot. The tax payer pays - that's me and you, folks.
I suppose you're the sort of person who thinks obesity should be banned as well because they cost more on the nhs? :P Smokers shouldn't get treatment on the nhs for illnesses... Hell, women with a history of miscarriage shouldn't get treatment for dodgy pregnancies because they KNOW they are at risk yet try to concieve anyway...

:twisted: Confrontational?... :lol:

[timwilky]

Mood today: Confrontational ;)


.

and arn't we just

[454697819]

If people WANT to ride in t-shirts and shorts its THEIR skin. I totally disagree with having a 'nanny state' that wraps us all up in cotton wool and tells us how to live.

I ride in full armoured leathers and won't ride otherwise but I respect other people's right to take the risks they want, I don't think it's smart but thats up to them. It's not up to me to tell them how to live if they're not actively hurting others.

You might as well ban bikes altogether on the grounds that they're too dangerous... :? Those of us who ride KNOW it and we ride anyway. Its a risk we're willing to take.

What about the police men and paramedics that have to clear it up,
i dont want a nanny state, id would just like to see more bikers treating there skin with respect!

Alex

[454697819]

To hell with free will. Has anyone any idea of the cost of hospitalisation after a serious RTA? It's a lot. The tax payer pays - that's me and you, folks.

We now wear crash-helmets (which at the time of their introduction was possibly the most controversial issue to ever hit motorcycling) and very very few of us would now be without one. So it's not only logical but also a question of social responsibility to at least wear clothing that will protect you in the unfortunate event of an accident.

Decent boots, gloves, trousers and jacket - give them a basic CE standard that offers a minimum standard of protection and that's all you need.

Nanny state? That's nothing but an emotive over-reaction. If people don't like living in a structured society, there's the whole world to choose from - alternatively, stand for parliament if you feel that strongly and do some thing about it. You never know, you just might get my vote ;).


Mood today: Confrontational ;)


.


:winner: :)

[454697819]

Did mcn reply??
Alex

Perhaps (and this is where it starts to get really controversial) if people had to arrange their own medical insurance, they may take better care of themselves due to the inevitable spiralling premiums they would incur from their irresponsible behaviour. :?

Id never thought about that! thats very good point!

[Ping]

What about the police men and paramedics that have to clear it up,
i dont want a nanny state, id would just like to see more bikers treating there skin with respect!

Alex
I'd like to take a leap here and say they MUST know it goes with the job... I mean firemen KNOW they're going to come across some pretty gruesome sights... cops will have to attend murder scenes, ambulance crews will have to attend accidents...

Educate people but let them make their own choices. You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Ahh yes, the choice between the stick or carrot. Of course, its always easier to legislate to force people to do what you want because it eliminates the chance of attempts at reforming at the social level going wrong. Just ban biking, that'll solve the expensive problem of clearing up after RTA's.

Instead of worrying about the money being put into clearing up accidents, why not invest into subserdising advanced training instead?

[454697819]

What about the police men and paramedics that have to clear it up,
i dont want a nanny state, id would just like to see more bikers treating there skin with respect!

Alex
I'd like to take a leap here and say they MUST know it goes with the job... I mean firemen KNOW they're going to come across some pretty gruesome sights... cops will have to attend murder scenes, ambulance crews will have to attend accidents...

Educate people but let them make their own choices. You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Fair point, but still i think its only fair to wear the right stuff, as does everyone on here (i think), so thats encouraging.
Alex

[jonboy]

I suppose you're the sort of person who thinks obesity should be banned as well because they cost more on the nhs?

Yes. Er well I did think that but as I've just stepped off the scales (they're probably wrong though) I think I might just reconsider... :lol:


.

[jonboy]

Instead of worrying about the money being put into clearing up accidents, why not invest into subserdising advanced training instead?

I'm happy to go one further. Make advanced training compulsory for both bikers and car drivers with three yearly re-tests. Oh and because of this force the insurance companies to drastically lower their premiums.

Do rememeber that the laws of physics dictate that everything will take the path of least resistance, including people. If you don't force people to take advanced training then most never will "cos they're good enough already".

There is one alternative however: Turn the IAM/ROSPA certificate into an official class 1 civilian licence that will guarantee you 50% discount in insurance costs. A two-tiered licence system might just psychologically persuade people to "upgrade" and be the new "must-have" bike accessory. Surely this could only have a positive impact? (no pun intended ;))


.

[rukus]

Instead of worrying about the money being put into clearing up accidents, why not invest into subserdising advanced training instead?


.....for cage drivers :lol: :wink:

I'm fed up about hearing about the nanny state. I think we live in a country where personal freedoms are pretty damn good. It could be far, far worse. (thinks.... North Korea, China, Afghanistan, Middle eastern 'dry' states) anyone who wants more personal freedom can go and live in america, pay for their medical bills, enjoy the lovely gun crime, enjoy watching motorcyclists riding after no (or very little) training and enjoy the experience of 14 year old kids driving cars legally :shock:

Apologies to any American friends on here who this may have offended, this was not my intention. More to show that actually we have some quite good points to our own country (ies - so as not to offend anyone this side of the pond :wink: )

[Ping]

I suppose you're the sort of person who thinks obesity should be banned as well because they cost more on the nhs?

Yes. Er well I did think that but as I've just stepped off the scales (they're probably wrong though) I think I might just reconsider... :lol:

.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I prefer your alternative Mr Jonboy. As I previously mentioned, I prefer encoraging people to do things instead of making them. Its better for everyone.

rukus - slipperly slope m'lady :shock: remember the governments primary interest is power, which means as many laws/bans/rules as possible. We as a nation are blind to this, and we ignore it at our peril. The Americans take the freedom thing to the extreme, but there at least personal responsibility is key - something the UK populous sorely lacks right now.

[Nick762]

I'm in two minds about the legislation thing. Over the last weekend I lost count of the number of bikers without full coverage protective gear and I simply cannot understand the mentality of going on the road dressed like that. I had a couple of shortish runs on Saturday and was drenched (it was fine once I started moving) but I'd rather feel a bit warm than undergo extensive plastic surgery. If you don't wear the kit in the summer, why bother when it's cooler? I just cannot understand it. OK, there is that lovely sensation of warm breeze blowing over your naked flesh (get a bloody push bike if that's what turns you on) followed shortly after by that burning stinging sensation as you shed pieces of same flesh over the road when you come off (not quite so nice).

I'm curious to know exactly who these people are? What experience of biking do they have?

However, I'm not sure legislation is the answer. As has previously been said, biking legislation is drawn up by people who do not understand biking and I dread to think what spec of kit they would come up with... probably a cross between a Kendo suit and medieval plate armour (and just as heavy). On the other hand, there is a cost to putting people back together following spills. I really wonder how much road safety legislation is driven by genuine humanitarian concern and how much is driven by the balance sheet. I guess as long as you expect the state to pick up the pieces, there is a resonsibility to minimise your own exposure to risk and the state is entitled to place conditions to protect its investment.

Education I feel is the answer rather than legislation but I wouldn't be surprised if we do see laws being passed as another stick to beat us with. Imagine the scene... mid winter, police road check..'please strip off sir, we just want to confirm your armoured jock strap conforms to Euro spec E-563895/T/BS/406.7'

I believe that for the private citizen, everything should be allowed except what is specifically forbidden by law but, for the government, everything should be prohibited except that which is specifically permitted by law. :!:

[Mogs]

I would like to vote Yes and No, but ended up voting No

No, minimum standard for rider leave the law stand at helmet only

as for children riding pillion, yes Helmet, Gloves, Jacket, Boots

[Flamin_Squirrel]

The government doesnt actualy care about road safety, only money and power.

As for paying for the privilage of being scraped off the road, I think thats more than covered by exorbitant motoring taxes. I never ride without kit, because I like my skin, but I could never support further state opression.

I believe that for the private citizen, everything should be allowed except what is specifically forbidden by law but, for the government, everything should be prohibited except that which is specifically permitted by law.

Very well said, and absolutely true. Indeed, the Europeans love this kind of thing, they want a law for everything :roll:

[jonboy]

...I lost count of the number of bikers without full coverage protective gear and I simply cannot understand the mentality of going on the road dressed like that. I had a couple of shortish runs on Saturday and was drenched (it was fine once I started moving) but I'd rather feel a bit warm than undergo extensive plastic surgery. If you don't wear the kit in the summer, why bother when it's cooler?


Precisely! An excellent point.


.

[Ed]

Hmm. Should we ban fags? And booze? And while we're about it, caffeine? And baked beans, they make you fart after all.

Not in favour of a law. Nick 762 is right, methinks.

[Patch]

So we propose or accept a mandatory on protective clothing. Then what?

People will still die on bikes, the broken bones will be the same, the bikers tossed into a field will still happen. Whats next? Well the only real way to stop the casualties amongst bikers is to stop people riding powerfgul machines isnt it?

So all on 250 or below and then 125s and still we'll die because the issues are not ever dealt with, so we'll die. And whats left then? Well the biking minority will be an even smaller minority as the power freaks amongst our mist move to sport cars etc where they have less restrictions. These people will have the same capability at driving as they do in biking, ie none, so they'll cut the white lines as they corner so they'll kill more of us. Whats left? Ban Bikes thats what.

Am I just paranoid? You'd better believe I am not. It is already a stated objective of the chief advisor to the DFT that M/C Power should be reduced and London Borough of Kensington have tabled a motion to ban Bikes from their roads.

If biking is that dangerous maybe it should be banned. Its the same with child pilions, 2 died last year and a petition is presented to ban under 16's.

Biking is a choice, wearing or not wearing protective clothing is a choice. FWIW my own choice depends on what bike I am riding. The VFR always sees protective clothing as I ride it hard and quickly, if I am on the cruiser I may not bother as the likely hood is that I am ridng chilled and not going much faster than a tractor. Still a risk? yes but one I accept just like you accept the risk of riding in the first place.

Beware the Government they have one adgenda and it isn't yours

[Mythkind]

What about the police men and paramedics that have to clear it up,
i dont want a nanny state, id would just like to see more bikers treating there skin with respect!

Alex
I'd like to take a leap here and say they MUST know it goes with the job... I mean firemen KNOW they're going to come across some pretty gruesome sights... cops will have to attend murder scenes, ambulance crews will have to attend accidents...



This is true but try ringing someone's doorbell, seeing their face when they see the uniform and knowing its bad news, and then telling them that the person they thought was coming home is not and is in fact lying on a mortuary slab and that they will only be able to ID the body from their belongings as their body was cut in two and then crushed by a lorry. Not nice.

I'm all for scrapping National Insurance and going for medical insurance instead. If you smoke, drink too much, are clinically obese, take drugs etc. then your premiums go up. Everyone has a duty to look after themselves and I for one am tired of paying for someone else's medical bills because they couldn't be arsed caring.

We come back to Natural Selection. Darwinism at its best.

MK

[Patch]

This is true but try ringing someone's doorbell, seeing their face when they see the uniform and knowing its bad news, and then telling them that the person they thought was coming home is not and is in fact lying on a mortuary slab and that they will only be able to ID the body from their belongings as their body was cut in two and then crushed by a lorry. Not nice.


And just how the feck would protective clothing help in this kind of circumstance? Typical bloody liberal response to over dramatise a discussion to pull on the heart strings. You forgot to mention the sweet little blonde haired kids and the poor little puppy dog that will now have to be put down.

[kevbuck]

MYTHKIND

We seem to be straying from the point a little. I was born 43 years ago with a severe disability (spastic) where would natural selection leave me? dont say I heard it all before. I have been in and out of hospital since the age of 4. I was told three weeks ago I had a serious condition and was told I needed to be in hospital the next day I am still waiting so their you go **** wit natural selection does work!!!!!!!!!!

Now getting back to the subject matter. I have been riding bikes for 27 years had an off at 16 only wearing t shirt witnesses told my parents I was dead in fact I had taken the skin off my **** and hands. I have never ridden without leathers since. When my wife or son ride pillion they wear textile clothing with armour and back protector WHAT EVERYTHE WEATHER.

Only fools ride in t shirts, shorts and sandals!!!!!!!!!!

[Mike1234]

Rather than try to enforce any new rules and regulations on people (which are bound to be unwelcome) why not introduce a new rule.

Anyone who is treated in hospital after a RTA who was not wearing CE approved boots, helmet, jackets, trousers and gloves gets a bill for their treatment.

People should have the option to purchase an additional insurance policy to cover such bills but the onus should be on the rider to decide what he wants to wear whilst riding and therefore has to pay appropriately.

Having said that I think anyone taking a child on a motorbike without the necessary protective gear should be dealt in the same as anyone one else who unnecessarily puts a child in danger!

[jonboy]

Mike, I think that's an excellent idea.


.

[Cloggsy]

Rather than try to enforce any new rules and regulations on people (which are bound to be unwelcome) why not introduce a new rule.

Anyone who is treated in hospital after a RTA who was not wearing CE approved boots, helmet, jackets, trousers and gloves gets a bill for their treatment.

People should have the option to purchase an additional insurance policy to cover such bills but the onus should be on the rider to decide what he wants to wear whilst riding and therefore has to pay appropriately.

Having said that I think anyone taking a child on a motorbike without the necessary protective gear should be dealt in the same as anyone one else who unnecessarily puts a child in danger!



http://forums.sv650.org/images/smiles/eusa_clap.gif http://forums.sv650.org/images/smiles/eusa_clap.gif Bloody brilliant http://forums.sv650.org/images/smiles/eusa_clap.gif http://forums.sv650.org/images/smiles/eusa_clap.gif

[Patch]

Rather than try to enforce any new rules and regulations on people (which are bound to be unwelcome) why not introduce a new rule.

Anyone who is treated in hospital after a RTA who was not wearing CE approved boots, helmet, jackets, trousers and gloves gets a bill for their treatment.

People should have the option to purchase an additional insurance policy to cover such bills but the onus should be on the rider to decide what he wants to wear whilst riding and therefore has to pay appropriately.


Agreed an excellent idea which we could expand to cover, anyone who smokes, rides a pedal cycle, falls off a ladder if someone wasn't holding it, industrial accidents as the bill can be sent to the emlployer, etc etc etc. So your proposal is that the national health should only be available to people who have not been involved in the cause of their own need. well theres always fault somewhere so lets just sack the NHS and have a totally private system where the insurance covers the bills. No thanks.

One day you'll need the NHS, you'll be glad its there it may even be your own fault even if its not biking related. When you do need it you'll be glad its there please don't suggest the slippery slope of privatisation

[Sid Squid]

Rather than try to enforce any new rules and regulations on people (which are bound to be unwelcome) why not introduce a new rule.

Anyone who is treated in hospital after a RTA who was not wearing CE approved boots, helmet, jackets, trousers and gloves gets a bill for their treatment.

People should have the option to purchase an additional insurance policy to cover such bills but the onus should be on the rider to decide what he wants to wear whilst riding and therefore has to pay appropriately.

Having said that I think anyone taking a child on a motorbike without the necessary protective gear should be dealt in the same as anyone one else who unnecessarily puts a child in danger!

Patch got it right after reading this.

Welcome to the Safety Nazi State, we don't want anybody doing, (or worse, thinking), other than in the right State Endorsed manner, there's no room for free will or individuality, conformity is everything and all matters can be decided by a quick squint at a balance sheet.

Mood after reading this post: A mixture of depression and anger, you lot do as you like, I really am happy for you, pi55 off deciding on my behalf there should a law to save me from myself, (whatever I do), and worst of all the suggestion that that should be decided on monetary grounds. I can think of a dozen more things that this thin argument could be applied to on top of the already mentioned obesity and drinking and smoking.

Where will it end?

I know lets just ban bikes and be done with it, that way we'll all live forever.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

This thread is amazing. We're bikers fgs, WE DONT WANT TO GIVE THE GOVERNMENT MORE POWER.

Its always the public that make knee jerk reactions you know, the government happens to love them though, because it gives them the perfect opertunity to gain more power and fool a gulable population that what its doing is for peoples own good.

Examples - banning guns, reducing speed limits due to a single freak accidents, etc.

Its no wonder polititians have to lie constantly, this thread illustrates some seriously short sighted thinking.

[Mike1234]

Agreed an excellent idea which we could expand to cover, anyone who smokes, rides a pedal cycle, falls off a ladder if someone wasn't holding it, industrial accidents as the bill can be sent to the emlployer, etc etc etc. So your proposal is that the national health should only be available to people who have not been involved in the cause of their own need. well theres always fault somewhere so lets just sack the NHS and have a totally private system where the insurance covers the bills. No thanks.

Blimey, isn't that a little over the top. That's just the sort of knee jerk reactions that we all slag off politicians for!

Instead of taking the discussion to the next logical step you just jumped straight ahead and started suggestions that are, to be frank, just ridiculous. It's the whole point of this thread to stop just short sightedness and possibly prevent the government from giving bikers a kicking that they seem to think we so richly deserve.

Besides isn't the smoking is already covered thanks to the tax on it? :-)

One day you'll need the NHS, you'll be glad its there it may even be your own fault even if its not biking related. When you do need it you'll be glad its there please don't suggest the slippery slope of privatisation

On the other hand I've used the NHS on numerous occasions whilst riding, well, falling off whilst racing. Probably more than most people on this board. The NHS already sees riding a bike as a major no no. I've been put at the back of the queue on so many occasions despite statistics that point out that horse riding, tennis and golf are far and away more likely to cause serious injury and death.

The current state of the NHS is deplorable and any way we can reduce the overhead through people being inconsiderate and careless has to be considered. Riding without wearing the appropriate clothing places an unnecessary burden on the system.

Mood after reading this post: A mixture of depression and anger, you lot do as you like, I really am happy for you, pi55 off deciding on my behalf there should a law to save me from myself, (whatever I do), and worst of all the suggestion that that should be decided on monetary grounds. I can think of a dozen more things that this thin argument could be applied to on top of the already mentioned obesity and drinking and smoking.

Interesting opinions.

Have to admit that my first reaction was, well, a rather violent outburst. Who are you to decide that your rights to do something are more important than mine? Who are you to decide that I should help cover the medical bills for your arrogance and carelessness?

Having considered it I am rather worried that you both see the issue of the burden placed on our NHS through the unnecessary, and totally avoidable, need to have the freedom to ride around in a pair of shorts as being acceptable. Surely giving you that freedom without burdening the NHS is a more helpful approach?

Where would YOU draw the line then?

[northwind]

I'd like to see better grading, maybe E-marking of gear other than lids... And frankly, the absolute minimum than even the most complete idiot should be wearing is gloves and lid. I don't have any problem with legislating against rampant stupidity.

This harks back to a rant I went off on just after the Kelso show... Some of the absolute crap that was for sale there pretty much horified me- gloves that obviously had about as much protection as a pair of knitted mittens, factory second jackets with big chunks of stitching missing from the shoulder joints, factory second gloves with holes in the palms :shock:

Wearing gloves doesn't keep you safe if the gloves are worthless...

[wheelnut]

There should not be any government intervention, or any more rules in protective clothing.

It is a personal choice made by adults, There is no need for anymore training either. The CBT covers the types of protective clothing available. It covers the types of helmet and the legal requirements.

Billy C said
ASK ANYBODY WHO HAS HAD ANY SORT OF SERIOUS OFF

WOULD YOU PREFER TO WEAR PROTECTIVE CLOTHING OR NOT

ANYBODY WHO SAYS NOT SHOULD SEE A PSYCHIATRIST

I AM DEFFINATELY YES BRIGADE



I have a choice and I PREFER to keep that choice

[KrZ]

I think if smokers ares made to pay for most of the NHS, then at least there should be a tax on people who don't wear protective clothing on bikes. because when they land in hospital, tax payer has to pay for them. Or at least a biker should pay for a certain percentage of NHS bill if a biker is brought to hospital in T-shirt and shorts.

We already have penalty for not wearing seatbelt in car (not everyone like to wear seatbelt, is that a freedom of choice issue?) for passenger safty. then a certain law should exist on bikes.

[Mike1234]

I think it would be an excellent idea to introduce a grading scheme (perhaps similar to the NCAP test for cars with a number of stars) for protective clothing, crash helmets, etc.

At the moment the ACU helmet requirement is less than the EU standard. I would love to know how many lids just scrape a pass and how many other would get 5 stars.

We should be given the information so we can make an educated choice.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

...Having considered it I am rather worried that you both see the issue of the burden placed on our NHS through the unnecessary, and totally avoidable, need to have the freedom to ride around in a pair of shorts as being acceptable. Surely giving you that freedom without burdening the NHS is a more helpful approach?

I'm afraid that your theory is flawed, for what everyone considers as reasonable risk is purely subjective. You (and me for that matter) consider riding without leathers an unacceptable risk. Some people might consider riding a 70hp motorcycle an unacceptable risk, let alone a sports bike. After all, they contribute to a large proportion of motorcycle accidents, would you have them banned too?

Freedom comes at a cost, be it paying with your skin or your wallet. Live with it. As a biker, wishing to ban something just because you dont like it is a rather hypercritical stance to take, and I hope you see why.

[Mike1234]

I'm afraid that your theory is flawed, for what everyone considers as reasonable risk is purely subjective. You (and me for that matter) consider riding without leathers an unacceptable risk. Some people might consider riding a 70hp motorcycle an unacceptable risk, let alone a sports bike. After all, they contribute to a large proportion of motorcycle accidents, would you have them banned too?

By that same token you can ust as easily say that the laws requiring seat belts and the use of crash helmets restrict your freedoms and should be repealed. There has to be a line but that line has to be set by people who know what they are talking about and by those without an alternative agenda. If I need to spell it out I'm not referring to those monkeys we have setting standards at the moment!

Freedom comes at a cost, be it paying with your skin or your wallet. Live with it. As a biker, wishing to ban something just because you dont like it is a rather hypercritical stance to take, and I hope you see why.

The problem is that I object to paying for your skin!

Don't confuse the need for proper education and counselling to remedy the current short sightedness and obvious bias by the government and the need to set a sensible limit for genuine safety issues.

Sure riding a motorcycle is dangerous but even more dangerous are some of the driving standards we see every day. You have to be careful not to get caught up in some of the pro biker rhetoric shown by MCN in response to the very anti biker view from the government and some of the senior Police in this country.

In one of the recent MCN articles on traffic accidents they made a big thing about the government using misleading statistics to support their claim about bikers crashing without cars being involved.

After reading through all the guff put forward the actual statistics quote showed that cars still only caused half of the accidents where as the article seemd to be suggesting that cars caused many more than bikers.

[northwind]

Another derail for you...

I remember years ago reading about a man who was done for murder, as he'd stabbed a New Christian Scientist. The victim could easily have been saved, but refused all medical attention as God would save him. A week later, he died of secondary infections, and the attacker was done for murder. But if the victim had accepted even basic medical aid, he would just have been done for whatever the US equivalent of aggravated assault is

Why is this relevant? Well, say I knock you off your bike and you're wearing all the armour, your chances of survival are far higher than if you were wearing an open-face helment and a G-string. So pity the poor bugger who knocks off an unarmoured rider and gets done for vehicular manslaughter instead of dangerous driving.

Where I see the change coming, though, won't be in the law. Right now we get discoutns on our insurance for having alarms or big chains. I reckont he next step will be further discounts on fully comp if we ride in full gear, with penalties- double excess or similiar- if we're involved in an accident while wearing nothing but a chicken suit.

[Sid Squid]

Have to admit that my first reaction was, well, a rather violent outburst. Who are you to decide that your rights to do something are more important than mine?

Bingo!!! Goes both ways my friend.

Who are you to decide that I should help cover the medical bills for your arrogance and carelessness?

You seemingly cannot consider the possibility that you may still be injured in a motorcycle accident. Are you to be excluded from NHS care, (my taxes too remember), 'cos you were on a bike? Even if you were wearing your gear, I'm damn sure that there is some 'better' gear available somewhere, so, were you guilty of contributing to your injuries by not taking every possible precaution against getting hurt?

I'm upping the stakes now, what are you doing to avoid wasting my money? Are you the arbiter of what's 'reasonable' protection, I'm not claiming that, I wouldn't be so arrogant, I'm defending choice, even daft ones.

FWIW I never ride in a tee shirt and shorts, I don't consider it wise, but I'll defend those that want to, and it's one of the few things I'm pleased to say I have no problem with the government spending tax money on.

Having considered it I am rather worried that you both see the issue of the burden placed on our NHS through the unnecessary, and totally avoidable, need to have the freedom to ride around in a pair of shorts as being acceptable. Surely giving you that freedom without burdening the NHS is a more helpful approach?

Biking is both avoidable and unnecessary, you could get the bus.
So, stop biking, the only guaranteed method of avoiding the burden of NHS expenditure on motorcycle accidents, yours or mine.


Where would YOU draw the line then?

Easy, I wouldn't, it's for individuals to decide.

[Last Action Pimp]

my dad said that i shouldn't bother with my jacket as i was only going 1/2 amile on a hot day.

onthe way back i had my off! well more falling over. lucky i had my jacket on

[21QUEST]

So we propose or accept a mandatory on protective clothing. Then what?

People will still die on bikes, the broken bones will be the same, the bikers tossed into a field will still happen. Whats next? Well the only real way to stop the casualties amongst bikers is to stop people riding powerfgul machines isnt it?

So all on 250 or below and then 125s and still we'll die because the issues are not ever dealt with, so we'll die. And whats left then? Well the biking minority will be an even smaller minority as the power freaks amongst our mist move to sport cars etc where they have less restrictions. These people will have the same capability at driving as they do in biking, ie none, so they'll cut the white lines as they corner so they'll kill more of us. Whats left? Ban Bikes thats what.

Am I just paranoid? You'd better believe I am not. It is already a stated objective of the chief advisor to the DFT that M/C Power should be reduced and London Borough of Kensington have tabled a motion to ban Bikes from their roads.

If biking is that dangerous maybe it should be banned. Its the same with child pilions, 2 died last year and a petition is presented to ban under 16's.

Biking is a choice, wearing or not wearing protective clothing is a choice. FWIW my own choice depends on what bike I am riding. The VFR always sees protective clothing as I ride it hard and quickly, if I am on the cruiser I may not bother as the likely hood is that I am ridng chilled and not going much faster than a tractor. Still a risk? yes but one I accept just like you accept the risk of riding in the first place.

Beware the Government they have one adgenda and it isn't yours

:winner:

[Mike1234]

'm upping the stakes now, what are you doing to avoid wasting my money? Are you the arbiter of what's 'reasonable' protection, I'm not claiming that, I wouldn't be so arrogant, I'm defending choice, even daft ones.

That's easy. I'm not going to lend my support to any campaigns to repeal the laws on wearing a crash helmet nor will I advocate not wearing a seat belt.

Obviously with your freedom of choice approach youi will be all in favour of letting people get mushed. I reckon that should save an absolute fortune!

[Mythkind]

MYTHKIND

I was born 43 years ago with a severe disability (spastic) where would natural selection leave me? dont say I heard it all before. I have been in and out of hospital since the age of 4. I was told three weeks ago I had a serious condition and was told I needed to be in hospital the next day I am still waiting so their you go **** wit natural selection does work!!!!!!!!!!


Kevbuck - I'm sorry if you think I was referring to disabled people in my little rant however I was not. I was referring to a previous thread in which somebody (can't remember who) said that people who ride dangerously and/or irresponsibly (i.e. not wearing any protection = morons) should be left to their own devices and do everyone else a favour and kill themselves instead of anyone else. Not exactly politically I know but its what I think.

Also my mention of having to tell a wife her husband was dead was not part of the argument for wearing protection, more just illustrating that even though police do expect to see accidents, there are some aspects of the job that you cannot prepare for and that do affect the officers involved.

MK

[Sid Squid]

Obviously with your freedom of choice approach you will be all in favour of letting people get mushed.

Correct, call it choice, democracy, freedom, natural selection, whatever.
Oh!! Just a moment, that can still happen whatever you wear. You are not immune.

Unless and until the unlikely event that motorcycling gear that can guarantee non injury to the wearer in all circumstances can be made available at an affordable price to all, this argument is utterly irrelevant, you can still get hurt whatever you wear, so the bizarre idea that if you wear CE approved at all times you'll never have any public money spent upon you, is clearly wrong.

I reckon that should save an absolute fortune!

Still can't see past the balance sheet can you? Is this all this question means to you?

It simply isn't a: wear this don't ever get hurt/don't wear this guaranteed to be hurt argument. This whole question is just playing with the details and worst of all by even entertaining the suggestion of legally forcing minimum levels of gear the whole thing plays neatly into the hands who would like to restrict our freedom to ride full stop.

Be careful what you wish for you, might just get it.

[SteveR]

I have to say NO.
I don't believe legislation can solve this problem.
Biking gear (including the helmet) has to be chosen with care for the job it has to do. Leathers are not always the most appropriate.

In the UK, bikers take more care selecting kit with appropriate safety (that's approprate to them) than many other countries. Education and peer pressure works better than legislation.

I'd prefer to buy kit from personal recommendations, from a decent bike shop than buy a standardised set of 'bike safety gear' off ebay.

Can any of the 'yes' voters point to a country that has successfully implemented such legislation, or even a discussion document that has some detailed proposals that you would like to become law ?

[howardr]

There is another argument - although I don't necessarily agree with it.

There is a school of thought that believes bikers are less attentive, more aggressive and tend to ride faster because they feel safer all wrapped up in leather and armour. :?

Whilst protective clothing will save your skin and may help to limit breakages and possibles 'internals', once you get to a certain speed (unlike on a race track), the chances are you will end up hitting something very solid, quite fast. There's very little that your leathers will do in these circumstances.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

By that same token you can ust as easily say that the laws requiring seat belts and the use of crash helmets restrict your freedoms and should be repealed. There has to be a line but that line has to be set by people who know what they are talking about and by those without an alternative agenda. If I need to spell it out I'm not referring to those monkeys we have setting standards at the moment!

Yes there has to be a line and steatbelts and helmets are it. In YOUR view they arent sufficient, but it does provide a very simple and easy to follow safety rule that isnt open to interpretation. You're wearing a seatbelt/helmet or you're not.

Freedom comes at a cost, be it paying with your skin or your wallet. Live with it. As a biker, wishing to ban something just because you dont like it is a rather hypercritical stance to take, and I hope you see why.

The problem is that I object to paying for your skin!

And I'm sure there are a large number of people who'd rather not pay for ANY bikers skin and insist we all drive as its safer. You cant have it both ways. By your logic, a biker in a solo accident deserves no treatment.

What ever way you look at it we are a group that are at a higher risk from serious injury and the requirement of the emergency services than most other people. Lying in the road, I dont want to be left to die because someone has deemed the risk I took as a motorcyclist excessive when offset against the expense of helping me - leathers or not.

[454697819]

Right You Lot!!

Listen up,
Im gonna get this back on track now,
I dont want this to become a slagging off sesion!

Right so we have established that most ppl dont want leglislation,
but y not, we are not giving the government "more power" as they already have the power to do this any way.

I know im biased any way, but comon you lot, think about it, do you drive a car without seatbelts? do you not strap your self in on a rolar coaster??

Its all about accident outcome reduction, not looking goo, or giving more power,
I would be more than happy to reverse my veiw if it was intor duced then reveiwed to see if it had cut down on the casualty rate of motorcyclists?

I know bones will still break, i know we can die of head injuries, bugger it we could choke ona rain drop, Im not interested in smoking or obescity, i have my veiws on that but this is about motorcycles!
But surley look at big ape, if he wasnt wearing gear he would have been dead! so lets look at this realistically without any macho bull ****,
its a fact! gear does reduce bodily injuries in accidents!!! simple, wont prevent them wont stop us dying wont stop smoking or drinking or anything else.
And that was the point of this! reducing injuries, i dont care about taxes i care about ppl, and bikers dying, but if they serioulsy injur themselves without gear, then tough!

No one would listen if it wasnt legaaslative as human nature of some pl is to turn against it and always fight the system.
So lets just see if it would help. No, oh ok then, well i have NO sympathy for those eho fall off without the right gear on, be it or be it not their fault!

Alex

[Jabba]

There is a school of thought that believes bikers are less attentive, more aggressive and tend to ride faster because they feel safer all wrapped up in leather and armour. :?

Known in the trade as VDS "Volvo Driver's Syndrome". Honest.

There's another school of thought that would replace airbags with a big metal spike that would pop out of the steering wheel in the event of a frontal impact.....................

[Nick762]

There's another school of thought that would replace airbags with a big metal spike that would pop out of the steering wheel in the event of a frontal impact.....................

:winner:

How's about looking at this from another angle. Regardless of my own feelings on the matter (in case you haven't guessed by now, I'm anti legislation but very pro education) the cold reality is that to do anything more than walk on a public highway is a privilege not a right. You earn the right to drive/ride a motor vehicle by passing a test and gaining a licence, if you fail to follow the rules, that privilege can be revoked and you are back on two feet. Any argument opposing legislation on the grounds of freedom of choice is spurious since that freedom is entirely illusory :cry:

[jonboy]

Any argument opposing legislation on the grounds of freedom of choice is spurious since that freedom is entirely illusory :cry:

Absolutely. Freedom is little more than a figment of the imagination. We are simply free within the constraints we've been given. And as for rights, well... we like to kid ourselves I think. In a hundred years time there will no rights or freedoms as we currently see them, life will be very ordered and the machine will be in place. Thank Christ we're alive now, stop bitchin' and get on your bikes and ride! ;)


.

[Ping]

Any argument opposing legislation on the grounds of freedom of choice is spurious since that freedom is entirely illusory :cry:

Absolutely. Freedom is little more than a figment of the imagination. We are simply free within the constraints we've been given. And as for rights, well... we like to kid ourselves I think. In a hundred years time there will no rights or freedoms as we currently see them, life will be very ordered and the machine will be in place. Thank Christ we're alive now, stop bitchin' and get on your bikes and ride! ;)
.

... In full kit! (or not, as you see fit) :D

[Mike1234]

Obviously with your freedom of choice approach you will be all in favour of letting people get mushed.

Correct, call it choice, democracy, freedom, natural selection, whatever.
Oh!! Just a moment, that can still happen whatever you wear. You are not immune.

Unless and until the unlikely event that motorcycling gear that can guarantee non injury to the wearer in all circumstances can be made available at an affordable price to all, this argument is utterly irrelevant, you can still get hurt whatever you wear, so the bizarre idea that if you wear CE approved at all times you'll never have any public money spent upon you, is clearly wrong.

Why oh why do you keep making assumptions about what I am saying? I have never said that this is about preventing injury. It is about reducing risk and the potential for unnecessary cost.

Everything is a risk - I merely suggested that there was a cheap and easy way to have potential improvements and cut what we can all see are unnecessary risks, i.e. not restrict people from wearing what they want and also not placing an undue strain on an already overburdened system.

There is a difference in treating the cost of a broken leg compared to the cost of treating a broken leg with skin and muscle grafts and even more physiotherapy afterwards, etc.

I reckon that should save an absolute fortune!

Still can't see past the balance sheet can you? Is this all this question means to you?

It simply isn't a: wear this don't ever get hurt/don't wear this guaranteed to be hurt argument. This whole question is just playing with the details and worst of all by even entertaining the suggestion of legally forcing minimum levels of gear the whole thing plays neatly into the hands who would like to restrict our freedom to ride full stop.

Be careful what you wish for you, might just get it.

Again, a small joke at your expense and you are off making suppositions about the point I am trying to make.

It seems that your point isn't about freedom or even cost but that you don't want to give the powers that be any incentive to try to potentially improve rider safety.

Don't you believe that they can be educated or is it just an anti government thing?

[kevbuck]

When it come down to it none of us like being given advice whether it is good or bad, and we hate being told what to do its human nature. Some of us learn by our mistakes some dont.

What ever we can do to show motorcycle riders as responsable people to the none biking public and ban it brigade, the wearing of minimum adiquate protective clothing would be a good step.

[Philbo]

Here we go again! I'm with Ping on this one. What next, everyone must wear factor 30 sun tan cream at the beach in case those poor Doctors have to deal with the inevitable, ugly, melonomas? Were all big boys and girls here, and we can make our own choices. As for Johns compulsory advanced training / re-sits. Who's going to pay for them? Assuming there is an insurance break for those who do the extra stuff, they'll just charge the other folk more. The same folk who might not be able to afford the extra training will get hit with the higher premiums. And that's assuming premiums come down at all, let's not forget car/bike crime has a major influence here. I'm all for advanced training, but it has to be voluntary, or even better...free. Motorclycling is an inherenlty dangerous mode of transport, the best gear in the world won't help if you have a head on smash with a BP tanker. If we're that concerned about our health and safety we should ban biking all together, problem solved!

[kitten]

What ever we can do to show motorcycle riders as responsable people to the none biking public and ban it brigade, the wearing of minimum adiquate protective clothing would be a good step.

yes yes yes!!!!! Finally someone seems to have got it!
look here every time there is a bike accident where someone is killed, (please note I'm not talking injury here) due to there own negligence, it reflects badly on bikers and biking as a whole.
Somebody was talking about statistics well think about how they might change if the law did! Alot of people make stupid mistakes, like not putting on enough gear and don't expect to lose their life because of it. Call me crazy but if I was so uneducated and cocky as to believe I didn't need gear I'd like the government to protect me atleast until I learnt the preciousness of the life I'd been given.
whether u use gear or not this issue will effect u because as much as a helmet saves ur head, what about ur arms, legs, hands and feet and body, without those we're all pretty useless,
take care,
C@ xx

[Mike1234]

Anyone remember the free two day MAC course given away with all new Honda bikes back in '99 & '00 (I think).

Run by ex-police instructors the days were run at whatever pace you needed. The instructors view was that they knew people would speed so they wanted to make sure they were as safe as possible at those speeds.

What an absolutely aweson idea. It was a real shame that they didn't stick with it - I'd have been interested in seeing the accident statistics from those years broken down by manufacturer!

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I fail to belive for a minute that the 'burden' on the NHS by bikers is in the slightest bit significant.

I also fail to belive that motorists who get cut up/overtaken/generaly anoyed by bikers think "ooh, they've got leathers on, thats ok then". So declairing to a very disinterested cage driving comunity that we're taking responsible steps to save ourselves would achieve squat.

Bikers policing themselves by trying to get others to get proper protection would be much better because it would actualy make a difference, rather than a few standing up and saying to the government"Were to f"£king stupid to think for our selves, please control us!". Requesting more legislation would make us look foolish, and would encorage the governments burgeoning desire to control every last bit of our lives.

[Anonymous]

I'm with Sid on this one.

I agree with whoever said that m/c RTAs are probably insignificant costs to the NHS...anyone got any figures, happy to be proven wrong.

Anyhow, I pay my national insurance contributions so if I want to cash in, then up to me, I think. And if your concerned about helping out with the costs of any possible NHS treatment then I'd make a similar point about rather not forking out on taxes to help educate other peoples little brats :wink:

[Jabba]

I'm with Sid on this one.

I agree with whoever said that m/c RTAs are probably insignificant costs to the NHS...anyone got any figures, happy to be proven wrong.

Anyhow, I pay my national insurance contributions so if I want to cash in, then up to me, I think. And if your concerned about helping out with the costs of any possible NHS treatment then I'd make a similar point about rather not forking out on taxes to help educate other peoples little brats :wink:

'sup Rich? Got no-one to direct you to the right side of the bed at the mo? :lol:

[howardr]

At the risk of adding more fuel to this already heated debate.

Whilst I didn't start this thread, the main point of my e-mail to MCN (see Page 1) was concerning the existence of already unnecessary legislation (loud cans and dark visors) when we know them to actually improve safety. No meaningful analysis has been carried out to show the benefits of both these 'banned' items.

This, I endeavour to point out, flies totally in the face of the fact that individuals are allowed the freedom to dress as they wish whilst riding a motorbike or scooter. If the government's PRIMARY concern was our safety - shouldn't they at least increase rider awareness and make 'dress sense' a compulsory part of CBT.

My argument is that, if legislation cannot be 'proven' to be effective by easily measurable results, then common-sense issues (such as appropriate clothing) simply fall by the wayside.

I believe it is our duty as responsible individuals to lead by example. However, the government also have a duty of care to properly educate road users, for their own safety.

The Highway Code states:
Consider wearing ear protection. Strong boots, gloves and suitable clothing may help to protect you if you fall off.

... hardly a strong message.

I ,like others, would not wish to see any further restrictive legislation introduced - there's too damn much already.

If 'Think Bike' (or whoever) really want to help educate riders, they should launch a campaign each summer to highlight the likely effects of falling off (even at low speeds) with no protection. It happened to me in my youth and it f*ckin' hurts!

[Ed]

I'm with Sid on this one.

I agree with whoever said that m/c RTAs are probably insignificant costs to the NHS...anyone got any figures, happy to be proven wrong.

Anyhow, I pay my national insurance contributions so if I want to cash in, then up to me, I think. And if your concerned about helping out with the costs of any possible NHS treatment then I'd make a similar point about rather not forking out on taxes to help educate other peoples little brats :wink:

I think that as I have only one child I should pay less tax than those with three or four as I make less demands on the state. Those with no kids should pay even less. See where this sort of argument goes, there would be no state services at all. Should those rowers rescued from the Atlantic have to pay the cost of their rescue? And on and on we go. Any decent civilised society will provide basic things for free, met by taxes.

Is it OK then to qualify these services? Eg to say yes we'll educate your child but only if they pass a basic aptitude test to ensure that we get value for money and that it's wisely spent? Or, we'll rescue you from the sea but only if you can show that you took every precaution possible first? Or that we'll treat your biking injuries only if you wore full protection? and that if you didn't then we'll prosecute you and charge you the cost?

It's fraught with difficulty. People should be educated, I suggest that CBT gets a lot tougher, with gory images. And if CBT schools absolutely insisted that they would not train people to ride without proper kit then that might make people invest in some and get in the habit of wearing it. Ditto on the bike test.

[Nick762]

Interesting and topical item on the BBC website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3549076.stm

I particularly like the last comment and if he isn't already then make this man an honourary biker:

We should encourage explorers and adventure seekers. Without such people we would probably still believe the world to be flat and the moon to be made of cheese. Taxpayers' money is well spent on rescuing those who have the guts to push the boundaries on behalf of mankind.
Graeme, United Kingdom

[Ping]

Interesting and topical item on the BBC website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3549076.stm
Very interesting, indeed. :)

[Mythkind]

Right You Lot!!


I dont care about taxes i care about ppl, and bikers dying, but if they serioulsy injur themselves without gear, then tough!

No one would listen if it wasnt legaaslative as human nature of some pl is to turn against it and always fight the system.
So lets just see if it would help. No, oh ok then, well i have NO sympathy for those eho fall off without the right gear on, be it or be it not their fault!

Alex

What he said.

MK

[Sid Squid]

Why oh why do you keep making assumptions about what I am saying?

Please, I'm asking nicely here, what assumptions was I making do you think? Ignoring the somewhat emotive element to your riposte, there's a question there and I'd like to know, I've read back through this thread and I'd really like to know where you feel I have made some assumptions about your position/thoughts on the matter.

Which brings me to:

A small joke at your expense and you are off making suppositions about the point I am trying to make.
Suppositions? Such as? Well we've been here, lets forget that for a mo, and now of course I see that it was a joke. :D

A joke...a joke, yes I see. Well might you explain:

Anyone who is treated in hospital after a RTA who was not wearing CE approved boots, helmet, jackets, trousers and gloves gets a bill for their treatment.

People should have the option to purchase an additional insurance policy to cover such bills but the onus should be on the rider to decide what he wants to wear whilst riding and therefore has to pay appropriately.

The problem is that I object to paying for your skin!

Sorry, don't get the joke. It certainly seems from your posts that the cost is precisely your point, no assumptions necessary, you've made your feeling abundantly clear.

It seems that your point isn't about freedom or even cost but that you don't want to give the powers that be any incentive to try to potentially improve rider safety.
Whoa!! Mike hold on a mo!! I thought making assumptions was my function?
Don't you believe that they can be educated or is it just an anti government thing?

Anti Government? I have a healthy cynicism/disrespect for authority, if that's what you mean, although I certainly don't feel alone in that. So, no, or at least no more than most it seems.
Educated? I sincerely hope so, but the ability to make informed choices can still lead people to making different choices to yours or mine. I like it like that.
Rider safety: I ride a bike, I have done for a long time, I have an appreciation of safety, doubtless you do too, so I'm all for it.
Safety is constructed of choices, like riding a bike, (or not), my choices, your choices, long may they remain ours to make.

[wheelnut]

We should encourage explorers and adventure seekers. Without such people we would probably still believe the world to be flat and the moon to be made of cheese. Taxpayers' money is well spent on rescuing those who have the guts to push the boundaries on behalf of mankind.

Yes and the rowers in the Atlantic, and the lone yachtsman in the Southern Ocean. The rescue services are already there, the budgets are there so when someone says it costs money to rescue someone, or repair injuries in Hospital. its not true.

An Australlian navy man said about the rescues they carry out, that the men need to be trained in real life situations, not mocked up exercises, they get the same buzz out of a shout as the risk takers get out of following their chosen sport or pastime.

Cost is irrelevant :!:
Legislation is not necessary :!:

Common Sense should be made compulsory :idea:

[kitten]

this is really getting a little too personal now guys so come on lets just cool it huh?? :cry: :x
this isn't a slagging off match so chill out! please?????
pleaseeeee??? pleaseeee??
ta
C@ xx

[Peter Henry]

Pretty much agree with what Howard has so eloquently written and the aditional comments from the rest of the folks. Private Medical care costs does not stop so many of the jerks we keep seeing on these stunt videos from the States does it? Unfortunately as with your bike insurance the cost is spread over everyone's premiums.(Unles they inroduce a No claims system?)

I have to agree that a minimum standard of safety clothing should be introduced by law. Don't forget I am kitted out over here when believe you me the easiest thing to do would be to pop a vest, shorts and flip flops on as the full kit makes you sweat your b*llocks off!
Hey Howard and Jonboy, helmet law? Let's not forget the furore over the introduction of the Seat Belt Law also! :wink: 8)

[jonboy]

Hey Howard and Jonboy, helmet law? Let's not forget the furore over the introduction of the Seat Belt Law also! :wink: 8)

Jesus, have you got to have one on your SV in spain? :lol:


.

[Stig]

Ok I have only read the first two pages on this thread.

Now I know some of you may find this a strange reply from me, especially when considering what has happened to me over the past two months (newbies who dont know check out the link below in my signiture). But I dont think it should be made law. I believe that anyone that doesn't wear full protection has not really thought about the consequences closely enough. I have hear the comments made before such as "I only travel 3 miles to work so it's not worth it" or " I only travel at 30 mph so wont get damaged that badly anyway". REALLY :?: :?: :?:

I know of people that didn't get to the end of thier street before they were taken out by another vehicle. And for those that think that at 30 mph they wont suffer that much damage, well, your traveling at 30 and the idiot that's travelling in the opposite direction is travelling at 70. I'm sure you have seen them before. The windows open, the music pumped up load. The big bore exhaust ect ect. He swerves because he never saw that car pulling out of the side road, straight into your path. Result :?: a 100 mph head on collision. Still think that you'll be safe to not wear full protection at 30mph. I don't think so.

Also mentioned was advanced training. I think that all riders and drivers should have to do compulsery advanced training once they have passed thier test. Infact I think that all cage drivers should have to do a CBT before they even get in a car.


Ok Rant over :) :) :)

[Jabba]

Infact I think that all cage drivers should have to do a CBT before they even get in a car.

At least cagers have to travel with a licenced bod all the time before they pass their test. Those that choose to train with motoring schools can be saved from themselves to a large extent by the wonders of dual-controlled vehicles.

The same is not true with bikers. 5 or 6 hours of very elementary training and their on their own on the roads...........not even with a compulsory test of road-signs. It's a licence to cause mayhem.

[BURNER]

FREEDOM!!