FIRST MUPPET SPOTTED THIS YEAR

[Lee Rainbow]

Riding home from work today spotted some guy on a gsxr with just shorts, t shirt and trainers on and no gloves, is just asking for trouble!!! ](*,)

The amount of pictures i've seen of people with road rash makes me always wear my full gear even if its boiling hot outside.

I think they should make some tv commercials highlighting this the same as they do for drink driving and speeding.

To quote what i once heard "SWEAT WIPES OFF, ROAD RASH DOESN'T!!!"

:rant:

Sorry just needed to get this off my chest

[kwak zzr]

these people obviously haven't fallen off before and dont know how hard the tarmac is.

[lynw]

Before the self righteous brigade start just stop for one moment.

What you're proposing is we hand over another one of our choices to our nanny state for enforcing by police. Great, lets give the police ANOTHER reason to pick on bikers as if theres not enough complaints about it as is. :roll:

End of the day, what I do on my bike and the decisions I make are mine to make, not yours, not the governments. I resent someone removing the choice tbh.

Because another thing you're not considering is those getting into biking. Making kit mandatory will push biking further into the exclusive hobby realm where only those who can afford to buy all of the kit can afford to get a bike.

I started with just a lid, jeans, inappropriate jacket and boots on my CG. Had it been mandatory to buy the gear I wouldnt have been able to afford it.

This was also discussed on a recent thread. You post as if your kit is an absolute guarantee but its not. Theres a certain amount of compensation made by riders if theyre not geared up tbh, and a certain amount of over compensation if youre not aware of it when you do wear your kit.

Bikers get injured and hurt wearing their kit. Bikers die wearing full gear. Saying it should be mandatory underlines a belief your kit will save you. YES it helps. YES I wear mine. But I never assume I can rely on it.

Ive posted a link before to a woman who had 9 skin grafts after coming off without any gear. Thats the sort of education you need, not make it compulsory.

Plus theres the practicality of enforcing it. What kit do you decide measures up to a defined safety standard? how can you justify to all of us who would then have to shell out hundreds or over a thousand pounds to regear. How do you enforce it?

You cant. The police are hard pushed as is, let alone giving them something else to target bikers for and get more complaints of harrassment.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

It's not the governments job to protect people from their own stupidity. We've got enough of a nanny state as it is, don't encourage them.

[Lee Rainbow]

Before the self righteous brigade start just stop for one moment.

What you're proposing is we hand over another one of our choices to our nanny state for enforcing by police. Great, lets give the police ANOTHER reason to pick on bikers as if theres not enough complaints about it as is. :roll:

End of the day, what I do on my bike and the decisions I make are mine to make, not yours, not the governments. I resent someone removing the choice tbh.

Because another thing you're not considering is those getting into biking. Making kit mandatory will push biking further into the exclusive hobby realm where only those who can afford to buy all of the kit can afford to get a bike.

I started with just a lid, jeans, inappropriate jacket and boots on my CG. Had it been mandatory to buy the gear I wouldnt have been able to afford it.

This was also discussed on a recent thread. You post as if your kit is an absolute guarantee but its not. Theres a certain amount of compensation made by riders if theyre not geared up tbh, and a certain amount of over compensation if youre not aware of it when you do wear your kit.

Bikers get injured and hurt wearing their kit. Bikers die wearing full gear. Saying it should be mandatory underlines a belief your kit will save you. YES it helps. YES I wear mine. But I never assume I can rely on it.

Neither do i, but its got to be better than wearing nothing at all thats the point im trying to make

I just wanted to see what other peoples views were on this subject thats all

[Steve W]

[quote="Lee Rainbow"]Riding home from work today spotted some guy on a gsxr with just shorts, t shirt and trainers on and no gloves, is just asking for trouble!!! ](*,)

Sorry but this is just stupid why can't they bring in some law to stop these people from continuing to do this, the amount of pictures i've seen of people with road rash makes me always wear my full gear even if its boiling hot outside.


Yes it's barmy but no they shouldn't bring in a law. People are free to do all sorts of things that are harmful to themselves e.g climbing mountains without proper equipment, smoking, drinking to excess, attempting to commit suicide, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to make them illegal.

Rules on clothing would be quite a difficult law to define and enforce... at least with a lid they can be easily seen - although I'm not sure they should be compulsory either although the consequences of a mashed head is that much more serious so perhaps compulsion there is justified..

I'd be interested in what an insurance company's view is/would be if it were shiown that their inappropriate clothing contributed to their injuries even if the accident was entriely the other party's fault....

[Iansv]

Yes its not the cleverest thing, but its upto them, you can't enforce rules for all

I've ridden in Jeans and Tshirt myself on short runs on a baking hot day... Its at the riders risk at the end of the day

[lynw]

Neither do i, but its got to be better than wearing nothing at all thats the point im trying to make

I just wanted to see what other peoples views were on this subject thats all

Some people do however. As was recently highlighted on another thread in IB.

Someone mistook what I was saying as in I was advocating not wearing any gear. Far from it, but its everyones choice. Some people are beyond making their life easy.

But a lot of people in what we consider inappropriate gear ride a lot more cautiously - think it was Ceri JC who mentioned it in the thread at that time. I believe he referred to a test where people were observed wearing nowt but underwear through to full gear. Where people had less protection they were far slower and more cautious. Obviously that doesnt apply to those who consider the trainers of invulnerability to be sufficient.

All you can do is shake your head and concentrate on your ride. You cant make it mandatory - its just not practical in all honesty.

Well thats my opinion anyway. :D

[Speedy]

Silly person!!

These people won't learn until they're hurt unfortunately!

Although I do agree with Lynw.

There has been too many infringements on our 'Civil liberties' over the last 8 years (at least!!!???),We do'nt need anymore!

Motorists/Motorcyclists are targeted enough already with various stealth taxes,(Road tax,Fuel tax,Insurance tax,Speeding fines,Fixed Penalty Notices,Tax-tax etc)
So if they were to make it law to wear safety gear,The Government would probably put TAX on that too,not to mention Safety clothing manufacturers jumping on the band-wagon!

They are dear enough already!

I always wear mine,Hot or not!

[Biker Biggles]

Yes of course it should be compusory.As should a man with a red flag walking in front of all cars and sex with Prescott to be a capital offense.Actually lets ban biking and everything else for that matter.We love the nanny state. :twisted:

[Lee Rainbow]

But a lot of people in what we consider inappropriate gear ride a lot more cautiously - think it was Ceri JC who mentioned it in the thread at that time. I believe he referred to a test where people were observed wearing nowt but underwear through to full gear. Where people had less protection they were far slower and more cautious. Obviously that doesnt apply to those who consider the trainers of invulnerability to be sufficient.



Thats a fair point but what about everybody else on the road thats what you've got to look out for!!

[Jelster]

I don't want the government telling me what to wear on my bike. I want the right to pop down to the shops in jeans and a lightweight jacket & gloves if I want to.

This would also mean "standards" to conform to which will give manufacturers an excuse to put the price up as well.

Yes they're pratts for doing it, but life is full of them anyway, so letting a few killi themselves would surely be good for evolution anyway :lol:

.

[Cloggsy]

I answered 'No'...

Its kinda sad if the Government have to stipulate what we wear :!:

Look at it this way, if he comes off he'll be in a whole world of pain (or worse, in which case he'll be clensing the gene-pool somewhat :!:)

He'll only do it once either way ;)

[lynw]

Thats a fair point but what about everybody else on the road thats what you've got to look out for!!

Exactly. You can only control what you do. Although most accidents are avoidable to some degree, some just arent. And thats why I wear my gear, every trip even round the corner to Tescos.

Speedy, rant away at the tax laws if you must. But I would like to point out helmets are zero rated ie NO VAT as they are required by law and deemed protective equipment. :twisted: :lol: :lol:

Technically if other clothing became mandatory there would be a bit of bother with the VAT legislation. Because theyre standard rated they can never be made zero rated [you can thank Brussels for that one]. But protective clothing is zero rated.
Best they would do is 5% reduced rate.

[Balky001]

I'm all for education over penalisation.

I'm sure any A&E will tell you about the amount of serious accidents people have climbing ladders and sawing wood and yet there's no license required let alone compulsary safety gear (unless you work on QVC DIY hour)! If we had laws for all stupid things people do where would we put all the prisons? :D

I always wear leathers (textiles in winter) and can't understand people who ride in tee shirts and shorts, but then I can't see why people would buy a 1.2 Corsa and lower it and put pretty blue lights on it either although maybe there should be a law against that!

[21QUEST]

I think textiles should be outlawed. Riders should (by law)only wear leathers.
All new bikes should also come with airbags and leg protectors(retrofitted to older bikes)

Cheers
Ben

[Speedy]

QUOTE>Speedy, rant away at the tax laws if you must. But I would like to point out helmets are zero rated ie NO VAT as they are required by law and deemed protective equipment. :twisted: :lol:

Yeah!! Tax,tax,tax!

Didn't know that,Well thats good! :wink: :roll:

[lynw]

QUOTE>Speedy, rant away at the tax laws if you must. But I would like to point out helmets are zero rated ie NO VAT as they are required by law and deemed protective equipment. :twisted: :lol:

Yeah!! Tax,tax,tax!

Didn't know that,Well thats good! :wink: :roll:

You get one guess as to what I do for a living now. Well for the next 4 weeks at least. :twisted: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[TC3]

If someone wants to ride in next to no gear that is their business and their right but when someone starts riding in a dangerous manor then it involves everyone else.
Live and let live

[tricky]

How would you enforce this ?
Would certain pieces of kit have a "government approved stamp"

People riding in flipflops and speedos used to annoy me too, but at the end of the day its their skin and their ass.

[timwilky]

It is personal choice what you wear, and long may it remain that way, I am from a generation that griped about having to wear a lid. Would I now consider riding without one?. No way. As for the trainer/tracky brigade :- Darwinian law will apply

[inevitable]

I must admit to riding in today in my leather jacket, gloves, lid and boots but with the coolest, lightweight and ever so unprotective suit trousers with NO OVER TROUSERS and it was lovely.

I was fully aware that I may get hurt and that was my choice.

T shirt trainers and no gloves is taking it a bit too far though and I'd have no sympathy at all if they came off and damaged themselves. I mean... it's a bit early isn't it? we've only had 2 days of sun! :roll:

[Red ones]

If the Government were to make it a legal duty to wear protective clothing, can you imagine the design specification they would come up with????

[kciN]

I saw kermit on his bike this morning with no protective gear on.
Just a hand up his bum.

He looked a complete muppet.. :wink:

Carry on with intended thread answers..

[Sid Squid]

A law?

A very very very bad idea, but one discussed previously: Clickety click! (http://forums.sv650.org/viewtopic.php?t=11863)

[Cronos]

An incredibly stupid and ill conceived idea which intrudes on the individual's right to go about their own business without state interference. Unfortunately it sounds like just the sort of legislation this government would want to introduce. :x :roll:

[mysteryjimbo]

Gets a no vote.

In summer i welcome the choice of jeans over leathers. I even used to ride to the gym in the trackie bottoms as I use the bike as sole method of transport.

I fully accept the risks, lack of protective clothing endangers no one but the person riding.

[Spiderman]

...What you're proposing is we hand over another one of our choices to our nanny state for enforcing by police. Great, lets give the police ANOTHER reason to pick on bikers as if theres not enough complaints about it as is. :roll:

End of the day, what I do on my bike and the decisions I make are mine to make, not yours, not the governments. I resent someone removing the choice tbh.


Naturaly i think the govt getting involved and making it compulsory is a very bad idea.

But read the above and replace gear with seatbelts and bike with car. Its the same principle and i've never understood why they make such a big deal of not wearing a belt.
Its personal choice.
And i dont think the numbers of people killed by passengers flying out of winscrrens and hitting them is very high is it?
This country would prolly pass such a law if there was any money in it for them to do so.

[Ceri JC]

Here's why it's a bad idea:

1. How do you work out what is neccessary? Should there be a new safety standard, like helmets have? How do you work it out? Is it impact, abrasion? A combination of both? There are different sorts of crashes, just like crash bungs, no gear works better than the alternatives in all situations. There are times when full moto-x body armour under a t shirt will give you better protection than single piece leather race suit that only has a spine protector.

2. When you're absolutely sweltering, just like when you're absolutely freezing, it's worth trading some protection for comfort; be that wearing textiles instead of leathers to keep you warm, winter gloves to prevent your hands going cold and your clutch/brake control going to bits. Same in summer; on really, really hot days, I'm convinced a long sleeves t-shirt with armoured mesh over it is more appropriate than a leather jacket, unless you're racing or doing silly speeds. Incidentally, when riding in a mesh jacket, I ride a lot slower (combination of vulnerability/increased sense of speed) which further reduces the likelihood of an off. In short; I'd rather not crash at all than "crash safely".

3. Yet another excuse for spot checks (they can't tell your clothes' compliance to the regulations without looking at the labels).

4. There are situations where getting kitted up is silly/impractical. When fixing something on the bike that needs lots of minor adjustments, a quick test up and down the road at 10mph in workshop overalls, gloves and a lid is fine. Rather than get fully kitted up, stop bike, take gear off, readjust, gear up, repeat indefinately. I've once ridden to a petrol garage, 300 yards up the road, 20mph all the way, I was in a one piece fluoro orange overall. No protection, but SMIDSY was a lot less likely to happen. I've also gone out in jeans and jacket and the 5-10mph reduction in speed this resulted in (as before; you're more careful in less protective gear) saved me from going over the bonnet of a car that pulled out as I was able to stop in time (inches to spare). It still wouldn't have been my fault had I hit it and even at 10mph more speed, I'd not have been speeding, but nonetheless, an accident would have happened.

5. I think any cash saving to the NHS would be offset by the costs of implementing and enforcing the scheme.

6. In any event, it's personal choice, isn't it? Even if it costs the NHS a bit more the way it is, so what. Rock climbers, paragliders, canoeists, cyclists etc. all do themselves a mischief and get treatment on the NHS. We all pay our taxes; we're entitled to it.

7. Cyclists. I've come off a motorbike "properly" twice. Both times were under 30mph, even the time when I was only wearing jeans and jacket, the worst I sustained was a grazed kneed. I've come off a push bike at 35-40. I was wearing tracky bottoms and a lid; it hurt a lot more. People who use the argument "it doesn't matter if you're extra cautious, the cagers can still have you off" seem to neglect the following:

For short cross town trips in built up areas, all 30, you probably won't (if you're sensible) exceed 30 for more than a few seconds. So, same sort of speeds as a push bike.

You're a lot more visible than a push bike.

By wearing a basic, road legal lid, you're already wearing a lid that offers vastly more protection than top spec road pushbike lids.

On a push bike, people aren't required to wear a lid at all.

On a push bike, even very good cyclists who can get up to 40-50 on a downhill wear clothes that are less protective than jeans and t-shirt.

[MilleonAir]

That'd be an interesting law because you'll end up with people having to wear full leathers on a C90. So, where do you draw the line on what kinds of bike apply? Top speed? Power? Frame type (eg scooter as opposed to bike?)? How about dirt bikes on green lanes - would their riders have to wear leather, too?

And what are "leathers"? There is no EU or BS standard for leathers suitable for motorcycling - only for the armour fitted to leathers being sold as motorcycle clothing. What is leather? Cow skin? Pig skin? So is Kangeroo OK? And how about Okapi or Wildebeest? Is kevlar a suitable alternative to leather? How about cordura? Then you need to say why, for example, cotton isn't appropriate by giving a minimum abrasion, burst, tear and cut resistance figure. To what abrasion and burst standards should the seams conform? And what about back protectors? Should every suit be fitted with one? Should this cover the coxxyx and protect the kidneys or just stop at the waist?

So, you might end up with a law saying that leather garments made with cow or kangeroo hide and at least 1.2mm thick, or made of a leather alternative with a wear resistance of X, fitted with knee, shin, elbow and shoulder armour to CE specification must be worn on powered two-wheelers producing 33BHP or more and not modified for off-road use. But "modified for off-road use" currently means that the passenger footpegs have been removed (true!) so my RSV1000 was "modified for off-road use".

It's a minefield!

Ian

[northwind]

The counterargument is that if you fall off wearing a pair of speedos and a helmet, you're more likely to tear yourself up, costing taxpayers money to fix you. You might be unable to work, in which case it costs taxpayers money to support you on invalidity.

And while the ambulance is picking you up and the doctors are patching your injuries, both of which could possibly have been avoided completely if you'd worn suitable gear, maybe someone else is lying dying through no fault of their own.

I'm not in favour of a law... Though I'd be in favour of better regulation of gear, to cut down on the unscrupulous shops selling useless gloves as protective gear etc. But there's a case for I think. The same as seatbelt laws.

Of course, the countercounterargument is that biking is unnecceasrily dangerous no matter how much gear you wear, and so it should be banned too.

[Cronos]

The counterargument is...

This is something you can take to the umpteenth degree, ultimately resulting in me not being allowed to put sugar on my cornflakes as it might cost the taxpayer more to fill my teeth! :P :lol:

[MilleonAir]

The counterargument is that if you fall off wearing a pair of speedos and a helmet, you're more likely to tear yourself up, costing taxpayers money to fix you. You might be unable to work, in which case it costs taxpayers money to support you on invalidity.

And while the ambulance is picking you up and the doctors are patching your injuries, both of which could possibly have been avoided completely if you'd worn suitable gear, maybe someone else is lying dying through no fault of their own.

I'm not in favour of a law... Though I'd be in favour of better regulation of gear, to cut down on the unscrupulous shops selling useless gloves as protective gear etc. But there's a case for I think. The same as seatbelt laws.

Of course, the countercounterargument is that biking is unnecceasrily dangerous no matter how much gear you wear, and so it should be banned too.

There is an argumant that says that all this safety gear makes you ride like a tw@ because you're invincible. I ride in jeans sometimes but I'm particularly careful on the throttle and brake and my distance from other vehicles increases while my tendedncy to take risks declines. Car drivers now drive like idiots in almost perfect safety inside their EuroNCAP cage and airbag shielded luxury when what they really need is a foot long spike in the middle of the steering wheel.

Ian

[Ping]

Er....


No.


That is all.
:D

[JakeRS]

Before the self righteous brigade start just stop for one moment.

What you're proposing is we hand over another one of our choices to our nanny state for enforcing by police. Great, lets give the police ANOTHER reason to pick on bikers as if theres not enough complaints about it as is. :roll:
.

Lyn has it down to a T... why give up yet another one of our personal decisions to the government? If you're sensible, you wear gear. If you're not, you'll ineveitably end up with your skin attached to the tarmac rather than your body...

And no I don't always wear my gear, well at least my textile trousers, always wear jacket helmet and gloves, so call me not sensible...

Though I do wear it if I'm going somewhere other than town.

[lynw]

Though I do wear it if I'm going somewhere other than town.

Even having come off on diesel on the ring road? :shock:

Personally, its every trip for me. You just never know when youre going to get that patch of diesel or a muppet driving. Id rather not take the risk. But end of day its your bike, your risk assessment, your choice.

But its unenforceable as a law and I resent the government taking the choice away.

Somethings like lids and seat belts are quite clearly good laws in they have cut the fatalities over the years, but not eliminated them entirely. But that is where the line should stay drawn to be honest as far as legislation goes.

[Cloggsy]

Personally, its every trip for me. You just never know when youre going to get that patch of diesel or a muppet driving. Id rather not take the risk.

Ditto, I've promised my wife & kids that every time I go out I'll always be in full kit - no excuses :!:

[Gidders]

I'm slightly shocked and saddened that even eighteen percent of bikers actually want to curtail our right to go to hell our own way.

The government is only too keen to make our decisions for us - asking them to tell us what kind of breeks to wear is just plain silly.

Yes, I wear my leathers.

[Vfr400]

On a similar sort of vein if I go on a building site then Health & Safety means I'd have to wear helmet, safety boots and probably goggles but the idiots delivering pizzas on the moped only seem to have to wear a helmet, some of them don't even have gloves :(

chris

PS Not that I'm for any law to tell me what to wear when riding for pleasure :D

[Patch]

Personal Choice

No more of these threads please, Bliar is listening

[northwind]

Bliar is listening

If he was listening, we'd probably be a bit better off ;)

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Bliar is listening

If he was listening, we'd probably be a bit better off ;)

No, we wouldn't.

[Ceri JC]

Incidentally, out of interest, how many of the people anti-this idea would be in favour of revoking the helmet law? I know they're different things and in any event, a lot of us have had to wear lids our whole biking lives anyway, but how do you feel about that?

Also, if this law was lifted, would you personally ever ride without a lid, perhaps when nipping out to the shops/across town?

I know there are riders in states in america where you can ride without a lid that wear lids all the time, but are still vehemently pro-choice on the matter.

I'm not saying riding without a lid is the same thing as riding without leathers; see my previous point for my views on that :wink: I'm just interested...

Me? I have to admit, I would probably ride without a lid, occassionally, on short cross town trips, for the same reasons I stated in the "cyclists" bit of my last rant. I think that's the problem with it; even sensible people would consider riding without lids occassionally and a cracked skull is a lot worse than a bit of road rash. Before you say "I never would" Imagine your lid is wrecked; for arguments sake, it's on the floor next to your bike and a car/truck drives over it. Would you ride home without one? When you started riding, would you leave getting a lid "for a few more weeks", etc? Because of this, I don't feel strongly either way about the law being lifted; I really am sitting on the fence on it.

Oh and I don't for one minute think in our current death-fearing, safety culture gone mad society, it'd ever be lifted :)

[DanAbnormal]

Let the muppets wear shorts. They will learn their lesson one day.

As for the no helmet, I would never ever not wear a lid.

[Ceri JC]

Let the muppets wear shorts. They will learn their lesson one day.

As for the no helmet, I would never ever not wear a lid.

So, just to play devil's advocate; your bike is 500 yards away, in a rough bit of town and you have no chain to chain it up with. You've just popped out for 5 minutes, but are already late back and will miss an important meeting/interview/family occassion/whatever if you're much longer. A car runs over your lid. You'd honestly leave the bike there whilst you went off to buy/borrow another lid, or push it 500 yards home (making yourself late), rather than just ride it without a lid for that distance?

I know it's an extreme example, but those sorts of situations can occur, I must admit, if the above one happened to me, I'd be inclined to chance it even with the current legislation. :oops:

[Biker Biggles]

Many years ago I did almost exactly that.I was going to the beach and when I got there I saw my brother's car parked.I did leave my lid on the bike's underseat lid lock but left all my clothes in the unlocked boot of brother's car.Wearing only swimming trunks I went down to the beach to fail to find brother who (you guessed it)got in the car and drove off.I rode the bike home(two miles)and believe me changing gear in bare feet ain't easy.I only wish I had a picture. :shock:

[aimhamilton]

Many years ago I did almost exactly that.I was going to the beach and when I got there I saw my brother's car parked.I did leave my lid on the bike's underseat lid lock but left all my clothes in the unlocked boot of brother's car.Wearing only swimming trunks I went down to the beach to fail to find brother who (you guessed it)got in the car and drove off.I rode the bike home(two miles)and believe me changing gear in bare feet ain't easy.I only wish I had a picture. :shock:

What an image....however there is an moral somewhere in that about why you shouldn't wear TRUNKS!

Having only just noticed this post, I have spent a while reading the various views on this...and happy to see Lynnw having a good old rant again!

However...I actually agree with both sides of the arguement!

I don't think should, could or will be a law to enforce the wearing of protective clothing. Because they would be no way to enforce it. There are two many "factors". For instance, you can go out and spend money on a "biking" jacket that would be neather use nor ornament in a spill. So you would have to introduce/enforce safety standards on biking attire, which would mean more money for the clothes manufacturers, which means more cost to the clothes, less profit for the retailer etc etc etc Its just too damn difficult!

What I do think could be done is a "gentlemans" arrangement between the police, local councils and biking organisation that issue warnings and producers to bikers who wear unsuitable clothing. This isn't saying you "have to" but you life would be a little easier if you did!

I did recently reprimand a young lad on a garage forecourt as he went to his RS125 wearing shorts, t shirt and trainers with no socks! He had a full stainless race system on his bike though....but couldn't afford a jacket or gloves..hmmmmm!

Personally, I would rather spend money first on good kit to ride it, then on trick stuff for my bike. Before I even owned a bike or started learning to, I had a jacket, trousers, boots gloves and lid! The jacket and jeans were bought from the BMF show and cost me £150 in the sale. Really nice Belstaff jacket and trousers that match. So these things can be picked up cheap.

I can't remember whose comment it was, but someone said that enforcing the use of kit would make biking more elite and stop people getting into it. Well to be honest, if it stops complete f*ckwits who think biking can be done wearing tshirts and jeans then I'm all for it! These are the people that razz past houses, schools, traffic doing stupid things and give bikers a bad name! Maybe thats a bit stereo typical but hey, thats my opinion!

However, all said I do think that we shouldn't be "told" what to do by any government or police force. I don't mind being "advised" but this country/world is to full of rules you can't break...why add to another! And one that again, will become "cool" to break.

[skidmarx]

I voted yes, but only for pillions! Any rider stupid enough to wear shorts and flip flops gets what they deserve, but it really annoys me when the pillions are not protected. I saw a guy yesterday wearing all the gear, but his pillion had on a thin armless nylon top, shorts and high heals. He was on a VMAX. I'm not sure she knew any better, but he certainly should have done.

[howardr]

Let the nutters wear b-all.

They will fall off. They will hurt themselves. (Hopefully) they will give up biking altogether and leave more room on the roads for the rest of us!

Fell off in a T-shirt ONCE (many years ago) - never went back.

[Tara]

With the risk of me getting shouted down:

leathres help protect against some sort of damage you may or may not do to yourselves

if you crash whether wearing jeans and teeshirts and trainers or fully clad up the NHS are still gonna patch you up

[lynw]

With the risk of me getting shouted down:

leathres help protect against some sort of damage you may or may not do to yourselves

if you crash whether wearing jeans and teeshirts and trainers or fully clad up the NHS are still gonna patch you up

Not shouting anyone down. Just to make a point in reply here before anyone else takes anything I post the wrong way. :roll:

Bikers still die in full gear. The NHS still have to patch up bikers wearing leathers. Andy13s thread should be sufficient to make that point.

Yes it will be worse if youre not wearing gear. But it has to be remembered, your gear offers some protection, not total protection.

[Paws]

It makes me cringe when guys come in work in leather bottoms, t-shirt and no gloves!! I do ask them if they think that arent going to land on there hands/arms if they come off :roll:

I havent yet come off my bike(s), but i did have a nasty horse riding accident, got dragged across a road and up a gravel drive on my back/bum/shoulders, and that left some pretty nasty brusing/cuts so i cringe when i think of the damage that will be done when people come off bikes in just t-shirts etc.

[Speedy]

:shock: YOIKS Paws!!!!
Don't tempt fate!!!! :shock:

The idea of wearing Leathers,I think,is to reduce friction and wear down instead of you wearing down your own skin!

And generally speaking Cow skin is tougher than Human skin,therefore you cannot buy 'Human-Leathers' as these would not only be un-ethical,but they would'nt last as long as 'Normal' Cow skin leathers!

Moped riders seem to be the worst offenders,(FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN,AND WHERE I LIVE! before I get attacked.)riding round in their 'Hoodies' and Joggers with Trainers.
There should be more on this subject with some Road-Safety videos included in the CBT program.IMO anyway.

[Paws]

Lol, i know itl happen one day, its me, im cursed! (dont belive me?? talk to my bike mates!) :oops:

[Tara]

With the risk of me getting shouted down:

leathres help protect against some sort of damage you may or may not do to yourselves

if you crash whether wearing jeans and teeshirts and trainers or fully clad up the NHS are still gonna patch you up

Not shouting anyone down. Just to make a point in reply here before anyone else takes anything I post the wrong way. :roll:

Bikers still die in full gear. The NHS still have to patch up bikers wearing leathers. Andy13s thread should be sufficient to make that point.

Yes it will be worse if youre not wearing gear. But it has to be remembered, your gear offers some protection, not total protection.

I agree with you lynne but it does offer some protection i'm talking against gravel rash not hitting trees or central reservations

[lynw]

I agree with you lynne but it does offer some protection i'm talking against gravel rash not hitting trees or central reservations

thought it was but wasnt entirely sure. :oops:

On that score I can indeed vouch for textile jeans. 3 slides and still not worn that much. :( :wink:

[Tara]

I agree with you lynne but it does offer some protection i'm talking against gravel rash not hitting trees or central reservations

thought it was but wasnt entirely sure. :oops:

On that score I can indeed vouch for textile jeans. 3 slides and still not worn that much. :( :wink:

No worries Lynne, don't be testing them too much more eh :D

[busasean]

personally i dont care what people wear or dont wear.
i alwys wear full gear to and from work, and when i'm out hooning round the countryside on my sv/busa/ktm ,however if i nip into town wearing a tee shirt and jeans and someone ever shakes their head at me i would tell them to get stuffed. who am i to tell someone what they can or cant wear?
i think all bikers are aware of the risks and the consequences.
just a thought, my brother is a copper. hes a class 1 police driver (he's firearms) he's done loads of training and is a very fast car driver and very very fast on his fireblade. he never wears leather! even after shattering his knee highsiding a previous bike about 5 years ago. but i bet he's a damn sight safer than the average rider fully leathered up.

[creamerybutter]

I say no, I regularly wear jeans around town (but with proper kit for the rest of my body) in the summer because mainly comfort but also the hassle of walking round town fully leathered up is frankly annoying. I have came off twice in jeans. Once when I was knocked off while filtering where I ended up but a very bruised leg and ankle, the jeans didn't wear through so. And when I lost the back end on ice at 20mph in December (I would have worn my leathers but the zip broke that morning #-o ) but again the jeans didn't wear through and I just bruised my knee. In both of those cases I doubt leathers would have made a difference. I also got knocked off once fully kitted up and ended up with a broke wrist on one arm and a broken thumb on the other side. Like Lynn said leathers won't protect against all injuries.

Like it's been said you know the risks and you take your chances.

[Grinch]

Where am I going to get all my new heart and lungs from if people don't ride stupid.

Plus I'd be a bit kettle calling pot black thing.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/thegrinch/photogallery/bikes181103/meonsvinamillie.JPG

Came off the bike too, scratched me elbow, but it was 40c out there.

[Ceri JC]

Based on the comments in this thread, I propose a new acronym, to replace "AWYFL":

"AWYFLUYJPTTSOLYKIAMCOVAAAOTR"

(always wear your ferkin leathers, unless you're just popping to the shops or lock your kit in a mate's car or van and are aware of the risks ) 8)