FIRST MUPPET SPOTTED THIS YEAR

[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

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!

[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????

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

He looked a complete muppet..

Carry on with intended thread answers..

[Sid Squid]

A law?

A very very very bad idea, but one discussed previously: Clickety click!

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.

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]

Originally Posted by lynw

...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.

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.

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.

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