Legal Minimum Gear Standard
 

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

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."

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

:winner:

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 ;)


.

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