Legal Minimum Gear Standard

[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

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

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mike1234

...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.

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]

Originally Posted by Mike1234

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.

Originally Posted by Mike1234

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.

Originally Posted by Mike1234

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.

Originally Posted by Mike1234

Where would YOU draw the line then?

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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