Legal Minimum Gear Standard

'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!

Originally Posted by kevbuck

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Mike1234

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.

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 ?

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.

Originally Posted by Mike1234

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by howardr

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.....................

Originally Posted by Jabba-the-Hut

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.....................

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

Originally Posted by Nick762

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

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!


.